There’s an oft-repeated aphorism, generally attributed to Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, which maintains that “you’re entitled to your own
opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.”
Michael Moore clearly disagrees.
By the time the opening titles roll on his award-winning, smash
hit pseudo-documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, we’ve already
learned that the 2000 election was a fraud in which blacks were
disenfranchised. That a fair count would have made Gore president
has been independently confirmed, says Moore. Just the opposite is
true.
Bush spent much of the first few months of his presidency on
vacation. (Blink, and you might not notice that Bush is meeting
with Tony Blair when Moore indicts him for “relaxing at Camp
David.”) Bush was more interested in Iraq than Afghanistan after
9/11, and only invaded Afghanistan because he had to, because that
was where the attack came from. Moore approvingly excerpts an
interview to this effect with former terror czar and hero to
Bush-haters Richard Clarke, and accuses Bush of committing too few
troops in Afghanistan.
Then, confusingly, he argues that the Afghan war was in fact
unjust; it was just fought so that the Texas petroleum firm Unocal
could build a pipeline. Moore insinuates that Hamid Karzai was
installed as Afghanistan’s interim president because he was once a
consultant to Unocal, and Moore strongly implies — with footage of
a pipeline being built — that Unocal is now building its pipeline.
Actually, Unocal pulled out of the pipeline deal in 1999; the
Karzai government wants to revisit the project but it has so far
gone nowhere.
Bush’s family has a history of business ties with the Saudis,
including with the bin Ladens, but the notion that Osama is
estranged from the rest of his family is “exaggerated,” says Craig
Unger. (Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud, isn’t
available in the UK because publishers fear Britain’s strict libel
laws; Moore, meanwhile, has ironically threatened to sue his
critics for libel.) Because of these business ties, according to
Moore, Bush let the bin Laden family flee without being questioned
just after 9/11, while most planes were grounded. In fact, none
other than Richard Clarke has said this was his decision alone.
Moore has covered all these wild conspiracy theories before he
even gets to his main event, Iraq, where children play happily in
the streets of Baghdad under Saddam Hussein, and all is well.
(There is some suggestion that Saddam might have been a bad guy
early in the film, when it shows footage of Saddam shaking hands
with Donald Rumsfeld in the '80s; this line of thought is quickly
abandoned.) Iraq was a “sovereign nation,” and it hadn’t attacked
us or even threatened to attack us, says Moore.
I could go on with the debunking, but others, notably Christopher
Hitchens, have done and will do a fine job of that. Nor will I
dwell too long on Moore’s repellent exploitation of frustrated
soldiers, amputees, and grieving parents, all of whom he films —
no doubt with prompting — channeling their emotions into anger at
the Bush administrations.
I’m more interested what this film— with its record-breaking
box office, its awards, and its overwhelmingly positive critical reception — will do
to the political discourse.
Perhaps this movie appeals only to the committed left. The
narrow band of swing voters in the middle will be repulsed, and
Democrats who embrace this hard left lunacy will regret it. Half
the Washington Democratic establishment showed up for a premier
last week, including DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe, Senators Tom
Daschle, Tom Harkin, Max Baucus, Ernest Hollings, Debbie Stabenow,
and Bill Nelson, among many others. When John Kerry is asked if he
agrees with Moore’s conclusions, he’ll be forced to alienate either
his base or the center. Republicans will gain an edge.
That’s the optimistic view. Here’s the pessimistic one:
Many uncommitted voters will see this movie, just to find out
what all the fuss is about. They’ll take Moore’s arguments, such as
they are, basically at face value, and conclude that Bush is an
unfit president. Most of the mainstream media won’t take much time
to seriously fact-check the movie, and Moore’s assertions really
will change minds. In short, Moynihan will be proven wrong: you
really are entitled to your own facts.
Which view is correct? I wish I knew.
