Blasphemy, Part I
I'm sick of Michael Moore, flat out sick and annoyed. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a poor film and an even worse attempt at politics. What would be good politics? I don't know, maybe releasing the unedited version of Bush's National Guard medical exam while his total failure to show up for even the most rudimentary training exercises (while he was workng for a segregationist Senate candidate, but that's another story) was in the news cycle. I mean come on, by releasing the memo back in March when Bush's military "service" was an issue would have kept this embarassing escapade on the front pages (by connecting it to the Bin Laden's) for at least another few days, thereby costing him a few points in opinion polls. Instead, Moore, in nothing more than an egotistical flourish, saves it for his film and his sole proprietorship. Get off your high horse about "adopting" unregistered voters Mr. Moore, in allowing your opponents to put there foots in there mouths you sacrificed a much greater cause than your own reputation.
And what about the brilliant scenes of weddings and balloons in pre-invasion Iraq. Wouldn't it play a little less into the Right's hands if you simply noted that under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, people had jobs, water, plumbing, schools and electricity, now they have none of those thigns and in fact, an even higher likelihood of dying at the hands of another. Instead, you paint Hussein's Iraq as a place I and everyone would happily move. Now that's not going to be picked up by every center to right American out to get you and the nuanced left, not at all Michael.
I could go on, but one more thing merits particular mention. This film is simply conspiratorial. Michael Moore puts the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud," onscreen with the very simple explanation-this is not a conspiracy, just two incredibly well connected families with mutual interests in oil and the making of millions. But Moore does not seem to agree with this obvious analysis. Instead, while seemingly accepting Mr. unger's analysis, Moore goes on to paint the most conspiratorial picture in a film since Oliver Stone blamed LBJ, the mob, the CIA, Richard Nixon and random homosexuals for the death of JFK. Folks, there was no conspiracy, all there was were particularly well connected capitalists doing what they do best, capitalism.
And what about the brilliant scenes of weddings and balloons in pre-invasion Iraq. Wouldn't it play a little less into the Right's hands if you simply noted that under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, people had jobs, water, plumbing, schools and electricity, now they have none of those thigns and in fact, an even higher likelihood of dying at the hands of another. Instead, you paint Hussein's Iraq as a place I and everyone would happily move. Now that's not going to be picked up by every center to right American out to get you and the nuanced left, not at all Michael.
I could go on, but one more thing merits particular mention. This film is simply conspiratorial. Michael Moore puts the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud," onscreen with the very simple explanation-this is not a conspiracy, just two incredibly well connected families with mutual interests in oil and the making of millions. But Moore does not seem to agree with this obvious analysis. Instead, while seemingly accepting Mr. unger's analysis, Moore goes on to paint the most conspiratorial picture in a film since Oliver Stone blamed LBJ, the mob, the CIA, Richard Nixon and random homosexuals for the death of JFK. Folks, there was no conspiracy, all there was were particularly well connected capitalists doing what they do best, capitalism.
<< Home