ÒBefore a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: ÔYou're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe.Õ In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: ÔIt's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, HalliburtonÉWe, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants...Don't be like us,Õ he told a crowd in Berlin. ÔYou've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave.Õ In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, ÔShould such an ignorant people lead the world?Õ

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: ÔThe motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich.Õ But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: ÔThe Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow Ñ and they will win.Õ Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.Ó

A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TVÕs ÒQuestion TimeÓ show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

ÒOne of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary ÒRoger & Me.Ó During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of ÒI donÕt know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror.Ó I was aghast and responded, ÒI think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror.Ó I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced ÒFahrenheit 9/11.Ó

Many in the audience assembled by the BBC included Americans and people from other nations. Their positive responses to Moore on this and other comments he made during the program convinced me that the producers had found a lair of dingbats when looking to fill the studio with an audience. Moore later called President Bush a Òdummy,Ó denigrating him for having threatened Iraq with consequences including war if it did not comply with the United Nations resolutions to which it agreed when it was defeated in the 1991 Gulf War. Again, I couldnÕt contain myself and said, ÒThatÕs what you radicals on the left always do. You donÕt debate issues, you denigrate your opponents. You did it with President Reagan, saying he was dumb. After he left office, 600 speeches, many hand-written by him, demonstrated his high intelligence.Ó

In World Wars I and II, the U.S., suffering great casualties to its military personnel, saved the world, particularly in WWII, from occupation by the German Nazi Reich and Japanese empire. We currently are fighting the battle against a minority of fundamentalist Islamists whose objective is to destroy Western civilization. They are willing to use every act of terrorism from suicide bombers to hacking off heads to destroy and terrorize us into surrender. And Michael Moore weakens us before that enemy. How should we respond? With scorn, catcalls, the Bronx cheer and the truth. Of course, we should recognize the outrages and criminal acts committed by Americans in military service and civilians at the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib. We should continue as we have done and take action to punish those involved. But we ought not in the media show again and again the pictures of the atrocities to simply flagellate ourselves and give aid and comfort to our enemies. A good rule of thumb might be to show the pictures of Abu Ghraib as many times as we show the beheadings of Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg and Paul Johnson.

I am a movie critic, so I went to see ÒFahrenheit 9/11.Ó The movie is a well-done propaganda piece and screed as has been reported by most critics. It is not a documentary which seeks to present the facts truthfully. The most significant offense that movie commits is to cheapen the political debate by dehumanizing the President and presenting him as a cartoon.

Newsday reported some of MooreÕs misstatements as follows: ÒAt the start of ÔFahrenheit 9/11,Õ filmmaker Michael Moore shows a clip of CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin saying that if ballots had been recounted in Florida after the 2000 presidential vote, Ôunder every scenario Gore won the election.Õ

ÒWhat Moore doesn't show is that a six-month study in 2001 by news organizations including The New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN found just the opposite. Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush still would have won Florida and the electionÉMoore suggests Bush's conflict of interest was manifest shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks when the White House Ôapproved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other SaudisÕ who, fearing reprisals, were flown out of the United States. Embellishing the well-known scenario, Moore interviews a retired FBI agent who says authorities should have first questioned the bin Ladens.

ÒBut the bin Ladens were questioned. The commission investigating the attacks reported in April that the FBI interviewed 30 passengers: ÔNobody was allowed to depart on these six flights who the FBI wanted to interview in connection with the 9/11 attacks or who the FBI later concluded had any involvement in those attacksÕÓ It is clear to me from the tenor of the filmÕs off-screen commentary by Michael Moore that he would have denounced WW II. Did he support the United States and NATO going into Bosnia to save the Muslims from ethnic cleansing and destruction? Would he agree that we should have attempted to save the Muslim men from death at the hands of the Serbs in Srebrenica? Should we now be going into the Sudan and saving perhaps a million black Christian and Animist Sudanese from Arab marauders who are murdering, raping and starving the blacks and even selling some into slavery? WerenÕt we right to go into Iraq on the basis of United Nations Resolution 1441 which stated the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and that was a cause for war unless they accounted for them and destroyed them, which they refused to do?

Now that no WMDs have yet been found, was the invasion to end the reign of Saddam Hussein, who had killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, still supportable? Moore thinks not. I think, yes.

The movieÕs diatribes, sometimes amusing and sometimes manifestly unfair, will not change any views. They will simply cheapen the national debate and reinforce the opinions on both sides.

Print this Article

Email this article

Free Headline Alerts