As usual, the Sunday Oregonian is devoid of content, aside from a semi-diverting piece on Goldschmidt and Governor Kulongoski. But I've said just about everything concerning Goldschmidt that I can say, so I'm forced to look elsewhere for blogging inspiration. Fortunately I found it by rummaging through the archives of George Monbiot, and in the fact that, today, I'm going to see Fahrenheit 9/11.
What's the connection? Well, Michael Moore's generally well-received movie was savaged by Christopher Hitchens in a most vitriolic manner.
Hitchens, in turn, is denounced for his newly acquired pro-war stance in the book that is the subject of Monbiot's column.
First, the book, which Monbiot calls a "future political classic". In The Betrayal of Dissent, Scott Lucas exposes
"...the self-proclaimed contrarians, the 'belligerati' of our own day — Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Johann Hari and other intellectuals on the 'left' who have not only been cheerleaders for the war against Iraq but have attacked the anti-war movement and provided the warmongers with a sophisticated 'humanitarian', 'left-wing' defence not only of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq but also of any future wars waged against 'totalitarianism'."
The "belligerati" include the editors of The New Republic, who recently wrote this explanation, or, more accurately, apologia for their own pro-war position:
"Today, it no longer seems so self-evident. More than a year after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has found no evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program. Iraq's nuclear scientists say there was none. The central assumption underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong."
To which I would only add that it was never evident, to those of us who opposed the war, that Iraq posed a threat, nuclear or otherwise, that couldn't have been handled by time and sanctions.
But the most egregious of the "liberal hawks", by far, has been Christopher Hitchens. Maybe it's just his vicious rhetoric that singles him out, but his attack on Michael Moore, ad hominem ad nauseam, cannot go unanswered.
Not only does Hitchens insult and belittle Moore -- he "prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction", he's "paranoid", he's "a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage",
and questions "whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible" --
he describes the film in equally unflattering language:
"To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery."
But that's only the language and the style. Hitchens is also wrong on the issues. First, he says the film has a
"loaded bias against the work of the mind...". Well, it is a film, not an essay, and it openly admits that it's one man's view of the war. Perhaps Hitchens doesn't "appreciate the distinction".
Secondly, he disputes the noton that Iraq is a sovereign nation. It is, or at least was, just as North Korea is.
He also devotes an entire rambling paragraph challenging Moore's assertion that no American, prior to the war, has been killed by Iraq. All Hitchens can come up with, aside from the casualties from the first Gulf War, is Leon Klinghoffer, who was killed by a terrorist who lived, at times, in Iraq.
Lastly (there are many more, but my time is limited), Hitchens cites Richard Clarke's mea culpa regarding the mysterious flight of the Bin Laden family out of the U.S. after 9/11 to undermine the section of Moore's film that connects the Bush family with the Bin Ladens. First the connection is well established. Secondly, the Clarke article that Hitchens links to his piece seems to contradict his criticism of Moore's thesis. Let me quote from it directly:
"This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
“'The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,' Clarke testified. 'I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.' ”
“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.
"However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.
FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, 'We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.' ”
And:
"Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.
“ 'It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,' ” said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony."
Enough said, for now.
Recent Comments