Chris Parry on Hitchens on Fahrenheit 9/11
As you probably noticed, I couldn’t summon the energy required to refute Christopher Hitchens’ anti-Michael Moore screed point by point. And guess what? I didn’t have to, because now Hollywood Bitchslap’s Chris Parry has done just that: Slate’s Chris Hitchens does a hatchet job on Michael Moore.
June 23rd, 2004 at 9:01 pm
Kudos to Chris Parry. He puts into words most of the reactions I had while reading Hitchens’ hit piece. The thing that’s brilliant about Hitchens’ screed is that it will convince the willing that it’s full of logical refutations of Moore, when in fact it’s just an emotional outpouring against Moore’s politics.
June 24th, 2004 at 9:18 am
YEs, there are many good rebuttals in PArry’s analysis on Hitchens. However, and I have said this on other blog comments, Hitchens does have a point that we lefties must acknowledge: we just do’t want to give Bush any credit whatsoever, and thus spin anything to make it look as negative as possible. Most obviously: his seven minutes reading “my pet goat”. Hitchens is right in that we would probably be finding something wrong with Bush whatever his reaction would have been. Let’s step back and put things into fair focus, or we risk being as assholish as the righties – and we should be better than that. (We are. That’s why they hate us. LEt’s be condescending enough (they hate that too) and get Bush where it counts, not with cheap shots.
In my opinion Bush actually reacted sensibly and did the right thing – perhaps unwittingly – that morning. There is, after all, a whole apparatus of advisors who execute important initiatives at moments like these if the President is not in Washington: Cheney and Rice were kind of taking care of things, and that’s the way most if not all administrations work. Ohh, it hurts me to give those freaks any credit, but I gotta. They were at least doing their job. Same with Cuban missile crisis: Kennedy was not told about Soviet installations until 12 hours after they were discovered by his advisor McGeorge Bundy. Did the media throw up a storm? No.
So Hitchens is over the top in accusing Moore of not being serious, but in moments like those Moore should be a little more careful or else he sets himself up for a fall, and that would undeservedly discredit the great service he has done with this film.
June 24th, 2004 at 2:10 pm
I wouldn’t rest back on my laurels and pretend even for a second that this scrappy retort in any way negates Hitchens criticisms of Moore, who is guilty beyond doubt of distortion and omission.
But I will back Moore on being Patriotic. America is all Moore sees. The entire world rotates around his America. When American jobs go oversease, oh it’s a tragedy for the entire world. Yes, Michael. Send them charity instead.
But as for the entire Iraq fiasco. Yes, Bush appears guilty of poor, and likely misleading, salesmanship of a war that was hard to sell. But to have the gall to infer that everything was a-okay in Iraq, and to ONLY criticize the American President, is a piece of partisan propaganda that only a lunatic could swallow as a documentary
So here’s a purity test: what would Iraq be like under Moore’s vision? What was the always-critical Left advocating as an alternative to war? Nothing.
Yes, that’s great. Sanctions, no-fly zones, mass graves, routine torture and children starving. That’s Moore’s idea of peace. Moore’s idea of peace is if you can’t see it on TV from your comfy chair in America it mustn’t be happening. And if it is, it must be someone else’s problem.
Now that’s what I call self-centred. Sorry, left of centre.
Dave
June 24th, 2004 at 2:18 pm
Oh and yes, he does encourage the world hate Americans. So if you’re American, be assured that Michael is patting religious nutjobs on the back for wanting to kill you.
Yes, that’s just what Americans need right now, a stereotypical fat unattractive, loud, ignorant, American in a baseball cap, jeering at his own. Fuelling the hatred. Giving them more reason to want to kill you.
Nice one. No wonder Americans prefer to visit Disneyland than the venture outside their own country.
But, if you really want to attack LIES, why not pick holes in the Qu’ran. LOL.
Not so brave now, huh?
June 24th, 2004 at 5:44 pm
Steffen:
I’ve said it in detail in other threads on lies.com, but no, I wouldn’t have criticized Bush no matter how he acted in the classroom. That’s just wrong. And again, (sigh), there aren’t just two behavior choices, sitting bewildered for seven minutes or jumping up shouting and running out of the room.
Yes, those seven minutes do matter. Not just because of what they say about Bush’s general unfitness. But also because, he knew that both planes had hit, but he knew nothing else. I remember thinking, and I’m sure a lot of other people did too, what’s next? All kinds of attacks were both rumored and actually happening. And when the nation’s under attack, I don’t think the Leader of the Free World should sit paralyzed for seven minutes, whether he’s in a classroom or the Situation Room.
Plus, if the nation was under attack, wouldn’t an advertised photo op at a school be a perfect assassination theater? Why did Bush threaten the safety of those kids by staying in the school for half an hour?
I thought this wasn’t necessary, but here’s a scenario for you: Andy Card says, if he in fact said this, “The second plane hit. We’re under attack.” Bush, wanting to get somewhere immediately where he can learn more and possibly make important decisions about a national crisis, calmly closes his copy of “My Pet Goat.”
“I’m sorry, kids. But I have to go now. I know I just got here, and I’m definitely coming back soon to talk with all of you again. But right now, there are some important things I have to do. The President has to do that sometimes. Thanks so much.”
Basic behavior for the Commander in Chief in an unknown, but definitely serious, crisis. Saying Cheney and Rice etc. “had it under control” is not only false, it washes Bush of any responsibility on that day. And that’s wrong, especially if his only qualification for re-election is his “strong leadership.”
Dave:
As a fellow fat unattractive American, I have to take issue with your characterization of us as anti-American traitors. Just because we’re fat and unattractive doesn’t mean we hate America. :-)
June 25th, 2004 at 3:54 am
I will sidetrack a moment:in all blog duels this issue comes up: Liberals accused of hating America. Now, I will not agree or disagree with this charge, but I have one observation as an expat since 1992 (Russia, Germany,Senegal,United Kingdom): why is this an argument only in America? Italians, Germans, Spanish, Belgians, Senegalese, and even the French are not so obsessed with this concept. Could you ever imagine a Honduran saying “liberal Hondurans hate Honduras!”? Why do so many of us have this defensive, “us against them” mentality?
HatingAmerican politics and its consequences is not the same thing as hating America. Moore hates the American regime, as do I, but it is absurd to hate America or Americans. All I as a liberal want is regime change at home.
June 25th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
It’s an election year and name calling is in the air. Chris Hitchen’s characterization of Fahrenheit 9/11 as “political cowardice” is borne out of an irrational hatred toward the left and fear of their man loosing the coming election. As Bush’s numbers fall in the polls the desperate voices of conservatism will grow louder and more grotesque. The recent exchange on the floor of the Senate between vice president Dick Cheney and Senator Patrick Leahy in which Cheney tells the senator to F-off represents a case in point.
The acidic discourse between the right and left in this country only demonstrates how desperately the American people need competent new leadership that can restore honor, dignity and unity across our nation.
January 2nd, 2005 at 3:41 am
Please check the pages dedicated to…