Michael
Moore - Blind, Or A Coward?
by a guy named Dreyfuss - probably...
One of the first things I did when I got back
from vacation was to go see Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
It’s a brilliant piece of propaganda, entertaining
and funny, and it skewers the president deliciously. But am I
the only one to notice that in one critically
important way, it entirely misses the boat and gets nearly everything wrong?
I don't understand how you can be a Democrat and
claim Moore "gets nearly everything wrong."
Rush would say that, same for Hannity and O'Reilly,
but a Democrat?
Does tompaine.com regularly
print crap from monkeys who claim they're Democrats?
Maybe this has been said before—I’ve hardly read
all of the criticism of Moore—but if so, I haven’t seen it.
Moore totally avoids the question of Israel.
People looooove to get into the Israeli swamp, and they can't understand
why others refuse to join them.
And again, should this have been a four hour movie? Or maybe
a six or ten hour movie?
Not only that, but the opening polemic of the
movie ties President Bush and company mightily to Saudi Arabia.
In one sequence, what seems like several dozen
images flash by showing Bush and his advisers shaking hands and
chumming it up with leading members of the Saudi
royal family. Moore says outright that while Bush is paid $400,000
by U.S. taxpayers in salary, Saudi Arabia has
supported Bush and his family with more than $1 billion in
business-related subsidies. (That amount, it
seems to me, is ridiculously inflated and must be nonsense.)
The stated implication is that Bush is more loyal
to the Saudis than he is to America.
Gee, could it be that his Daddy works for the Saudis?
Poppy is a Saudi agent - they employ him to look out for their interests
in America.
Clearly stated in the film, some 9/11 families have sued the Saudis
and Bush represents the Saudis
against innocent American families who lost loved ones on Bush's big
day..
Plus, there's a little thing called oil
that binds the Saudis to the Bushes.
Huh? Here are some questions for Moore:
If Bush is so “in the pocket” of Saudi Arabia,
why is he Ariel Sharon’s strongest backer?
That's not an intelligent question. All
American presidents stand with Israel.
If Bush told Sharon to take a f-ing hike, THAT
would be news.
This guy is asking why "Dog bites man" isn't
the top news story of the day.
Why, when he had Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah down
at the Texas ranch a few years ago,
did he flip off the Saudi’s peace plan?
I didn't know the Prince had a plan, so I can't
answer it, but my first guess would be that
the Prince's plan involved Israel doing something
Israel refuses to do.
And most important, why did he invade Iraq—since Saudi Arabia was strongly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
He invaded Iraq to steal their oil, Einstein.
He couldn't invade Saudi Arabia because they are
partners with daddy, and Daddy would be angry
if Bunnypants disrupted the family interests there.
Why did he launch his Iraqi adventure over Saudi
objections, with many of his advisers chortling
that Saudi Arabia would be “next”? Why did he
stock his administration with militant neocon
crusaders who see Saudi Arabia as the main enemy?
Why, Michael?
Objection!
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Bush stocked his administration with Daddy's co-conspirators, not "enemies
of Saud."
You lack of logic and reasoning make me wonder what your true motives
are.
I have to conclude the Michael Moore is either
blind, or a coward. Blind, if he can’t see Bush’s craven ties to Israel,
driven by the neocons and the Christian Zionists
and Bible-thumping fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, who consider
Israel Jesus’ next stop and see Saudi Arabia
as Satanic.
Bush is religiously insane and he's a simpleton
who giggles-when-he-kills.
You can't expect Moore to explain, to your
satisfaction, Bush's brand of religious insanity.
Or cowardly, because he knows it and decided not to mention it.
Asked and answered. Bush is religiously insane
and who can explain that?
Is that because attacking Israel is too hard?
Moore’s photo-montage of Saudi princes borders on the racist, showing
Bush & Co. clinging to grinning, Semitic-looking
Arabs in flowing white robes one after another. Would we stand for
a similar, racist-leaning montage of Bush palling
around with grinning, Semitic-looking Jews in skullcaps?
If Israel was paying the BFEE over a billion dollars,
Moore probably would've put Jews in his film.
'Course not. More important, Moore completely
misses the political boat. Perhaps that’s because he relies so
heavily on Craig Unger and his book, House of
Bush, House of Saud , which makes the same “error.”
Hey Dude, if the smarter people on your side alllllllllllll keep
making the same "mistake,"
have you considered the possibility that they're right and you're wrong?
And more for Moore. Yes, Bush 41 and his advisers—the
Carlyle Group-linked James Baker, et al.—were (and are)
connected to Saudi Arabia. Did Moore notice that
Baker, along with Brent Scowcroft, and other former advisers to
Bush 41 (including Colin Powell) were against
the Iraq adventure? And that there were reports that Bush 41 himself
thought it was a stupid idea?
You keep beating that same drum. You want
Moore to explain why the insane murderer does what he does.
Funny, I guess you didn't have time to explain
Bush's insanity yourself, you're too busy beating up Moore
for not being able to explain the intricacies
of the inner working of the religiously insane mind.
If you have all the answers, why not clue us
in to a few?
I can’t believe that Moore can be so stupid.
Yes, I agree that in the Bart/Moore/Dreyfuss trinity,
one of us is really stupid.
So I can only conclude that he produced this movie the way he did on purpose.
Obviously, as writer, director and producer, Moore
produced the film he wanted to produce.
You, whoever you are, Dreyfuss person,
seem to have a hueueueueueuege problem with this movie,
but you seem unable to state any coherent motives
or explanation for turning on a true fighter for our side.
Then I read that he didn’t bother inviting Ralph
Nader to the Washington, D.C., premiere of the film,
and (according to The Washington Post ), Nader
called Moore “fat.” Well. Moore is
fatheaded.
So - after all that, you reveal your motives in the last paragraph -
you're a Nader fan, and since Moore
had the common sense to divorce himself from the Bush-electing egomeister,
you hate Michael Moore.
I loved the way you managed to work in "Moore
is fat," which is probably your very best political argument
in the entire column. It all comes down to "Moore
didn't invite Nader to the premier," and I'm wondering
why the hell Nader deserved an invitation to a movie that had nothing
to do with him. Are you crazy?
If Nader called Moore "fat," maybe that explains why he wasn't invited.
Maybe Moore knew Nader
would want to make F 9/11 all about the ego of Ralph Nader, and that
wasn't in Moore's plans.
Oh yeah, and Michael Moore is fat.
That's one I haven't heard (yet) from Rush, O'Reilly or Hannity.