Jarvis Dissects Fahrenheit 9/11

Jeff Jarvis has an excellent and pointed evisceration of Michael Moore’s propaganda that is nearly as good as Christopher Hitchen’s. Jarvis hits why Moore’s latest polemic is so horribly anti-American:

After leaving the theater and walking by the black man now shaking his head at what Moore had wrought and the people with bring-down-Bush clipboards, I made my way back to New Jersey through the PATH train at the World Trade Center where, most of you know, I was on 9/11. And now I was shaking my head. Michael Moore did not present bin Laden and the terrorists and religious fanatics (from other lands) as the enemy who did this. No, to him, our enemy is within. To him, our enemy is us. And that’s worse than stupid and sad and it’s most certainly not entertaining. It’s disgusting.

Moore’s film clearly is the basest of propanda, a shamefully manipulative piece that presents only one side of the story. The way in which Moore portrays pre-war Baghdad as being some kind of idyllic setting – no mass graves, no tortures, no rapes, is simply disgusting. Moore isn’t anti-war he’s cheerleading for the other side.

As National Review‘s Byron York astutely points out, the way in which the Democrats have embraced this film is massively idiotic. The Democrats are now on record as supporting a piece of filth that argues that the Iraqis were better off with Saddam, that the attacks of September 11 were a ruse so that Unocal could build an oil platform.

Quite frankly, I hope this film does very well. I hope that every Democrat sees it, and I really hope that John Kerry gives it a hearty endorsement.

There could be nothing better to show how shamelessly partisan and completely out of touch with the realities of this war the Democrats are. Tying the Democrats to Michael Moore must have Karl Rove smiling – and he doesn’t have to do a thing.

41 thoughts on “Jarvis Dissects Fahrenheit 9/11

  1. This movie is just anti-American propaganda…why do you think the terrorist group Hezbollah is promoting it?

    The only people who will believe the garbage in this movie are people who prefer to live in fantasyland: in other words, the far left.

  2. Just the fact that so many Dems would line up to see this anti-American screed speaks volumes about the party.

    Aside from the Bush bashing, the movie also bashes the US military, and basically ignores the horrors of our enemy.

    I can’t wait for the movie “Michael Moore Hates America” to come out…

  3. Moore’s antigun screed “Bowling for Columbine” stirred up alot of ruckus, and yet did nothing to advance the cause of gun control…in fact, if anything, that issue has totally gone away, as even the liberal Dems are afraid to touch the issue…

    Moore also endorsed Wesley Clark, and then Clark’s bid flamed out…

    I am hoping Moore’s kiss of death will also be at work here…Moore reminds me of Al Gore…everything cause touches turns to failure…only he ends up making millions off of it, which is his real goal, to serve himself…

  4. Another Thought, are you another Bob Dole incarnate as well or have you actually seen the movie you’re lecturing about so intensively?

  5. It’s really a very simple question Mr. Reding and Mr. Thought. This “Fahrenheit 9-11” movie you’re so thoroughly disparaging….have you seen it?

  6. Mark: Sorry for being so rude as to take a break from my computer; I should know better next time to avoid going out just to answer any of your questions as they might arise.

    As to whether I have seen the movie: I don’t need to roll around in the mud with pigs to know that it would stink. I also don’t need to see Hitler’s propaganda films to know about their lack of factual value or their gross distortions.

    I doubt if I could make it through F911…it’s just too much bull to stomach.

    I have read many reviews of the film, including by more liberal critics, to know enough about many of the factual innacuracies. If I were to see the film I would just notice more lies. Seeing the film doesn’t change the factual issues; it would only enable me to see the style that Moore wraps his propaganda in.

  7. Michael Moore’s propaganda piece only coarsens the political debate; worse, it interjects more lies into the process, and Moore is talented enough of a propagandist as to present his lies with style.

    Let’s remember that Moore is the guy who was against us going into Afghanistan; in this movie he paints it as an excuse to build an oil pipeline, one that Clinton supported and Bush did not, and one that has not been built, nor is their plans to build it.

    Let’s remember that Moore was the guy who compared the terrorists to our Minuteman…our founding fathers.

    Let’s also remember that Moore is the guy who tells people not to try to get rich in this country because it cannot happen; now that’s encouraging advice to the young to get them to study and work hard.

  8. Interesting how even Moore’s ads lie: they state the movie is not yet rated, when it is in fact rated “R.”

    Also, have you checked out the Moore movie poster with him shaking hands with Bush? It shows a distinctly thinnner Moore than reality does…

    Interesting how St. Moore feels so vain about his appearance that he has his body photoshopped thin…

  9. Let’s allow this tidbit to sink in: the terrorist group Hezbollah is wanting to promote and support the movie…

    Now, if Hezbollah, the same group that sends suicide bombers into Israel, is supporting your movie then something is very wrong…

  10. Here is Moore on record stating that American deaths in Iraq are just punishment:

    “I’m sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe — just maybe — God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.”

  11. Here is what Moore thinks of the American people:

    “(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet.”

  12. Here is Moore sounding like Karl Marx and Marx’s remark about religion being the “opiate of the people”:

    “There’s a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them.”

  13. Let’s remember that the Dems are all supporting this guy…the guy who thinks Americans are so dumb, that religion is the foremost way these dumb Americans are misled, that the terrorists in Iraq are comparable to the American founding fathers, and that American deaths in Iraq are justified punishment.

  14. Here’s another Moore gem:
    “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.”
    — Michael Moore, October 2003

    So let that one sink in as well: Moore believes that there is no terrorist threat…I wonder if he has seen ground zero in NYC…

  15. Sauron writes “Care to offer any more racist, xenophobic, anti-muslim or homophobic arguments ‘Jay?'”

    Sauron, what have you been smoking?

    Jay makes no such comments in this post…or anywhere else on this blog, to my memory…

  16. Here’s Moore commenting on how he wishes America were not the world’s superpower and leader:

    “Should such an ignorant people (Americans) lead the world?”
    — Michael Moore in an open letter to the people of Germany

    So let’s keep in mind that Moore wishes America were not the most powerful country in the world…he would want our fate to be left at the hands of other countries…

  17. Sauron: while I haven’t read everything Jay has posted, let me respond to your rants:

    Jay’s anti-French remarks have to do with France opposing us diplomatically on many issues, as well as French corruption in the oil-for-food scandal…I guess one can’t criticize France without being xenophobic in your mind..

    Jay criticizes Muslim terrorists…not all Muslims…

    As to being homophobic, I have never seen Jay post on the gay marriage issue…but if he has taken a stand against it, there are plenty of people against it who are not homophobic…they don’t hate or fear homosexuals, just believe that marriage needs to stay defined as is…

  18. Sauron: as I wrote earlier, I don’t need to wallow in the mud and manure with pigs to know it stinks…

    I haven’t seen the movie, but I don’t need to in order to read about its inaccuracies…to judge the veracity of the facts does not require seeing the movie, on the contrary it requires research outside the movie theater…

    Let’s face it, you can’t argue in favor of Moore and his lies…

  19. Let’s face it…Moore is an anti-American propagandist who ironically has used this to make a fortune, as he is also a greedy and egotistical self serving person…

  20. Another Thought, all that typing when you could have simply given a response of “no” when I asked if you had seen the movie you were so thoroughly dissecting. I used to critique the quality of movies I hadn’t seen before as well….but then I turned 11. Until you actually see the movie in question Mr. Dole, er Another Thought, please spare us your ignorant critical analysis.

  21. Mark: I will critique whatever movie I please, regardless of what you think…

    Also, I am commenting on the veracity of the movie’s claims, which do not require watching the movie…I am not commenting on subjective issues like style and such, which would…

    The movie is full of lies and everyone knows it…I don’t have to watch it…just like I don’t have to watch Hitler’s propaganda films to know they are full of lies…

  22. Another, of course you can critique movies you haven’t seen before. In fact I encourage it. You just make an even bigger ass of yourself. Given your uncanny powers to evaluate movies that have not yet been distributed to the public, what can you tell me about “Spider Man 2”? Is “Rocky 6” worth seeing or should I wait for the video? Will Christopher Reeve reprise his role as the Man of Steel in “Superman 5” after Bush approves the stem cell research necessary to help him walk again?

    From now on, I’m gonna lean on you for every question I have about movies? Or are your powers of prediction not merely limited to films you haven’t seen?

  23. Another Thought posted: ” Here is Moore sounding like Karl Marx and Marx’s remark about religion being the “opiate of the people”:

    “There’s a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them.” ”

    I certainly won’t defend Moore’s lies (or Marx’s for that matter), but he’s right on the money there, I’m afraid…

  24. There could be nothing better to show how shamelessly partisan and completely out of touch with the realities of this war the Democrats are.

    Says the guy who’s sure we’ll win the War on Terror by marching into Berlin.

  25. Sauron writes: “You know Hitler said you are either with us or against us. He also favored pre-emptive war.”

    Among Sauron’s other mistatements, this is one more inaccuracy.

    Hitler, while certainly an evil and vile man, never said either of those things…

    In fact, the “with us or against us” philosophy dates at least back to Jesus…

    And as for preemptive war, Hitler believed more in war to take over the world. In fact, it was people like Churchill who argued for preemptive action against Hitler…and has been proven by history to be correct.

  26. I see that the moveon.org lies penetrate deeply into the minds of people like Sauron: now they take everything that Bush might say and attribute it falsely to Hitler…spreading the false Bush equals Hitler meme…

    Ironically, it is people like Moore who literally create propaganda that Hitler would be proud of…

  27. Another, we’ve already established that you haven’t seen F-911 despite your detailed opinion of the film’s merits. Have you seen any of Moore’s films? Or is your thesis on “people like Moore who literally created propaganda” based entirely on hearsay?

  28. Mark: Give me a break…you can’t defend Moore or his outrageous comments or his film, so all you do is claim that I have to see the film in order to legitimately criticize it.

    I repeat: would you have to see a Hitler propaganda film in order to know it was not true?

    There are many well documented accounts of factual criticism of Moore’s movie, many of which have been linked to from this blog. If you wish, I can furnish you a detailed list.

    Again, this is criticism of the factual basis for Moore’s film. Such an analysis does not require seeing the film; it requires knowing what is in the film and then doing the necessary research. Unless you dispute what people have said is in the film, then you have no argument.

    I will not give this anti-American Moore one cent of my money to see his film.

    So you can keep on repeating your point that I have not seen the film, or you can defend the film. Apparently, you cannot defend the film.

  29. Another Thought, just from friendly advice. If you merely said you don’t believe in Michael Moore’s views and don’t want to see his films, you wouldn’t look like as big of a raving idiot as you do when you proceed to analyze in detail movies you haven’t seen. Your one-dimensional thousand-word critiques of films you haven’t seen makes you look as if you have the mentality of an 10-year-old. While stupidity is more abundant than ever before in conservative circles, at least Bill O’Reilly can criticize the movie based on more than hearsay. Anyone who criticizes the movie (or any movie) simply based on hearsay isn’t worth talking to or listening to….except to tell them repeatedly how big of imbeciles they’re making themselves look like.

  30. Mark: I will continue to criticize the Moore propaganda, based on many well thought out and researched arguments against the film…this isn’t a court of law and so the hearsay accusation is rather funny…

    According to you, then, one should never pass along opinions that one has not derived oneself…so I guess on every single issue one has to do original research…which, of course, is unrealistic…

    I don’t expect you to take my comments seriously…and I don’t care. Funny that you can’t refute any of the arguments against the film or against Moore…

  31. Another, I haven’t seen the film, so I don’t feel inclined to defend it or rebuke it. I always thought that was common sense but I suppose nothing is quite reliable anymore when debating conservatives circa 2004.

  32. Mark: by your own standards, then, you should not comment on what is happening in Iraq until you go there and see it for yourself; after all, any other opinion is just hearsay.

  33. Another Thought, that’s a fair point to an extent. I am not criticizing you and Jay for merely criticizing the movie. I’m criticizing you for pretending to offer a serious critical analysis of a film you haven’t seen and have no intention to see. For you to provide 10 or 15 posts of F911-bashing based on your pre-determined perception of the movie is intellectually bankrupt and a waste of everybody’s time, especially your own. For that same reason, I try to limit my criticism of the situation in Iraq to my personal feelings of why this war was an ill-advised distraction. I don’t serve up daily doses of news briefs to inform anyone who will listen an erroneous heads-up on the situation over there because I don’t know the details. Those who critique battle plans from their armchairs across the ocean are as big of fools as those critique films they haven’t seen.

  34. Mark: First, many of my posts are simply criticism of Moore quotes, most of them not in any of his movies, but just quotes either from his books or from personal appearances.

    Second, I still maintain that there is nothing intellectually light about passing along criticisms of the movie regarding its factual basis or lack thereof.

    I am not passing judgement on the movie from any subjective or artistic argument: for that I would need to see the movie.

    But when it comes to the facts…well, those are the same regardless whether I’ve seen the movie or not. What Jay and I have done is relay factual rebuttals to what is portrayed as the facts in the movie. We don’t claim to make these criticisms ourselves, but simply pass along the observations of others. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The only possible problem is if what is stated to be in the movie is not in it; but as the reports all agree as to the content of the movie, and as this content matches well with what Moore has written in his last book, I don’t think that is an issue.

    And I do think there is a quantum world of difference between passing judgements on facts portrayed in a film one has not seen and passing judgements on military actions half a world away. The latter is far more complex and hard to judge. In fact, I would argue that critics of the Iraq war are going on less hard facts than critics of this Moore movie who have not seen it.

  35. “I repeat: would you have to see a Hitler propaganda film in order to know it was not true?”

    Godwin’s law invoked. Argument lost. Next.

  36. Well, if Michael Moore makes any money off “Fahrenheit 9/11,” at least maybe he can use it to buy some soap.

  37. Moore’s movie was so ridiculous that I could not even sit through it. This “documentary” was full of opinions unsupported by anything but speculation and some scenes that were twisted and out of context. The only people that can take this movie seriously are those who have been living in a bubble for the past couple of years and know nothing about what we have been through. This movie was one of Moore’s fantasies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.