The strangely hawkish turncoat Christopher Hitchens has unleashed his verbosity on Fahrenheit 9/11, and the results aren't pretty. You can read the review here. If the most damning of Hitchen's criticisms are true, then it will be readily apparent that the movie is fundamentally flawed, both in the political theory it employs, and its cinematic composition (Hitchens goes so far as to compare Moore to Leni Riefenstahl).
Given the grandiloquent zeal with which Hitchens ravages Moore's film, it's quite clear that he enjoyed doing so. But I wonder if in his eagerness to criticize Moore he has left critical precision by the wayside, for his rhetorical gun-slinging is not free of poor aim or logical misfires.
He accuses Moore of "wanting it both ways," on a number of American policy decisions. It's contradictory, claims Hitchens, for Moore to criticize the Bush administration for not heeding pre-September 11 terrorism warnings, while stimultaneously criticizing them for keeping the public fearful by publicizing newer warnings. I don't think this is hypocritical at all -- heeding terror warnings does not necessarily mean one needs to put the public on "high alert" by means of a color-coded warning system. To properly acknowledge a terror threat would mean diverting the appropriate intelligence or reconaissance officials to get to the bottom of that warning. Such actions don't cause mass panic or fear, yet they do ensure public safety much more effectively than a stupid (and probably useless) rainbow of alert levels.
Hitchens also claims that Moore is hypocritical for pointing out the insufficient amount of troops in Iraq, because Moore was originally against sending any troops at all. I don't think this is problematic, either. Just because one was against sending troops in the first place, doesn't mean one can't argue that the war effort must be pursued in the most efficient and safest way once the bombs have started to fall. If more troops translates to a more stable Iraq (a contention that many in-the-know folks have made), then it is a measure that should be taken.
Hitchens goes on to call Moore "stupid" for thinking that members of Congress can actually force their children to join the military (check out the trailer for the scene he's referencing). Of course Moore doesn't believe Congressional parents can do this; he's simply making a rhetorical point. Jeez, Chris, haven't you ever heard CCR's "Fortunate Son"?
Hitchens burns one last strawman, in the final paragraph:
I thought Hitchens was above that "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" crap, but maybe I'm wrong. Just because Moore doesn't affirm the Bush doctrine, doesn't mean he wanted to see those dictators remain in power. For Hitchens' point to be valid, he would have to prove that Moore advocated that we do *nothing* instead of taking military action in these instances. There are other ways to remove dictators, and not all of them involve poorly planned wars.
Anyways, despite the negative review, I'm still looking forward to this weekend, when I can find out if some of Hitchens' other seemingly salient points are worth considering.
Given the grandiloquent zeal with which Hitchens ravages Moore's film, it's quite clear that he enjoyed doing so. But I wonder if in his eagerness to criticize Moore he has left critical precision by the wayside, for his rhetorical gun-slinging is not free of poor aim or logical misfires.
He accuses Moore of "wanting it both ways," on a number of American policy decisions. It's contradictory, claims Hitchens, for Moore to criticize the Bush administration for not heeding pre-September 11 terrorism warnings, while stimultaneously criticizing them for keeping the public fearful by publicizing newer warnings. I don't think this is hypocritical at all -- heeding terror warnings does not necessarily mean one needs to put the public on "high alert" by means of a color-coded warning system. To properly acknowledge a terror threat would mean diverting the appropriate intelligence or reconaissance officials to get to the bottom of that warning. Such actions don't cause mass panic or fear, yet they do ensure public safety much more effectively than a stupid (and probably useless) rainbow of alert levels.
Hitchens also claims that Moore is hypocritical for pointing out the insufficient amount of troops in Iraq, because Moore was originally against sending any troops at all. I don't think this is problematic, either. Just because one was against sending troops in the first place, doesn't mean one can't argue that the war effort must be pursued in the most efficient and safest way once the bombs have started to fall. If more troops translates to a more stable Iraq (a contention that many in-the-know folks have made), then it is a measure that should be taken.
Hitchens goes on to call Moore "stupid" for thinking that members of Congress can actually force their children to join the military (check out the trailer for the scene he's referencing). Of course Moore doesn't believe Congressional parents can do this; he's simply making a rhetorical point. Jeez, Chris, haven't you ever heard CCR's "Fortunate Son"?
Hitchens burns one last strawman, in the final paragraph:
"If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty."
I thought Hitchens was above that "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" crap, but maybe I'm wrong. Just because Moore doesn't affirm the Bush doctrine, doesn't mean he wanted to see those dictators remain in power. For Hitchens' point to be valid, he would have to prove that Moore advocated that we do *nothing* instead of taking military action in these instances. There are other ways to remove dictators, and not all of them involve poorly planned wars.
Anyways, despite the negative review, I'm still looking forward to this weekend, when I can find out if some of Hitchens' other seemingly salient points are worth considering.