Christopher Hitchens on Fahrenheit 9/11

[Cocoa]

The windbag is as irrelevant as ever, no doubt bitter over being so WRONG about this stupid war.



http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

<snip>

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.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

more...

[salinen]

1. Someone stick a diseased

gopher in his mouth.

[LittleApple81]

3. LOL!!!! Anytime he shows on TV, he is souced, dirty looking, and slurring

his words... which is a blessing.

[Hoping4Change]

2. Norman Finklestein makes toast of Hitchens

... "For many years Hitchens awed readers with his formidable control over the English language. Now his ego delights in testing whether, through sheer manipulation of words, he can pass off flatulent emissions as bouquets. It perhaps would be funny watching fatuous readers fawn over gibberish - were not human life at stake. Hitchens can't believe a word he's saying...."


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id138.htm

[albatross]

28. don't be bitter

and yet you all fawn over maureen dowd, whose writing is as predictable as it is irrelevant and without substance.

ignore the writing style. look at the content. criticize it if you must.

[struggle4progress]

30. I'm confused. I don't see any reference to Maureen Dowd in his post.

:freak:

[Hoping4Change]

32. I believe we have a Freeper trolling in our midst.

[struggle4progress]

34. Shhhh!

:)

[albatross]

37. god forbid someone disagrees here

im having a conversation with you guys. one of you wants to take the time to discuss (struggle4). despite the tension in our dialogue we are in fact having a discussion even though we both know we will never agree with each other. and thats expected.

my deepest apologies for breaking into your underground. i didnt realize dissent wasn't welcome.

[albatross]

38. and?

should i have checked with the minister of information at the DU before i inserted a different proper noun into my post? she is a darling of the left. thats why i brought her up.

someone mentioned Rush in this Christopher Hitchens thread, so whats the diff? go rag on that poster.

[struggle4progress]

44. You accused the poster of "fawning over maureen dowd"

As far as I can tell, he didn't. :)

[albatross]

48. oy

i just love those smug smilies.

refer to my original post:hippie:

[struggle4progress]

55. OK. I'm confused. I don't see any reference to Maureen Dowd in his post.

[drdtroit]

68. WTF are you talking about?

[struggle4progress]

78. My attempt at humor fell flat.

Albatross tried to pick a fight over Dowd. I tried to point out (indirectly) first that it was a change of topic and later a pointless vortex. Indirection doesn't always work. :)

albatross in #28 (responding to #2 that didn't mention dowd) "and yet you all fawn over maureen dowd"
me in #30 (responding to #28) "don't see ... reference to ... Dowd"
albatross in #38 (responding to #30) "go rag on that poster"
me in #44 (responding to #38) poster didn't fawn over Dowd
albatross in #48 (responding to #44) "see my original post" (#28)
me in #55 (responding to #48) "don't see ... reference to ... Dowd"

[Bridget Burke]

57. Nobody has referred to Maureen Dowd.

Some of her recent columns have been discussed here. But she's also been criticized here--some have not forgotten her "so cool" attitude during the impeachment fiasco, or her baseless criticism of Gore during the campaign.

I read the Hitchens drivel that's the subject of this thread. Kindly point out the "best parts".

[struggle4progress]

60. Hitchens is apparently terribly upset that (at Telluride) he could not ..

.. obtain (from Moore) a statement about pacifism, which was sufficiently simple-minded for Hitchen's ranting purposes. Hitchens also fails to approve of Moore's choice of Orwell quotes.

I say: if Hitchens wants certain Orwell quotes in a movie, then (by golly!) he ought to make a movie of himself reading Orwell, into which he could throw some simple-minded quotes about pacifism, written by himself.

[Hoping4Change]

31. The content is pure crap written to justify a war premised on lies.

When will you freepers wake up and see this corrupt bunch of lying evil greedy bastards for what they are?

[hippiegranny]

83. who are the "you all" to whom you refer?

if you're here, aren't you a "you all" yourself? is this like the *royal* "you all" we hear so much about?

[funnymanpants]

4. Hitchens most dishonest pundit besides Safire

Hitchens has a lot of gall to blast Moore for conspiracy theories.

Remember that lone sarin shell that turned up a few weeks ago? And remember how at the same time there was a failed chemical attack against some target in Jordan?

Well, this just proves that Saddam had chemical weapons!

"So a Sarin-infected device is exploded in Iraq, and across the border in Jordan the authorities say that nerve and gas weapons have been discovered for use against them by the followers of Zarqawi, who was in Baghdad well before the invasion. Where, one idly inquires, did these toys come from? No, it couldn't be. …"

Well, actually, Chris, the sarin shell was over a decade old.

Hitch hasn't apologized for this dishonesty, though. He just looks for the next piece of very thin evidence that he can present in his shrill way. "Why, you lefties are so stupid..."

In a debate before the war, Hitch stated that N. Korea and Iraq were working together. The other guests scoffed at this, as did I.

After the war, it turns out that Iraq tried to acquire a missile from N. Korea. N. Korea took Iraq's money and then sent Iraq nothing. This is how close the relationship was.

Yet now Hitch is using this piece of non-evidence as if it is absolute proof of Saddam's having weapons of mass destruction. No, Hitch, a missile is not a weapons of mass destruction. No, Hitch, he never got the weapon.

But this is just typical of Hitch ens' sophistry. Before the war he averred that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When they weren't found, he switched his reasons for the war: it was now about helping the Iraqi people who were in a failed state.

But his dishonesty is even worse. After Richard Clark testified before congress, Hitch felt a need to attack Clark and prove that Al Quaida has links to Saddam. His proof is the El Sharif (sp?) medicine factory in Sudan.

Go back a bit to 1998, when Clinton bombed this factory because he claimed it was producing chemical weapons. Turns out, the factory was producing just what Sudan said it was--aspirins.

In 1998, Hitch used the bombing of this factory to attack Clinton. Clinton deserved to be impeached for this unlawful bombing, but Hitch went so far as to state he had proof that Clinton bombed the factory just to cover-up the Lewinsky affair. He had no proof. He just used the tactics he uses now, yelling and innuendo.

But it was beyond a doubt that the aspirin factory was just that.

Now lets zoom forward to 2004 and get back to how Hitch attacked Richard Clarke. According to Hitch, Clarke said that the Sudan "chemical" factory was funded by Osama Bin Laden. He then went on to repeat Clark's statement in 1998 that the factory had connections to Iraq.

See, Hitch screamed in the Wall Street Journal! The left's own hero, Richard Clarke, says that there was a connection between Osama and Hussein!

See the dishonesty? In 1998, the factory produces aspirins. Hitch wrote a whole book proving this.

Now in 2004, it suits Hitchens' needs to call it a chemical factory, so he pretends it is one. It is as if he never wrote the book in 98.

Is that dishonest or what?

And I could go on and on about Hitchens' dishonesty. If he weren't such a nobody, it would be fun to create a whole web site debunking his weekly screeds.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Well, I read it. The whole thing.

And Hitch spent a lot of time:

- calling Moore a coward;

- ranting about things Mike Moore had nothing to do with;

- entertaining us with anecdotes about Moore that we have no idea are true, or not;

- constructing, then demolishing Straw Men (and poorly, at that);

- accusing Moore of being a pacifist, then a non-pacifist, then a pacifist again;

- challenging Moore to "redo Telluride" (presumably a debate venue where Moore mopped the platform with Hitchens' wet nose);

- talking weepily about the victims of the 9/11 attacks, as if to defend their honor;

- and most astoundingly, defending Bill Clinton.

There's really very little -- almost nothing -- substantive he says about the movie. He calls Moore a coward. He uses some grandiloquent phraseology of pedantic provenance. And he calls Moore a coward again.

At the very least, Dennis Miller can string words into a concise, declarative, single-clause statement, even if some form of the words "ass" or "shit" appears in the statement. But Hitch has gone far beyond being a jerk. He's become a windbag -- without the bag.

--bkl

[funnymanpants]

6. Hitchens loves straw man arguments

This is about 90 percent of his debatting technique.

[minkyboodle]

21. LOL

that about covers it :)

[funnymanpants]

7. More lies from Hitchens

Hitchens writes:

"In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge."

Yassin was interviewed by 60 Minutes during this time. *He was in prison in Iraq!* You can see that on the interview.

It has since emerged that Iraq offered to turn over Yassin to the US, and the US refused. That's how much they wanted Yassin.

[Hoping4Change]

41. Hey funnymanpants

Welcome to DU:hi:

[funnymanpants]

8. Yet another piece of dishonesty

"In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as 'threatening,' even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews"

So then the US, which spreads anti-Islam propaganda through the likes of Rush Limbaugh, should also be considered threatening the rest of the world and should be attacked.

[ElectroPrincess]

11. Just asking ...

I accept the fact that I'm far from a MENSA type (IQ wise). However, I'm no less than average and I read all the time.

Is it just me or is the Hitchen's fellow so arrogant that all that's important is for him to hear the tinty sound of his head rattling while he talks ON an ON and ON and ON?

Sometimes, I don't he even knows what his final point will merge into after his asinine tangents and asides. :P No, I don't approve of black-white analogies. Yes, I accept the complexities of life's challenges. However, this bastard is so damn boring, that by the time he gets to the true "meat" of the argument, I know longer give a damn.

In other words, listening to this bloated windbag is IMHO one excellent cure for insomnia.

[funnymanpants]

16. No, it's not just you

He sucked as a writer even when he was considered on our side.

I read quite a bit, and am a writing instructor, and I think that Hitchens can be held up as a model of what not to do in writing. He is so self-indulgent and arrogant, that you want to just turn him off.

Why does he even get a column?

[smirkymonkey]

84. You're spot on, as they would say

in Mr. Boozebag's vernacular.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

33. I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

What do you mean "why is it that liberals scream censorship at every opportunity, even if the refusal to broadcast their opinion is made by a private entity and not the government?"

The most recent major news story I've seen, that involves anyone screaming "censorship," was that Rush Limberger fellow complaining because somebody in the Senate thought armed forces radio should carry some other commentators in addition to Limberger.

Of course, I am not entirely unbiased here, since Limberger is on record calling for the mass murder of liberals. If you feel it is unfair of me to judge him harshly on that account, do let me know.

I am deliriously ecstatic to hear that you are calling Michael Moore a "fat ass" without any intent other than "the spirit of debate." But I humbly suggest to you that the first rules for intelligent disagreement proscribe name-calling.

[albatross]

36. sorry

sorry for the name calling. but you all do it too about bush or whomever so don't even try that holier-than-thou schtick. it won't work with me.

i dont know how to make this clearer.

if a private entity, be it a publisher, advertiser, whatever, decides not to air/print something, it is their right. if they are media well then they do it at their own peril for being potentially biased (much like AP and reuters and the NY Times do daily).

censorship, unless theres more than one definition that extends to the private sector, is when the govt. blocks something.

lets say i run my own newspaper and you want to put in some puerile ad that makes bush look like a chimp (funny but on the same level as my moore comment) and i tell you no way, you might be inclined to call me a censor. but its my god given right to publish what i want.

when liberals boycott something because its made in israel, or when oxford (private school?) writes an applicant telling him he cannot be admitted because he served in the israeli army, then it is not censorship or anything related to it. it is their right to do as they please as private entities.

geez i don't know how better to explain this.

someone tried to compare something limbaugh said with something the iranian government or north korea would do in terms of inciting hatred and promoting violence. one of those examples is state-sanctioned, and one of them is someone giving their opinion.

[struggle4progress]

49. You're the one who yelled "fat ass" in the same paragraph ...

where you expressed your fondness for the "spirit of debate." I don't think calling you on that qualifies as "holier-than-thou schtick."

Many people will support your theory of the rights of private media, as long as there is not untoward concentration of ownership. But corporations and their rights are ultimately creations of the state, and I myself see no reason to adopt an ideological view that corporate rights and coroporate power are sacrosanct, trumping all other legitimate social interests.

In the 21st century, when many corporations are more powerful than most historical governments have been, and when in fact corporate power determines what many governments can currently do, I really don't see a profound difference between corporation-sponsored calls to hatred/violence and government-sponsored calls to hatred/violence. The Oklahoma City bombing is a nice example of the fruits of rightwing talk radio.

[albatross]

50. wow

"But corporations and their rights are ultimately creations of the state, and I myself see no reason to adopt an ideological view that corporate rights and coroporate power are sacrosanct, trumping all other legitimate social interests."

Clearly you have no love of the free market or free exchange of ideas. I guess if it were up to you everyone would be slaves to your perception of "greater social interest."

Basically you are calling for a moratorium on the right of free speech because you disagree with what is being said by one section of the media. I guess we can all be like north korea, have our radios hard-wired to one government station, and listen to programming that is in the social interest all day. Because thats what we all live and die for right? Social interest, according to your idea of it.

Wow I am shocked to hear something so statist coming from someone on this site.

Ok lets blame TV violence for Oklahoma. Then who do we blame for 9/11? Violent Bugs bunny cartoons translated into arabic?

The liberals are the same people who will argue all day that rap music will not cause violence among teens and scream censorship when it is regulated, but then advocate something as frightening as putting a ball and chain on private companies in favor of a social interest. Having environmental laws is one thing, but the idea of a greater social interest being legislated is nothing short of totalitarian.

I thought this was Democratic Underground, not Stalin Underground.

[struggle4progress]

54. I don't want to return to the Gilded Age.

"Clearly you have no love of the free market or free exchange of ideas."

Actually, I do (in a general way) like (the idea of) the free market. But as the Wall Street Journal pointed out earlier this year, it needs adult supervision. Corporate power always tends to destroy the free market by creating monopolies. Anyway, although I like the free market in a general way, I stop short of having religious faith in it.

"Basically you are calling for a moratorium on the right of free speech" Huh? That's just dishonest. I didn't say anything like that.

"Ok lets blame TV violence for Oklahoma." No, I specifically blame right-wing talk radio. :grr:

"the idea of a greater social interest being legislated is nothing short of totalitarian" I guess you didn't like that "promote the general welfare" stuff in the preamble of the Constitution. :(

"Stalin Underground" I thought you just wanted to call names.

[drdtroit]

69. No one is going to censor you:

However with all of your "ditto-head" talking points (which by the way are largely delusional) you seem a classic representation of the adage "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt". :shrug:

[funnymanpants]

77. Nope, not wrong at all

Rush Limbaugh praised the torture that went on at Abu Grhaib. His statements have been equally hateful of anything quoted by Hitchens.

The fact that does so without government support does not make his statment less hateful.Bill O'Reilley called on the US to flatten Iraq and called Iraqis primitive. This is also as hateful as calling for the mass murder of Jews.

The US government has not distanced itself from those statements. In fact, it uses those very same channels to promote its message. Dick Cheney did an interview with Rush. The military media broadcasts Rush's program, full of the same hate you denounce in Iraq.

Hateful speech occurs within the US, and is indirectly promoted by the government. Hateful speech does not give someone the reason to go to war against another country. It is a stupid argument.

As to my logic about attacking the US being a typical liberal argument:

1. You are using name callling

2. It is not typical. It is using the logical method of comparison. (If you a war can be waged against the US for the same reasons, it is not a very good argument.)

3. Even if the argument were a typical liberal argument, that would not make it more or less true. So the statement is meaningless. When someone says that the earth is round, that is a typical post-medieval statement. That doesn't mean we should dismiss the statment.

You also state that my statement "drips with self-evidence." You are mixing methaphors. A statement cannot drip with self-evidence.

Your arguments about cersorship make absolutely no sense. Like Hitchens, you are creating a straw-man argument. No where did I state that Rush should be censored. I don't believe he should be. My point was that if you want to attack a country because of hate speach, one could make the argument that one could attack the US. How you got censorship out of this is a wonder.

[funnymanpants]

9. One more piece of dishonesty

"And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war."

This implies that Saddam met with Zarqawi and that his presence proves a ling between Saddam and terrorism. In fact, there is no proof that Saddam even knew about Zarqawi's presence. As Hitchens states several times, Hussein was losing control of Iraq even before the war.

Also, as *Newsweek* pointed out, the US had the oppurtunity to kill Zarqawi three times but didn't do so, because then the US's rationale for war would be destroyed. In other words, there is more proof showing US support of Zarqawi than there is proof showing that Hussein supported him.

[funnymanpants]

10. Another patently stupid statment:

"Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."

Hitchens must know this is a lie. 95 percent of the world was agains the war. Is he claiming that all 95 percent, including noble prize winners and scholars like Juan Cole who speaks Arabic and whose expertise was sought in congress, are not "informed?"

That's just an outright false statment. Calling your opponents uniformed when you have lost the argument is--well, to paraphase Hithcens, an arguemnt that doesn't even reach the level of execrement.

(By the way--what a juvenille criticism. Moore's film is so bad that I would insult excrement to call it that.)

[struggle4progress]

12. John Hartl on Fahrenheit 9/11

‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ puts it all together
Moore goes after Bush and reflects on the toll of the war in Iraq

... put all these approaches together, connect the dots, throw in a few brand-new interviews and never-seen-before clips of President Bush looking especially befuddled, and you’ve got a remarkably powerful narrative — and a movie that communicates an unshakeable sense of non-fiction tragedy. No wonder conservatives are trying so hard to shut it down before it reaches theaters.
<snip>
The first half of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is filled with such Moore-ish mischief-making, guaranteed to embarrass Republicans. Especially excruciating: Paul Wolfowitz licking his comb to slick back his hair for the cameras, John Ashcroft singing a patriotic song he composed, and Bush preparing to deliver an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, as his eyes nervously dart from side to side ...
... Interviews with fed-up American soldiers and furious Iraqi citizens are particularly chilling. So is Moore’s talk with a woman who lost her disillusioned son in Iraq and tearily confesses that she should have been paying more attention to the reasons he went.
... “Fahrenheit 9/11” isn’t entirely designed to skewer the current administration. Democrats are chastised for voting for the war and for not challenging the Supreme Court’s decision to anoint Bush, while senators of both parties are condemned for not backing African-American Congressmen who questioned the Florida election. Moore’s final hope, delivered in a non-partisan spirit, is that “we won’t get fooled again.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5264874/

[aden_nak]

24. An old saying

>Moore’s final hope, delivered in a non-partisan spirit, is that “we won’t get fooled again.”

There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on. . . uh. . . shame on you? . . . Uh-fool-muh-can't get fooled again!

-George W. Bush

[funnymanpants]

13. More sophistry

Many people would agree that it is unfair that Blacks have to join the amry because they don't get the same economic oppurtunities as Whites. Here is how Hitchens dismisses this concern:

"I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights."

Of course. Blacks want a desegregated army. That proves that there is no injustice.

[Manix]

14. ...the ravages of alcoholism on display......sad

[glitch]

22. yep - train wreck in slo mo - I can't watch nt

[funnymanpants]

15. Yet more sophistry

Moore is against the draft. Therefore, as Hitch points out:

"Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously."

See? Just construct fallacious rhetorical arguments, and you can prove that Moore is a racist. And the on top of it, you can pretend that you have just delivered a devastating logical blow to your opponent.

[funnymanpants]

17. Another meaningless statement

"that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting ...The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities."

Oh really? I am aware of only on attack in the US. I feel safer walking out of my door every morning than probably 80 percent of mankind. What exactly does Hitch mean?

Whenever Hitchens' critics have criticizied Hitchens for being a war hawk and not joining himself, he has replied that this war is fought everywhere, so he is just as much a soldier as those troops in Iraq.

[hansolsen]

18. Hitchens is an old "liberal" war horse who has lost his way

Hitch is an old war horse and a good one. For years he hung out at The Nation and held forth on various "liberal issues", often supporting "progressive" positions, and frequently showed up on TV debating the bad guys. But those were the good old days.

Hitchens has fallen on hard times, has gone off on a bender supporting Bush WAR II, and runs the high risk of being known primarily by the company he keeps. Hitchens now keeps company with the Torturer - in - Chief and his band of merry fellows who have lied the country into the nation's first agressive war. All for nothing.

In Hitch's defense, he went along primarily for good reasons -- he has been a long standing supporter of the Kurds, and saw the opportunity to get rid of Hussein as a chance to help these people.

Here is why I mention all this. I still think Hitch is a good guy through the fog of scotch and lapses of judgement. And he is a man who could make a difference if he would turn on Shrub before the election. I know it is a long shot, but I for one, harbor a small hope that Hitchens will tire of his new found friends, get a little oxygen to his brain, and come around. I'd pay good money to read his first essay along those lines.

[funnymanpants]

19. Hitchens always a jerk

Hitchens was always a jerk, even before his conversion. I was given one of his books and gave up on it after three pages. His arrogance destroys any good point he used to make. It is certainly *not* good writing.

Hardly ever can you support a war for good reasons. This war was based on lies, huge, easily dispprovable lies from the beginning. Hitchens was a propagandists for those lies. And he was a nasty, anti-intellectual one. He is about as intelligent as Rush Limbaugh. For God sakes, just look at this piece of crap posted at the top. Hitchens certainly could have criticized Moore's film without making all the fallacious arguments he did.

He is just one nasty, angry propagandist.

I doubt he will make a differenece in the election. I think hardly anyone knows who he is, and his style is so poor, he is not likely to sway anyone.

Okay, so we differ on Hitchens, but still, let me be the first to welcome you to the DU!

[hansolsen]

39. Hitch is a tweetie bird -- a canary in the mine

Pants: Thanks for the welcome, glad to be here.

I think you are right that Hitchens has little direct effect, but I view him as a bell weather, a canary in the mine -- if Hitch turns the rest cannot be far behind. I read his stuff to see if I can see any cracks in his armor.

I'll further grant you that it is a long shot.

[checks-n-balances]

20. You are much more charitable about him than I could ever be, unless

he does turn on Shrub. Besides, then he won't have anyone else left to hate.

I used to like him, too, when he wasn't afraid to be a liberal. But now I think his worst fault is not having any detectable sense of humor. I have yet to see the man smile, and he apparently has no ability to laugh at himself either. And that really makes him insufferable.

I don't agree with your assessment, but I admire your ability to give him the benefit of the doubt. And maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised, as you mentioned, although I'm not holding my breath...

By the way, WELCOME TO DU! :hi:

[hansolsen]

40. Hitch's weakest arguement

Demo: Thanks for the welcome, glad to be on board.

Let me say the the arguement Hitchens made that I object to the most, is this idea that he accues Moore of being a "pacifist".

One doesn't have to be a pacifist to oppose this war. The most hard beaked dove in congress, with blood dripping from his talons, can be against this war.

So say I.

[Cocoa]

23. who would care if Hitch "turned on Shrub"?

tell me, who is influenced anymore by Christopher Hitchens?

[TahitiNut]

25. Hitch has devolved to mere mental masturbation

... and the remnants of the 'mental' component appear vanishingly small. His screeds are rife with presumptive strawmen, the rhetorical equivalent of smuggling wheelbarrows across a border by carrying loads of manure.

[hansolsen]

42. Jack'n off in public is impolite

I believe this description fits the entire neocon cabal that dragged us into this war.

[Hoping4Change]

45. You got that right. All lost in the fantasy of having big hard dicks.

What was the war but premature ejaculation. These simpering wimps don't have what it takes to be real men. And their fantasies of conquest and domination have taken the US into the gutter.

[TahitiNut]

62. "What was the war but premature ejaculation."? Rape.

These people don't need no f*cking consent. (Pun intended.)

[Hoping4Change]

63. I stand corrected.

[wtmusic]

53. welcome to DU hansolsen

:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

29. Have you seen the film? It's actually getting good reviews.

You have wounded me terribly with your accusation that "no matter what lies people point out in it, you will run to the filmmaker's defense."

After careful study of your post, I am guessing that you think "this movie is trash" and "baloney."

All DUers, of course, will be very very interested to know WHY you think "the film is full of crap" and exactly WHERE "he contradicts himself within the film."

Unfortunately, after rereading your post eight or ten times, I'm still having trouble identifying specific moments in the film that cause you to snarl as the hair on your back stands up.

My familiarity with Moore's previous work suggests to me that I will not find the film anti-semitic, despite your suggestion to the contrary, but if I do find anti-semitism there, I will of course promptly denounce it.

Do let me assure you that I don't recognize "hizballah" as a society of film critics and that their attitude towards the film is just as irrelevant to me as the attitude of certain right-wing airheads who have been preemptively slandering Moore and his movie for weeks.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[albatross]

35. response to struggle4recess

im sorry i hurt your feelings. rather than sarcasm i would like to see someone here distinguish between intelligent criticism of the bush admin (justifiable) and the unconditional support of a cheap shots, tired canards, and conspiracy conjecture. i honestly think that most people on this site would have made a more intelligent film than this. at least you all come up with interesting and obscure facts people should at least be aware of.

im flattered you read my post so many times, as you probably rubbed your eyes, actually seeing some dissent on here. liberals: tolerant of all the people who want to kill them and not the people that disagree with them.

the real contradiction i see is more or less between what he says in the movie and what was said not in the movie at an earlier time. moore was against sending troops but in the movie he says we don't have enough. its opportunism, as the author of the op-ed puts it. if bush does x, moore says he should have done y, if bush does y, then x would have been better. etc.

he complains about privacy and then in the movie he kvetches about lax security.

his depiction of (2nd) pre-war iraq is also very dishonest and ignores the plastic shredders and torture imposed by the twin SOBs uday and qusay.

the list goes on but its all in the article if you can get past its wordiness. if i go into this in detail im just going to be accused of regurgitating what was in the op-ed piece. if you would just read it objectively and put aside your frothing hatred of bush for a minute you might see what im talking about. i don't think you have to be a republican voter to see that. i really think the movie does a disservice to your cause.

oh and of course you don't care what hizballah thinks. nobody really cares when they kill americans or jews so why care what goes on inside their heads? the fact is that this film is a huge propaganda boost to someone who is the unequivocal enemy of our civilization- this speaks volumes. i already knew you didnt care about that. just like how you don't care that kerry's speeches are played verbatim by the north korean state media. or how popular mein kampf is in the arab world. obviously if you knew which side of this war moore was helping you probably would object. you just are so blinded with hatred of bush to see that truth. also, i did not suggest that the movie was antisemitic. maybe you should read my post a 10th or 11th time. and why the hell is hizballah in quotes in your post? is that for the same reason the left puts "terrorist" in quotes except when it describes someone you don't like such as sharon, bush, or blair? i mean, fine, if you wanna debate what the definition of terrorism is, we can do that all day with little success, but im pretty sure they have their name agreed upon. maybe i should put "palestine" in quotes, because thats not actually a state.

of course you denounce anti-semitism. just like the UN denouncing genocide but doing jack about it. a denounciation is all well and good (even when co-signed by syria) but maybe you should try to support policies that actually confront the anti-semitics that deliberately slaughter women and children of all creeds. your denounciation is a platitude at best if you do not support those who truly fight against it.

uh oh - some right wingers were pre-emptively criticizing a politically charged movie. call the UN security council for the condemnation from france, germany, and syria. im surprised you didn't say they were doing it "unilaterally." of course they did it pre-emptively! if the roles were revered so would you guys.

[struggle4progress]

43. You apparently like Hitch just because he bashes liberals.

You find it to be a contradiction that "moore was against sending troops but in the movie he says we don't have enough" (an idea lifted directly from Hitchens). I don't see a contradiction: the issue is "Hey, Bush had a bad idea, but if he was determined to carry through, he should at least take it seriously and do it right." Many people believe that there were better option available than an invasion, but nevertheless also believe that IF an invasion were carried out THEN following the military's plans (which called for many more troops) would have reduced the looting and subsequent chaos, as well as our own casualties. Based on its political calculus, the Administration decided to use a smaller-than-recommended force. The result has been a disaster.

Hitch says: "I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either." Wow! Pretty scary! I know a lot of people who wouldn't know how to give that a straight up or down answer, having strong pacifist convictions and a real unwillingness to let anybody walk all over them.

Those examples seem typical of the "contradictions" you and Hitch find.

"and why the hell is hizballah in quotes in your post?" OK, I admit this is really tricky: the much-preferred spelling is "Hezbollah."

"just like the UN denouncing genocide but doing jack about it" Are you listening to Kofi Annan, who's doing his best to get some international response going for the Sudanese refugees?

"if the roles were revered so would you guys." Nah, unlike the conservatives, I never set out to censor people whose opinions I dislike.

[albatross]

47. all's im sayin is

all im saying is hitch brings up good points. hes not my ideological savior. i just agree with his article about the movie.

most brilliantly you indentified a point i lifted from hitch, exactly as i admitted in my last post and predicted you'd charge.

id like to hear your suggestions about alternatives to invasion. maybe another UN resolution? maybe 12 more years of their shooting at allied planes protecting kurds from saddam? maybe we can get clinton back in power to fire some missiles at medicine factories?

since moore is such an expert in strategy, military resources, and logistics, maybe bush should make him a general so he can regulate troop numbers. bush puts in troop numbers at the discretion of generals in command. maybe they do need more, maybe they don't. whatever works best. maybe we needed more troops at normandy. who knows? i dont think moore is really disagreeing with how the details of how war was fought so much as just wanting to bash bush however he can.

well your sneer quotes were so informative about the preferred spelling of hizballah. but note the "allah" in the end. the god in islam is not spelled "ollah."

the point hitch made about pacificism has to do with moore blatantly not reading the post-"1984" comments Orwell made about pacifism and his book as a whole. he quoted from the book but theres material written at a later point by the Orwell that makes moore look kind of silly.

its nice that kofi has time to rally up support against the muslim slave traders in the sudan. its also nice that the UN passed 16? resolutions against iraq but noone did anything about it. im surprised he found time in between his money skimming operation in the oil for food for terrorists scam. one of the biggest money laundering scams in history i think.

yet if the US stepped in and made an attempt to solve the problem in the Sudan people would be screaming "imperialism!" or they would find some tenuous link to oil companies.

and here we go with the "censor" word being thrown around like monkey feces. if i speak out against something i am not censoring it. if i rally support to oppose something that i find abhorrable its my american duty to DO something about it, especially if its so lacking in journalistic integrity like moore's film. nothing less should be expected. you all should know this. calling me a censor is cheap.

[wtmusic]

51. You haven't even seen the movie

so your opinion is worthless. You 'agree with the article about his movie', and you haven't seen it. Hah--good one! :toast:

[Cocoa]

64. it seems to be irrelevant with some people

long, involved, assertive analyses of a movie one has not seen. That's some screwed-up thinking. :crazy:

[struggle4progress]

56. Um, yeah. Hmmmm.

"id like to hear your suggestions about alternatives to invasion." For which of the many conflicting announced objectives? To seize the nonexistent WMDs? To lure terrorists into Iraq so that they are all concentrated in one place (a notion perhaps inconsistent with bestowing democracy upon the Iraqis)? The human rights community suggested long before the invasion international arrest of the regime's top HR violators, which threat would have greatly restricted travel ...

"bush puts in troop numbers at the discretion of generals in command" Oh, shame on you! Is there any explanation for this statement other than dishonesty or ignorance? You know (or should know) perfectly well that bush ignored the generals' numbers in favor of much lower numbers supplied by rumsfeld. So the US never secured the border (which would have been the sensible thing to do if they were really concerned about controlling WMDs) and never secured Saddam's ammo dumps either, which meant the "insurgents" were immediately armed.

Re: "hizballah" v. "hezbollah" Well, the second spelling appears to "be favored 10:1.

"moore blatantly not reading the post-"1984" comments Orwell made about pacifism" I suppose that if Moore had read everything Orwell ever wrote, it would have been a different movie, wouldn't it?

"its nice that kofi has time to rally up support against the muslim slave traders in the sudan." I'm glad you think so. I brought it up because you claimed the UN didn't care about genocide. Boy, you change the topic quickly!

"his money skimming operation in the oil for food for terrorists scam" Nothing's proved there yet. But I have noticed that the US has skimmed about $11 Billion from the oil revenues which should belong to the "new sovereign Iraq." Hey, this "UN oil-for-food scam" noise is just intended to divert attention from the US theft ofg Iraqi oil money, isn't it?

"here we go with the 'censor' word" Yeah, when the right wing hires a public relations firm for a campaign to pressure theatres not to show Moore's movie, I'd call that an attempt at censorship.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funnymanpants]

79. You are a moron

First, the UN never issued a report "showing Iraq dismantling and transporting its WMD and missile sites before the war." What you saw is a bogus article written by a Murdoch paper that cited this report. You were so stupid that you quoted the aritcle and linked to the report, thinking the UN report backed up the aticle.

Look at the report again. Actually read what you link to. The report states that some military equipment (not WMD's) showed up in junkyards in other coutntries. This is because of looting.

Second, the article purporting a link beteween Al-Quaida and Hussein is outdated. The next day both the White House and the CIA refuted the evidence. Woops! It turns out that the supposed general who was an Al-Quaida had a different name. Well, he did have the same *middle* name. You can't blame the right-wing neocons like Lehman for spewing such garbage, when people like you believe it.

Third, the memo you mention was denounced by the Pentagon itself. It was bogus information. That didn't stop right-wing Weekly Standard from insisting it had a smoking gun.

Fourth, Orwell did indeed recant his statement on pacifism. But he did so in a way that undermines your argument and Christopher Hitchens' arguement. Originally, Orwell stated that pacifists were pro-Nazi. Later, he retracted that statement as unfair.

In additon, Hitchens' point is idiotic, and he should know it is. Because Orwell made some anti-pacifist statments does not disqualify any of his earlier remarks. Moore thinks that Bush has created a situation exactly like the novel *1984.* He is citing accurately from *1984.* He is not misrepresenting the novel in any way. That later Owell made some pacifist statement does not detract from the point he made in *1984,* nor does it detract from Moore's using it.

(The fallacy that Hitchens falls into is called authorial fallacy by literary critics. It basically means the mistake of confusing the author's intent, or what the author says later or before a work is published, with what the words of the work actually say.)


If you have the guts to respond to his post, please don't switch the topic and bring up completely different topics like censorship.

[Bridget Burke]

59. Actually, you & "hitch" have similar literary styles

Lots of venom, no discernable structure. At least he knows about mixing upper & lower case--but he went to Oxford.

We're not talking about censoring Hitchens--we're just ripping the fool apart. It's fun.

[thegoodlife]

46. Welcome the Diversion, lyberals

I figured liberals would love this piece by Hitchens - it's taking some of the attention away from Clinton's "book".

[wtmusic]

52. Crawling out of the woodwork

Welcome to DU. Stick around, read, enjoy.

:toast:

[Bridget Burke]

58. No, Clinton's book will do quite well, also.

Quite a few of us have ordered the book & bought our tickets as well. We can multi-task (unlike the idiot who can't watch tv & eat a pretzel simultaneously).

Neither Clinton nor Moore is hurting for money, but they're both going to be getting richer very soon.

Why do you hate America?

[thegoodlife]

61. Why I hate America - by thegoodlife

I hate America because I will probably never get the chance to hook up with Bridget Burke. She sounds attractive when she is riled.

I don't like/dislike Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, et al. I was just joking around.

Love Ya!

[Gators4Dean]

65. what

 what

[Andromeda]

70. And anything that takes the attention away from...

Clinton's book is okay by the right-wing whackos. But don't get your hopes up because it's already a best seller. People are standing in line to buy Clinton's book. The nutjobs are seething mad that Clinton's book is getting so much attention. Bill Clinton is treated like a rock star wherever he goes. I can't think of a single wingnut extremist kook who generates that kind of excitement.

Hitchens is a has-been, an anomaly -- a wet-brained alcoholic who has missed too many AA meetings. His use of the English language is garish and tasteless and I won't read a single boring word of his literary tripe.

[funnymanpants]

76. no substance to your debate

I have pointed out a number of fallacies in Hitchens' aritcle.

You have not refuted one of them. Instead you resort to generlizations.

Either Hitchens lied and is uses one logical fallacy after the next, or he does not.

[Cocoa]

66. nice translation/shortening from BusyBusyBusy

This blog provides such a great service, especially with windbags like Hitch.

http://www.busybusybusy.com/

Michael Moore is factually challenged, by me, which is to say me and the facts disagree, so lets me and the facts go outside and settle this thing right now, right now, and if you dare quote from Orwell I’ll double-plus kick your totalitarian pacifist butt and - hey, where you going, hey!

[struggle4progress]

67. A handy site, reducing foul bloviations to single sentences!

I was especially impressed with the digested version of John Yoo's 'All Necessary and Appropriate Force': "the Bush administration does not engage in torture but it can if it wants to," which admirably summarizes the vapors rising from Yoo's column as well as the stench recently wafting from the White House.

[komplex]

71. In Fairness to Hitch...

He was for the War regardless of WMD's or not, He viewed Saddam as an evil dictator who should be overthrown. This is consistent with his letters to a young contarian. He basically said that it is the job of the Western world to make life better for those living under brutal dictators. He would have supported a war on North Korea, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Zimbabwe and any other country of their Ilk.

I think he's wrong in believing that * is able to pull this off. And let's not forget what Chris wrote about Reagan "Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump."

[Disturbed]

72. No censorship on a Bush Cult member here.

If a person can carry on a halfway logical debate without attacking persons I feel that they should be able to do so and not be deleted or tombstoned. This person came close to having a fairly good debate.
I disagree with everything that he said but didn't puke while reading his points.

Hitchens is an emberassment to to left and to the right. He gets a column and invites on TV because many people like to read &/or watch pathetic-ness. It's entertainment.

It's similar with M. Moore. He is entertaining and controversial. If he made his points straight out, I suspect his films and live performances would bomb.

[funnymanpants]

80. I am being fair to him

It is true that Hitchens might have been for the war regardless. However, he did use the WMD argument for war. In fact, he used whatever he could come across. He argued in a very anti-intellectual way. For example, he used the lone sarin shell as proof of WMD. He claimed that Al-Zarqawi proved an an Al-Quaida-Hussein link.

He hyped the slimmest of information and ignored all the evidence that went against his positon.

And, he was nasty, nasty, nasty. He was as much a bully.

[Jim__]

73. Hitchens criticism condemns itself

From his review:

So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance.

Even if you accept everything in this review as accurate - an awful lot of his criticism is directed at Moore rather than his film - based on Hitchens line: But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft., we have to accept that nothing is portrayed accurately in the film, no pertinent questions are raised in the film; or Hitchens has betrayed his craft with this dishonest criticism.

[JustinF]

75. Counterpunch as great material on Hitch

Check it out:

Letter to a Lying, Self-Serving, Fat-Assed, Chain Smoking, Drunken, Opportunistic, Cynical Contrarian (AKA C. Hitchens)
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1022.html

Another Ad Hominem Attack on Christopher Hitchens
http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html

Breasts, Martinis, Hitchens: Quoting Under the Influence?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05072003.html

Hitchens as Model Apostate
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein09102003.html

Hitchens and Coulter: Love at Last?
http://www.counterpunch.org/bell1.html

[young_at_heart]

81. Hitchens is no longer readable!

Has he crossed over to the dark side?

[NoBushLite]

82. He even takes a shot at Gore Vidal

He's off the deep end.

[funnymanpants]

85. Hitchens compares movie to Nazi propaganda

"With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 ... we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl ."

Yes, this isn't coming from Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh, but from Hitchens.

So you see, when Moore makes a film criticizing the Bush administration, Hitch screams that he is irrational and a demogogue.

But when Hitch smears Moore by comparing Moore to a Nazi filmmaker, why, Hitch is just being a responsible critic.

(I can't believe I missed this smear the first time I read the article. Probably because I had to wade through Hitchens' pompopsity.)