The Perils Of Deconstruction

Michael Moore is a real pain in the ass. The more I see and hear him in interviews on TV, the more irritated I become. The same things come out of his mouth in that reedy voice and flat Michigan twang, just a step away from a Dakota y'betcha. I find the man himself nearly insufferable.

He is a very good film maker, however, talented and witty. He has a loving eye for the absurdities to be unearthed beneath the most ordinary, everyday events. Things we often take for granted, he turns upside down.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is such a film; sharp, funny, terrifiying, and maddening all at once. It uses facts to draw conclusions, some of them stretched perhaps a little thin, but logically extended from the basis he sets out. I found little confusion apparent between stated facts and his own conclusions or suggestions, but I also encountered very few surprises either. Much of what can be found in the film had already been written about extensively in the more left press, some of it long before Moore thought to make this movie.

I also find amusing the incredible lengths the conservative right will go to attempt to utterly discredit Moore and his film. Before the movie was even released, the two main stories about it were:

1. Disney dropped distribution of the film because they felt it was too political or not a money maker. Take your pick, both appeared in the press.

2. Conservative commentators who had not seen the film began a campaign to discredit the film on the facts...even though they hadn't seen the film. Scott McLellan, White House Press Secretary railed against the film in the White House press room, until one reporter, throwing off his sheepskin, asked McLellan directly if he had seen the movie.

Answer?

"No."

And so on. By the time the film was released into theaters, anti-Moore projects had sprung up all over the Internet, and word was there was a film to be made entitled "Michael Moore Hates America." A stupid idea, but I don't doubt it will come to pass. More infuriating are the "factual detractors" who claim to have completely deconstructed the film and listed out, in neutral observational fashion, factual errors made in the movie.

One such site can be found here.

The author of the site seems to go out of his way to declare his neutrality, claiming only to deal with what he terms "facts." I read through about half the site, then skipped about, finding plenty of editorial comments about both Moore and the film, but little factual deconstruction.

We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.

Note the editorial content right off the bat. The part of the film dealing with Afghanistan is "so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies."

Next, we have the most telling of all statements: "The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda."

The author asserts here that Moore is lying about the link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Since Moore has pointed out, correctly, that there is no established l;ink between the two, our intrepid deconstructionist is implying, quite plainly, such a relationship existed. So far, our truth teller is lying through his html teeth.

There is more, much more, including a condemnation of Moore for not supporting the war, and for completely lying about the conduct of the war, casting it in a light not favored by the administration. Further, his sources are to be doubted. Two of the main references are Christopher Hitchens and Michael Isikoff. The former was once a thorn in the side of the right who went along with the Bush lies about Iraq because he hated Saddam Hussein and has been a champiopn of the opressed Kurdish people. A fine motivation for going to war, but listening to him gleefully extoll the virtues of lying to get the job done is nauseating. Note that I was once a great admirer of Hitchens, back when he told devastating truths about politicians and politics, regardless of the party.

Isikoff is a special case. He gained reknown for writing article after article about the Clinton Whitewater affair, wherein it is alleged not only that Bill and Hillary made scads of money but that they may have murdered someone(s) in the process. Isikoff relished centering his reports around Drudgian "facts" and other rumors, long after the Clintons had been exonerated of any wrong doing. He, like Hitchens, is cited over and over. Unlike Hitchens, an editorial writer, Issikoff is supposed to be a reporter. He is anything but.

Next up is the Washington Times, a proudly conservative rag; Media Research Center, Weekly Standard, and the author's own employer, William F. Buckley's prize child, The National Review Online (online version of the print mag). Amazing how a man who writes for a very conservative magazine and cites plenty of sources whose adherence to truth is questionable can declare he has pointed out factual innaccuracies in Moore's film. He further misconstrues other sources, and leaves out important parts to bolster his case.

Now this, under the heading "Deceit 59," the last one on the endless page:

Do the many falsehoods and misrepresentations of Fahrenheit 9/11 suggest a film producer who just makes careless mistakes? Or does a man who calls Americans "possibly the dumbest people on the planet" believe that his audience will be too dumb to tell when he is tricking them? Viewers will have to decide for themselves whether the extremist and extremely deceptive Fahrenheit 9/11 is a conscientious work of patriotic dissent, or the cynical propaganda of a man who gives wartime aid to America?s murderous enemies, and who accepts their aid in return.

This can only be interpreted as an opinion on Moore's patriotism, not as a matter of lying or deceit. And bear in mind that sentence follows several paragrphs of ranting about how Moore gives aid and comfort to terrorists. Ludicrous. This man, Dave Kopel, has set out to disguise his own agenda against Moore and Farenheit 9/11 beneath a thin veneer of so-called "research" into the accuracy of facts presented in the film. I'd almost believe he did it in good faith but for the poor sources he employs, and this Ann Coulterish gem:

His latest book, Dude, Where's My Country, is dedicated to the memory of Rachel Corrie, an American who traveled to Israel, burned an American flag for some Palestinian children, and served as an activist for a terrorist support group called the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The ISM which is run by the Palestinian Communist Party and which advocates the extermination of the state of Israel. She died trying to prevent an Israeli bulldozer from removing some shrubbery which was thought to cover tunnels used by terrorist bombers to enter Israel. Thus Moore dedicated his book to someone who deliberately sought to assist the terrorist murder of civilians in Israel.

Anyone who knows anything at all about Rachel Corrie will be horrified by this defamation of the dead. Corrie was a young peace activist who put her beliefs to the test, travelling to the occupied territories to put her body between the Israeli Army and Palestinian homes slated for destruction in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza strip. She was killed by a bulldozer, but not as Kopel alleges, 'preventing the removal of shrubbery, thought to hide tunnels used by terrorist bombers.' Corrie was young and perhaps foolish, but brave enough to put herself on the line, and she paid with her life. The identifiable Israeli soldier reponsible for her death has not been charged. Slandering her to smear Moore is beyond disgusting, especially using a story created by the Israeli Army to defuse the killing of an American citizen.

I've left the links Kopel uses intact, to display his sources; - one his own article; one an article tying the ISM with the communist party that has since been heavily edited and corrected (the sfgate link); and four of them from a rag run by David Horowitz, infamous darling intellectual of the far right. Horowitz is an ardent supporter of Israel and the extreme viewpoint painting all Palestinians as terrorists and collaborators. If Kopel were to check this story out more carefully, instead of relying on the slanderous statements of a right wingnut author, he might discover at least a few truths, sorrowfully lacking in his screed.

Those sorts of wild "facts" make it impossible to tell where, if anywhere, Kopel tells the truth. That is too bad, because it is very possible Moore fudged in some places, though the line between fact and supposition or conclusion can be hard to pin down. Kopel does nothing but further muddy the waters... or is that his very intent?