The cover story in the Spectrum section of the Sydney Morning Herald is Paul "Magic Water" Sheehan's review of Fahrenheit 9/11. Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't opening in Australia until July 29, and Sheehan appears not to have seen it. So how does he write the review? Easy---he cuts and pastes from reviews by other people. Here is Sheehan:
Perhaps the most egregious factual error is the bald and absurd claim that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked, killed or even threatened any American.
And here is Christopher Hitchen's review (he calls this an "astonishing falsification"):
Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American.
Could it be a coincidence that Sheehan and Hitchens used the same words? No, because Moore never made that assertion and they are not "his words". The incomparable Bob Somerby quotes Moore's actual words:
MOORE: On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and the United States military invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. A nation that had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.
The "astonishing falsification" here belongs to Hitchens, who turns a true statement (Iraq never threatened to attack the US) into a false one (Iraq never even threatened any American). Somerby points out:
Who knows---maybe Hitch even believed his characterization when he penned it for Slate two weeks back. By this week, of course, he'd had time to check, and we saw him make this same claim Monday night.
For his part Sheehan just copied from Hitchens without bothering with the usual convention of quotation marks. That's plagiarism.
Update: Professor Bunyip often writes about plagiarism in Australian papers. For example, here he suggests that Philip Adams is guilty of plagiarism. Bunyip's verdict on Sheehan? Not guilty! And Bunyip isn't dismissing the charge because Sheehan is a fellow RWDB, no sir. Apparently Sheehan was drummed out of the RWDB brigade because he opposed the war on Iraq and even a 3000 word rant attacking Michael Moore isn't enough for readmission. No, to be let back in, Sheehan's going to have to support the invasion of Iran which is apparently scheduled to occur after the election. (Where are the armies for this coming from? I guess the plan is to turn in the three horseman cards the coalition holds.)
Now lifting one sentence is pretty minor and my students would get off with a warning for doing such thing. What makes this more serious is that the sentence Sheehan lifted was a fabrication---Moore didn't say what Hitchens claimed. And by stealing it, Sheehan took ownership of the fabrication.
Update 2: If you want to read a review of Fahrenheit 9/11 from someone who has actually seen it, I recommend Bob Somerby.
Hussein was clearly "aiding and abetting" enemies of the US, and people who had killed Americans, and given the chance, would again...
Hitchens' point is that Moore's characterization of Iraq was of some innocent, harmless nation, which left to it's own devices would have gone on in peaceful bliss. This is a blatant mistruth. If the USA & allies had invaded someplace like Tanzania (traditionally not a friend of the USA's, but not a terrorist haven, either), then Moore's characterization would have been right on. But by using it to somehow create the illusion that Iraq was an innocent wronged by a superpower, he's clearly out of line. Hitchens called him on it.
Moore has quite clearly, even when pressed, stuck to the "murder" isn't killing or threatening, strict meaning quotation... even when confronted with the fact that Hussein/Iraq gave asylum (and even assistance) to known/convicted terrorists who *have* killed US citizens (and a variety peoples of other nations)--Hitchens outlines this quite clearly. And it's quite clear that Moore plays fast and loose with the truth to avoid the fact that Hussein was in bed, so to speak, with terrorists that no one else in the world (save maybe Lybia) would associate with. Why? Because Moore isn't interested in doing a "documentary" to uncover the truth, he's putting together a propaganda film to play on people's emotions, to try to brainwash them to think like he does, no matter what it takes. Hitchens, quite appropriately, lumps Moore in with the filmmakers that the Soviets and Nazis employed--they made films that twisted reality to make it look the way they wanted their audience to see it.
And the fact that you support Moore on this point shows that you're one of (a) gullible, (b) uninformed, or (c) as big of a liar and spin meister as Moore.
See Deceits 40-41 and Deceit 42 in:
Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11
Like Robbo said above, you have to analyze Moore's statements in a hyper technical sense to claim that he is telling the "truth".
Moore calls his movie a documentary. He has a right to make his movie, but he can't call it a documentary. A documentary is supposed (and required by the Oscar rules) to be factual. Having a Point of View is fine, but you can't provide a totally one-sided view of only the facts that support your case, and conceal everything else that disagrees with you. That is dishonest, and accurately meets the definition of deceit.
"Hussein was clearly "aiding and abetting" enemies of the US, and people who had killed Americans, and given the chance, would again".
This is known as an assertion without any evidence. I realize to ask for some would be expecting too much...
Outside the USA, isn't the proper reference to this title 'Celsius -1715/99'? To a Californian such as I, either version is pretty cold.
Robbo, Hitchins is dishonest. He fabricated a quote that Moore did not make. And no, Moore did not characterize Iraq as an innocent nation. That's another lie. The point of Moore's comments was about justification for going to war. If Iraq had attacked America or was threatening to attack America that would justify going to war. Giving asylum to a terrorist does not.
It is instructive that you don't see anything wrong with Hitchins fabricating a quote.
I am still waiting for some evidence that "Hussein was clearly "aiding and abetting" enemies of the US". I keep asking but no one will answer me. Isn't even the least bit embarrassing to make such a bald assertion and then not even lift a finger to back it up?
As far as "not even lift a finger to back it up:... wow, I guess Dominion has little else to do in life but hang out online... (not even 24 hours transpired between your original request and the second). Get a life.
...
I, like the original post, referenced Hitchen's article. That was my "backing up" the "aiding and abetting" statement. Hitchens' article outlines how Hussein gave assylum to terrorists who, if they showed up in public in most any other country, would have been ushered to the nearest jail. (Follow the original link, as I implied in my quote, or try: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/) And Hussein himself was a flagrant human rights abuser... not just in the opinion of the USA. In contrast, the "mood" of Moore's argument is that the USA & friends somehow went after an innocent (kite flying and the whole bit); they didn't. That's why his argument is deceptive.
...
As far as the misquote; no, I wouldn't justify ANYONE misquoting someone. That's why I take issue with Moore's work.
In a strict sense, you're right--Hitchens did "misquote" Moore by saying Moore said Saddam didn't threaten *Americans*. However, the quote you list did not have Hitchens directly quoting Moore as saying Americans (there were no "" around it); as you showed, Hitchens *just* put "his words" after the threatened part [threatened (his words) any American]. However, Hitchens would probably argue he did NOT misquote Moore's overall meaning--he quoted the word he used (threatened) and replaced "attack the United States" with "any American." However, he does NOT place those in quotes (I did--because I was just quoting each party). Hitchens would probably argue that's the assertion Moore made, by implication.
So in a sense, you're right--Hitchens played Moore's game, at least to a degree; he summarized an intent (or, more appropriately, the listensers *assumption* of the speaker/writer's intent) and didn't directly quote.
But Moore goes WELL beyond this. Bowling for Columbine is a prime example; it's been roundly shown that Moore spliced in Heston's words from an entirely different speach to make what he said in Denver take on an *entirely different tone* than what he really said. That's what I take issue with. I'm no fan of Heston, and I am certainly no fan of the NRA; but the way Moore goes about demonizing Heston is a slanderous, sleezy way to do it. (Yes, not strictly on the F911 topic; but it's basically another demo of the type of work Moore puts forth.)
The bottom line is that Moore has repeatly spliced together small "facts," but doesn't include "all the facts" to help his viewers reach their own conclusion (which is what a documentarian really should try to do). And in some cases, the "conclusion" is one that an unbiased party might very well say isn't supported by ALL the facts available. That's why I think Moore is untrustworthy, and is better characterized as a propagandist, not a documentarian.
As far as "Hitchens is dishonest"... well sure, why not, he's a leftist! :->
(note the :-> for the humor impaired... )
(note the :-> for the humor impaired... )
See this expose of Moore's anti-gun movie Bowling for Columbine
Note in particular, section 2A and how Moore spliced two Charton Heston speeches given several months apart to make it appear that he gave an insensitive and confrontational speech immediately after Columbine. Note how Heston changes his shirt and tie in the middle of the speech.
With this kind of history, fact-checking Moore is almost beside the point.
Thanks guys, but I've seen Bowling for Columbine and your claim about splicing speeches is rubbish. Moore introduces Heston with the famous "cold dead hands" line. Then he introduces the speech Heston gave after Columbine. Moore did not "splice" the two speeches together.
And you should look at Erik Siegrist's take down of Kopel's attack on Moore.
Kevin P., you should actually try seeing "Bowling for Columbine", rather than an expose. Not only is the characterization of the movie as "anti-gun" completely misleading, Moore himself is a member of the NRA. Anyone who calls the movie anti-gun either missed the point entirely, or is simply parroting what they heard without making any individual judgements of their own.
As far as fact checking, I agree its pointless, primarily because Moore's best evidence is unedited film, and he took great pains to present the facts in the narrative accurately, given the attacks leveled against "Bowling for Columbine". But seriously, if you think his facts were dodgy, go to his website and check his sources for yourself. So far, his opponents have utterly failed to find any substantive errors, remarkable in a film that is slightly over 2 hours long.
Tim, if you believe that, you will believe anything and it is pointless to argue with you.
For your readers, go rent the movie and see the line by line speech comparison below and make up your own minds:
Moore's version of Heston speech vs. its transcript
Remember, Moore is the master of the false visual impression.
I am actually recommending to people that they see Moore's movies, an an example of how effective propaganda can be.
Robbo I did read the link you provided. Hitchens did exactly what you did, made a bunch of worthless assertions with nothing to back it up but his own ego.
Nor am I talking about human rights abuse, which everyone agrees happened in Iraq. I am asking for evidence for the statement ""Hussein was clearly "aiding and abetting" enemies of the US, and people who had killed Americans, and given the chance, would again".
It is always surprising how little people understand exactly what evidence consists of.
As far as Kevin P's complaint, using "Bowling for Columbine" to critique "Fahrenheit 9/11"...well do I really have to spell out why this is wrong?
The transcript Kevin links to shows:
a: Moore shows Charlton Heston saying "From my Cold, Dead Hands."
b: Moore then gives an introduction to Charlton Heston's speech in Colorado, just after the shooting.
c: Moore then shows sections of the speech in Colorado.
I've seen the film. It's quite obvious (different shirt, different tie, different backdrop, different film quality) that the 'cold dead hands quote' is from a different NRA event, and Moore never even suggests that piece of film is from Colorado - that's why he introduces the Colorado piece AFTER the 'cold dead hands quote'. Someone would be paying really poor attention to the movie to be deceived by this.
Anyway, as Dominion points out, we're criticising Farenheit 9/11 here, not Bowling for Columbine.
Well gee Robbo, I waited three days this time, still no evidence?
Yah, it is certainly easier to make a claim than try to back it up!
that prior to any NRA speech/appearance by Heston, they play the "from my cold, dead hands..." scene on some screen/overhead that was filmed who knows when.
Is that not the case?
For those who think Iraq didn't threaten Americans I'd go ask some of the pilots enforcing the 'no fly' zone imposed after the Gulf war. I'm pretty sure they thought the AA and Sams fired at them threatening!
It is simply amazing to me just how little you guys get it. I don't have to talk to a pilot about the no fly zone because no one is talking about the straw man you so carefully struck down. Please can we pay attention now?
I want evidence. Not speculation, not assertion, not advice, I want evidence that the statement "Hussein was clearly "aiding and abetting" enemies of the US, and people who had killed Americans, and given the chance, would again" is true.
This should be so simple. He was clearly "aiding and abetting". You would think clear would be less opaque than this.
I wrote off "bowling" as soon as I saw the cartoon exerpt from it on "Oprah". That thing was extrememly dishonest and... I can't think of words bad enough to describe it. I don't expect any better from moore in any of his other work, past present or future. He is a very bad person.
With regards to Iraq and Saddam... tough luck. How many of those wonderful paper UN "resolutions" were we going to wait for before we enforced them?? 20? 30? 6721? We were fully justified in attacking Iraq since they (saddam) didn't fullfil their obligations under the treaty that ended the first war. We were justified as soon as they violated UN resolution #1.
"We were justified as soon as they violated UN resolution #1."
Do you know how many UN Resolutions Israel has violated?
yes, many. Good for them. The UN is a total piece of crap, and the resolutions against Israel are absurd. How many resolutions has the UN passed telling Arafat and his ilk to stop the suicide bombings etc?
Yes, it seems that I've got a double standard saying that the UN should enforce resolutions against Iraq and not Israel. This is not that difficult a problem really. The resolutions against Israel are... what? "Stop trying to protect yourselvs from the palestinian terrorists who are raised in an atmosphere of utter hatred." The resolutions against Iraq were "comply with the conditions that ended the first war and left you in power."
The resolutions against Iraq were perfectly just. The resolutions against Israel are not. On the whole, the UN is unjust and immoral and should be scrapped as a whole. I'm working actively for the United States to drop the UN, kick it out of New York and stop funding it. I'm also for the US to stop providing financial assistance to any other country for any reason. All we get in return is hatred, and the money is often squandered anyway. Enough is enough.
To summarise: there are bad UN resolutions which it is justifiable to break and good UN resolutions which must be defended at all costs. Don't you think you should find out what the resolutions about Israel actually say before defending them?
As for "stop providing financial assistance to any other country for any reason", does this include Israel, the largest recipient of US aid. Fro that matter does "for any reason" include countries like Pakistan which are providing the US with military assistance and bases for the the war of terror?
No, I don't give a damn about UN resolutions. The thing about Iraq was that the treaty was uselessly through the UN. The UN should be scrapped, and Iraq should be thumped for violating the terms of the cease fire. Those were essentially OUR (read USA) terms.
Yes, it does include Israel. If that crappy dust bowl is so damn important to them, they can pay for it themselves. Yes, it does include Pakistan. I want the US to adopt a purely isolationist, non-interfering foreign policy. That way, when we are attacked by Terrorists, we will be perfectly justified in nuking the supporting regimes back to the stone age, since they will have ZERO justification for attacking us in the first place.
God bless ya ben, you're just not very bright.
Dominion, I agree that ben's suggestions for US foreign policy are unwise, but please do not attack him personally.
Forgive me. What you see as a personal attack, I see as a keen observation based on ben's arguments, which are hardly coherent. It is ok for Israel to break U.N. resolutions because the U.N. "resolutions against Israel are... what? "Stop trying to protect yourselvs from the palestinian terrorists who are raised in an atmosphere of utter hatred.", but it's not ok for Saddam to break U.N. resolutions because (and this just has to be quoted to be believed) "comply with the conditions that ended the first war and left you in power." What does this even mean?
Personally I think I was perfectly justified in that observation, especially since it is so obviously true. But hey it's your backyard and your toys. You don't want me playing here, it is well within your right...
where will america get its oil from in this new isoliationist utopia? Who will buy America's exports and who will lend the US the trillion dollars a year you currently borrow from the rest of the world every year?
That is a really "keen observation" ... "God bless ya ben, you're just not very bright." Thanks for demonstrating your lack of self discipline, Dominion.
Let me clarify my position:
1. Scrap the UN.
2. Isolationist policy
As for attacking Iraq, I don't think it was a great idea, except that now the "insurgents" are fighting directly (and very poorly) with our military, instead of bombing our embassies and cities. Was it justified? Well, I guess I'd better be consistent. Since I (not my government) think the UN is crap, I'll simply say that it's entirely crap and that we should have ditched the UN and left Saddam in power. Big deal if he's murdering his own people and attacking his neighbors. Good for him! As long as he's not doing any harm to the USA, he can do as he likes in the world. He's someone elses problem and that's all there is to it.
Then, after adopting my version of isolationism, if we find proper evidence that he is supporting people or organizations that are doing us direct harm, then we nuke him or whatever and that pretty much settles the issue. If he leaves us alone, fine.
Ian, it does not matter, we'd get by. Why wouldn't people buy our exports just because we don't interfere with other countries governments anymore? We could still trade (free trade preferably) with other countries, just not meddle in their political affairs directly, unless they do us harm. Maybe the lack of a trillion dollars in loans (I don't know what you're talking about btw) will help our govt curtail its runaway spending.
hmmm, just watching a bootleg copy of F911 and I notice no mention of, um, England, in the "coalition of the willing." A little strange, no?
not to mention Australia, if I recall correctly, eh Tim?