REVIEW OF MICHAEL MOORE’S MOVIE, “9/11”

IN SLATE

These were some of my thoughts of response:

If Moore indeed said, "Osama is innocent till proven guilty" a few months after 9/11, I would totally disagree. "Innocent till proven guilty" is a court standard. It is not a personal moral policy nor should it be an obstruction to prevent people from making up their own minds quickly based on patent facts. People hide behind the "innocent till proven guilty" line to get underfoot and prevent consequences for wrongdoers. Because something is or is not "proven" by a lengthy court process has little bearing on its actual truth status. Quite a bit more is known than has ever been filtered through legal processing.

Regarding the Saudis flying out after 9/11, I'm not impressed at the outcome of ANY government study or panel. And Richard Clark's "taking personal responsibility" means nothing to me. Why did he give the permission? I haven't heard that stated yet. When people "take personal responsibility", it should draw all the heat to them. But what usually happens is that the weight -- or inaccessibility -- of their office shuts up the subject for further comment. So those kinds of "brave" official ownings-up leave me cold.

The reviewer is getting hot over the way Moore bashes Bush with his brand of humor. I felt no need to get defensive about George Bush. The movie goes into excess, and that's obvious. A lot of Moore's attack was obviously personal, because he hates Bush. I thought that was obvious, so I don't consider Moore's portrayals of Bush "unfair" -- more like "unskillful defamation attempts".

I agree that the film was ridiculous in calling Iraq simply "a sovereign nation" and never mentioning Saddam's hellish dictatorship. Moore portrays Iraq almost like it should be a surprise that anybody wanted Saddam deposed. However, I considered when I saw the movie that he was trying to make a legal or technical point, harkening back to the fact of an "almost"-mandate by the U.N. to take Saddam from power. The overwhelming moral weight of the U.N.'s estimations was enough for me, France or no France. The U.N. got an out from France and didn't have to go on record as authorizing major aggression.

The review makes a good point that Saddam was a terrorist-harboring guy, and that he boasted of sponsoring anti-Israeli terror. This is why I didn't care that the firmest direct link to Al Qaeda had never been shown. Saddam was obviously likely to help Al Quad at some point, however much or little he might have done so up till the time of the war. Saddam's speeches constantly preached death to the U.S. He was definitely trying to get nuclear weapons, whether or not he was trying to make them himself with this or that set of aluminum tubes.

I think the reviewer is misconstruing how Moore is showing "both sides". Moore many times during the movie disagrees with U.S. policy, then tries to show that, even if you agreed with the policy, it's not being carried out well. He's not himself arguing both ways. It wouldn't make sense, and I never assumed he was doing that. I think the reviewer misread the movie, and he has it in for Moore anyway because of their former debate. In fact, he even challenges Moore to another one in the review, full of pique as he is.

I don't think Moore seems to believe he's saying anything new in his social or economic critiques. He's just restating things he thinks worthwhile to point out.

I do agree with the reviewer that the movie is kind of a hodgepodge, where Moore is just trying things, trying to put something in there for everybody's taste and prejudices. I didn't mind it, as the fact of a documentary like this's getting into theaters was interesting and that eclipsed the fact that this wasn't the greatest of them. Nonetheless, I still think the movie is worth seeing.

I agree with the assessment that Moore likes easy applause, is not particularly courageous, is a weak one to go assailing strength, and seems to have a put-on and patronizing concern for blacks. He's kind of a punk. But he is stirring up discussion and I like that at this time. In his threatening to sue opposers, he sounds like Fox in its paranoia or rank attention-getting in suing over the use of "Fair and Balanced" in Al Franken's book title.

I also don't care whether Moore's movie is good as a piece of movie crafting. That's another, and irrelevant, debate, to me.

I don't go to Moore's or anybody else's movie to be told what's so. I go to bank what they say off what I have already learned and thought.

I don't believe the Saudis "run" the government but I think oil money plays too great a role, and that as an oil businessman, Bush has conflicts of interest. That's basically where I come out on it. I think that having an oil businessman in the white house with profits on the line in dealing with Arab states is a bad idea.

--Robb Murray

BACK TO WRITINGS