At the very end of the credits of Fahrenheit 9/11, the screen directs people who want to do more to go to MichaelMoore.com. The ideas there aren't all that original.

I have a better suggestion.

Take an 18-year old to see it next weekend.
10:40:39 PM  #  

Short review of Fahrenheit 9/11: Even though the Moroccan land-mine-exploding-monkeys are only on-screen for seconds, they alone are worth the price of the ticket.

(Necessary Full Disclosure: I like the Michael Moore film Canadian Bacon. I don't know why, I just do. Maybe it's a Great Lake thing.)

I didn't expect to write about Fahrenheit 9/11 once I saw it---others have done so, and they are more qualified. And I didn't expect to respond to the film--I spend hours a day reading liberal blogs, so I am in a constant state of partisan fervor. But the movie is so good, I have to say something, and, no matter how well you know the story of the Carlyle Group, or how much you already despise the Bush administration, the visual dimension makes these issues emotionally gripping.

We went to the 4:00 pm showing, and even though the weather was beautiful, it must have been a near-sellout. Pretty good for an incendiary documentary in Toledo on a Sunday. When it started I didn't seem more than 10 empty seats, and it was fairly large theater. When the film ended there was enthusiastic applause from all corners of the theater. Three blocks away, car windows open, a college-aged male who must have overhear us discussing the movie, yelled, "Bush sucks!" and sped away as the light turned green. Way cool.

About the film. Ignoring politics, there is no question that Fahrenheit 9/11 is fantastic filmmaking. Some reviewers who have panned the film have said that you cannot separate the politics--nonsense. If that were true, those same reviewers would make to make the case that Triumph of the Will is the worst movie ever made (I actually once watched that whole thing--all six hours. I have never met anyone else who can make the same claim. God, the things we do in grad school.). The movie is brisk, and makes full use of visuals to make some points and underscore others. It isn't flawless. It feels like three documentaries cut together--a quietly angry look at election night 2000, an absurd-but-true look at the post 9/11 security measures and a meandering look at the Iraq war. The different tone of these various pieces is sometimes jarring, and threads started in one don't necessarily have a pay-off in the next. But this structure also gives the film an off-kilter energy, and a sense of passion that may have been intentional.

As for the politics, you'll just have to go see it. I have had mixed feelings about Michael Moore over the past years. I have thought, like many others, that he has done harm to the causes he supports. But not this time. This is a good film, and it's a good liberal film. I don't agree with everything in it, but we should all be damn thankful that he made it and that he made it the way he did.
10:31:47 PM  #  

Before I go to work on Jack Kelly's latest column, I'd like to revisit something he wrote back in April:

The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- who wants to create an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq -- launched an abortive coup which has fizzled. Disdained by most Iraqi Shiite clerics and disliked by most rank-and-file Shiites, Sadr has so far been unable to attract much support beyond his Iranian-financed militia, the "Mahdi Army," whose strength has been estimated at between 3,000 and 10,000. That's a big mob if you can assemble it in one or two places, but a tiny fraction of 14 million to 17 million Shiites.

Kelly's statement has now been proven to be entirely untrue:

Here is the breakdown of Iraqi politicians with regard to the percentage that say they support or strongly support them:

Ali Sistani: 70% Muqtada al-Sadr 67% Ibrahim Jaafari 58% Ahmad al-Kubaisi 55% Abdul Aziz al-Hakim 51% Harith al-Dhari 45% Muhsin Abdul Hamid 45% Muhammad Bahr al-Ulum 44% Adnan Pachachi 41% Abdul Karim al-Muhammadawi 31% Muwaffaq al-Rubaie 29% Iyad Allawi 23% Jalal Talabani 21% Massoud Barzani 19%

Sistani gets support because of his vast moral authority, and Muqtada has picked up support because he has become a symbol of Iraqi aspirations for independence from the US.

This is from a poll conducted by the CPA itself, no liberal media involved. Jack Kelly, always quick to lecture his fellow journalists on professional ethics, has decided this is information you don't need.

Now on to Saturday's column.

Just days away from the hand-over of sovereignty in Iraq, things just aren't improving. Rather than look at the causes (like the Washington Post did), Kelly--The Blade's "national security correspondent"-- just wants to blame the media. "They've picked sides in the Presidential election", he tells us, "they only report the bad news so that Kerry will win". Uh-huh, as if Kelly hasn't already decided that President Bush should win. But even if his charge is true, those journalist who are rooting for Kerry are way ahead of Kelly because at least they report the truth, something that Kelly doesn't bother with much anymore.

Our plans in Iraq was fairly be characterized like this: an attempt to transform the government, economy and society of a good-sized, Middle Eastern country. Such an effort was bound to be immensely complex, expensive, and risky. This is an endeavor fraught with danger, and the press ought to be vigilant--that's their job. When a President puts $200 billion and the lives of American soldiers on the line, he doesn't get a free ride. That's why it isn't surprising that many newspapers didn't cover the story of Private Turner. His heroism tells us a lot about Dwayne Turner, but nothing about the Iraq war. Many, including John Kerry, performed acts of heroism during the Vietnam War, but didn't mean that the war itself was worth the lives that we spent. Pvt. Turner can be a great hero and the war can be a disaster and the actions at Abu Ghraib could have been condoned by high-ranking officers. Journalists aren't morale boosters, they create accountability in government.

Why didn't many newspapers give more attention to Vladimir Putin's claim that his government warned the US about Iraqi attacks after 9/11? Because these claims are bizarre and unlikely to be true. One very good reason to be skeptical is that the US government has claimed no knowledge of a warning from Russia.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters he did not know anything about the information that Putin said Russia passed on. No such information was communicated from Russia through the State Department, he said.

"Everybody's scratching their heads," another State Department official said.

Remember too that Russian was a vocal opponent of the US invasion and claimed that the US had no provocation. This opposition would have been unlikely had direct knowledge of an Iraqi provocation. Recall also that Putin was formerly the head of the Soviet-era KGB--this man does not have a resume that screams "credibility".

It is no surprise that most newspapers did not print on their front pages a claim by the Russian president that the US government denied. And it is strange that Jack Kelly, once a committed cold warrior should give the former head of one of the most murderous spy agencies in the world more credence than he give the State Department. In effect, Kelly is calling Sec. Powell a big fat liar.

Kelly also claimed that the Washington Post was spinning when it claimed that "Kim's death appeared almost certain to broaden opposition in South Korea to the country's already unpopular involvement in Iraq." In fact, opposition to the deployment has grown.

In addition to swelling street demonstrations, the atrocity emboldened 50 members of the National Assembly to endorse a motion urging the government to stop and reconsider the deployment. It would make South Korea the third largest supplier of foreign troops to Iraq, after the United States and Britain. [OE][OE]The environment in Iraq has changed significantly,[base '][base '] the lawmakers said, echoing feelings shared by many street demonstrators. [OE][OE]The government should review again[base '][base '] the sending of troops.

It is true that these lawmakers do not have enough votes to block the deployment, but the beheading has renewed opposition to the government's plans, with an increasing number of South Koreans asking why their government in involved in Iraq.

All the Jack Kelly is able to prove is that the media is doing its job: asking hard questions. If the press is making the administration uncomfortable, that just proves that they are doing their jobs.
11:57:45 AM  #