Fahrenheit 9/11

[bcholmes]

Would the major news outlets in the U.S. be serving their readers and viewers better by looking more closely, for example, at the relationship between the Bushes and the Saudis that is covered in Fahrenheit 9/11 [...] Or is it by saying Moore has only asked questions, presented circumstantial evidence or produced a piece of hate propaganda?

-- "Missing Fahrenheit 9/11's forest for the trees", CTV.ca

I basically agree with the thesis of this article.

Comments

[skylark-10.livejournal.com]

exactly. the attacks on this film have almost all taken the tack of trying to demonstrate that moore "lies" by playing certain kinds of images against each other that may not actually relate. but it's a smokescreen for larger, much more danegrous issues which are so glaring that they can't get near them withouth getting burned:

is it not possible that our relations with the saudis are more problematic than we are led to believe, and that the demonization of saddam is in part a cover for this?

what are leadership qualities of a man with no credentials of success, and whose response to a national tragedy is to bite his lip for a while?

what purpose are served by conflating "supporting our troops" with the policies that place them in harm's way in the first place?

where is the conscience of a nation whose armed forces are overstocked with the underprivileged?

was destroying a country's life really necessary? and how arrogant are we to have believed that we would not be hated for it?

and so on.