No, I haven't seen F911 yet. And with a certain superhero movie now in theaters, I can't say it's my top priority. But I'm happy to keep rounding up other people's idiotic responses to the film -- on both sides.
First blowhard up, Michael Moore himself. You may know that some people played a little gotcha with MM because he failed to acknowledge in the flick that the guy who authorized those controversial Bin Laden family flights is the same guy who, in other sections of the film, is cast as the hero: Richard Clarke.
My guess is that Moore simply made a stupid miscalculation. As a heavy-handed propagandist he thought, "Just don't mention the stuff that causes people to question anything about my argument." A more deft propagandist would know that raising small questions about your own point of view is actually what wins people over to your side, making you look fair-minded. If he'd simply said, "The call was made by Richard Clarke. Nobody's perfect," it might get a chuckle and people could focus on the important part of the story: the flights themselves.
Hell, Moore probably didn't even think it through that far. But once it became an issue, he had an obligation not to dissemble about it, which is just what he did. Here's what Jake Tapper asked him on ABC News: "What the film does not mention is that Richard Clarke says that he OK'd those flights. Is it fair to not mention that?"
Moore's response: "Actually I do, I put up The New York Times article and it's blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke's name right there saying that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It's right there, right up on the screen. I don't agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he's good on a lot of things doesn't mean I agree with him on everything."
Yes, I'm sure MM really believes that when he flashes an article on the screen, the audience is not just going to look at the headline, they're going to read the entire thing, and make note of every person who's quoted in it. The second part of his statement is fine. Why didn't he just say that?
But Moore's critics are stooping even lower than that. Apparently unable to catch him in any major falsehoods, they're changing his words in order to trip him up. Drew has the scoop:
I came across the link to a transcript for the first half of Fahrenheit 9/11 that was done by [right wingnuts] redlinerants.com.... There's been a great deal of criticism (fueled by a Newsweek article) which alleges that the film claims that the Bin Laden family members weren't interviewed before leaving the country. Michael Moore refutes the claim here, where he quotes an exchange from the movie:
Moore: "So a little interview, check the passport, what else?"
Unger: "Nothing."
But according to redlinerants.com's transcript?
NARRATOR: So what did they do, they checked the passports, what else?
CRAIG UNGER: Nothing.
See the problem? This isn't a semantics issue, there's a whole world of difference between the two quotes, and Moore is getting creamed for this so-called omission. So I took it upon myself to make a 10 second AVI clip of the scene. There's absolutely no question whatsoever that Moore said "A little interview, check the passport, what else?"
Can this issue officially die now?
Die? Drew, you crazy dreamer!
But the homerun blowhard king is, of course, Jack Valenti. Per Defamer: "The MPAA is disallowing a quote by Roger Ebert caddy Richard Roeper that it wanted to use in its ad campaign. The offending quote: 'Everyone should see this film.' You see, F 9/11 lost a ratings appeal and carries an R rating, so the MPAA interprets that 'everyone' as a call to violate the age restriction the rating carries."
If that's true, and not just another MM publicity stunt, that's the stupidist thing I've heard from the MPAA in, like, a week.
