Debunking Farenheit 9/11
by Brittany Craigo
For months, many have anticipated the debut of Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11. What would he say? What would he uncover? What new theory would he attempt to convince the public of, by cutting and pasting strips of footage, as he did in Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me? I had heard about many of the phony claims and conspiracy theories to occur in Farenheit 9/11. And I knew that sooner or later, I would be forced to debate one of the many automatons who had been indoctrinated by his socialist propaganda. I knew, however, that I couldn’t critique a movie that I had not seen without being disingenuous. So I strapped on my Bush gear and headed toward the theatre to watch the quasi communist in action.
The movie opens with the 2000 election. I was baffled to hear Moore claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida.” Which numerous investigations were these? The New York Times1, the Washington Post,2 and USA Today,3 reported the same consensus after both recounts: George W. Bush won. I’m willing to accept the fact that, nationally, Gore won the popular vote. That is accurate. However, we have something called the “electoral college.” But to claim that “numerous investigations said that Gore won Florida” is preposterous! This is undoubtedly why Moore didn’t choose to name these “numerous sources.” There were none.
Then, in a pure pathetic act, Moore shows footage of CNN calling Florida for Gore, followed by Fox News calling Florida for Bush, and then CNN retracting their previous claim. The theory here was that Gore had won Florida and numerous stations announced it until, lo and behold, Fox News said Bush won Florida and the rest of the news stations “followed their lead.” First off, the notion that CNN and the rest of the news stations would all of a sudden change the results to fit those of one station- Fox News- is ridiculous. I highly doubt that Tom Brokaw sat; waiting for what Fox said in order to “follow their lead.” If that were the case, I would argue that CNN and all the rest who changed their results, to fit those of Fox News, should be wiped off the face of journalism as we know it. Just imagine it: “Well... Fox News said Bush won... we better say Bush won too!” Give me a break.
Why did Fox News call Florida for Bush? They didn’t. Fox News, along with CNN, ABC, NBC etc. all incorrectly called Florida for Gore more than an hour before polls had closed in several conservative Florida counties.4 After getting wind of the fact that they were all wrong, Fox News and the rest of the stations retracted their statements. But what does Moore do in this movie? The same thing he does in all of his movies. He spliced and diced the footage to make it seem as though Fox News deliberately lied and somehow convinced the rest of the stations to lie too. But there is a much more important fact that Moore unintentionally raises here: By calling Florida for Gore before the polls had closed in these highly Republican counties, residents didn’t bother to vote, since the election had already been called in Gore’s favor. According to Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, Bush lost up to 8,000 votes because of the media’s reporting errors.5 But Moore didn’t mention this. Instead he mentions that George W. Bush’s cousin was working for Fox News that night. What he fails to mention, however, is that, as previously noted, Fox News called Florida for Gore as well and by the time Fox had corrected itself and announced Florida for Bush at 2:16 a.m., all polls were already closed and there was no harm to be done. I wonder how Moore missed all those facts.6
After the Florida debacle, Michael Moore introduces us to the ‘convoluted’ relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud. First off, though wouldn’t consider myself “politically correct,” and though I think that the Saudi government is obviously not one of perfection, I found Moore’s depiction of the Saudis to be unfair. The fact that Michael Moore chose to lump all Saudis and members of the Royal Saudi family into the terrorism category is completely hypocritical. Isn’t Michael Moore supposed to be the liberal-minded peace-keeper, looking out for minorities and such? His attempt to convince ignorant viewers that the House of Saud is only akin to George Bush is a pure example of his manipulative nature. Needless to say, I was beyond surprised when those surrounding me in the movie theatre shook their heads at every Saudi that flashed upon the screen. Imagine if someone had depicted all blacks as Black Panthers or all Moslems as part of the Taliban! That isn’t ok. But depicting every Saudi as a terrorist is, simply because they have a relationship with America and, thus, its current president.
Moreover, if Bush “wakes up in the morning, thinking about what’s best for the Saudis, rather than thinking about what’s best for you” (as Moore claims), why did we invade Iraq? By invading Iraq and securing those oil fields, the Saudis probably stood to lose billions of dollars! Aside from that, the Saudi family members are Sunnis; the thought that we would liberate the Shiites of Iraq plagued them with fear. This is precisely why King Fahd exclaimed, before we went to war, that Saudi Arabia “rejects outright any infringement on Iraq’s unity, independence, resources and internal security, as well as a military occupation”7 Michael Moore, however, presumes that maybe Bush “told Prince Bandhar not to worry because he already had a plan” (meaning Iraq). Yes, “don’t worry Prince Bandhar. We’ll soon be taking billions of dollars away from your family and liberating your archenemy!” I’m sure that made the prince feel wonderful. Moore obviously lacks common sense on this issue, or at least hopes his audience does.
In addition, Moore’s overexerted attempt to paint the Bush-Bin Laden connection as anything spectacular is ridiculous. As the movie notes, the Bush family was connected to the Bin Ladens, (who claim to have disowned Osama), through the Carlyle Group. But the Carlyle group is a highly connected D.C. firm that specializes in aerospace and defense investments, so good luck finding any government official who isn’t tied to the Bin Ladens. Even George Soros, who is probably the most anti-Bush figure in America right now, has 100,000,000 dollars invested in the Carlyle Group; Bill Clinton is affiliated with the Carlyle Group, along with his former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright8 and, according to John Hardman, “Jimmy Carter met with 10 of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers early in 2000 on a fund-raising trip for the Carter Center in Atlanta.” If you ask me, George Bush needs a few more Saudi friends in order to keep up with the Democrats!
The Bush-Bin Laden “connection” all comes into play as we “learn” that the White House allowed the Bin Laden family to fly out of America after the attacks. I can’t blame Michael Moore for this mistake because there have been many new revelations since he began making his film. In fact, in an interview with The Hill, Richard Clark, the ex terrorism czar who recently wrote a book denouncing the Bush administration, admitted that it was his own sole decision to allow the Bin Ladens to fly out of the country. He stated that, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”9 While Moore was most likely unaware of this fact at the time he was making his movie, he was dishonest in implying that the Bin Ladens’ departure from the U.S. was on September 11th, while all other planes were grounded. In fact, the Bin Ladens departed in the days following September 11th, when the grounding for commercial flights had already been lifted.
Moore also accuses Bush of “taking too many vacations.” We’ve all heard this before. He cites a Washington Post article, claiming that during the first eight months in office, Bush was on “vacation” 42% of the time. I decided to do a little research on that article and- surprise surprise- found his claims to be a bit, shall we say, “off.” It was actually the first year and eight months in office and included trips to foreign nations to discuss foreign policy. According to that Washington Post article, most of that time was spent in Camp David.10 Perhaps this is why one of the photos we see of Bush “vacationing” at Camp David, is a picture of George W. Bush and none other than Tony Blair- the Prime Minister of England. And while Moore attempts to leave the audience with the impression that Camp David is a place for lounging and drinking beer, Wikipedia Encyclopedia states that it “[is] often used for formal and informal discussion between the United States and world leaders,” and cites many historical negotiations that have taken place there.11
Moore finally takes his biggest cheap shot at President Bush; chastising him for continuing to calmly read to students in Florida (for seven minutes) after just having been informed that the World Trade Center had been attacked. I couldn’t help but giggle at this one. You know that leftists have got their panties in a twist, when they resort to this in order to criticize the president. I suppose Moore expected Bush to live up to his “cowboy status” by pulling a Glock out of a holster and yelling, “BRING ‘EM ON!” On the contrary, Bush acted in a complete professional manner. Anyone could clearly see from the expression on his face, that he was in complete shock and distress, though he remained calm. In fact, the teacher who was in the room, at the time, recently came rushing to Bush’s defense, explaining that his calming effect had, “helped us get through a very difficult day.” She admitted that she had not voted for Bush, but said, “That day I would have voted for him.”12 Ouch.
