You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore
2004-06-22
By Christopher Hitchens
Mikey, you do not want Chris Hitchens chewing a hole in your behind; it is going to hurt.

Example: " I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."

Another: "If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture."
Posted by:Steve White

#33  Ahhh, the pleasure of watching Michael Moore's hallarious FARENHEIHT 911!

No "props" needed to be built, no facts had to be "created," no one had to "read" for the leading part!

'Ol Michael just assembled the facts, "nothing but the facts Ma'dam!"

The scene of the politician refusing to discuss "sending his kid to Iraq" was a jewell!

The last 5 minutes of 'Ol DUMB NUTS staring into space "As Rome Burned," tells us loads about why a CHICKEN HAWK DRAFT DODGER (including GPA C- students) should never be elevated to the highest position in the country.

Will America repeat its mistake of 2,000 in 2004?

Over the dead bodies of our young warriors!

TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.
DBA: IDidntVote4TheBasTerd@msn.com
Posted by: TheAZCowBoy   2004-10-30 11:53:55 AM  

#32  There is a refutation of Unfairenheit 9/11 provided here.
Posted by: Tim Blake   2004-07-04 8:00:00 AM  

#31  "If there is one guy in the world I would like to see get charged with an iron-clad pedophelia case, he is it."

Leave it to you idiots to see only one side of an issue. For MM to be charged with an iron-clad pedophelia case, it would mean that a child was abused. You narrow-minded folk don't care what innocent by-standers get hurt so long as your ultimate goal, regardless of how petty, is met. No wonder this country is in the shape that its in.
Posted by: If not holier - smarter than thou   2004-06-30 8:26:29 PM  

#30  Moore is such a friggin' coward too. I loved how Hitchen's and Slate (via Shafer) called him out. There's no way in hell he will appear on the same stage with Hitchens now. The F movie (better nickname solicited hereby) is getting very good reviews by the critics. They should read Hitchens first, because their ignorant reviews all sound moronic afterward.
Posted by: sludj   2004-06-22 8:18:01 PM  

#29  If there is one guy in the world I would like to see get charged with an iron-clad pedophelia case, he is it."

LOL!!! He's got that look about him doesn't he?
Posted by: B   2004-06-22 5:07:22 PM  

#28  this screed by Hitchens has been spread far and wide on the blogs today...heh heh. Seems to be a lot of Schadefreude at his expense. Couldn't happen to a bigger Piece Of Shit better guy
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-22 5:02:26 PM  

#27  Absolutely beautiful. I almost hope Moore sues over this; it would be wonderful to see that fat, arrogant, tactless, ugly jerk having his ass handed to him.
Posted by: The Doctor   2004-06-22 4:46:30 PM  

#26  B, I think that was the last line in his Reagan screed. I haven't read the Bleat today, but will head over there now. BTW: check out Wretchard today. Man, can that guy write.

A friend said something about Moore a couple of weeks ago that I thought quite apt. "If there is one guy in the world I would like to see get charged with an iron-clad pedophelia case, he is it."
Posted by: remote man   2004-06-22 4:27:25 PM  

#25  I would agree that he probably wrote the Reagan piece while drunk...however...it seemed to me that what he was saying in the Reagan piece was....

that he saw [past tense] Reagan as less than a hedgehog, but then "then the wall fell" and he noted that his liberal friends curiously would rather have had the likes of Dimmy or Mondale rather than see the wall come down. He then went on to wonder aloud why lefties seemed to share a psychosis in needing to knock down leaders to make themselves seem important.

I guess I just don't see how that isn't consistent with his life's journey. It's hardly a Reagan slam - more of a self-slam of his previous ability to see Reagan clearly.
Posted by: B   2004-06-22 2:48:21 PM  

#24  Zpaz, I saw them both and totally agree. Hitchens is great when he is mildly hung over, but not when he is still drunk from the night before. See Lileks post today about this Hitchens piece: "Ever wondered if there’s a literary equivalent of someone attacking a hanging side of beef with a chain saw? Wonder no more. And if you think he’s some reflexive right-wing hack, read his Reagan piece. I am reasonably sure he wrote both pieces in the same state of furious irritated inebriation, and both strike me as two-pack essays. Forty cigarettes, minimum. Of course, you don’t know if he’s one of those light-‘em-and-leave’-em writers who fire up a Winston, set it aside, pound furiously for four minutes, take that last toxic plastic-tasting drag that makes you think I hate cigarettes for a fleeing second, or whether he parks the butt in the corner of his mouth and smokes as he writes, getting ashes all over the place. I suspect the latter. I suspect he is one of those writers who doesn’t empty the ashtray until the piece is done, and occasionally will use the butt to clear away some empty real estate in the ashtray so the cigarette doesn’t relight the discarded filters.

If he’s a filter man. Probably so. Otherwise he’d have to shave his tongue with a straight edge every morning. Steady, lad. Steady. Hold the wrist with the other hand if you have to. Ah, to hell with it."
Posted by: Sludj   2004-06-22 2:39:43 PM  

#23  That can't be Moore -- not ugly enough and not nearly fat enough.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-06-22 12:18:16 PM  

#22  It has impressed me that there are eloquent spokesmen of the left who have a world view when it comes to the BIG ISSUE.

In the war on terror, Hitchens has acquitted himself well, and in a well spoken comment by John in Tokyo, above, . . .But when he takes your side (i.e., when he's right), he can be the most powerful spokesman. For 3 years, he has been one of the most eloquent defenders of the war on terror.

Couldn't have said it better. I am over being a little pissed at Hitchens over remarks I thought were unkind, re: Ronald Reagan. Let's get back to the focusing on the WoT and the egomaniachal false preachings of an overfed idealogue.

(starwars.com)

Michael Moore

Posted by: BigEd   2004-06-22 12:16:39 PM  

#21  Did anyone catch the two LA Book Fair Debates about the Iraq war? They were carried on C-SPAN. On one side was Christopher Hitchens and Michael Ignatieff. On the other side was Robert Scheer of the LA Times and Mark Danner of The New Yorker. The debates are memorable because they were so tense and ugly at times. The pre-war debate was a resounding victory for Hitch and company. The second debate was this past April during the height of Sadr/Fallujah. Ignatieff practically capitulated. Hitch by himself got knocked out of the saddle. The other side simply was able to count more baby ducks and wring their hands louder. It is good to see Hitch back in the saddle.
Posted by: Zpaz   2004-06-22 11:41:05 AM  

#20  Gee Communism and National Socialism got a lot of WORLD attention, they must be good too? What a MOROON! Love the article and I don’t usually read from slate but this article hit a home run with me.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2004-06-22 11:13:31 AM  

#19  Frank--

Antisemite has never, ever read Orwell. She's barely heard of him. Remember how she didn't think anyone supported both Hitler and Stalin?
Posted by: BMN   2004-06-22 10:47:43 AM  

#18  I guess Shrek is true too! Whoda thunk it!
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-22 10:32:24 AM  

#17  I suppose that A5296 also believes in racist ideology and the dangers of witchcraft, since both of these have received, and continue to receive, a great deal more "world attention" than the ravings of the Ham-ass terrorist, Mike Al-Moor.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-06-22 10:20:32 AM  

#16  Analinguist 5296 sez:
"If the film is nothing but lies, why is it getting the world attention?"
So, "world attention" is the test of truth? You cannot possibly be that stupid.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-06-22 10:17:48 AM  

#15  From Frank's quote of Hitchens quoting Orwell:

Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …


Two years ago, I found an essay from H.G. Wells that sounds the same notes.

This part of his description of the "Yielding Pacifist" should sound familiar:

The vulgarity and crudity of the things nearest him impressed him most; the dreadful insincerity of the Press, the meretriciousness of success, the loudness of the rich, the baseness of common people in his own land. The world overseas had by comparison a certain glamour. Except that when you said "United States" to him he would draw the air sharply between his teeth and beg you not to...


Wells and Orwell were describing the same mindset. We can all point to people today who exemplify that mindset. What a pity that some people never seem to learn...
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-06-22 10:06:37 AM  

#14  I'm all for free speech and think that the only thing between MM and obscurity is that big media showers him with attention for political purposes.

But, at what point do you cross the line between spin and outright slander?
Posted by: B   2004-06-22 9:51:04 AM  

#13  nice bit in there for Antiwar and her ilk:

If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-22 9:42:00 AM  

#12  Anon5296 - It gets world attention in 2 ways:

1) in the same manner that a bloody car wreck attracts sick twisted assholes and fuckwits to gawp and gape

2) because there is a significant population segment, approx 50%, with an IQ under 100 - some, such as yourself, significantly lower

And who, pray-tell, is the "Zionist conservative right"? Hmmm?

You've read too many supermarket tabloids and viewed too many Michael Moore turds, I'm afraid. Yes, it shows...

Quick cognitive dissonance quiz:
1) Elvis, dead or alive?
2) Space Aliens, why are they interested in probing your ass?
3) Are they also curious why your head resides there?

HAND
Posted by: .com   2004-06-22 9:38:44 AM  

#11  Key graf We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

The left has to choose between what its against and what its FOR. Real leftism on the ground in Islamic world is the bitter enemy of both Jihadism and Baathist Fascism. So is it more important to oppose the US and UK, especially the Bush Admin, or to support the goals and aspirations of progressives in the Islamic world, and oppose fascist movements in the Islamic world. Hitchens and Paul Berman have chose one path, Michael Moore has chosen another.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-06-22 9:38:22 AM  

#10  KoolAid drinkers like A5296 will read Hitchens' rip-n-tear and see a two-thumbs-up on this piece of crap. The Academy should be horsewhipped for fraud if they call this a documentary
Posted by: Frank G   2004-06-22 9:35:21 AM  

#9  There's that Zionist word again.
Posted by: Anonymous4021   2004-06-22 9:32:47 AM  

#8  What true facts?Be specific
Posted by: Raptor   2004-06-22 8:49:12 AM  

#7  Ye Gods! When Hitchens is on a tear, he sure tears 'em up!
Posted by: Mike   2004-06-22 6:24:40 AM  

#6  If the film is nothing but lies, why is it getting the world attention? Why can not the Zionist conservative right acknowledge the true facts mentioned in the film?
Posted by: Anonymous5296   2004-06-22 6:21:39 AM  

#5  Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

How pathetic of an individual does one have to be to follow MM?
Posted by: B   2004-06-22 3:58:02 AM  

#4  Hitchens is a real master when it comes to polemics. Even when he takes bizarre and wrong-headed positions on other issues, you have to admire his talent even when you disagree. In fact you have to appreciate how hard it is to disagree with him, even when you know in your gut that he's wrong.

But when he takes your side (i.e., when he's right), he can be the most powerful spokesman. For 3 years, he has been one of the most eloquent defenders of the war on terror.
Posted by: John in Tokyo   2004-06-22 2:23:36 AM  

#3  I just love it when they eat their own. :)
Even more vicious and biting than when they're fully involved in an episode of BDS.
Posted by: therien   2004-06-22 1:58:25 AM  

#2  I read the entire article and was absolutely floored. That was one of the most articulate, verbal disassembly and dismemberments I have ever witnessed. Hitchens is scary.
Posted by: anymouse   2004-06-22 1:45:48 AM  

#1  Moore reminds me of something I occasionally pick on the soles of my shoe.

Posted by: Mark Espinola   2004-06-22 1:40:48 AM  

00:00