Skip to content or view screen version

Business Week : Role of Pro-Israel Neocon Hawks in Iraq Invasion

Business Week | 28.07.2004 16:55 | Anti-militarism

"The film goes on about filial revenge and oil, but it never ventures onto really touchy turf -- namely the role of fiercely pro-Israel neocon hawks in convincing Bush to go to war. The elephantine Mr. Moore conveniently fails to mention that other pachyderm in the Democratic room. Why didn't Fahrenheit go there, Mr. Moore?"


An Issue Too Hot for Fahrenheit?

At a Massachusetts political rally, Michael Moore leveled some well-deserved zingers at the media, while ducking a key question
It's hard not to be charmed by Michael Moore, the filmmaker whose anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has been sweeping across the country like a summer forest fire in a drought of truth. He's fat and jolly, smart and sassy, a left-wing Falstaff who has become an overnight sensation in the most unlikely pockets of America.

His film, which attacks the war in Iraq as an invasion mounted under false pretenses, is said to be playing well near military bases. And as Moore told some 800 progressive groupies who gathered somewhat incongruously yesterday in the ballroom of a chain hotel in Cambridge, Mass., for a rally organized by the Campaign for America's Future, he's even making inroads in NASCAR land.

Moore says he was recently channel-surfing when he saw hot, young driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. telling Fox Sports that he took his pit crew to see Fahrenheit. "Then he says," quotes Moore, "'I think all of America should see this movie.' Whoo-hoo! I almost fell off the couch."

Actually, Moore said, he offered up a prayer for George Bush: "Oh, my God, I hope he's not watching this race and eating pretzels."

IN BED, NOT EMBEDDED. Funny stuff, but Moore's barbs aren't aimed just at the President. Yesterday, he seemed just as interested in going after the press. "The unstated villain in the film is our national media," he said. "The film outs them as shills for the Bush Administration...and cheerleaders for the war."

As the crowd hooted its approval, Moore addressed the press: "We need you to do your job. You do us no service...by looking the other way" or failing to ask a hard question for fear of being called un-American.

He was especially harsh on NBC. He called General Electric (GE ), parent of NBC, a "war profiteer" that has $600 million worth of contracts in Iraq. So, he suggested, it's hardly surprising that GE's "news entity" didn't tell the truth about the war. "You haven't just been embedded," he said again to the press, "you've been in bed with the wrong people."

"UNCOOL TO BE APATHETIC." But the press's failings go beyond swallowing the Administration line on Iraq, Moore said. He ridiculed the media mindset that the U.S. is a 50-50 country, almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. He said the press just keeps looking at "likely voters," but September 11 has changed everything, and Nov. 2 will see a sea change because the 50% of America that doesn't vote is now talking politics.

"I have traveled across the country quite a bit in the last year," he said. "It ain't a 50-50 country.... That's the big story that the media has missed.... It's cool now to talk about politics. It's uncool to be apathetic -- that's why Jon Stewart is so popular."

Moore claims that in their hearts, the majority of Americans are liberal and progressive. "There is just a small minority that hate," he said talking about right-wing Republicans. "They are not patriots, they're hate-triots."

DOUBLE STANDARD. As already observed, the man has a zinging wit. And mostly he's right about the media drinking the Administration Kool-Aid on Iraq and being afraid to ask the tough questions. Many in the media were shameful weenies on Iraq, and maybe we do have tunnel vision about the electorate.

But Moore has a double standard about being duped about weapons of mass destruction. He defends John Kerry's vote to invade Iraq because the Democratic about-to-be-nominee like so many other Americans believed in the Commander-in-Chief. The press doesn't get that same pathetic pass.

And despite Moore's brilliant use of humor and pathos to deliver a political broadside, Fahrenheit is seriously flawed. A critic as tough as Michael Moore could make the case that the great auteur has foisted on the country an argument against U.S. involvement in Iraq that avoids the central reason behind the invasion. Talk about being chicken-hearted and missing the big story.

The film goes on about filial revenge and oil, but it never ventures onto really touchy turf -- namely the role of fiercely pro-Israel neocon hawks in convincing Bush to go to war. The elephantine Mr. Moore conveniently fails to mention that other pachyderm in the Democratic room. Why didn't Fahrenheit go there, Mr. Moore?


Scotti, senior editor for government and sports business, offers his views every week in A Not-So-Neutral Corner, only for BusinessWeek Online

 http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2004/nf20040728_2965_db009.htm


Business Week

Comments

Hide the following comment

you are talking nonsense

30.07.2004 06:49

I dislike michael moore but this is just stupid, britsh and US imperialism in iraq dates back long before the creation of israel. If israel didn't exist they'd invade iraq just the same. The formation fo the state and the gassing of kurdish minorities by british troops in the 20's for example had nothing to do with israel because it didn't exist then, but the oil reserves always existed.

The fact that Ssddam tried to use popular racism as a rallying point when he froze exports in 2000 hardly proves anything, afterall it failed, because it turns out that while a lot of arab governments are racist towards the jewish population in the region, they dislike the palestinains even more, which explains why the palestinians are left to suffer in refugee camps with no real aid sent from anywhere.
It doesn't exactly take a genius then to work out that the invasion of iraq has considrably weakened israels position in the region, the US new that would happen, but they went ahead anyway.

The key reasons for invading iraq was a showcase for selling new weapons and a way to secure oil reserves after the oil for food program, which kept saddam in power for another decade, finally started to fall apart. The existence of israel has little or nothing to do with it, and if israel didn't exist or existed as a small semi-autonomous populated zone, which is what could have happened, then we'd still see a similar outcome today in the middle east.

He missed out on your so called ''big story'' because your ''big story'' is a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense that appeals to a lot of the woolly liberals that seem to make up the IMC these days, because it gives them a nice scapegoat for the horrors of capitalism rather than actually attacking the political and economic system itself.

Still left wing