Klarinet Archive - Posting 000524.txt from 2004/06

From: Jeremy A Schiffer <schiffer@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [kl] The Bush Junta
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:42:44 -0400

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Bill Hausmann wrote:

> At 05:11 PM 6/29/2004 -0400, Jeremy Schiffer wrote:
>> And keep in mind that he hired an entire team of fact-checkers (from the
>> New Yorker magazine and others) to make sure that _this_ movie got
>> everything right. Thus far, despite all the hype and hysteria, no one is
>> pointing to actual scenes from _this_ film and saying 'this is wrong.'
>> Talk all you want about his style (arrogant, grating, patronizing...), but
>> he apparently dotted his i's and crossed his t's for Fahrenheit 9/11. The
>> movie's been out seven days in New York, and that's more than enough time
>> for critics to assail any errors. Once you get past the partisan furor,
>> though, there's been almost nothing to call the facts presented in the
>> movie to question.
>>
> You haven't been paying attention. This from the normally rabidly liberal
> Slate magazine:
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Oh my god, this is too funny. You're pointing out the Hitchens ad-hominem
attack article (which I read days ago, by the way) as something coming
from the 'liberal media?' Do you not know who Christopher Hitchens is? The
guy's a former Trotskyite who got fed up with the left and went the way of
the Neocon. He was one of the most rabid voices cheering on the buildup
and the invasion. That's like pointing to William Safire's Op/Ed in the
Times and saying 'look, this is the what the liberals think about this
subject becuase it's coming from the NYTimes.'

It seems that you're just not familiar with the way the 'liberal' media
works. Unlike publications run by conservative organizations (Washington
Times, NY Post, FOX News), which don't publish opposing voices, the more
'liberal' media will actually give space to conservatives to be heard.
Novel concept, huh?

The fact is, if you actually read the article you linked (I know, it's
hard to get through Hitchens' diatribes sometimes), it didn't point out
any facts that were incorrect, it focused mostly on bashing Moore for
things that *weren't* in the movie (his lack of a harsh treatment of
Saddam) as well as the things I mentioned originally about his maddeningly
patronizing style. Additionally, if you follow the link (and read it) for
the article where Richard Clarke supposedly took full responsibility for
the post-9/11 Saudi flights (the one area where the facts are in dispute),
you discover quickly that Clarke didn't say what Hitchens claims he said.
Even the headline on that story is rather misleading, given what it says
several paragraphs in.

So, if you're going to try to say I'm wrong, don't point to a misleading,
poorly written article that nonetheless proves my point. Not that I mind,
but it doesn't make you look too sharp.

-jeremy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org