Fahrenheit 911 ("F9") - some notes

Many able and astute pundits have already dissected the broad claims – or, more accurately, innuendos – of Fahrenheit 911 and called attention to the glaring inconsistency, occasional dishonesty, and general incoherence of the film. Most noteworthy, perhaps, is Christopher Hitchens’s devastating review for Slate.com, which has become somthing of an instant-classic, due both to its trenchant analysis and the reviewer’s impeccable liberal credentials.

Indeed, Hitchens and a gaggle of others (who, by the way, seem more than a tad reliant on Hitchens) do an excellent job of unraveling, scrutinizing, and questioning/demolishing the foundations of the Moore’s thesis. Therefore, I see little point in sharing my thoughts – which generally parallel those of Hitchens and others – about the general effectiveness of the movie as an argument criticizing the decisions made by (and the character of) President Bush and his administration; in short, F9 is not a convincing argument, or even a very good one.

However, fortunately (sort of), F9 is a movie rich with material to be commented upon – a lot of bad arguments, but some genuinely entertaining and otherwise noteworthy parts, as well – and I am happy to share with you some of the discrete thoughts that occurred to me while I watched the movie. Indeed, I am half-tempted to see it again, with a proper notebook in hand rather than the napkins from Dougies upon which I scribbled mostly indecipherable notes, to record my impressions more completely and to mine some new nuggets that I undoubtedly missed during the first showing. I present some of my points here in no particular order (much like the scenes in the movie itself), with some discussion. They are my own, though I wouldn’t be surprised if others have had similar ideas. Also, I want to emphasize that my quotes are not exact, since I don’t have a recording or transcript of the movie.


1)Early in the movie, Moore (as narrator) calls the events of 9/11/01 “the worst attacks on US soil,” or something to that effect. He does not refer to them as “terror” attacks or as attacks perpetrated by “terrorists.” This would not be surprising, except that – a few minutes later – he brings up the attack on the WTC that took place in the 1990s, and he does refer to it as a “terror attack” (or to the perpetrators as “terrorists” – I don’t recall exactly).

He seems to be making some sort of distinction between the two, although I’m not at all sure what it is. Why would the attack in the 1990s be terrorism while 9/11 was not?

Perhaps Moore provides the answer when he tells us, in a pointedly gratuitous (and, therefore, suggestive) aside, that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated against the “financial and military” centers of the country. Is Moore suggesting that 9/11 was an act of war and therefore not terrorism? Maybe.

[The obvious objection is that the “financial center” of the country was attacked in the 1990s as well, so that should be an act of war, too (and, therefore, according to Moore, not be “terror”). The only (twisted) rationale that I can come up with for the distinction Moore makes is that the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon, specifically, sort of transformed the entire 9/11 enterprise into an act of war. And, as a result, the attacks on the WTC are subsumed under the general rubric of the “military action.”]


2)During a segment poking fun at the “terror alerts” disseminated by the administration following 9/11, Moore cuts to a number of still-frames, focusing on each image for no more than a fraction of a second. I’m guessing that it escaped the attention of most viewers, but one of these images struck me as hilariously funny: a picture of two cops on “terror alert,” standing right in front of a Dunkin’ Donuts.

This seems like a fitting point to note that, despite the movie’s ineffectiveness as an argument (see above), it is at times extremely entertaining.

In a similarly light moment – making fun, this time, of America’s coalition partners in Iraq, rather than of law enforcement officials – Moore mentions the Netherlands amidst the on-screen backdrop of a huge weed-filled pipe. Never thought I’d see a liberal making fun of marijuana users.


3)While we’re on the subject of the coalition…One of the tactics Moore uses (pointed out by virtually every reviewer) is providing only the information that serves to prove his point; but he takes this to extraordinary lengths, to the point that he will omit any information – no matter how vital to a real understanding of the situation – that undermines his point. A perfect, and fairly ridiculous, example of this is the roster he presents of America’s coalition partners. He mentions only the most insignificant countries in order to emphasize how alone America is in the war against Iraq. Of the 47 or so countries in the coalition, Moore mentions just a few: Palau, Costa Rico, Iceland, the Netherlands, Micronesia, Morocco (which offered monkeys to set off landmines, another humorous bit) and a couple of other countries. As Moore points out, these countries are of limited use, since they don’t have much, if any military capability.

Of course, this sort of argument is so stupid that it hurts. Arguing that we have no reliable military allies by simply not naming them?! Exactly. And the NY Yankees currently have a terrible team. I mean, just look at them – a pitching staff of Bret Prinz, Tanyon Sturtze, and Brad Halsey; and “sluggers” like Bubba Crosby, Miguel Cairo, and Enrique Wilson. They’ll be lucky to win 50 games. Unimpeachable logic, right?


4)Amidst a segment in which Moore attempts to show how convincingly the American people were duped by Bush, we discover that Britney Spears supports the President and, presumably, the war effort. As if we needed more proof that she’s hot.


5)One of Moore’s star witnesses is “Baghdad” James McDermott, the anti-war Democratic Congressman from the state of Washington who claimed earlier this year that the timing of Saddam’s capture was politically motivated – Saddam having been captured earlier and held, secretly, by the Bush administration. Anyway, I know this is gonna sound weird (and perhaps petty/irrelevant), and maybe it is, but check out this dude’s eyes; among the spookiest eyes I’ve ever seen. (Right up there with alleged shoe-bomber Richard Reid). Photographs don’t do them justice.


6)From the “facts that must be checked” department: Moore is incredibly enamored with making grandiose statements. The entire movie, in fact, is basically one long, grandiose statement. But are they accurate? Well, let’s start with this one. In the opening segment, detailing the election “stolen” by the Bush administration, Moore describes the protests on the day of the Bush inauguration as something “that had never been seen before in Washington.”

This would be meaningfully true, of course, if Moore had finished the sentence with the words, “since 1973,” 1973 being the year that Nixon’s inauguration drew between 25,000 and 100,000 protestors (according to conventional estimates cited by news reports and liberal organizations), as opposed to the perhaps 20,000 people who – organizers said – “would take part in the weekend demonstrations [at Bush's inauguration].”

See, but Moore is a slippery debater. He doesn’t actually say that the anti-Bush protest was the largest protest at a Presidential inauguration; such a statement could be shown to be false. He’s too clever for that. Instead, he makes a rather general statement that is true but actually doesn’t mean anything of substance, and which therefore cannot be proven false. “Washington had never seen anything like it.” What does he mean? That there had never previously been protests of a Presidential inauguration? Well, no. That it was the biggest protest? Well, no. That there had never been a protest of a Republican presidential inauguration in a year beginning with 2? The point is – if there’s anything unique about the 2001 protests, no matter how minor or trivial, then Moore’s statement is by definition true. But it doesn’t have any value, except – of course – the rhetorical value that Moore skillfully instills in it.

[By the way, a similarly tricky tactic is used in advertising: e.g. “Food X may reduce the threat of heart attack.” This is a true statement. But it doesn’t mean anything. Yeah, it may reduce the risk of heart attack, but it may not. It would be a strange commercial, but a clothing company would be equally justified in claiming that “Brand Y jeans may reduce the risk of heart attacks.” Whenever you hear a modal verb in a commercial – can, may, etc. – most likely a vacuously true statement will follow.]

Ok. That’s all I have patience for right now. I may add some more at some point.