Lying About Moore's Lies

Just heard Christopher Hitchens on Dennis Miller's show lying about Michael Moore's lies. Miller claimed that Moore says in his documentary that Hussein never tried to hurt any Americans. He then complains that Moore refers to Hussein's plan to assassinate Bush Sr later in the flick. So according to Hitchens, Moore's contradicted himself.

Only, in spirit he hasn't. Moore never said Hussein never tried to hurt any Americans. He said Iraq never murdered any Americans. Moore may be ignoring some of the points Hitchens makes in his article, but that's a separate case anyway. Moore's real point was that our forces have killed so many innocents in Iraq, but Iraq hadn't attacked us (Al Qaeda had). So Hitchens is taking Moore out of context and misquoting him, too.

Furthermore, in his recent diatribe against Fahrenheit 911 (which so many on the right are salivating over), Hitchens tries to draw further connections between Hussein and attacks on Americans by saying that Saddam financed suicide bombers in Israel . . . and "wuite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem." So Saddam was attacking Americans. Only the argument is ludicrous: there are Americans on the street of every major city in *the world*. Saddam wasn't singling Americans out in those cases. This argument is as intellectually irresponsible (and dishonest) as any case Moore’s ever made. It's the same inane game of connect the dots the administration's been playing with Al Qaeda and Iraq. It's also an argument steeped in emotion, since if you point out the disparity here, Hitchens can complain that you're not concerned about suicide bombers in Israel—which isn't the point, of course. We all know Hussein was a wicked man. But, again, the point is Moore is trying to say Iraq didn't attack the United States (and that Al Qaeda did), while Hitchens is trying to say Hussein tried to kill Americans, and in that particular example he obviously wasn't.

It's not that Moore *doesn't* deceive—he does. Arguably, he allows viewers to conflate the fact that Iraq didn't attack the United States with the fallacious idea that Hussein had no ill intent towards any American—in much the same way that Bush's adminstration allowed Americans to conflate 9/11 with the war in Iraq to the point that 70% of Americans believe Iraq attacked America. If Moor eintends for that conflation to succeed, then he's just as bad as the adminstration which goes to no great lengths to point out that the "Iraq attacked America" meme is nothing more than an (arguably artifically constructed) urban legend.

I was also very disappointed that Moore used Richard Clark when doing so suited his purposes, yet almost entirely ignores the fact that Clarke played an instrumental role in aiding the Bin Ladens’ egress from the United States immediately after 9/11. Hitchens was right to point this out, too.

But, Hitch, if you're going to criticize Moore, don't make shit up. All that proves is that partisan folks on both sides are willing to manipulate the truth and are (apparently) blind to the fact that they're doing it, yet jump at the chance to point out when other do the same.

What are we left with then? The grave necessity of sorting through all we've heard from both sides in order to honestly determine what's going on. Unfortunately—let’s be honest—few take that challenge.

But you know what, Mr. Hitchens? I know and you know, there's a lot of truth in Moore's documentary that you're glossing over.