Fahrenheit 911: Not one mention of Neoconservatives

[The Stranger]

I liked the movie. But I was stunned that there was no investigation, no explanation, hardly a mention of the fact that a group of Neoconservatives hatched a plan that had used September 11, 2001 to launch plans against Iraq that had been formulated nearly seven years earlier.

Nice photos of Wolfowitz sucking on his comb, but nothing exposing him or Richard Perle, William Kristol, Norman Podheretz, Scooter Libby, the Project for the New American Century, or even really Donald Rumsfeld in any substantive way. I don't think the word "Neoconservative" was mentioned once.

The result was that the movie came across more as a personal attack on George W. Bush, lacking a coherent substantive critique of the political movement that has hijacked the country. The only exception would be the expose on John Ashcroft, although it lacked, I think, any exposure of the Christian fundamentalist background of Ashcroft and his wealthy Neoconservative Christian fundamentalist supporters.

[bryant69]

1. He did have a limited amount of time

It's also possible that he didn't want to let us off the hook. I mean yeah, Wolfowitz Perle and others came up with the policies, but if he highlighted them it would be too easy for us to say "well it's their fault," instead of coming to terms with how American Society as a whole is responsible for what's going on.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[prodigal_green]

2. I think Moore erred on the side of caution

with the movie. I'm sure he and his producers and lawyers went over every frame of the movie.

The movie was specifically about the BFEE and how their ties to the Saudis have warped our foreign policy.

I think the most important thing this movie will have done is nudge people into finally checking out alternative (i.e., not FOX or the other PR firms working for the chimp) sources of verifiable information. The neo-con agenda is so huge, they'll trip over it.

[The Stranger]

7. PBS FRONTLINE's lawyers didn't have a problem with it, providing the best

exposure to date, both programs viewable in streaming video online, extremely highly recommended:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/

[prodigal_green]

8. thanks for the links! n/t

[Love Bug]

3. I think Moore wanted to keep the list of facts short...

... and let images speak for themselves. Yes, he could have listed a lot more reasons why this administration needs to go away but for his own reasons decided to stick to a narrow list of facts surrounding the Bush family. Perhaps he didn't want to overwhelm the audience with too much information to take in all at once.

[KoKo]

5. It would have been to complicated for the audience. Too heavy and

alienated some of the audience because of the ties of the PNAC to support for Israel. Moore is placing the blame with media and on Bush. That's enough of a focus. Other places one can find out about PNAC. Bill Moyers has done stuff and I believe there was a "Frontline" which got into some of this. If PBS has anyone left who is a fighter then they will do some repeats of programs of Moyers and Frontline for the Summer audience and maybe after seeing the movie there will be a bigger audience. :shrug:

[Oddman]

4. If you throw too much into the pot

it becomes an incoherent movie. This movie was very powerful - not perfect - but VERY powerful. I agree about the creepiest part of the movie was Wolfowitz spitting on and licking his comb before scraping it through his hair and his assistant spitting in his hand and wiping it through Wolfowitz's hair - - -eeewwww . . . .


A Pathetic Excuse for a pResident

[Wright Patman]

6. It is because the meme

that neoconservatives is "code" for Jewish conservatives has worked well enough to stifle some of the debates that otherwise would have occurred.

Now all the gloves are off, though. And we all know that there are way more nutjob Southern Baptists in the neocon movement than there are former Trotskyite Jews, even if the latter group was pivotal in founding the movement way back when they called themselves "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

[parasim]

9. What would be cool...

is if Moore released the DVD with an expanded version of the movie, a director's cut that had more to do with the neocons.

That way he could get maximum exposure now to appeal to a broader group of people and later get more into specifics such as PNAC and the neocons closer to the election.

[checks-n-balances]

10. Michael Moore, are you listening?

This idea has been posted by several this morning, (including myself)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1877334

"Great minds..." :)

[Strawman]

11. Yes. This was a serious omission

In general, the film seems to understate the role of ideology in leading us to war in Iraq. Perle and Feith had their plans to remake the map in the Middle East on the shelf for years. They have close ties to the Israeli right who mistakenly believe that they can "secure the realm" by crushing the Palestinians and Arabs with brute military force rather than seeking a peaceful compromise. They were advising Netanyahu when he was opposing the Oslo peace process. It's sad how all of these interests played one another and how any consideration of what is best for the American people and the Iraqi people seems completely absent from the decision calculus. Chalabi played the neocons with phony intel, and then traded on them with Iran, the religious right embrace the views of neocons and Israeli hard-liners because they want them in power because of their nutty views about the second coming. Haliburton and big oil and corporate interests sign on to the war because their is money to be made. The Saudi regime is certainly corrupt and a bad regime and has a significant amount of influence with big oil and the Bush family, but if anything the decision to go to war in Iraq shows the limits of the Saudi influence rahter than the power of it. Do you think the Saudi royals who are already in hot water with their populace really wanted the Iraq war to happen. Only 3% of Saudi's have a favorable opinion of the US after the war, and extreme fundamentalists like Bin Laden use the Saudi royals connection to the US to discredit them. I think the risks the Saudi status quo face as a result of the war might very well trump any profits they are making on it. When it came to making war in Iraq, right wing ideology and fantasies trumped Saudi influence. From the corporate side, you can also make the argument that the Iraq war was a nice little insurance policy for big oil in the US in case the Saudi royals lose power to Islamic militants who would be less friendly to big oil. I don't buy the argument that the Saudi's would say, OK invade Iraq because that takes the heat off of us.

[Strawman]

12. Then again...

This is an interesting theory:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/08/29_palast.html