This page was last updated on July 4, 2004.

Moore movie must be seen; Ty Stevenson; Beaver County Times; July 4, 2004.

Mr. Stevenson apparently believes Michael Moore's movie is an objective news documentary.  It is not; even Moore refers to it as an op-ed piece and one of Moore's stated goals is to defeat President Bush in the 2004 elections.  You have to be either naive and/or partisan to believe that an anti-Bush -- or pro-Bush -- activist would produce an objective film about President Bush, especially in an election year.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

"I saw Michael Moore's most recent film, 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' last weekend.

"I think that everyone, Democrat or Republican, should see it.  Actually, I challenge you to watch it and leave the theater in favor of the war in Iraq.

"The movie covers many topics, all pertaining to President Bush, but I believe that Iraq is the most essential and universal to all Americans.

"Moore shows us what the war is about.  He shows us the grief-stricken, weeping mothers, Iraqi and American.  He shows us the devastation of an air strike, the uncounted innocent bystanders and the people's fear of American soldiers, not Iraqi rebels."

[RWC] Were no innocents killed during World War II?  Did mothers not cry during WWII?  Did everyone in WWII enemy countries like the Americans?  Sadly, all wars have these pictures.  That is why war should not be entered into lightly.

Remember, Moore shows only that which supports his position and has a history of not letting truth get in the way.  Did Mr. Stevenson forget the news reports in which clerics and ordinary citizens were seeking American aid to get rid of the "rebels" who were looting their communities?

I don't expect Iraqis to love Americans.  After all, who wants to be occupied?  At the same time, every poll conducted shows Iraqis want the Coalition to round up the terrorists and Ba'athist "dead enders" before the Coalition military leaves.  That says Iraqis fear "Iraqi rebels" more than they dislike/fear American soldiers.

"And think, all of this is unnecessary.

"Every reason that President Bush gave us for entering Iraq has been disproved.

"There is no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, no WMDs and no imminent threat to America.

"This has been said repeatedly over the past year, but I guess no one was listening."

[RWC] I'm afraid Mr. Stevenson himself wasn't listening -- or reading -- either.  Since at least the mid-1990s, both the press and governments around the world have documented contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, and terrorists in general.  That was one of the reasons President Clinton in 1998 used cruise missiles to destroy a purported VX nerve gas factory in Sudan.  Despite misleading headlines to the contrary, the 9/11 Commission also agrees there were Iraq/al-Qaida contacts.

Regarding WMD, troops were attacked with two chemical weapon shells in May 2004, one containing mustard gas and the other sarin.  Considering all of the WMD the U.N. says Saddam Hussein did not account for, are we to believe these were the only two viable WMD shells/warheads in Iraq?

Please, Mr. Stevenson, quit beating that "imminent threat" dead horse.  President Bush did not say Iraq was an imminent threat, he said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.  Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?  If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.  Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."  Just check his 2003 State of the Union speech.

"America even broke international law.  If you doubt me, look at the Geneva Convention concerning POW treatment.  Just because you change their label from POW to 'enemy combatant' doesn't change their rights."

[RWC] I did doubt Mr. Stevenson and I did look at the Geneva Conventions.  Perhaps Mr. Stevenson should read Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions more closely himself.¹  To qualify for POW status, enemy fighters must meet specific requirements; not everyone qualifies.  For example, the fighter must be fighting for a country that is a party to the war and that signed the Conventions.  That means none of the terrorists from other countries qualify as POWs because no other countries are a party to the war -- on Iraq's side -- and terrorists fight only for themselves, not a country.  Even Iraqis who may claim to fight for Iraq must meet requirements, such as wearing "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" (like a uniform) and "carrying arms openly" among others.  If you don't meet all of the relevant requirements, you don't qualify for POW treatment.

Despite the above facts, the Bush administration chose to treat ALL detainees humanely.  Below is an excerpt from a letter President Bush sent to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, et cetera in early 2002.²

"Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment.  Our Nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles.  As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."

"But back to my initial point, if you doubt anything in the movie, visit Moore's Web site.  So go see "Fahrenheit 9/11."

[RWC] Moore has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts³ and this movie also has significant documented errors.  If I doubt something in Moore's movie, why on Earth would I go to his web site for verification?  Isn't that asking someone to rule on his own veracity?

"If you want to be a pro-Bush American, at least be informed."

[RWC] In my opinion, most informed Americans will be pro-Bush Americans.

1. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; United Nations; August 12, 1949.

2. Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees; President George W. Bush; The Washington Post; February 7, 2002.

3. '9/11': Just the facts?; Roger Ebert; Chicago Sun-Times; June 18, 2004.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.