This page was last updated on July 5, 2004.

Movie is deeply patriotic; Ian S. Thompson; Beaver County Times; July 1, 2004.

Once again Mr. Thompson provides us with a little humor.

"I am shocked and angered that some critics have denounced Michael Moore's new movie, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' as 'unpatriotic' and 'anti-soldier.'"

[RWC] Regarding Moore's patriotism, consider the following quotes.

• In an open letter to Germans, Moore wrote, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?  How did it come to this in the first place?  82 percent of us don't even have a passport!  Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.)"

• Moore told Britain's Daily Mirror interviewer, "They [Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet.  We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance.  We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country.  Our stupidity is embarrassing."¹

Do these sound like statements that would come from a man producing a patriotic movie?

"Clearly, they weren't paying much attention during the movie.  These right-wing critics seem more obsessed with attacking Michael Moore than in engaging the points he makes in his film.

"It must be pointed out that despite the best efforts of 'Faux' News, the chicken hawks in Washington and conservative talking-heads, the facts that serve as the basis for Moore's critique have yet to be disputed."

[RWC] When he writes that the factual basis for Moore's movie has not been disputed, perhaps Mr. Thompson has not been paying attention.  I didn't -- and won't -- see the movie, but it's been widely reported the movie claims President Bush OK'd letting Saudi families leave the United States after 9/11.  In fact, that darling of Bush bashers -- Richard Clarke himself -- took sole credit for that move and he testified to that fact before the 9/11 Commission in March 2004.  Though he had plenty of time to correct his movie, Moore chose not to because it didn't support his agenda.

Consider the following comment by film critic Roger Ebert, an avowed Moore fan.

"The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his 'facts' were wrong, false or fudged."²

Given Moore's earned reputation for placing loose and fast with the truth, I can only imagine what else he misrepresented.  It's instructive that Mr. Moore himself now refers to the movie as an op-ed piece, not a true documentary.

"For my friends and I who saw it on opening night, the movie served as a powerful (and painful) reminder of the tragic costs of an illegal and unjustified war - and of our obligation as citizens of this struggling democracy to try and hold our leaders accountable for making unwise decisions about when to send our (mostly young and mostly poor) troops into combat.

[RWC] We can argue about whether the war was justified or not, but please explain why it was illegal.  Congress authorized the action in House Joint Resolution 114 as did U.N. Security Resolution 1441 (2002).

Regarding the "mostly young" comment, what should we expect?  As much as some older Americans would like to serve, there is a reason the maximum enlistment age ranges from 27 to 34 depending on the service.  Mr. Thompson probably wants you to believe most casualties are 18 year old soldiers fresh out of boot camp.  That's not true.  Though I consider 25 still young, it's useful to know that most fatalities in Iraq as of June 26, 2004, were over 25 years old (53%).  This matches the age profile of active duty personnel as a whole.

Regarding "mostly poor," I doubt that.  As a group, those in the military are better educated than the U.S. population as a whole.³  86.7% of active duty officers have a bachelor's or advanced degree vs. 25.6% in the general population.  At least 95.9% of enlisted members have at least a high school diploma vs. 84.1% in the general population.  Since lack of education tends to be a reasonable poverty indicator, the education demographics would tend to refute Mr. Thompson's claim.  There's no doubt some persons enlist for economic reasons, but I believe we demean the service of most airmen, marines, soldiers, et cetera if we believe their primary reason for serving is economic.

"Toward the end of the movie, Moore provides a voice-over to images of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.  He reminds us: 'They serve so that we don't have to.  They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free.  It is, remarkably, their gift to us.  And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary.  Will they ever trust us again?'

"Really, why should they if Bush and his criminal cronies are given four more years of unchecked power to continue waging their unending war?

[RWC] "Criminal cronies?"  Please, stop the drive-by bashing and provide some verifiable supporting facts.

What "unchecked power?"  President Bush sought approval from the U.S. Congress and received it via House Joint Resolution 114.

"The film highlights crucial questions about the 'necessity' of the war in Iraq that deserve answers.  Engaging these questions and holding our leaders accountable for their decisions to go to war is deeply patriotic and the best way we can support our troops."

[RWC] Nice try, but Mr. Thompson is simply trying to rationalize indefensible partisan bashing during time of war.  Legitimate comments are fine as long as they are expressed in a way consistent with the United States being at war.  I find the vast majority of "criticism" is merely partisanship bordering on collaboration, however.  When our enemy uses the talking points of Bush-bashers, you would think these people would figure out they were doing something wrong.  You would be wrong.

1. The Awkward Conscience of a Nation; Brian Reade; The Daily Mirror; November 3, 2003.

2. '9/11': Just the facts?; Roger Ebert; Chicago Sun-Times; June 18, 2004.

3. 2002 Demographics - Active Duty Members; Military Family Resource Center; September 2002.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.