Un- Unfairenheit 9/11

July 02, 2004

I just finished reading Unfairenheit 9/11 by Christopher Hitchens. Throughout the piece I felt my intelligence being insulted by this "journalist". Does he expect any reader who has the slightest clue to buy some of his attempts to discredit Fairenheit 9/11 "logically". Throughout this piece he attempts to pull on his readers' emotions to buy into his "refutations".

For example he states:

"More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse."

Does Mr. Hitchens really believe that Bush's only alternative to taking a little more time to read My Pet Goat was to hastily rush into war on the spot?.

Come on! If there was any time for Bush to be the strong leader that he likes to view himself as, this was it! A leader would react quickly to a crisis, wouldn't he?

And Hitchens calls 9/11 a "bias against the work of the mind". I must ask myself: Is Hitchens trying to show how "bias against the work of the mind" is really done?

After reading Hitchens' piece of $#*@ article, I wanted to go through and comment on it line-by-line. Fortunately, Chris Parry has already done this with his piece Defending Truth: Slate's Chris Hitchens does a hatchet job on Michael Moore. Commenting on the section of Hitchens' article quoted above he states:

"Where on earth is Hitchens getting his crack? You don't need to rush to war to actually be "doing something" when you're under attack. Surely Bush could have done more, while the jets were still in the air and heading to New York City and Washington, than sit in a children's classroom for fifteen minutes reading "My Pet Goat". The nation was under attack for crying out loud! And those were the EXACT words whispered in Bush's ear as he SAT THERE looking scared out of his brains. He heard the US was under attack and he did nothing. He sat and waited it out. Then he took questions from the children.

Meanwhile, in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania, Americans were dying, jumping out of windows, burning, being crushed, fighting hijackers and steering planes into fields. While America was being attacked, George W. Bush finished his photo op.

Now, let's be clear. There were many things Bush could have done that day. The first one might have been to cancel the school photo op when he'd heard that the first plane had hit the WTC (something he admitted to having known when he told a reporter on his way into the school, "that's one bad pilot, huh? I'll talk about it later.")

He might also have got out of that classroom and hit the phones when he heard about the second building being hit. He might have authorized the hijacked planes to be shot down by F-16's, or even make sure that F-16's were shadowing the hijacked planes (they never did, even though there was more than an hour between the first hijacking being reported and the last plane hitting a field in Pennsylvania).

Or heck, he might have even pulled a Rudy Giulliani and got on the TV to tell us all that it was going to be okay. But he did nothing. And Hitchens, in trying to say that the only thing he could have done that day was rush to war, is not just being disingenuous, he's being totally and morally dishonest. And YOU know it, no matter who you vote for.
"

Please take some time to read the rest of Parry's fine article.


Posted by Andrew at July 2, 2004 05:58 AM
Comments

http://www.medialens.org/PHPBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2760#2760

Posted by: Anon on September 1, 2004 07:25 PM

Hey why don't you slow down a little bit in your firey political rhetoric which is nothing more than a schoolyard arguement. First of all I admire the guts of michael moore to stand up and voice his opinion, but to me he looks like a fool because he lacks understanding and the wisdom that comes with it. Imagine losing both of your parents, hurts bad doesn't it. Now magnify that a thousandfold that was what nine eleven was to bush. You expect the president of the united states to let emotion to take control? hell, if i were him i'd punch out a wall and then order a nueclear strike on every arab city in the u.s. Call me crazy? gee, i was just doing something! How would anything overly emotional look in front of a bunch of grade schoolers who could have a dad or uncle on a business trip in new york? The logical thing would be to remain strong in front of these kids finish up and return to d.c to get things done. I mean there's only one teacher and maybe a coupla aides but how are these people supposed to deal with such tragic news traumatizing these young kids? chaos would reign. so the answer is to continue as normal so that these kids can find out from someone they can trust and be comforted immediatly.

We hold our president to far too high standards he's human too. i thinmichael needs o learn a little more about grief and gain some understanding then maybe he'll look a bit more wiser.

Posted by: Doesn't matter on November 2, 2004 08:39 PM
Post a comment