Iraq, ‘The Events’, Hitchens and Moore

In a recent article on Microsoft magazine portal Slate UK journalist exile Chris ‘Christopher’ Hitchens took the opportunity to slate Michael Moore and the findings of his Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary.

Though Hitchens has exposed a writer/film-maker slowly getting out his depth, the terms of his constant support for his own argument on Iraq – that Saddam was a growing threat to the US/west and the co-demolition’s actions were justified and necessary – won’t win any backing here.

The UN’s presence was containing any threat and although discussions with North Korea may have been underway, there was absolutely no possibility of Saddam importing missiles without detection by the satellites/spies/informers operating in and above Iraq, way before he (because he would, of course, have personally taken delivery of them, set them up and fired them off) was in any position to use them.

Hitchens is also in danger of conveniently conflating Abu Nidal and other regional terrorists with Al-Qaeda, just like the Bush administration – there was no reciprocal (in terms of intelligence, resources or any other form of support) link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda and Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11 (though of course Saddam was likely to celebrate it). Moore may be a bad journalist relying heavily on sloganeering and a big research team but Iraq/9/11 is, as he well knows, the point. If support for Palestinian terrorist organisations is worthy of invasion then why isn’t Hitchens calling for sanctions and other acts of aggression in the whore on terror against Syria and Iran? (Because he’s an overpaid, self-satisfied pseudo-academic in an ivory tower, paid for, aptly, by Vanity Fair.)

Comments like ‘any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy’ are conveniently condescending to the vast majority of the US public who live in wilful information isolation as viewers of regional news, the redoubtably fascist Fox and the stridently stupid CNN.
Moore may well be using this crucial issue to promote the Democrats (even though Kerry has little hope of winning because he’s a wooden pillock with a history of liberal dithering over war which plays straight in the clammy hands of Karl Rove et al) and he is obviously undoing/ignoring more salient and effective arguments against the whore on terror/the Bush administration through what sounds like a contrived turd of a film but:

a) yes, I will make my own mind up by watching it, thanks. Chris;
b) the UN is still the route to achieve settlement to the problems created for rich countries by their obscured abuse of the rest of the world, if you want to do this without expending military ‘hard’ware at the earliest opportunity, of course;
c) Moore’s methods and enduring appeal are an indication of the poverty of mainstream investigative journalists in the US and Hitcher’s withering attack could also be seen as defending his own (and others’) docu-niche from market share erosion;
d) Hitchens’ assumptions about access to information for the average American are astonishing.

Moore answers other criticism from Michael Isikoff:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php


  ¶ 3:41 PM

  Open letter to Richard Littlejohn about Robert Kilroy-Silk

Dear Richard,
In your article today* on the above MEP, you seem to be attempting to elicit sympathy for the amount of money Robert Kilroy-Silk has lost since being sacked by the BBC and, in particular, for the people he employed in his now-defunct production company who have lost their jobs as a result of his comments about ‘the Arabs’ in the Daily Express.

I was surprised that you did not mention that Mr Kilroy-Silk’s fortunes from his BBC morning show were doubled by the fact that he was paid separately as a presenter and as owner of the production company that made the show. So, we, as licence fee payers have contributed significantly to making Mr Kilroy-Silk a very rich man and in launching the careers of hundreds of production assistants and other workers during the 16 year-plus run of the show. It is a shame that 60-odd people lost their jobs but, as I am sure such an economically savvy gentleman as yourself will acknowledge, that's the reality of market forces.

With News International’s campaign against the BBC getting up a head of steam across their various media operations, I thought this a rather odd omission but soon realised that to object to paying Mr Kilroy-Silk our money to make sub-Springer morning TV programmes might suggest that you disagreed with the views he espoused in his Daily Express article.

Clearly, such an impression could never be given and it is reassuring to know that you have retained your journalistic integrity by emphasising the importance of racist ignorance ahead of your employer’s market share. Well done.

Yours
Leo

(*Littlejob's sterling comments didn’t seem to be posted on thesun.co.uk)

  ¶ 4:45 PM