MSN: Fahrenheit 9/11 Interviews and Commentary (via):
COURIC: And wouldn’t your movie have been better balanced if you had at least included some about Saddam Hussein’s own reputation?
Mr. MOORE: You guys did such a good job of–of telling us how tyrannical and horrible he was. You already did that. What–the question really should be posed to NBC News and all of the other news agencies: Why didn’t you show us that the people that we’re going to bomb in a few days are these people, human beings who are living normal lives, kids flying kites, people just trying to get by in their daily existence. And as the New York Times pointed out last week, out of the 50 air strikes in those initial days, the–we were zero for 50 hitting the target. We killed civilians and we don’t know how many thousands of civilians that we killed. And–and–and nobody covered that. And so for two hours, I’m going to cover it. I’m going to–out of four years of all of this propaganda, I’m going to give you two hours that says here’s the other side of the story.
- NYTimes: Spotlight on Fahrenheit 9/11
- Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore. – mildly interesting mefi discussion:
shoos: Here’s how the timeline of the bin Laden flight authorization worked, from what I recall of Clarke’s hearing:
1) Clarke refuses to unilaterally authorize the flight(s).
2) He asks the FBI to look into it.
3) Dale Watson at the FBI gives it the okay.
4) Clarke authorizes it.Clarke takes sole responsibility for it, because he’s that kind of guy.
He was in charge, and the buck stops with him. It may have been a good
idea, for all I know. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and it may be that
the bin Laden flight was perfectly benign. But Hitchens’ article
utterly ignores that Clarke did not make the decision alone. He spins
Clarke’s statement of taking full responsibility for what was done
under his leadership into an implication that nobody else had anything
to do with it. In an article blasting another person for distorting the
truth, that’s significant.