The Shotgun Blog
« F9/11 Film Fan Detained | Main | Edwards at 12 minutes and counting »
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
F9/11 Film Subjects Cry Foul
Even Mr. bin Laden says that Michael Riefenstahl's new film is full of inaccuracies.
That would be Osama's brother, Yeslam, who says he enjoyed the film, but admits that one of the central claims in the film—that Bush re-opened US airspace after September 11th exclusively to fly 142 Saudis, including bin Laden family members out of the country in the wake of the attacks—is a lie.
"That's false and can be verified by anyone," he says.
Well, anyone that cared about accuracy, I suppose. The 9/11 Commission's report noted the Saudis were allowed to leave Sept. 14, the same day that US airlines resumed flying.
He also says that Moore lies about the members of his famiily that attended a wedding for one of Osama's kids in Afghanistan.
Not that yet another heap of evidence against Moore will stop the man from pretending he is the guardian of truth.
Posted by Kevin Libin on July 28, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83465760069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference F9/11 Film Subjects Cry Foul:
Comments
Rubert McCrapforbrains is apparently correct. The film does a typical Monstrous Michael weasel-job by strongly implying the lie, but not actually saying it. It's a verbal tapdance.
Here's the offensively dishonest passage:
Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Moore: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
"After September 13th" is MM sleaze-code for "after all commercial air traffic was reopened." No special favours. But that's not the impression the average viewer will be left with, is it?
The "White House" approval came from Richard Clarke - yeah, the same Clarke that was a holdover from the Clinton years, the guy that's slagging Bush and his administration to anyone who will listen. He only gave the approval subject to FBI sign-off on the passenger lists - which they gave.
By the way, Kevin, none other than Newsweek also believed he had come right out and said it, so you've got good company on this.
Posted by: Damian | 2004-07-28 11:17:14 PM
It's more than a weasel job. If Moore defends this part of the movie by hiding behind "it isn't a technical lie", then what was the point, exactly? If the skies were open, and he knew this, just what was his intent in including the material at all?
That's why parsing the thing is irrelevant. There was a clear intent to create a perception with the viewer that the flight was allowed to leave while others were grounded.
A true documentary would have included this material only to deconstruct it under the subtitle of "9/11 myths".
Posted by: Kate | 2004-07-29 7:32:11 AM
What Robert doesn't understand is that Moore is expert at using the old "thespian" rhetorical trick. That is, to ask one's opponent (whose sister is an actress), "So isn't it true that your sister is a thespian!??!"
See "after September 13" above. Same thing.
Within the standard Rules of Rhetoric (the ones you are always helpfully pointing out to those of us on the Right), this is just as "out of bounds" as the "ad hominem" attacks you claim are used almost exclusively by us conservatives.
And by the way, not everyone, including me, thinks ad hominem attacks are really that bad -- because many of the remarks airily dismissed as ad hominem actually aren't at all. Sometimes they're just good old fashioned insults.
More proof that a little knowledge (and/or a Rhetoric 101 class) can be a dangerous thing.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-07-29 8:50:32 AM
McFeces, if the Saudi flights were all Bush's doing, why does Richard Clarke take sole credit for approving them?
It's not like he and GWB are best buddies or anything.
As Penny would say: Wanker.
Posted by: Damian | 2004-07-29 1:09:37 PM
And if millions of other people were flying in and out of the country that day, then who gives a crap?
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2004-07-30 8:07:09 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.