Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies: Difference between revisions

The documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 generated substantial controversy and criticism after its release shortly before the U.S. presidential election, 2004. The film by Michael Moore accused the Bush administration of using the September 11, 2001 attacks to raise support for the War in Iraq.

The title of the film refers to Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 and the September 11 attacks of 2001. The Fahrenheit 451 reference is emphasized by the film's tagline "The temperature where freedom burns" (compare with Fahrenheit 451's tagline, "The temperature at which books burn"). Moore has stated that the title came from the subject of an e-mail he received shortly after September 11.

Ray Bradbury was upset by what he considered the appropriation of his title. He reportedly asked for an apology from Moore and wanted the film renamed.^[1][2]

The conservative political action group Move America Forward mounted a letter-writing campaign pressuring theater chains not to screen the film, which it compared to "an al-Qaeda training video."^[3] "We've been causing them [the cinemas] an enormous amount of aggravation", said group member and talk radio host Melanie Morgan.^[4]

Citizens United, a conservative group run by David Bossie, a critic of Bill Clinton, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission charging that ads for the film constitute political advertising and thus may not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. On August 5, the FEC unanimously dismissed the complaint finding no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law.^[5] A further complaint filed in 2005 was also rejected.^[6]

This section may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions.

English-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens, author and attorney Dave Kopel and Democratic politician Ed Koch contend that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths and is propaganda.^[7][8] These accusations drew several counter-criticisms, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.^[9]

Moore has published both a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission (the independent, bipartisan panel directed by Congress and President Bush to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks).^[10] Kopel and Hitchens make a number of criticisms of Moore, regarding alleged factual accuracy and hypocrisy of the film^[11][8] These accusations drew several counter-criticisms, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.^[12] Author Peter Holding wrote that one of Christopher Hitchens' claims in particular, "is hysterical, unfair and offensive."^[13]

Moore has published both a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission (the independent, bipartisan panel directed by Congress and President Bush to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks).^[14] Kopel and Hitchens make a number of criticisms of Moore regarding alleged factual accuracy and hypocrisy of the film that are not addressed in Moore's official War Room response to the factual accuracy of his film.^[15] Joe Scarborough alleges that Moore has ducked criticism and dodged interviews from both himself and Hitchens.^[16]

The introduction to the movie includes a collage of video footage depicting the events surrounding the U.S. 2000 presidential election, particularly those involving the contested Florida recount. It includes a newspaper headline reporting that Gore actually received more votes in Florida than Bush did and a quote by Michael Moore expressing his opinion that Gore would have won if the Supreme Court had not interfered with the recount process. However, there are differing views of what would have happened had a recount occurred. The movie shows a clip of CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin stating that "if there was a state-wide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election." A comprehensive six-month study commissioned by a consortium of media organizations including CNN,^[17] The New York Times, and the Washington Post concluded that Gore would have won if there had been a statewide recount that included disputed, machine-uncountable ballots. The study also concluded that Bush would have won the election under the recount system in place at the time the US Supreme Court intervened to halt the recount, and that Bush would have won under a partial-recount scheme suggested by Gore. Dave Kopel argues that Bush's Florida vote count was hurt by several thousand votes because networks incorrectly announced that Florida polls were closed (Eastern time zone) when they were still open in conservative panhandle counties (Central time zone, one hour earlier).^[11]

Early on in the film, Moore explains that President Bush continued reading 'The Pet Goat' to a classroom of children for an extended period of time after being told of the attacks. Although the book is actually titled Reading Mastery 2, there is an exercise titled The Pet Goat.

The school's principal, Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, explained, "I don’t think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"^[18] This point is dismissed by Moore's defenders as a false dilemma.^[19] Many figures and pundits, including personality Bill Maher, argue that he simply could have excused himself and calmly left without creating a stir.^{[citation needed]}

A 9/11 Commission Staff Report entitled Improvising a Homeland Defense offers this unique insight into Bush's thinking: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."^[20] However, according to senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon and his look at the Bush administration's response to 9/11, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was holding up a legal pad upon which he had written a message telling Bush not to say anything yet.^[21]

According to Christopher Hitchens, Michael Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of Osama in the film. "Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion."^[7] But according to Stephen Himes, who reproduces a partial transcript of the actual public debate, Moore also expressed his view that, "if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice."^[22] Moore initially opposed the war in Afghanistan and suggested Osama should receive a "fair trial", drawing doubt on his guilt. Commentators like Hitchens and Kopel charge that Moore has never explained why he apparently changed his mind on Osama's guilt, nor his reversal regarding his initial condemnation of, and then subsequent support for, the war in Afghanistan.^{[11] [16]} Himes notes that Moore has also claimed that he would be happy to go after Bin Laden if he was guilty.

Moore implicates the Bush administration in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13." Moore has based this on a book by Craig Unger called House of Bush, House of Saud. Passenger lists can be found at the House of Bush website.^[23]

Critics point to various statements and testimony by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, which they contend indicates that Clarke had the initial responsibility which he then passed off to Dale Watson, who was the agent in charge of investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks at the FBI.^{[citation needed]}

However, Clarke's statements about the flights and how they were approved have varied over time. The following is a chronological summary:

• September 3, 2003: In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."^[24]

• March 24, 2004:^[25] In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Clarke indicated that the request was not abnormal, "The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans." He goes on to explain that the FBI eventually approved the flights and he describes conversations in which the FBI has said that there was no one who left on those flights who the FBI now wants to interview.

However, under questioning by Commission member Tim Roemer, Clarke appeared to suggest that the White House may have had a role in originating the request for approval: "I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."

• May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day,^[26] Clarke said "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again." He went on to say that "It didn’t get any higher than me... On 9–11, 9–12 and 9–13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."

Critics of Moore have, on the basis of Clarke's statements about the flights, attacked the fact that Moore does not mention Clarke's testimony or the FBI's role in the approval of the flights. Moore's supporters contend that Clarke's statements on the matter have been inconsistent, and point to his statement in March that the "request for approval" may have originated in the White House and may have been an executive decision passed down for approval by inferiors.^{[citation needed]}

Since leaving his White House position, Clarke has become a prominent critic of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and the movie includes footage of many of Clarke's statements.^{[citation needed]}

On May 18, 2004, Washington newspaper The Hill quoted FBI spokesman on counterterrorism John Iannarelli as denying that the FBI had any "role in facilitating these flights one way or another."^[27]

The FBI's denial of involvement was repeated to The Hill by another spokesperson, Donna Spiser, in the May 26, 2004 article. She is quoted as saying "We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."^[26] She states that the FBI's involvement was limited to interviewing those people on the flight it thought were of interest: "We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to".

The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of responsibility, quoted 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee Hamilton as saying: "We don't know who authorized [the flights]. We’ve asked that question 50 times."

The May 26 article in The Hill quoted another Commission member, Tim Roemer, as being unconvinced by Clarke's claim of sole responsibility for approving the flights: "It doesn't seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it... I just don't think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper... Clarke sure didn't seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers."^[26]

Allegations concerning the Bush administration's refusal to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about the Saudi flights are disputed. The May 18, 2004 article in The Hill^[27] says that Democratic Commission member Lee Hamilton "disclosed the administration’s refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject during a recent closed-door meeting with a group of Democratic senators, according to several Democratic sources." However it also says that Republican Commission member John Lehman "said... that he told the senators the White House has been fully cooperative."

Moore also claims that the bin Laden relatives were not seriously interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave. However, the September 11 Commission has found that 22 of the 26 people on the "bin Laden" flight were interviewed before being allowed to leave the country with many being asked "detailed questions".^[28]

A September 2, 2004 CNN news article^[29] reported that "However, in a recent interview with the AP, bin Laden's estranged sister-in-law said she does not believe that family members have cut him off entirely. Carmen Binladin, who has changed the spelling of her name and lives in Switzerland, said bin Laden is not the only religious brother in the family, and she expects his sisters to support him as well. "They are very close to Osama," she said."

Members of the Taliban are shown visiting Texas during George W. Bush's term as governor. Fox News allege that Moore mentions this in order to imply that Bush invited the Taliban. They counter that their visit to the US was authorized by the Clinton administration, which also met with Taliban members^[30] (although the Clinton administration later imposed economic sanctions against the Taliban^[31]).

Moore also links the Bush Presidential Administration with the Taliban by reporting that this Administration met with Taliban representatives in the United States in early 2001. The Bush administration contends that its primary goal in these meetings was to encourage the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden.^{[citation needed]}

The film suggests that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation—an unnecessary attack against a contrived threat. It makes a case against components of the Bush Doctrine, specifically against the concepts of pre-emptive war combined with American unilateralism. The film also contends that the focus of the United States should have been directed elsewhere.

Critics point out that the film does not mention the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.^[7] Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Hussein was a brutal tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. He said calling attention to Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering the corporate media had continually pressed that point themselves, making it public knowledge.

Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. [...] Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot.^[32]

Another controversy involved the statement of Marine corporal Abdul Henderson. When asked by Moore if he would return to Iraq if ordered, Henderson replied "No." Marine Corps spokesman Patrick Kerr remarked that Henderson could face charges for desertion if he did not report as ordered.^[33]

Moore alleges connections between George W. Bush's decision to begin the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Unocal's desire to build a gas pipeline in the country. Moore asks: "Was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas. In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney. Halliburton." Moore goes on to say that "When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai ... Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former adviser to Unocal."

However, when Bush took office in 2001, Unocal had already withdrawn plans for the proposed pipeline in Afghanistan. Unocal formally withdrew^[34] its support from the project after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998,^[35] reiterated its position in 1999^[36] after several inaccurate media reports, and reiterated its position again in 2002. The United States Energy Information Administration reports that no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline plan.^[37] However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive^[38] plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement.

Furthermore, both Unocal and Karzai have denied through spokesmen that they ever had a business relationship of any kind; this claim appears to have originated in the French newspaper Le Monde and resurfaced in the American Christian Science Monitor. The allegations have also been widely repeated in European newspapers, although Unocal has consistently denied them. Unocal Corporation was acquired by Chevron in 2005.^[39]

During a scene filmed outside of the Saudi Embassy in which Moore is discussing the level of Saudi investment in the U.S. economy with Craig Unger, they are approached by uniformed Secret Service officer Steve Kimbell. Kimbell explains that he is just ascertaining information, and asks Moore if he is doing a documentary regarding the Saudi Arabian embassy. In voiceover narration, Moore notes that "Even though we were nowhere near the White House, for some reason the Secret Service had shown up to ask us what we were doing standing across the street from the Saudi Embassy." Moore responds to the officer by saying, "I didn't realize the Secret Service guards foreign embassies," to which the officer replies, "Uh, not usually. No, sir." Moore continues in voiceover: "It turns out that Saudi Prince Bandar is perhaps the best protected ambassador in the U.S. The U.S. State Department provides him with a six-man security detail."

Critics contend that the movie leaves viewers with the inaccurate impression that the Secret Service plays no role in protecting any other embassy. That statement is not made in the movie, but the critics claim that Officer Kimbell's comment, which is an explicit part of the movie, is wrong and should have been corrected by Moore.^{[citation needed]}

Under Public Law 91-217 section 202, passed in 1970, the uniformed division of the Secret Service plays a role in protecting "foreign diplomatic missions located in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia" (among other things).^[40][41] However, this does not mean that all embassies receive full-time on-site Secret Service protection (as opposed to area patrols), nor that all the embassies so protected receive the same number of personnel. Neither side has offered a conclusive comparison of the level of security attention given to the different embassies to shed light on Officer Kimbell's statement (that embassies are "not usually" treated this way) or on Moore's speculation that Prince Bandar might be the best-protected ambassador in the United States.

In addition, Article 22, Section 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, adopted in 1961 and ratified by the United States, reads, "the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity." If Prince Bandar were indeed to be proven to be the best-protected ambassador in the United States this could be due to a perceived greater threat in post-911 America (hate crimes, assassinations, etc), or alternatively this could (as Moore portrayed it) be indicative of the "Saudi-friendly" nature of the Bush Administration.

Moore's inclusion of a scene with amputee Peter Damon has been criticized, including by Damon himself, who states that he thinks Moore "should be ashamed of himself" for claiming that soldiers were deceived into supporting the war and for using his injuries as reason to oppose the war. Damon "agree[s] with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel the same way." According to Damon's doctor, Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie."^[42] Damon sued Moore in federal court for $85 million, alleging that the film gave a false impression and was defamatory.^[43] Moore's attorney argued in response that the film quoted Damon verbatim and did not take his statements out of context or give a false impression. The judge agreed and dismissed Damon's suit.^[44]

A scene in the film in which Michael Moore interviewed a recruiting party for the United States Marine Corps at a local mall in Flint, Michigan was criticized by one of the Marines, Staff Sergeant Raymond J. Plouhar. Plouhar claimed that he and his fellow Marines were duped by Moore into taking part in a film they did not endorse, that their methods were portrayed unfairly and that they were quoted out of context during the encounter. ^{[citation needed]}

Unauthorised copying of the movie was widespread. An early version taped at a cinema was distributed by the peer-to-peer file sharing client BitTorrent.^[45] The distributors expressed unhappiness and suggested potential legal action, but according to the Sunday Herald, Moore's own response was, "I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off of my labour".^[46] A "mint copy" of the film possibly appeared on the Lions Gate website itself, reported The Inquirer.^[47] Unlicensed screenings were also held in Cuba.^[48] Moore had expressed similar sentiments before the film's theatrical release.^{[citation needed]}

• Fahrenheit 9/11 War Room Michael Moore's official response to critics of Fahrenheit 9/11
• Interview with Urban Hamid Embedded filmmaker who shot some of the Iraqi footage in the film
• Unfairenheit 9/11 A critical essay by Christopher Hitchens
  • A Defense of Fahrenheit 9/11 A point-by-point response to Christopher Hitchens
• Under the Hot Lights by Michael Isikoff
  • Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11 By Michael Moore
• By Way of Deception by Stuart Klawans
• The Wrong Way to Fix the Vote by Gregory Palast