Or at least that’s how the headline should read. Michael Moore, routinely boo’d at any patriotic US function has found that going to France to criticize a sitting American in the midst of a war can win him a French award.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” won the top award at a festival that sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival’s main competition but no great ones that rose to front-runner status.
Some critics speculated that if “Fahrenheit 9/11” won the top prize, it would be more for the film’s politics than its cinematic value.
Well, duh. No great movies at Cannes this year. So let’s award it to Moore. Ya think it’s politics?
Disney chose not to distribute this film, and for good reason – it’s basically a Democrat artistic bashing of the President less than 6 months before an election. Propaganda drivel like this really shouldn’t be shown until after the election.
And less you think I’m full of right-wing conservative arrogance (well, I might be, but that’s beside the point), I would have opposed a similar movie made about Clinton during his bomb-the-hell-out-of-Kosovo-whoops-my-pants-are-around-my-ankles-again years. A movie is overboard in expressing your opinion about a sitting President.
With Moore’s customary blend of humor and horror, “Fahrenheit 9/11” accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans’ support for the Iraq (news – web sites) war.
Moore dedicated the award to “my daughter and to all the children in America and Iraq and throughout the world who suffered through our actions.”
- Stole the election? Is he still dwelling on that? After all the recounts (which all showed Bush winning), the Supreme Court told them to knock it off and stop fiddling with the chads. Afterwards, several organizations did independent recounts. All showed Bush winning. There were no recounts that showed Gore winning.
- He’s accusing Bush of overlooking terrorism warnings, and in the same movie criticizing Bush’s actions against terrorism? Did Moore discuss that Bush was using the plan Clinton developed and was in the process of trying to improve it? Why isn’t Moore criticizing Clinton’s plan? The only valid accusation might be that Bush wasn’t revamping Clinton’s plan fast enough – but in the first 8-1/2 months of Bush’s presidency, nothing like 9/11 had occurred to indicate the urgency. Would Moore have supported an attack on Afghanistan before 9/11? Would anybody?
- Fanning fears? Off the top of my head, we’ve had shoe bombers, the Madrid train explosion, and a whole host of overseas attacks on Americans, with continued warnings of Al Queda that they wanted to attack on American soil. Wait – I thought Moore said Bush was ignoring terrorism. Which is it? Is he taking terrorism too lightly or too seriously?
- Does he really feel Iraqi children are worse in the new schools in Iraq opened by Americans than they were under Saddam? Saddam killed 400,000 to 1,000,000 people while he was in power (I’ve read different numbers from recent sources). Here in Houston, we just finished donating artificial limbs to some Iraqi men. Saddam cut them off to make an example of them. Iraqi children don’t have to worry about rape rooms or torture rooms when they grow up. And Moore thinks Iraqi children would have been better off under Saddam?
Misguided. Propaganda. Drivel.