Most of the propaganda peddled in Michael Moore's new Fahrenheit 9/11 basically boils down to playing tricks with the old 6 degrees of separation concept and crude manipulation of statistics. As I wrote in my other article, I don't tend to have a lot of patience for gullible people. People who buy into propaganda strike me as weak minded. If someone buys into some crackpot conspiracy theory I don't tend to feel like I should put in the effort to debunk it. It's a lot easier to fabricate a bizarre theory than it is to debunk it and the gullible aren't worthy of the time involved in providing that debunking.  Moore's film is full of, IMO, crackpot theories and crass manipulation of statistics.

Early in the film, Moore claims how Bush has not been working 45% of the time.  This statistic is really representative of the entire film in many ways because it is true and yet misleading.  If you count weekends and Bush's working vacations (i.e. where he meets with foreign leaders, does press conferences, etc.) and work the timing just right, the statistic is true.

But like all statistics, it can be abused.  I tend to work 60 hours per week. But I only work around 40 hours at the office. With these two data points all kinds of interesting statistics could be created.  If I work 5 out of 7 days of the week (full time) I automatically have 30% of the time off.  Since 9/11 occurred just after Bush finished his yearly vacation, there were only 8 months in the work year for the President thus far (because he was inaugurated in late January).  Now bear in mind, if he worked every day without a day off between his first day in office and 9/11 he would already have 30% of the time off.  Throw in some vacation days and voila, you're at 45%.  Moore's statistic came from a Washington Post article that indeed counted weekends as time off.  This is, by no means, the worst distortion of F 9/11. It is simply representative of the kind of intellectual dishonesty throughout.

In 2002, a full year after 9/11, Moore claimed in a TV interview that Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Yet, in his movie, he jumps all over Bush because Moore's hero, Richard Clarke, allowed Saudi and Bin Laden family members to return overseas. What about innocent until proven guilty? Error #1 in the movie - those people left AFTER the airspace was reopened not before as claimed in the movie and they were interviewed by the FBI contrary to claims in the movie (source: 9/11 commission).

The 6 degrees of separation stuff really comes into play when Moore tries to use the Carlyle group connection to tie Bush, Bin Laden, and the Saudi Royals.  This is akin to arguing that if you have stock in Exxon and Bin Laden has stock in Exxon that you two are tied at the hip.  Newsweek has a pretty good article debunking a lot of that nonsense.  One has to wonder at the gullibility of people who buy into the oil connections alleged here.  Are there really people out there that think there is some vast conspiracy between the Bush family, the Saudi royals and Bin Laden? Apparently it's a conspiracy so vast that the 9/11 commission, which investigated into these kinds of connections in exhaustive detail, must be part of it and covering it all up.

Which brings us to Moore's other premise which is that essentially unnecessary American wars are started by elitist rich white men whose own sons are safely insulated from the action while the poor and downtrodden of America are left to fight it out.  In the film, Moore is sympathetic to the poor underclass who gets sucked into the rich man's wars. This is an absurd argument given that our military force is all volunteer.  Moore plays with people's emotions while hoping to get viewers to forget that most jobs in the United States have particular demographics involved.  Ever looked at the socio-economic background of most fire fighters? Or police officers? Should the "rich elites" of the world have their children assigned to be policemen or firemen?  Somehow I suspect Michael Moore would be quite pleased if the government were there to assign everyone what their job should be. But in a free society, people are free to choose what they want to do.

All of which brings us back to a fairly basic problem with the film: It has no point. It's just a long pointless diatribe. It's criticism without alternatives.  Moore, who opposed US action in Afghanistan and claimed it was all for an oil pipeline anyway, later in the film argues that Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan. Well which is it? Serious people have to make serious decisions. If Moore had had his way, the Taliban would still be in power and so would Saddam.  This is a good thing? Can anyone honestly say that we're not better off with Saddam and the Taliban gone?

Personally, I don't think Moore really cares that much about these issues. I think it's about the money. He says outrageous things (such as once saying to the former Mayor of New York that he doesn't see why Americans think of Terrorism as a "big deal" as we're more likely to get struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack) to raise controversy and awareness for his books and films.  The difference between Moore and any other obnoxious hyperopinionated ideologue is that Moore happens to be a pretty talented film maker. 

As time goes on, I am sure there will be collections of distortions from his film listed on the net just like there was for his other "documentary" Bowling for Columbine.  But I suspect that like last time, Moore will get away with his propaganda largely unscathed because so many people want to believe what he says.  After all, the terrorist group Hezbola has endorsed it and hopes to distribute it as far as it can. That really says it all, doesn't it?

Interesting Links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251769/site/newsweek/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/k/k-misc/king062704.htm
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

Interesting Statistics:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html
(Iraq only exports ~$7 billion annually. Any argument that the war in Iraq was to get Iraq's oil represents a profound ignorance of global economics. Iraq simply isn't valuable enough to justify going to war there to steal its oil).