Unless you offer a hypothetical film about the US and Israel that goes for the same theme that you believe Fahrenheit 9/11 pursues, the hypothetical doesn't make sense as a reply to my posting, as my posting talked about the case of Moore or anyone else making "a film similar to Fahrenheit 9/11 about Tel Aviv and Washington, employing the same techniques of suggestions and insinuations he employed regarding Riyadh and Washington."
BTW, Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't have much to say about "a deep collaborative pursuit of oil-based accumulation that joined the U.S. and Saudi ruling classes." On the angle of accumulation, the film doesn't get beyond factoids:
Michael Moore: That's a lot of money. And uh, what percentage of our economy is that? That seems like a lot.
Craig Unger: Well, in terms of investments on Wall Street, American equities, it's roughly six or seven percent of America. They own a fairly good slice of America. And most of that money goes into the great blue chip companies: Citigroup, Citibank is the largest stock held by the Saudis. AOLTimeWarner has big Saudi investors.
Michael Moore: So I read where like the Saudis have a trillion dollars in our banks of their money. What would happen if like one day they just pulled that trillion dollars out?
Craig Unger: A trillion dollars, that would be an enormous blow to the economy.
Since Moore leaves the matter of Saudi money at that, the only impression that the American audience is likely to get is that the Saudis (unlike other foreigners?) have (unjustly?) acquired a terrifying degree of economic power over the Americans. Just imagine what you would say if Moore talked about "Jewish money" in this fashion. At the very least, Moore should have provided some information about trends of values of foreign investments in the US and US investments abroad, providing the audience with a rational perspective in which they can view Saudi investments in the US.
The US net international investment position has steadily deteriorated at least since 1989, and it's now "a negative $2,430.7 billion," a record low (US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "Value of Foreign Investments in the U.S. Rises More Than Value of U.S. Investments Abroad in 2003: 2003 Yearend U.S. Net International Investment Position," June 30, 2004, <http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/intinv03_fax.pdf>). What caused this change? What role has "oil-based accumulation" played in the change? What does the change mean for Americans, Saudis, and others? How does the change relate to the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? What should Americans do about foreign investments in the US and US investments abroad? Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't prompt the American audience to ask such questions, because, after lodging vaguely threatening factoids about Saudi money in our minds, it goes on to obsess about a red herring of Bush business deals with some of the bin Laden family members and Saudi flights after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dennis wrote:
>Moore makes it very clear, over and over again, that it's not about
>Saudi-bashing. It's about a bunch of rich people -- some in the US,
>others in Saudi Arabia -- who think that their wealth puts them
>above the law.
Let me ask a question: is there any Saudi in Fahrenheit 9/11 other than Osama bin Laden, the Saudi members of the 9/11 terrorists, the other bin Ladens, some unnamed power-elite Saudis shaking hands with the Bushes, Saudi executioners, one of whom beheads a man, a beheaded man, other prisoners who are about to be beheaded, and Prince Bandar?
>(The former FBI investigator said it quite clearly: it's not about
>the bin Laden family's guilt or innocence, if they want a lawyer,
>fine. It's about the most basic level of juridical accountability,
>equality before the law.)
If the other bin Ladens wondered if they could have access to their lawyers or if they would enjoy equality before the law in the United States in the period immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I wouldn't blame them. Why should anyone -- the least of all anyone who has the misfortune of having the bin-Laden family name -- believe the FBI agent [!] who says, "if they want a lawyer, fine"??? In December 2003, more than two years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Howard Dean got into trouble saying the following: "I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. . . .I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials" (CNN, "Dean: Bin Laden Guilt Best Determined by Jury," December 26, 2003, <http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/>). Almost immediately, Dean was forced to retreat from his position of "not pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found": "Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said he wants Osama bin Laden to get the death penalty, seeking to minimize fallout from a New Hampshire newspaper story in which he was quoted as saying the terror leader's guilt should not be prejudged" (AP, "Dean: Death to Osama," December 26, 2003, <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/29/politics/main590423.shtml>). It's only in February 2004 when Jose Padilla, a US citizen, received the Pentagon's permission to receive "access to a lawyer 'subject to appropriate security restrictions'": "He has been held there ever since and has not had access to any legal counsel or been formally charged. In its announcement, the Pentagon said it is 'allowing Padilla access to counsel as a matter of discretion and military authority. Such access is not required by domestic or international law and should not be treated as precedent'" (Kevin Bohn, "'Dirty Bomb' Suspect Gets Conditional Lawyer Access," CNN, February 11, 2004, <http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/padilla.attorney.access/>).
>it also shows that dissent is patriotic
Apparently, dissent is not to be tolerated here unless we dissent only from the Bushes and accept Fahrenheit 9/11 as 100% true, good, and useful. :-|
In any case, dissent _can_ be indeed patriotic, but not all dissents are patriotic, nor should they be. Some dissenters are unpatriotic because they are not US citizens, others, because they do not believe in patriotism. Both patriotic and unpatriotic dissents ought to be welcomed.
>More to the point, this is a film about the US oiligarchy. It shows
>that they're a bunch of criminal, thieving gangsters. It shows how
>they stole an election, launched a heinous, unprovoked war of
>aggression against a major country, and are planning still more
>egregious crimes, including crimes against the people of the United
>States.
Aside from slave revolts, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, and other instances of class struggles, there are four wars in which Americans had reasons to participate: the American Revolution, the war of 1812, the Union side of the Civil War, and (at least some battles of) the World War 2. The other wars commanded by the US elite should not have been fought. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>