OR: Who is Asking the Hard Questions?
I reviewed Fahrenheit 9/11 last Friday and you may wish to read that blog before this one.
The people of the United States are good, decent human beings who over 225 years ago embarked on a great experiment in government and society untried in human history. It was an experiment based on the premise that every part of government would provide a "check and balance" to every other part so that only laws and regulations that all 3 parts would agree upon could become law and part of society. The 4th estate, the free press, was the ultimate check on the government, because it was seen by the founding fathers (Thomas Jefferson wrote "Better a free press than a free government") that it would have an antagonistic role in making sure that if the other checks weren't enough, the media would be. Fahrenheit 9/11 would be very much liked by Jefferson for the questions it asks about whether we are in a situation in Iraq that justifies the losses we have and will take and the policies of the government that allow them.
Your first question as Americans should be: is the media today the antagonist watchdog it should be? Were the hard questions asked before we went to war with Iraq about our motivations and interests that would have exposed the lack of WMD's, the "dotted line relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda" and the lack of a plan by the military to get the job done and prevent the "Viet Nam like experience" the troops now face? Or did the media rubber stamp the Bush administration's policies because it was easier, more expedient, and would give them better ratings?
It is interesting that if we have a liberal administration in office, Fox news and Drudge Report have taken pride in breaking both President Clinton's illicit affairs with women and foreign policy (Somalia's "nation-building" experiment, for example) but no one is calling what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan nation-building although it appears to be even more grandiose than Mr. Clinton could ever have imagined (between liasons, of course). If media does not do it's job on the left (isn't media supposed to lean left to be antagonistic to a right wing conservative administration?) then who will ask the questions we need to be asked?
Your second question as Americans should be: Does Fahrenheit 9/11 ask the questions about this war that someone else (with better press credentials) should have? Interview and interview by American media (Fox, CNN, the major networks) of White House officials including the President have focused on American policy, right? But if you look at the interviews they do not seriously challenge (IMO) the administration on the issues. It takes a rather green journalist from Ireland who doesn't have an editor screaming what questions not to ask to put the President on the spot. Then, do we as Americans say, "hey, if she can get the President upset, let's send in one of the big boys like Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer." What we say is, "She was so undignified and irreverent to our President. How could she be so mean?"
Those of us who remember Watergate (and those who don't: read the book!) remember that truth comes out of the White House very slowly and not without a great big pair of pliers and a lot of elbow grease. The White House is a hotbed of ideas and plans (contingency, mostly) for every possible event. Michael Moore suggests one of those plans was the "War against Iraq" that many others besides Moore suggest got dusted off and implimented pretty much the moment 9/11 occured. If you don't want Michael Moore asking why and how, someone else should have been doing it! If Michael Moore is the filmmaker (another "dotted-line" relationship to the news media) who asks it, you best be listening as a citizen to how the administration responds.
And how has the Republican party and President responded? Well, they brand him a propogandist and a whacko. If you remember, Woodward and Bernstein were called similar names. If that in itself doesn't recommend the movie, nothing the 90% of the reviewers who call it "well-done" means anything. Moore asks the questions that should have been asked and while you might not agree with the answers he gives as a filmmaker (that is your right) you should at least consider why a guy who has a history of making culture films has evoked such high emotion by such seemingly self-assured and confident people.
Finally, I will borrow from Moore with my last question: All our American troops (all volunteers) ask is that we not place them in harm's way without good reason. Did we? Moore isn't interested in President Bush in the movie. He's a nice prop, but not the theme. The theme is the awful toll of putting lives at risk and the cost of the dead. The theme is the policy of recruiting almost every one the armed forces can in Flint, Michigan and other poor cities while only one Congressperson has a son serving in Iraq. The theme is whether the government, the media, and we, the people have become lazy and unexcited by war and the costs.
Have we........?