Washington Journal co-host Brian Lamb seemed convinced today that the final 9/11 report has driven a stake into the heart of documentarian Michael Moore and rendered his latest creation, Farenheit 9/11, into shoddy filament begging to be pitched. In order to drive this point into the conscience of folks at home he repeatedly directed viewer attention to page 329 and sentences he’d underlined that appear beneath the heading “Flights of Saudi Nationals Leaving the United States.” He was fixated on the findings which state that airspace was reopened on September 13, 2001, that no flights took place domestically or internationally before the reopening of national airspace, and that the commission found no evidence of political intervention. Lamb has been upset that audiences are cheering, according to him, during this part of the film he later characterised while interviewing Philip Zelikow as Moore’s conspiracy-like claim that Saudi planes flew “before other planes could fly.” He might be sleeping better tonight but it’s not due to feasting on the fruits of an inquisitive search.
Farenheit 9/11 never makes the claim in the way that Lamb would have you believe. And in Lamb’s frustration to discredit Moore’s film, vis-a-vis Moore’s public opinion that chartered flights were conducted before airspace was reopened to them, Lamb resorts to implying there was a return to normal travelling conditions on September 13. On that day, Norm Mineta emphasised that all flights were being approved on a case-by-case basis and the final report that Lamb thumbed throughout the show states on page 327 that airspace was “reopened for use by airports that met newly improvised security standards.” So how did the infamous charter flight, which the report mentions specifically in the notes to Chapter 10 on pg. 556 as having left Tampa at 4:37 pm “more than” five hours after airspace was reopened at 11:00 am, gain authorisation so quickly?
Moore does bludgeon you with his opinion that Saudis employed WH muscle in order to hasten their departures but he does it with clips and photos that have led him to believe it. He’s never claimed to possess definitive proof of it.
Lamb and Zelikow’s only proof his opinion is absolutely incorrect hinges upon Richard Clarke’s amended testimony yet neither man bothered to review the irony of the assertion. What must Clarke be thinking now that even his most rabid detractors will be saying he’s credible after all. Game, set, match?
Phew. I’m not yet sure why I’ve expended time and effort to put forth this virtually useless opinion. Something about the obvious way Brian Lamb has of “accidentally” cutting-off phone callers he thinks are “conspiratorial” whilst lingering thoughtfully over the 200th complaint of Jamie Gorelick’s wall and the 200,000th that Clinton destroyed the military just set me off. Lamb once claimed he was different than people like Ted Koppel who tell you how to think. He hasn’t convinced me.
And I agree a case could be made that Moore’s fixation on and handling of this matter smelt of racism, at the very least, in his exclusion of all other precursors of the 9/11 attack and subsequent pre-emptive strike on Iraq. The world does not need another barker inciting blind hatred. Marco Roth, who constructed some brilliant thoughts here, suggests he could be Rabelaisian. I wouldn’t be so generous.
Imperial Crusades by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Claire includes the essay Why The ‘War On Terror’ Won’t Work by Bill Christison. In it he reminds readers that “in a situation where there are clearly multiple root causes of terrorism, it’s in the interest of any person or nation that might be blamed for one of the root causes to emphasize instead the other root causes.” In the two months prior to the March 2002 publication of this essay Christison had observed this tactic being perpetrated by supporters of Israel against Saudi Arabia.
Michael Moore has proven himself to be a weapon of mass distraction as did Brian Lamb in his less than surgical strike on the film. He showed his colours again when he didn’t challenge Philip Zelikow’s evasion of a caller who asked him to explain his comment that the war on Iraq was launched to protect Israel or his assertion that these people are attacking us because of “who we are in the world.” Would it have been too “conspiratorial” to question him about his conflict of interest?
This commission was a whitewash. A concerted effort to protect each party’s assets. Listen to Ray McGovern and John Judge on CitizensWatch Reaction to Release of Sept. 11 Cmsn. Final Report (07/22/2004). There’s not much else to say.
Had we been implementing Bill Christison’s suggestions over these past 18 months rather than spending $15 million on this report we could have made real progress towards peace and security. Instead we’ve never been more at risk. Congress must not think much of it or our safety. Despite the urgent call that they get to work immediately they’ve set off on a 6-week vacation.