A Lebanese Perspective on Fahrenheit 9/11

Moore has presented a detailed account of the Iraq war without mentioning Israel in any way, without using the word neoconservative and without any reference to the massive paper trail demonstrating a pre-existing agenda, which placed the overthrow of the Iraqi regime at the center of both US and Israeli policies.
Moore's audience never hears about the 1996 "Clean Break" paper presented to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by several people who are now influential policymakers in the Bush administration, including Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, and their guru, Richard Perle. Nor are they told about many other key documents, such as the 1998 Project for a New American Century letter to then-President Bill Clinton demanding "military action" from the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The letter was signed by current administration figures Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad and, of course, Paul Wolfowitz.
Rather than investigating the actual and well-documented agenda that led to the rapid shift away from a war against Al-Qaeda to a war against Iraq, Moore proposes an implausible and extremely confused conspiracy theory.
At the heart of Moore's film lies the malevolent influence of "the Saudis," a phrase that in the US is increasingly spat out with utter contempt, reminiscent of the tone reserved for "the Jews" in anti-Semitic discourse, ascribing to millions of otherwise heterogeneous people the same menacing and hostile essence. In a great deal of contemporary American discourse, any group of Saudis - including the government, security services, and any collection of citizens, not to mention Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001 - all represent "the Saudis."

Read the full article.

Share this

Yeah, riiiiight.

Yeah, riiiiight.

Let's see, I'm suppose to

Let's see, I'm suppose to take the word of a Marxist who suppports radical Islamic fundamentalist activities against the West. No thank you. If this walking agitprop is truly Lebanese then he should be deported.

Did I miss the part in the

Did I miss the part in the article where he said all the stuff you dismiss him for, or is he known to you already? Further, do you deny that there is a paper trail leading back to PNAC?

I find nothing I disagree

I find nothing I disagree with in the article. It is amazing how much more sophisticated foreign journalists are than most American journalists. For example, many roreign journalist do things actually site their references! The lack of investigative journalism and deep analysis in quite horrifying and I suspect must be the result of our journalists illustrious public educations. I now get at least 40% of my news from Australian, British, Lebanese, Saudi, and Russian sources.

Could the raving Fox news junkies please be more specific in their criticism (and site sources other than Fox news and George Bush's speeches) so that they can be debunked?

Randall, He wasn't known to


He wasn't known to me already. Just seemed like another polemicist warping the truth through lies of omission, so I did a quick search during which I found out that info on him. His style seemed very similar to Moores. You know, don't actually lie but mislead by changing the context. Although I did find other statements by him in other articles where he actually lies.

I fully accept that there were plans to take out Saddam even prior to 1996 during the Clinton administration, possibly back into the first Bush administration. In fact there was public discussion. After all Saddam did invade Kuwait in 1990. After the "cease fire" he was sabre rattling, shooting missles at our planes attempting to enforce the no fly zones, rejecting inspections, made an attempt on the president, was harboring various terrorists, had contact with Osama, etc. It's no big secret that many in the U.S. felt that we should have taken him out during Kuwait.

However reading the article by Ibish you would think that this was happening in a vacuum. That is what triggered me to check him out on the internet.

Ibish is basically doing exactly the sort of thing he is accusing Moore of. For instance he accuses Moore of using "The Saudis" in a racist fashion, likening it to anti-semitism. However, my take on Moore was that he was refering to certain people in the Saudi ruling classes with alleged ties to Bush.

I'm no Moore fan either. I think Moore is a propagandist not the least bit interested in honest presentation of "facts". Check out this link: http://www.davidkopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I did some more extensive checking just now. He is a U.S. citizen by birth. Not a foreign journalist. I verified by other articles that he is a Marxist. He also supported Sami "The terrorist professor" Al-Arian.

You can check out this article to get a feel for Ibish. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6899

I couldn't verify some of the stuff in here and I leave it up to you to figure out what is correct or not. I'm not sure for instance that he is an anti-semite although he did support a group out of Patterson NJ that had just published the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". He said he wasn't in favor of publishing that but still continued his support. This is something I have found happening a lot with these Islamic nut cases. They tend to lie about their true opinions to westerners while showing their true agendas in their actions and native tongues.

There is also a fellow Daniel Pipes who had an article on Ibish. Ibish responded to the article but didn't really refute any of Pipes points. This involves several links but I found a blog that sums up my take after reading all the articles (search for Ibish): http://muslimpundit.blogspot.com/2002_03_01_muslimpundit_archive.html.

Here's the interview and he really didn't refute anything. Also, notice how he says that Israel started the 1967 war. While in a way true it isn't the whole truth: http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/67War.asp.

I even read some of Ibishes old college articles and many of the claims were substantiated from the other articles. I checked because they sounded fabricated or possibly out of context also. Frontpage isn't exactly my kind of place.

Steve M, Exactly where in

Steve M,

Exactly where in "Yeah, riiiiight." did you discern that Johnathan gets all his info from Fox and Bush. It was obvious that Ibish was leaving a lot unsaid the same as Moore. I read quite a bit of what Ibish has to say and when he isn't lying he does his best to mislead through omission. Why exactly should I listen to(believe) him?

What the hell does journalism have to do with Ibish? Ibish isn't a foreign journalist, he's an American and mouthpiece for an Arab american group that is actually not in good standing with millions of Lebanese Americans. After all he supports Syria that destablized the country. Turned it from a tolerant country into another sad Islamic state. Also I don't see any cites at the end of his "sophisticated" piece of "investigative journalism".

Foreign journalist are no bowl of cherries either. Hell if you were to believe arabnews.com the Israelis were behind 9/11.

There is poor journalism here in the U.S. on both sides, not just Fox News. Are you aware of the Joe Wilson fiasco. Probably not because it is not getting news coverage here. Turns out he was a big fat liar.

So the whole "13 words" thing was not a Bush lie. I fell for this when it first came out because I am against the War.

There are all sorts of anti-US distortions that have been fed by the press that are anti-US or anti-Bush (not equivalent categories). Like the accusation that US sold WMD which is another half-truth. Anthrax samples he got through French and US branchs of a U.S. non-profit medical university program for next to nothing. The expensive industrial equipment needed to actually produce WMD was purchased from French, and Germans (Fermenters and entire chemical processing plants) Some generic chemicals were purchased from the US like chlorine but heck those chemicals are used for manufacturing many things. For instance, insecticides, which is what the Iraqis claimed some of the chemicals are for. The Iraqis were importing enourmous quantities of insecticides so this makes sense to me. We were not shipping them Sarin.

I'm getting sick of the lying and knee jerk reactions from both sides of this. If you are not willing to entertain every wild accusation from either side they will accuse you of being in bed with the other side.

So as to your accusation:
I'm no Fox junkie. I'm not voting for drunk sailor/protectionist/homophobe/anti-freedom-of-religion Bush, and I sure am not voting for that war-hawk redistributionist Kerry. I'm not very happy with the LP candidate either but will probably vote for him just to send a message.

Also, one thing I am

Also, one thing I am particularly unhappy about the Bush administration is their apparent OK on torture. I have little hope that this can be chocked up to a few loose cannons. Although, not quite as shocking as what Saddam was doing I expect better from us. Plus from what I can garner some of this has gone farther than college level hazing and has resulted in deaths.

I also find secret imprisonment of anyone anywhere objectionable. Bush is apparently doing this also.

Sorry for no cites, after all I am NOT a journalist.