This is the third and last instalment of reader reviews. This one was referred by Geoff Muirden, and is written by Jeremy Lee. It was first published in Target, the journal of the League of Rights. For those who know nothing of the League it is on what is generally called the “far right”. Moore has a wide range of fans.

AUGUST 2004 ON TARGET COPY(Jeremy Lee)

LIES UNCOVERED: Yesterday (Sunday August 8) was definitive for me. I saw Michael Moore’s film Farenheit 9/11. Amongst criticisms of Moore’s film, two are most common – that there is no mention of Israel’s part in the Middle East crisis; and that the film made no mention of America’s ‘partners-in-crime’ in the Coalition of the Willing, Australia and the U.K.
That being said, the film should still be seen by as many Australians as possible. It lifts the lid on an administration which makes the Mafia pale by comparison. The sheer agony of the war in Iraq, with its harrowing family tragedies among Americans and Iraqis alike, cannot fail to have an effect. The technological dimensions of war have long since eradicated any notion that it offers – if it ever did – a way of resolving human conflict.
The most glaring omission from the film was the story of Depleted Uranium (DU) which is only just beginning to leak into the public domain. Depleted Uranium, a residue from the Nuclear Industry, is now used to coat bullets, shells and rockets. It will instantly penetrate heavy armour, multiplying the impact of conventional ammunition. But it coats the environment in proximity to targets with a dust containing high radiation. The result is a series of diseases and genetic disorders which emerge over subsequent years.
Over half the US troops involved in the first Gulf War, “Desert Storm” have now been struck with “Gulf War Syndrome”. A variety of afflictions have appeared, with leukemia, cancers, tumours, stress disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome. A huge jump in genetic mutations among children of Gulf War veterans has also appeared.
The same ghastly results are appearing among the Iraqi people, now dealing with the victims of the First Gulf War, let alone the Second. In the first, 375 tons of D.U. were used in Iraq. So far, 2,200 tons have been used in the current conflict. It has also been used in Afghanistan and the Balkans with similar health results. Western authorities know this story will break sooner or later. Attempts are being made to clear the environment in Iraq, and bury the evidence – years too late. Thousands of bombed and burnt-out vehicles are massively contaminated – and for every one carried away to “vehicle graveyards” a new one appears from the continual fighting. Contaminated soil is carried away into the desert and blows back into the cities on the desert winds.
Moore’s film catalogued in unmistakable fashion the procession of lies, as the story was changed from month to month. It outlined the “state of denial” among many Americans, who preferred to believe the unbelievable sooner than concede the failings of a country they want to believe can do no wrong.
The potency of a film such as this will be among the young people who see it, no longer prepared to countenance misplaced patriotism. If you haven’t seen it, you should.
Reflecting on what I’d seen, the ABC 7 o’clock News gave reasons for further reflection. Forty distinguished former Australian Ambassadors, consular staff and military leaders, led by former Commander in Chief General Gration, issued a statement deploring the lack of honesty in Australia’s government, particularly in committing Australia’s troops to war. It was the Australian counterpart to the 50 former British Ambassadors who had chided the Blair government in similar fashion, and the host of prominent former US leaders who have written and spoken in protest against the Bush programme.
If this does not lead to reflective introspection among our elected politicians there is little cause for hope. Our current Prime Minister, who, I believe illegally, took upon himself the personal decision to send Australians to war, has told us he’d “do it all over again”. This is the defiance of the incorrigible. But within his own party not one National or Liberal was prepared to risk salary and pension by speaking out on conscience – this betraying the very responsibility for which each had been entrusted.
Moore’s film confirmed, to my mind, the accuracy of the reports On Target has provided on a weekly basis in the period leading up to, during, and since the so-called “end” of the Iraqi war. Much of the material now coming out in the media, in government inquiries and reports, was carried in On Target months, if not years ago.
One month ago we reported the remarks of Dr Tom Frame, Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force, who originally supported the commitment of Australians to Iraq. He had the integrity to confess that he had been deceived, concluding: “…Men and women from a country claiming to be civilized have shown that they are just as capable of the barbarism that characterized Saddam’s Baathist regime. I continue to seek God’s forgiveness for my complicity in creating a world in which this sort of action was ever considered by anyone to be necessary.”
It is not weakness to admit to being wrong. It is the beginning of civilized manhood. It is the start of self-respect, which in turn gains the respect of others.
Barbarism? Are we really barbarians? Let’s put it another way. Can any of us forego some personal blame for what is happening in the Middle East? Even if we disagreed with what’s happening – what did we personally do about it? It’s all very well to blame our leaders – the Howards, Bushes, Blairs, Downers of this world. But we put them there and paid the taxes that they used for evil purposes. Repentence is a national, as well as a personal requirement.
Like America, Australia is at the cross-roads. The coming election is important – but our real problem lies deeper. Whoever wins, can the people regain some input into their own future? If not, it will be too late. We have yet to learn that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
In conclusion, perhaps the most haunting scene of all in Farenheit 9/11 was a military patrol in Baghdad, setting out on a Christmas Eve patrol, armed with AK 47s, grenades, walkie-talkies, covered by choppers and artillery using Depleted Uranium shells, to the tune of
“Silent Night, Holy Night, All is calm, all is bright;
Round yon Virgin, Mother and Child –
Holy Infant so tender and mild. Sleep in heavenly Peace!”
That’s the supermarket song for selling plastic toys from China, isn’t it? Barbarians indeed!

VARIOUS commentators have been speculating whether or not the decision by the Liberal MP for Parramatta, Ross Cameron, to “out” himself for being unfaithful in his marriage will harm his re-election chances.
If the most recent experience – that of Governor James E McGreevey of New Jersey – is an indication, it may not harm them at all.
(Though the very latest revelations in today’s Daily Telegraph about the timing of his affair with a solicitor put a somewhat more unfavourable slant on the position).
The possibility he will survive politically is notwithstanding the very considerable hypocrisy that is attached to his position. There are few more committed “moralisers” in our National Parliament than the Member for Parramatta.
Last week Governor McGreevey “outed” himself as a gay (twice married) who had an affair with a male staff member who is now seeking to “extract compensation” from him. He will resign from the Governorship in November, not because he is gay, but because the civil suit may damage the Office of Governor.
A poll over the weekend revealed that the Governor’s electoral standing had not changed one iota!
One might be forgiven for believing that philandering politicians is a relatively recent occurrence. Not so!
In the latter Bjelke-Petersen Governments – early to mid 1980’s – four, and possibly more, of the Ministers were having affairs with female staff members! The fact was relatively well known at the time – including to the then Labor Opposition which charitably decided not to pursue the matter.
In one case, a very senior Minister actually moved into a luxury apartment with his Private Secretary. When confronted by the then Premier about the matter, he promptly told him to mind his own business!
Earlier, the late Russ Hinze had left his wife of 30 or more years for his electorate secretary. It caused barely a ripple at the time…………but plenty of laughter when dear old Russ rang his local car dealer and told him to deliver a new vehicle to his “lady”. The problem was the dealer was none the wiser about his changed arrangements and delivered the vehicle to the first wife – who kept it!
Now this may be merely a legend – but I suspect it actually happened it.
When it came to “moralising”, the Bjelke-Petersen Government was more vocal than perhaps any in our history………………………………yet the very considerable double standards of some of its Ministers barely rated a mention, or raised a ripple.
Now we are living in a more tolerant and open society, so I suspect the impact of Mr Cameron’s revelations might not be as politically harmful as perhaps it ought to be.
But it will be harmful if he persists in his “family values” campaign, and if there are more revelations about the timing and nature of his flings, but I suspect he will quickly move onto other issues so, at the end of the day, the adverse political impact in a most marginal seat may not be as great as would suspect.
Ironically, he may be helped by the enormous public cynicism about politicians generally. Over many a breakfast table in Parramatta there will be mutterings of “they all do it, he has just been unlucky enough to get caught”.
But back to the United States. If the Honourable William Jefferson Clinton was the candidate in November (and not Senator John Kerry) then the Honourable George W Bush might as well start moving his gear back to the ranch now.
We know that, in many ways, Clinton was a flawed character, yet the people of the US have largely forgiven if they have not forgotten.
The Member for Parramatta probably outed himself because a less comfortable alternative was just around the corner. So it might not have been that great a gamble after all.
The election in Parramatta may well be an interesting “test” of community attitudes to the standards, or lack of standards, of their elected representatives!

The conventional analysis of Mark Latham’s FTA manouvering is that he has beaten Howard with nimble “new politics” footwork. Like much conventional analysis it is wrong, even if Howard is not able to counter the move. If Howard parries correctly it could be to Latham what the exemption of GST on food was to Meg Lees – the most pyrrhic of victories. (Please note, the only real notice of the Olympics that this columnist is likely to take could be in a proliferation of words with Greek roots.)
Why is the conventional analysis wrong? Because it takes an insider’s view of what Latham should be doing. The reason that On Line Opinion does qualitative research work is because insiders are only one part of the equation. They can influence large numbers of voters (sometimes perversely in the opposite direction to what they intend), but they themselves only get one vote each.
In this case the conventional analysis says that Latham’s move was smart because it had Howard responding to his initiative, and because it gave the left of his party some cover on the issue with their own constituency. On the first point, no-one apart from insiders will remember who responded to whom when the election comes around. All they will remember will be that Labor let the FTA through.
On the second, I think it is more likely to alienate the left-wing constituency from Labor than placate it. Latham talks a lot about “new politics”, but the politics he practices is the politics of wheel and deal – that is “old politics”. He does it with some flair, but he is essentially trying to give all his constituencies enough to keep them in his electoral coalition. At the same time he is trying to split up Howard’s constituency. There is nothing wrong with this, but there is a type of “new politics” around that takes a different view. It is “new” in the sense that major mainstream parties seldom attempt it, because it is unsustainable in government.
This is the politics represented by Bob Brown and The Greens. This is “heart on the sleeve”, “take no prisoners”, “all or nothing politics”. It was also the style practiced by Pauline Hanson. It is characterised by a constituency that is alienated from “politics as usual” and wants to teach the majors a lesson.
When we researched One Nation voters in the last election they told us that they were voting for John Howard because he was “doing what she [Hanson] told him to do”.
Latham initially won good support from the left, possibly because they thought that he was doing what they wanted him to do. He certainly seemd to be fishing for that with his comments on the US alliance, for example. The FTA was another area where he was making comments they would have liked.
Latham is losing the left and they are vulnerable to an approach from Howard. This “new politics” is also the politics of retribution. When Labor supported the government’s ban on Gay Marriage there were protests. They weren’t against the Liberals, however, they were against Labor. Even though Latham is closer to the left than Howard can ever be, he cannot take their votes for granted. They may decide to vote against him to teach him a lesson.
If the left supports a Labor government that ends up being a re-run of the Hawke and Keating ones, then they have gained very little, if anything. If Labor in Opposition can so easily be convinced to back the government’s line on terrorism, the FTA and gay marriage, then why should they be any different in government? From a strategic left perspective, mightn’t it be better to support Howard this time if that forced Labor to remake itself into a genuinely left-wing party by the election after this?
It would be difficult for Howard to pitch this line, but Bob Brown might be tempted to. Brown and the Greens only get leverage when the two major parties disagree with each other and need minority support to break the deadlock. The history of the Coalition in Opposition in the 90s was that it was quite prepared to back Labor legislation that it agreed with. Labor by contrast tends to be more opportunistic in Opposition. As a result Brown probably has more power to stop the things he dislikes when the Liberal Party is in power, than when Labor is.
Howard could help the process along by running ads telling people that Latham’s “new politics” is just “old politics” rebranded. This could be done as part of illustrating Howard’s theme that he is a “conviction” politician, whilst Latham is dangerously erratic. Demonstrating this would have the side benefit of showing left-wing voters that they have been sold out.
I could be wrong. What I am sketching here is merely a “what if” scenario. But when the election is called, it will be one of the possibilities that we will be testing with our focus groups to see how they react.

Christopher Bantick argued in The Age on 10 August 2004 that sex is “the emphasis” of magazines for teenage girls.
Even if I used to read Dolly and Cleo, well, when sex was being invented, it was hard to agree or disagree with his thesis, so in a highly scientific study I forked out for a copy of Cleo, a Girlfriend and chocolates, thus reproducing an experience I had many times as a socially inept and sweet-toothed youngster.
Back then the purchase of girls’ magazines didn’t come with the feeling the shop assistant thought you were a pervert or a thirty-something whose attempt at wearing hipsters went beyond the muffin look to the A-bomb aesthetic.
“I’m buying them for an important research project”, I said like someone who does important research projects, while putting the publications into my not too-cute bag.
While I concur sex was highlighted in the respective September and August editions of Girlfriend and Cleo, it was cosmetics and clothes which dominated to the point where consumerism, although often sexualised and linked with celebrities, was most prominent and as insidious as any other messages females were fed.
Indeed, after completing my analysis I decided my, like, wardrobe was totally uncool and needed me to go and buy, like, the sort of threads that would have me “beating boys off with a stick”, except “boys” my age are too busy using one to get around.
In cahoots with Maybelline, Girlfriend incorporated “must-haves” for school formals including a $284 dress that would make me look like Jessica Simpson if I was blonde, thin, twenty-three and the owner of some serious bling bling (which is either expensive jewelry or a crap ringtone on your mobile phone).
I counted over twenty pages dedicated to advertisements for beauty products in Cleo and that didn’t comprise pieces which were really commercials yet claimed a higher purpose such as the emulation of Kimberley Stewart, who’s famous for getting photographed lots because she’s Rod’s daughter.
Bantick refers to Girlfriend’s advice inferring a letter-writer should submit to her boyfriend’s sexual demands, however, in defence of the monthly this section also deals with issues such as parental alcoholism, conflicted friendships and the rarely discussed topic of self-harm.
In between one or two ads, the magazines featured educational articles about negative eating patterns, drinking, (male) suicide and the criminal use of credit cards.
Also on the plus side, I’m now aware I don’t give a rats about my appearance, that I can go on without a bloke (really?) and I’m an Orlando Bloom fan, even if I don’t know who he is.
At the start of September I do have to “check my dag-o-meter before leaving the house” and will be engaging in a “…D & M with my bestie at the end of (that) month”, presumably because I was lax with the dag-o-meter checking at the beginning of it.
Bantick correctly acknowledged “there is an unwavering reinforcement (in these magazines) that self-esteem and identity is inexorably linked to having a boyfriend” or a “boyf” as the beaus of girlfriends who peruse Girlfriend are known.
Nevertheless, there was also a constant reference to “besties” or best friends, placing undue stress on one friend fulfilling most of a girl’s non-boyf needs.
In Cleo, guys were everywhere and can apparently be encountered in places you don’t anticipate, though probably not in a lesbian bar or John Howard’s backbench. They apparently act silly when you’re not around, but contravening the magazine’s gender essentialism, they can have body image woes.
By the way, Cleo’s sealed nudge-nudge wink-wink cue Benny Hill music section is stupid and wouldn’t shock anyone who has watched Jerry Springer, as, alas, many teens have (so have I so I won’t be too precious about it).
These magazines were woeful, if mostly for reasons other than the ones Bantick focused on.
They confirm a divide between those who can get the clothes, the fellows and be generally popular and the poor suckers who can only afford to buy the magazines and live on as geeks.
Sigh, so many memories.
Mind you, it’s those who couldn’t be bothered engaging with them at all that are the luckiest dolly birds in the whole wide world.

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 is the latest evidence of the decadence of western political debate and an intriguing, if unintentional study of the genesis of evil. Our ability to make sound decisions has already been eroded by the incursion into serious journalism of the convergence of news and entertainment. Now Moore completely eliminates the dimensions of news, fact, context and rational inquiry from the documentary form. He produces a movie that could have come from the Third Reich, or Hollywood during World War II, except neither would have accepted his woeful production values or complete substitution of circumstantial inference for logic. And there is apparently more of this type of film coming from both the right and the left.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary in the conventional sense of the word. It is an advertisement – an advertisement that represents nirvana for the sorely tried political campaign manager. It’s long. Longer than you could ever have dreamed an ad could be. But that doesn’t matter because it invokes an emotional response from the audience – much greater than any 15 second spot could generate. It might be based on vicious slurs and misrepresentations but as it’s a third party work you can deny them whilst accepting their benefits. Better still, the ad doesn’t cost you a cent. In fact it’s a revenue source for your supporters. Michael Moore skims off the most, some of which he’ll give you back directly. He’ll also allow you to run fundraisers at preview showings, so even more sticks to your fingers. And the best thing of all? Some of this money will actually come from your political enemies who have to watch it so they can rebut it to their friends. What sweet revenge.
So those are just a few reasons that the tactic is spreading. Moveon.org has now hit the cinemas with its own documentary – Outfoxed – which, you guessed it, blows the whistle on the Fox News Network. I’m told there are other documentaries coming out from the other side debunking 9/11, but I can’t find any reference to them on the ‘net in the blizzard that Moore has created on Google or I’d give you a link.
What disturbs me most about Moore’s work is that it is a good example of the way that all societies harbour fascist tendencies. (I object to the use of “fascism” as a term of mere abuse, so my use of the word is considered. It’s not an easy term to define as this review suggests.) And no, when I refer to fascism I’m not referring to Bush but to Moore. Let us take as true the explicit assumption underlying Moore’s movie that Bush is a fascist in the Orwellian or Bradburian sense of the word. That Bush uses techniques like media manipulation and keeping the country in a state of incessant war to circle the wagons and unite the folk against the foreigner, and under this ruse maintains himself in power. What is the proper way to oppose him? Is it to “fight fire with fire” – “He ‘burns books’ so we’ll burn books in retaliation?”
If you’re Michael Moore, that one’s a “no brainer”. Of course you go and burn books yourself. So Moore produces a “documentary” that misrepresents and distorts the facts, advances paranoid and xenophobic conspiracy theories, all in quest of an emotional response which will unite Americans, and the rest of the world, in favour of deposing Bush.
There are some that will argue that Moore doesn’t lie, even when confronted with the evidence. I won’t rehearse Dave Koppel’s 59 deceits . I want to add a couple to Kopel’s list. One is outside the framework of the movie. It is Moore’s claim that the mainstream media were biased or inept because they didn’t capture the footage inside Iraq that he did. It’s a little hard to tell from the credits, but most, if not all, the unique footage inside Iraq appears to be file footage from other cinematographers, like that from Australian George Gittoes’ Soundtrack to War. Footage of buildings being bombed was hardly unique, and the happy Iraqi family scene could have been lifted from the Saddam Hussein Film Library of the Iraqi Ministry of Information. Moore’s claim verges on plagiarism.
Then there was another instance inside the framework of the movie that I noticed. At one stage Moore is interviewing a financial expert and asks him to put a figure on the size of the Saudi investment in the US. He replies that it is 6 to 7 percent of the capitalisation of the stock market. That may be right. I don’t know. What I do know is that there is a difference between 6 to 7 percent of the stock market and 6 to 7 percent of the country. Yet Moore is confidently asserting in another interview that the Saudis own 6 to 7 percent of the entire US of A. So reckless is he that he doesn’t even care whether the movie is internally inconsistent.
Of course I wasn’t relying on these deceits to form my response while I was watching the movie. The whole premise was about as plausible as the Protocols of Zion. We were shown scenes of Middle Eastern gentlemen wearing the obligatory tea towels and Elvis Presley pitch-black wrap-around sunglasses doing business with various members of the Bush coterie. As a result of this we are asked to believe that Bush connived in the trashing of the World Trade Centre by terrorists as a favour to the bin Ladens because the Saudis pay him more than the US taxpayer. Yeah right. About this time the rest of the audience should have been tuning out like I was.
Moore claims that Disney wouldn’t handle his movie because Disney couldn’t handle the unpalatable truth. The fact is that no reputable distributor should ever handle junk like this. If Moore had distilled his arguments and sent them as an essay to On Line Opinion it would have ended up in the folder I reserve for paranoid lunatics. We take a pretty broad view of what’s publishable. Jason Leopold takes a much more conspiratorial view of US Foreign policy than I do, yet we frequently publish him. However, what Moore is running is a variation of the theory that ran around the Moslem world just after 9/11 – that the attack was the work of Mossad. Except that it is easy to see what Mossad might have had to gain, even while rejecting the theory, but impossible to understand what would have been in it for the Saudis. It is certainly a much less plausible hypothesis than the G W Bush assertion that the Iraqis were involved in the bombing of the WTC.
Maybe Moore will put a comment at the end of this article explaining it to me. Maybe. The international jury at Cannes deserves an award themselves for their decision to award the Golden Palm to Michael Moore – the same one history has given Caligula for making his horse Incitatus a Senator!
What has distressed me most has been the reaction to the movie of such a wide range of people. The woman next to me in the cinema was so caught up in it that she was moaning and groaning so much I thought she might have been from Harry met Sally. She wasn’t the only one. John Kerry appears to endorse at least parts of it. Domestically both the Greens and the Australian Democrats have used it as a fundraiser and Bob Brown has defended it as true.
Mind you, as time has rolled on the defences of the movie and Moore have shifted ground. In the early days people would defend the “facts”. Now they will tell you that Moore has invented a new type of documentary and you can’t judge it by conventional standards of truth. (For a sophisticated variant of this argument see Dierdre Macken’s AFR article).Or they will assert that it is satire, without seeming to understand that if it is satire, then its premises aren’t actually meant to be taken as true. In which case what is the point that Moore is making?
There are obviously dark and dirty deeds afoot in the White House, Number 10 Downing Street and in the Lodge in Canberra – that is the nature of politics. There are also dark and dirty deeds afoot at John Curtin House. That too is the nature of politics. However, the way to deal with them is not to corrupt the tenor of political debate into a paranoid emotional miasma. What is needed is clarification, not obfuscation.
Moore is the latest incarnation of our periodic retreats from civilised political discourse – a manifestation of the sort of hysteria that gave rise to the Witch Trials in Salem, Macarthyism or to our own Pauline Hanson. That his product is so poor and so popular points to the thing that is most dangerous and potent about the phenomenon. Such a large percentage of the population feels so disempowered that they are prepared to believe Moore, and these other messiahs, not because their arguments are persuasive – Moore’s coherence is on a level with Hanson’s – but because they want to believe them. This is a type of psychosis.
I’ve often wondered what makes ordinary people do very wicked things. How does Lindy England come to torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib? Why would two people snatch a baby in Melbourne? How could ordinary Germans in one of the cradles of European civilisation persecute and kill Jews and then go home to play with their kids at night? What fascinates me about evil, and fascism, is how it can infect the very ordinary and decent. After watching Moore’s movie, I now have a better understanding of that process. A much better understanding than I have gathered by watching either George Bush or John Howard.