06-30-2004, 09:20 PM
The thing is, there are conclusions you can "infer" from the movie. Note: By inferring, you are assuming, and when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. :D
Theoretically, you could stretch nearly any conclusion to be inferrable from the movie, which is what the HBS article accuses Slate of doing, and what I would too. Having seen the movie, I can easily say, even my very neo-conservative friends, who mind you, did not like the movie at all, if they couldn't get those conclusions, I have a hard time seeing how you get those conclusions. Most of Slate's points are merely one level below what F9/11 said, essentially Moore claims one thing, the next layer underneath is what Slate sees, but the problem is, if the article really got to the true point of the matter, that truth kinda refutes most of the Slate arguments.
The Slate argument works as long as you don't see the movie. See the movie, and that article doesn't make any sense at all.
As for the Joey argument, yes, you can make that argument if I nitpick on details such as the "maybe" before hand, then you have every right to nail me on something I previously nailed you on. For instance, Slate pulls the Clarke statement that he authorized the flights out for the Saudis. Moore claims it came from high up people in the White House. Slate's article implies that Moore is lying, and he would be, if that was the full truth. Now, guess who was the highest person in the White House when 9/11 went down and a few days after? (First chapter of Against All Enemies, Clarke's book).
Richard Clarke.
Theoretically, you could stretch nearly any conclusion to be inferrable from the movie, which is what the HBS article accuses Slate of doing, and what I would too. Having seen the movie, I can easily say, even my very neo-conservative friends, who mind you, did not like the movie at all, if they couldn't get those conclusions, I have a hard time seeing how you get those conclusions. Most of Slate's points are merely one level below what F9/11 said, essentially Moore claims one thing, the next layer underneath is what Slate sees, but the problem is, if the article really got to the true point of the matter, that truth kinda refutes most of the Slate arguments.
The Slate argument works as long as you don't see the movie. See the movie, and that article doesn't make any sense at all.
As for the Joey argument, yes, you can make that argument if I nitpick on details such as the "maybe" before hand, then you have every right to nail me on something I previously nailed you on. For instance, Slate pulls the Clarke statement that he authorized the flights out for the Saudis. Moore claims it came from high up people in the White House. Slate's article implies that Moore is lying, and he would be, if that was the full truth. Now, guess who was the highest person in the White House when 9/11 went down and a few days after? (First chapter of Against All Enemies, Clarke's book).
Richard Clarke.