Click here for info on the Print Journal (and to purchase your copy)!

Just 134 Days To Go:
The Iraq/Al Qaeda Non-Connection, Michael Moore and Bill Clinton

By Mark Grueter

---------------------------------------

The government’s own 9/11 commission recently released an “interim report” which states unequivocally that the Baathist regime in Iraq was in no way involved in the planning or execution of Al Qaeda’s September 11th attacks on America. Moreover, though the two groups had ‘made contacts’ over the years, never did Iraq and Al Qaeda form a “collaborative relationship.” In fact, the commission reports that in 1994 Al Qaeda requested assistance from the Iraqi government but received no response. Informal contacts were sometimes made between Iraq and Al Qaeda over the years, just as they are often made between various governments and organizations (criminal or otherwise) around the world, including the various “contacts” made between the United States and Al Qaeda during the 1980’s.

As is their wont, the Bush administration, led as usual by the de facto President, Dick Cheney, continues to insist that Al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. So the stalemate between the administration’s supporters and its critics intensifies. Thus far, Bush’s strategy of insisting upon a “relationship” between the two groups despite evidence to the contrary – evidence that shows no “operational” relationship ever existed - has worked to a degree. In September 2003, 69 percent of Americans believed it “likely” that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. And as late as April 2004, 49 percent of Americans agreed that there exists “clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda.” It will be interesting to see if this latest report from the 9/11 commission’s staff will finally persuade enough Republicans to believe that maybe, just maybe, their own President misled them and is now doing its damnedest to cover it up.

The Los Angeles Times reports on how Al Qaeda’s real partners leading up to September 11, 2001 were in fact the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The New York Times agrees and adds Iran to the list. Essentially, these three regimes accepted, most likely through back channels, deals that allowed Al Qaeda to function within their borders so long as no attacks were made against their own people. Often, Al Qaeda was given direct support by these governments and indeed fled to one of these countries after being flushed out of Afghanistan in October 2001. Iraq, ironically, was the one regime to refuse Al Qaeda’s sinister offer.

* * *

I cannot wait for Michael Moore’s latest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, to hit theaters this Friday. With the Cannes Palme d'Or award in his pocket, alongside all of the controversy the film has generated, Moore and his flick could heavily influence the election in Kerry’s favor. Undecided voters who have already seen the film during test screenings overwhelmingly come out of it wanting to remove Bush from office. Conservatives are so frightened they’re openly trying to dissuade theaters across the country from even showing the film. Everyone always talks about Moore’s charged-up political message but what works for me are the subtle, comedic devices he uses to make his points. I suspect this is why he stands out among left-wing commentators; his timing is perfect, and the tone of voice-overs is brilliant.

Taking advantage of some yet-to-be seen footage, Moore airs, among other things, many of Bush’s most embarrassing moments. He also plays the tape of a stupefied Bush continuing to read to children for seven agonizingly long minutes (with a ticking watch appearing in the corner of the screen) after being told about the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center. “Was Bush thinking he should have taken reports the CIA had given him the month before more seriously?” deadpans Moore.

To help demonstrate Bush’s dereliction leading up to 9/11, Moore makes use of a Washington Post computation which tells us that Bush was on vacation for exactly 42 percent of his first eight months in office.

And unlike some of his earlier work, Moore has really tried to make the film as tight and as accurate as possible, because he wants to expand his audience. He hired a team of lawyers to make sure the script does not mislead. “We have gone through every single word of this film — literally every word — and verified its accuracy,” said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Moore has created a “war room” to defend the movie against scurrilous charges, and in an admirable attempt to turn the tables on politicians and opposing journalists, he threatens to sue anyone who makes false claims about the film itself.

* * *

And the Bill Clinton autobiography hits stores this week. Unfortunately for the former president, The New York Times dismisses the 957-page volume as a long-winded piece of garbage - “self-indulgent,” “sloppy,” and “dull,” writes the reviewer, before adding:

Certainly it's easy enough to understand the huge advance sales for the book. Mr. Clinton would seem to have all the gifts for writing a gripping memoir: gifts of language, erudition and charm, combined with a policy wonk's perception of a complex world at a hinge moment in time, teetering on the pivot between Cold War assumptions and a new era of global interdependence. Add to that his improbable life story — a harrowing roller-coaster ride of precocious achievements, self-inflicted slip-ups and even more startling comebacks — and you have all the ingredients for a compelling book.

But he lacks two traits that characterize a good writer: candor and the ability to censor oneself. Clinton, despite all of his strengths and achievements, is a fundamentally dishonest person. He’s an actor, not a writer. Apparently, the book reminds the reader of Clinton’s rambling, disastrous speech at the ’88 convention, where the Democratic audience applauded only after he finally uttered the words, “In closing.”

Moreover, there’s something rather strange about Clinton penning the story of his life (My Life) so soon. Is he still not an active political figure? Given his relatively young age as a former President and his wife’s obvious ambitions, it seems likely Clinton will re-attain official power at some point, in some capacity. Why pretend to write a tell-all book about your life while you’re still very much in the game?

And couldn’t Clinton have at least waited until after the election to publish his memoirs, despite his assurances that he’ll use My Life to campaign on behalf of Kerry? What was the rush to let us all know about how pissed off he is at Ken Starr? Besides, the issues of our day easily trump discussions of Monica and impeachment. I’m not convinced enough people even care about Clinton and his “parallel lives” all that much anymore.

* * *

As the above subjects suggest, the stories which surround political elections are often more compelling (and more relevant) than the activities emanating from the campaigns themselves. For instance, this week on the campaign trail, John Kerry issued a radical proposal to raise the minimum wage to $7 per hour (up from, what is it, $5.75?). According to The Los Angeles Times, that’s pretty much all Kerry did this past week. His plan is to lay low and watch from the sidelines as Bush continues to draw fire from the press.

So, there’s not much in the way of actual campaign news. One of the biggest stories from this past week concerns the preparation for the Democratic National Convention, where it has been reported that officials will, for the first time, give press credentials to certain online “bloggers.” And also, we hear reports about how the Democratic delegates will be “united” (as opposed to divided) at this year’s convention. In other words, it’s a fucking bore out there on the trail.

Bush spent the week defending the attempt by his administration to connect Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda. With all of the bad news overseas, the president has been forced to defend his policies, full-time. But his supporters make a valid point: “If you look at the last eight months at the White House and in particular the last 90 days, I've never seen more negative stories come out in a concentrated period,” said Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican advertising consultant and fund-raiser. “Yet despite all that, the president is still even with John Kerry or, if you count the Electoral College votes in the battleground states, ahead. Then there's a creeping plus for George Bush, which is that the economy is taking off.”

Yet the same point can be made about the Democratic nominee. The New York Times reports how Kerry effectively fought off an unprecedented $85 million GOP assault aimed at undermining his credibility. This crusade began as soon as it became clear Kerry was the nominee, but it comes to an end this weekend and it hasn’t made a dent.

Click here for Grueter's previous column.

---------------------------------------

Mark Grueter is a writer living in New York City and the Managing Editor of Canon Magazine. He can be reached at grueter@methree.net.

© 2004 Me Three