OK, I finally saw Fahrenheit 9/11, and the thing that struck me the most, among all the many themes, sub-themes, and details, was class war. The words are never mentioned, or even suggested. But Moore goes out of his way in several different parts of the movie to show how rich and powerful people are profiting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, while the working classes in both countries, both civilian and military, are getting killed and otherwise paying the price.
He does not skimp on the way that the Bush administration lied to scare the public and the Congress (which certainly should have known better) into supporting their evil scheme.
But that is not news, and it is certainly nothing of which many movie-goers and Indy readers need to be convinced.
But I saw no hint of this theme in Godfrey Cheshire's excellent review ("Moore to the Point," June 23), or in that by Stuart Klawans in The Nation; nor have any of my numerous leftist friends who have seen the movie made note of it. I'll see the movie again, but I don't believe I made this aspect of it up.
On a related issue, there has been some criticism of Moore for wasting too much time criticizing the Saudi royal family, that story being seen as irrelevant to the main issues. I would say that the Saudis got off relatively easy. If the U.S. government wishes to assail the human rights or anti-democracy record of any rulers anywhere, they should be high on the list. My take is that the U.S. government has always been far too kind to the corrupt Saudi royal family, who live a life of Western decadence and opulence while professing and supporting the Wahhabi sect from which bin Laden takes his inspiration, because the oil is too important to the U.S. ruling class.
I also believe that one of the several motivations the neoCONS have had for invading Iraq for over a decade is their recognition that what happened to the Shah of Iran is not unlikely to happen to the Saudi rulers in the foreseeable future, and they were determined to have an alternative source of oil more firmly under U.S. control.
Scott A. Weir
Let me get this straight. Richard Burr is responsive to a constituent company that employs 6,000 citizens in his district. He is helping Wake Forest University, a constituent institution that employs more than 15,000 citizens in his district, in its on-going efforts to fight cancer. And he wants to reform a class action system that often leaves pennies for plaintiffs. The only constituents he appears less receptive to are those who complain about conditions in Alaska (a good 3,300 miles from Burr's 5th Congressional District).
Is this all Ms. Strom could find? ("The Companies He Keeps," July 7) If you muddle through all the tired and predictable innuendo and editorializing about corporations dictating Burr's positions on tobacco and cancer research, you're left with the inescapable conclusion that Burr's positions simply reflect the needs of his constituents and the companies that employ them.
Come on. Admit to us the real reason an affable, informed, and accomplished candidate like Burr drives Ms. Strom and your readers crazy.
It's right there on your cover: Burr looks just like Bush!
Got something to say about an Independent article? Send no more than 300 words to email@example.com; to P.O. Box 2690, Durham 27715; or fax 286-4274. Include your name, phone number and mailing address for verification; we cannot publish a letter without confirmation from the writer. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style and clarity.