Oliver Stone's WTC and the Iraq War
by
Tom Engelhardt
and Ruth Rosen
by Tom Engelhardt and
Ruth Rosen
DIGG THIS
The attacks
of September 11, 2001 remain both an overwhelming and under-considered
horror. Tomdispatch will devote the week leading up to the fifth
anniversary of 9/11 to various reconsiderations of that moment.
In the meantime, the anniversary season was inaugurated early by
World Trade Center, Oliver Stone's reverent blockbuster movie.
Ruth Rosen went to see it recently and explains just why September
11th, which brought out so much that was positive in those who rushed
to the scene to help, still brings out so much of the Bush-era worst
in so many of the rest of us. ~ Tom
Oliver
Stone, 9/11, and the Big Lie
By Ruth
Rosen
When World
Trade Center ended, I left the theater tense, my muscles aching.
The superb directing and acting, coupled with still hardly imaginable
scenes of death and destruction, had sent painful muscle spasms
up my back, evoked tears, and left me, yet again, with searing
and indelible images of that hellish morning.
I felt disoriented
in the bright sunlight of a Northern California afternoon. As my
mind regained its critical faculties, however, another kind of shock
set in. I suddenly realized that Oliver Stone's movie reinforces
the Big Lie endlessly repeated by Dick Cheney, echoed and
amplified by the right-wing media that 9/11 was somehow linked
to Iraq or supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
It might
surprise you that this Oliver Stone film is neither ideological,
nor conspiratorial, which in my view is just as it should be.
Instead, it is a portrayal of what the men who braved hell and
the families who anguished over their survival experienced.
World
Trade Center gives 9/11 a distinctly human face by following
two Port Authority policemen and their families. We watch the
men muster their courage to help evacuate people in one of the
towers; we gasp as they are buried alive; we wince as heavy slabs
of cement crush their bodies; and we hold our breath as they struggle
to keep each other going in the face of imminent death.
Expert editing
brings us the anguish suffered by their wives, children, and relatives.
Some are in denial, others in shock. Some have faith; others are
resigned to the men's deaths. They live in their own hell and
we empathize with their wrenching agony.
With a subtle
touch, Stone shows us people all over the planet horrified by
television images of the airplanes crashing into the towers. He
reminds us that the people of the world expressed an outpouring
of sympathy (since been squandered by the Bush administration).
Meanwhile,
Stone introduces us to one ex-Marine who feels called by God to
help rescue those buried alive. He gets his hair cut short, puts
on his old uniform, and with all the authority of a former staff
sergeant, does what he knows best uses his military skills
to save people's lives. Determined and angry, he insists that
we must avenge this horrendous attack.
We also
watch a group of Wisconsin policemen viewing the terrorist attacks
on television. One screams out, "The bastards!" Stone, in other
words, captures the desire for revenge already in the air.
And yet,
in none of these profoundly moving scenes is there even a mention
of who might have committed this atrocity. Neither the name al-Qaeda,
nor Osama Bin Laden, is so much as whispered.
You might
say, "But everyone knows it was al-Qaeda." And you'd be right,
but do most Americans really know just who those terrorists were
or that they had no connection to Iraq that not a single
one of them even came from that country? It doesn't sound very
important until you realize that various polls over the last five
years have reported from 20% to 50% of Americans still believe
Iraqis were on those planes. (They were not.) As of early 2005,
according to a
Harris poll, 47% of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein
actually helped plan the attack and supported the hijackers. And
in February, 2006, according to a unique Zogby
poll of American troops serving in Iraq, "85% said the U.S.
mission is mainly ‘to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11
attacks'; 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason
for the war was ‘to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'"
The Big Lie,
first coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf,
was made famous by Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the
Third Reich. The idea was simple enough: Tell a whopper (the larger
the better) often enough and most people will come to accept it
as the truth. During World War II, the predecessor of the CIA, the
Office of Strategic Services, described how the Germans used the
Big Lie: "[They] never allow the public to cool off; never admit
a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your
enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate
on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;
people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you
repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe
it."
This is, in
fact, just what the Bush administration has been doing ever since
9/11. As a result, in 2005, an ABC/Washington
Post poll found that 56% of Americans still thought Iraq
had possessed weapons of mass destruction "shortly before the war,"
and 60% still believed Iraq had provided "direct support" to al-Qaeda
prior to the war. In June 2006, Fox
News ran a story once again dramatizing the supposed links between
9/11 and Iraq. And, as recently as July, 2006, a Harris
poll found that 64% of those polled "say it is true that Saddam
Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda."
The Bush
administration's Big Lie has worked very well. Dick Cheney, the
point man on this particular lie, has repeated it year after year.
In a similar way, George Bush has repeatedly explained his 2003
invasion of Iraq, which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11,
by insisting that we must fight terrorists in that country so
that we don't have to fight them here. (It turned out to be something
of a self-fulfilling prophesy.)
Neither
these, nor so many other administration statements had a shred
of truth to them. Even the President, who repeatedly linked Saddam
Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the September 11th
attacks, admitted
on September 18, 2003 that there was no evidence the deposed Iraqi
dictator had had a hand in them. But that didn't stopped the Vice
President from endlessly repeating the Big Lie that justifies
this country's invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Most of
the controversy over World Trade Center has focused on
whether, as the fifth anniversary of the attacks approaches, it
is still too soon for a cinematic depiction of these horrendous
events. For some people, perhaps that may well be the case. I
myself don't think it's too soon for such a film; but I do worry
that, powerful and evocative as it is, it may, however inadvertently,
only deepen waning support for the war in Iraq,
Despite
the
near flood of documentaries on the terrorist attacks heading
toward the small screen this September, Stone's film, for many
Americans, may end up being the definitive cinematic record of
what it felt like to be inside the hellish cyclone known simply
by the numbers 9/11.
To offer
a faithful recreation of that historical catastrophe, however,
Stone owed viewers the whole truth, not merely a brilliant, graphic
portrayal of what happened and how it affected the lives of some
of those involved.
As it ends,
a written postscript appears that describes what happened to the
buried Port Authority policemen, their families, and the ex-Marine
who helped rescue them (whose last line is: "We're going to need
some good men out there to revenge this"). We learn that the two
men survived an unbearable number of surgeries and are living
with their families. Next we read that the ex-Marine re-upped
and later did two tours of duty in Iraq. At that moment, I wanted
to shout out, "Don't you mean Afghanistan?" Then I imagined the
satisfaction Dick Cheney and sore-loser Senator Joseph Lieberman
would take in this not-quite-spelled-out linkage of 9/11 and Iraq.
I kept waiting
for what never came even a note in the postscript reminding
the audience of those who had actually committed the crime. This
is where, by omission, Stone's film ends up reinforcing the administration's
Big Lie. You could easily have left the theater thinking that
the saintly ex-Marine had gone off to fight those who attacked
our country.
That evening,
I wrote the words that should have appeared in the postscript:
"Government officials later confirmed that the organization which
plotted the destruction of the World Trade Center was al-Qaeda,
led by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian, and Ayman al-Zawahiri,
an Egyptian. Nineteen men executed the attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. Fifteen of them came from Saudi Arabia;
the remaining four from Egypt, The United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon.
None of them came from Iraq."
What happened
to Oliver Stone, the filmmaker who gave us Platoon,
Born
on the Fourth of July, Wall
Street, and Nixon?
Despite his conspiratorial foibles in JFK, he has long been
a movie-maker dedicated to raising tough questions about our American
past. Where did his commitment to opening historical subjects for
debate go? He was right not to politicize this film, but truth-telling
required that he identify the terrorists. Truth-telling would have
resulted in his helping to dismantle the Big Lie that has resulted
in the deaths of so many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians,
and has plunged Iraq into chaos and civil war.
How
could Oliver Stone leave it up to viewers to discover for themselves
who committed this crime? And how could he leave the audience
with the impression that there was a connection, as Dick Cheney
has never stopped saying, between 9/11 and Iraq?
This
is the tragic failure of Stone's World Trade Center. It undercuts
the historical value of the film and reinforces the Biggest Lie
of the last five years, still believed by far too many Americans
that in Iraq, we are fighting those who attacked our country.
August
17, 2006
Tom
Engelhardt [send him mail]
is editor of TomDispatch.com,
a project of the Nation
Institute. He
is the author of several books, including The
Last Days of Publishing: A Novel and The
End of Victory Culture. Historian and journalist Ruth
Rosen, a former columnist for the Los Angeles Times and the
San Francisco Chronicle, teaches at the University of California,
Berkeley, and is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute. A new
edition of her most recent book, The
World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America
(Penguin, 2001), will be published with an updated epilogue in 2007.
Copyright
© 2006 Ruth Rosen
Tom
Engelhardt Archives
|