I do not really care for Michael Moore. I consider him a bit of a blowhard, who likes to act out, and use theater more than reasoned discourse. This results in a sort of "preaching to the converted" style of business that is worsened in his case by some questionable use of the facts in promotion of the higher truth. I don't care for the strategy when the other side does it, and even if the spirit of the message appeals, I don't like when "my" side does it. I had mixed feelings about Roger and Me, was no big fan of his t.v. show, and was annoyed at his antics at the Oscars.
Therefore, I was dubious about his newest documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. The credits montage of Bushies getting made-up and looking stupid didn't help. The opening about Florida, including "was this all a dream" (did Gore really win?) was clever, if predictable. I didn't care for his suggestions that Afghanistan was quite possibly just about oil. Shots at war profiting also can be taken too far -- if the war is just, profits sadly will still a consequence. The wars weren't just fought to make money. And, some of his annoying "Michael Moore" touches were in the film. Still, the movie is worth seeing. It is not just for those who "hate" Bush. It might be for those who want to know why so many oppose his administration so strongly. It isn't just, you know, because we are emotional sorts with infantile petty grudges.
An early example of memorable scenes that send an important message or raise points that should be kept in mind was one that particularly struck me. It made be particularly angry, though it did not get as much notice as the weeks beforehand. This lack of notice was as symbolic and telling as the event itself. President (of the Senate) Gore, doing his constitutional duty, was chairing the joint committee of Congress in place to officially declare the winning of the electoral vote. Pursuant to congressional rules, any challenges had to have support from both houses, even if just one vote. Many in the black caucus challenged the results ... black caucus of the House that is, since the Senate had no blacks. And also not one senator who would sign on. The Constitution aside, Congress would not get involved in the investigation ... the Supremes had spoken.
The facts of the film are mostly known, though their collection and packaging sends a powerful reminder of what is at stake. President Bush going to a photo op at a grade school after the first attack, continuing it after the second, and us being told about what was done in the months before (cuts in terrorist fighting budgets, 42% of his time on vacation, Powell and Rice telling the public that Saddam is not much of a threat, especially as to WMDs, etc.). The Saudi connections, including one involved with the other grounded Texas guardsman that summer back then, who don't you know not only had his name redacted from the President's records, but was involved in his oil dealings. That final tidbit, btw, is not particularly damning per se, but is a nice throw in when you address more substantive concerns are included as well.
The Patriot Act, including it not being read by many who signed it, was obviously raised. Michael Moore had a cutesy little bit of taking an ice cream truck in Washington and reading it aloud. The bit, happily, was not too drawn out. It was more valuable that he provided an interview with a member of Congress who also is a psychologist discussing how fears were raised, but vaguely with little information or apparent logic to the whole process. Or, a NY congressman telling him to sit down a bit and listen about how Congress all the time doesn't read what they pass. And, a look at the lack of funding in Oregon for state troops involved in coastal defense. The use of a government agent (outed because he was victim to a non-related homicide) to monitor a granola sort of peace group also was interesting.
The documentary also had some emotional moments that would have been well placed in a more neutral film. The faces of those in downtown Manhattan on that day. The war footage was particularly hard to take at times ... this film is rated "R" for a reason. There is a scene with a gung ho fight song that uses Cheney's favorite "f" word, which would probably have to be edited out for the film to get a PG-13 rating anyway. The scenes of bodies, including of women and children is probably too much. Besides, when you document an obscenity, you have to show obscene things. This doesn't make it easier to explain to one woman from Moore's hometown just why her son died. Her scenes are particularly hard to take. Not that scenes such as an Iraqi woman crying and lashing out at our troops for attacking her neighbor or of amputees and other wounded U.S. soldiers were much better.
Of course, they should be. Senator Kerry read from Johnny Got His Gun during his speech before the first Gulf War, suggesting the horrors of war, and why he was voting against that one. A few hundred of our troops died, many from friendly fire.* Many, many more Iraqis died, including many of those in the mass graves used for justification of Gulf War II. Graves filled with people who heard Bush's father make the same sort of Hitler references, but then let helicopters fly by as they killed resistors that thought we were on their side. President Bush didn't want us to get into a quagmire. You know something like the bloody mess of the last year or so. When people are angry at Bush, when they cannot speak of the administration without a certain degree of vitriol, perhaps recalling what is at stake helps. Perhaps, recalling how our interests were improperly secured might help.
I don't know if anyone's mind would change by seeing this film, and some might be turned off by some of its tone. Still, to turn around an old saying, "this is why we [the opponents of the administration] fight." And, for that, it is worth seeing.
* I checked the stats in 2004 World Almanac. It speaks of 148 "battle deaths," 151 "other deaths," and 467 "wounds not fatal." [updated stats]