dennis.ca

Fahrenheit 9/11 has finally been released in North America to flattering reviews, scathing reviews, and equally scathing rebuttles. Michael Moore, for the moment, has everyone's attention.

The film opens with a rehashing of the 2000 US Presidential Election debacle. Moore pointedly mentions that while most other media outlets were predicting a win for Al Gore in Florida, Fox News under the watch of Bush first-cousin John Ellis, called the state for George W. Bush. Moore's voice-over wonders: "How does someone like Bush get away with something like this?" A clip of a cackling George W. Bush is shown, and then Moore continues his line of argument against the backdrop of more cleverly edited video clips:

"...It helps if your brother is Governor of the state in question. Second, make sure the Chairman of your campaign is the vote counting woman, and that her state is going to hire a company that's going to knock voters off the roll who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell them by the colour of their skin. Then, make sure your side fights like it's life or death. And, hope that the other side will just sit by and wait for the phone to ring. Even if numerous independent investigations prove that Gore got the most votes, it won't matter. Just so long as all of your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court vote the right way."

This is an important opening lob, because it's quite indicative of what's presented during the rest of the film. Much typical-Moore cutting and pasting and many incidents of 'circumstantial' (but downright questionable) convergence between Bush and other nefarious entities follow. I'd tend to agree with those people who declare the film it to be something short of a documentary, since -- especially in the first half -- the narrative tends to lead people by the hand toward Moore's way of thinking. The Bush-Saudi connections, especially, were laid out in excruciating detail, brick by brick, to form an immovable foundation for the slathering on of addition accusations and defense from the guaranteed onslaught of neo-conservative fact-checkers and nay-sayers.

Having said that, the film is absolutely designed to elicit a response from viewers, and it does this very well. Let's forget for the moment that Michael Moore probably hates George W. Bush (and vice versa), let's forget that he's a master of editing, and let's forget that, on occasion, he may bend context to arrive at a desired result (hold on, which person am I talking about here?) -- Most of the arguments made in the film, although not new, are very, very difficult to defend against.

Some of the main talking points are:

• Why was not a single Senator was available to validate numerous requests for debate on 2000 election results in the House of Congress;

• Why did the assault on Afghanistan consists of only 11,000 soldiers on the ground -- less than the number of police in Manhattan -- when the gauntlet was laid down for Iraq, which was not proven to have any link to the World Trade Centre attacks;

• Why were members of the bin Laden family and other Saudis able to leave the US shortly after September 11th, despite the grounding of all non-military aircraft;

• If not a preconceived campaign of fear, why were conflicting reports from Washington regarding the continuing terrorist threat (that led to widespread panic and fear mongering) not appropriately clarified or diffused;

• Why was intelligence so utterly flawed on the topic of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction, and further, why was nobody held accountable;

This film, along with all matters of partisan politics, is going to be chewed up, digested, and shat out according to the political leanings of the individual audience. I don't know that anyone will alter their loyalties based on 110 minutes of video, but having that option is a wonderful change from being force-fed from the White House Press Secretary, now isn't it?