I love Moore's films, but like I said, this movie misses the mark it needed to hit, because it promotes the simplistic, head in the sand "Anybody But Bush" mentality: "Remove the current batch of corrupt scumbags in charge and everything will take care of itself."

Nothing could be more dangerous for the US and for the world, than Bush being replaced by Kerry, and Moore knows it. So I think his film is disingenuous to boot. The movie doesn't invite people to think for themselves, as you would think it might if it were a true instrument of democracy and human freedom. Moore's claims that his versions of the "facts" are "irrefutable" and hiring a squad of lawyers to blunt criticism about their credibility makes him look suspiciously a lot like the Bush Regime. Each side vociferously pronounces the validity of its claims, and rather than seeking truth seeks victory. That is what Moore is after: victory. In that sense, I think his "Bowling for Columbine" fame may well have gone to his head.

Documentaries that openly promote themselves under the labels of liberal or conservative, left wing or right wing, fall into the existing modes of polemic that preceded them. Like George Bush, Moore fails to look in the mirror and reflect upon his actions in the film. Propaganda is always free of self-doubt, seeking to maintain the militaristic fortress mentality of the masses, which can be manipulated to achieve the aims of those in power, whichever party that may be.

If "Fahrenheit 9/11" is truly a populist documentary seeking to awaken and liberate the average Jane American, as he was in his first film, "Roger & Me," he might discard the use of sacred national symbols altogether, or mock them as he did in "Bowling for Columbine". The scenes, as staged, suggest an America lost, an America that soldiers like Mrs. Lipscomb's son had proudly volunteered to defend, only to discover they'd been screwed by leaders who had lied to them. The viewer is led to believe, like Mrs. Lipscomb, that what's being experienced is real, but is never asked to question the foundations of that reality. America's "greatness" is not questioned, its fundamental goodness is accentuated, and the audience must accept these facts or be repelled by the spectacle of their presentation.

This suggests that Moore longs for the good old days of Bill Clinton, despite the fact that was the America of Columbine, Oklahoma City, Waco, Rwandan genocide, and the enlightened (so the Democrats would have us believe) of bombing of Kosovo, for the Kosovar's own good.

Yes, the Kerry/Democratic Leadership Council lesser evil is preferred to the present situation, but the filmmaker's preference need not be idealized. If you really want people to doubt something, get them to start doubting what they've believed in--like the greatness of the US, without any examination of the detestability of it's empire and oppression of the poor, the disenfranchised, and the dispossessed at home and abroad.

Moore, at least in this film, seems to playing right into and reinforcing much of white middle class America's mythical vision of manifest destiny, and itself as the saviours of the planet (and please don't notice that they are the ones actually devouring the planet, please).