Fahrenheit 9/11

Released 2004
Reviewed October 20, 2004
Directed by Michael Moore

I still don't understand how in the world George W. Bush ever became president. "Fahrenheit 9/11" opens with the mechanics of how the Republicans blocked recounts and proceedings to steal the election, but my question is how was George W Bush ever in contention? For the life of me I can't understand why he's going to be re-elected by the narrowest of margins (once again) in 2004. This documentary shows us what the Fox News machine fights so hard to deny--that Bush is an intellectually incurious, inarticulate, smug, rich boy who's had the world handed to him on a silver platter. Ok, we already knew that.

Bush's supporters talk about his strong leadership, but Michael Moore has a better view of it. The video of W reading "My Pet Goat" to the elementary school on the morning of 9/11 is priceless. He appears confused and desperate for his handlers to direct him, but his staff is shown waiting for him to take command. Sadly, that never happened. For the first two days after the attack, insiders described the administration's response as panic. Bush and Cheney were whisked away to separate secret locations while they tried to figure out how to respond. Bush appeared frightened and confused on TV, and he didn't recover until he had his famous moment with the NYFD near ground zero.

Once they determined the immediate threat was over, they got down to business. It was time to respond, and they knew who had to pay--Iraq. The film shows a clip of Richard Clarke describing the "intimidating" meeting where Bush told him to pin 9/11 on Iraq. Clarke states Bush's intention was to invade Iraq before he was elected, but the film doesn't pursue that angle. I would have liked it to do so, because it's fundamental to why Bush chose to attack Iraq. It was obvious when he was campaigning that he was going to finish daddy's business if he had the chance, and now two countries are paying dearly for that man's personal agenda ($120 billion and counting, 1000+ US soldiers and counting, 15,000 civilian casualties and counting).

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a more moving film than I had imagined. The handling of the planes hitting the towers was the best I've seen. The screen is black as the attacks occur, and we eventually see footage of bystanders and debris, but we never see the towers. This is great cinema, and much more than I expected from Michael Moore the director. It's the aftermath of the attacks that's important for this film, and he deftly stirs the correct emotions. There are also moments with Lila Lipscomb that show a mother's grief, and there's gritty footage from wounded/killed American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. This is gripping cinema, and it serves to remind us that war should be avoided whenever possible. The war in Afghanistan was just and necessary (albeit botched by the Bush administration), but the war in Iraq was completely unnecessary. It was fought for personal reasons, and George Walker Bush should be held responsible. The fact that he isn't boggles my mind.

One reason for this film's success was Moore's decision to hold himself mostly in check. He only had a couple of grandstanding stunts, one of which was badgering senators to enlist their kids in the military. This is one of the points I think he has wrong in the film, which is about the poor being used to fight the war. Of course, this is true, but that's what you should expect from a volunteer army. His stunt would have meant more during Vietnam when there was a draft, and people like George W Bush and Dick Cheney were given favorable treatment to avoid the war. With a volunteer army, however, the majority of recruits will naturally come from the poorest of households. The military gives them a chance to better their lives, but that opportunity comes with grave risk. The alternative to a volunteer army is the draft, but a draft should only be used when necessary. It's a historical fact that a professional military is more effective than a conscripted one, and we shouldn't let political correctness interfere with that. Is it fair to the poor? One one hand, no, because many see no economic alternative, but a draft would be no fairer for the poor. Many would still be enlisted, and the rest would still face economic hardship.

All of the information about the Bush family's ties to Saudi Arabia and the Bin Ladens is disturbing to say the least. I've surfed the net for rebuttals to this aspect of the film, and there are many. I always try to look for the common threads that everyone agrees on, and one is that $1.18 billion of the $1.4 billion quoted in the movie went to the Carlyle Group five months before Bush Sr. joined the firm. There's no question, however, that both George Bush's had close ties (i.e., money and friendships) to the Saudi royal family and the Bin Ladens. It's unseemly to have an ex-president and the father of the current president sitting on the board of an investment firm that oversees defense contractors that stand to profit from this war. What's even more unseemly is Haliburton receiving no-bid, exclusive contracts for Iraq. Such blatant government corruption hasn't occurred since the early 1900's, but the public doesn't seem to care. We need films like this to make us care. Love him or hate him, Michael Moore is important for this country. Our country is built on dissension and questioning of our government. If that were to ever stop, American freedom would be dead.

Reviewed by Bill Alward
October 20, 2004
Home