Fahrenheit 9/11's success or failure will provide a good measure of the political temperature of the United States. In my mind, Michael Moore is a villain. An unscrupulous opportunist who brings new meaning the to the phrase "the end justifies the means".  The end, of course, being the ouster of George W. Bush.  The means, in his own small petty way, is his new smear movie, Fahrenheit 9/11.

This review at Slate takes the movie apart bit by bit. I highly recommend reading it. If his propaganda piece on gun violence in America (Bowling for Columbine) was harmless, this propaganda substance is not. The central premise behind Bowling for Columbine was that "white America" has had a long obsession with guns and gun violence (largely due to being afraid of stuff). Forget that gun violence of "white America" is essentially the same as it is in peace-loving Canada, that doesn't fit into Moore's agenda. 

This time around, Moore's premise is that the Bush family is enthralled to the Saudis in various nefarious ways (as well to the Bin Laden family). Forget that the premise is absurd to begin with. What's really amazing is that Moore actually expects people to ignore the contradictions with these concepts.  After all, how can Bush be in the pocket of Saudi interests and be going directly against Saudi wishes by going into Iraq?

But Moore, far from being the "common man", seems to believe that the common man is a fool. A dupe. A chump. Even a year after 9/11, Moore wasn't convinced that Al Qaeda (or Bin Laden) was behind the WTC attack. And yet somehow he became convinced that we should have done more in Afghanistan? Good grief. Unfortunately, serious leaders can't wait years to take decisive action.

As Christopher Hitchen writes:

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

But it's not just there that Moore wants to have it both ways with history. Bush, regularly portrayed as someone anxious to go to war is also shown as being stunned into stupidity and inaction at the news of the WTC attack. Well which is it? Either he's an empty headed moron robot or he's a warmongering neoconservative looking to settle dad's scores.  How about this alternative explanation: Like millions of normal Americans, the attack on the WTC left him stunned and for several minutes he had to contemplate what to do next.  I consider myself pretty sharp but I remember just watching slack-jawed on TV when that second plane struck the World trade center. I was dumfounded. And I was dumfounded for more than 7 minutes.

Most disgusting is Moore's sympathy to Saddam.  According to Moore, Saddam's Iraq was no threat to any American. Really? Is this the same Saddam who tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated?  The same Iraq that regularly fired on US planes patrolling the no-fly zone? Is Moore so out of touch with the "average American" that he can't see how many of us considered Saddam a long term threat that could no longer be tolerated in a post-9/11 world?

Moore, author of "Stupid White Men" can't help but take morbid stabs at the assumed cowardice of white people (perhaps he projects too much of his own self?). In an interview, he opines that if the passengers of those flights on 9/11 had had mostly black people, they would have fought back. What a racist, gratuitous slam on the victims of 9/11.

Hitchen writes:

In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell

But if that doesn't take the cake for disgusting attitudes, Moore has apparently made public his intent to aggressively go after his critics, legally if necessary. Ah, it is important to observe his right to smear his enemies (real and imagined) with impunity but any criticism returned needs to be cut off at the knees eh?  More and more, Moore makes himself the poster child of the left-wing of American culture. Dishonest, disingenuous, cynical, elitist, and hypocritical. 

Speaking as a fellow-Michigander who actually did grow up in a blue-collar area (down river eastern Michigan), I find Moore's elitism disgusting particularly as he tries to portray himself as just a "joe American".

If his movie is a box office hit, it will send a chilling signal that the the American culture has an appetite for petty vindictive overtly left-wing propaganda.  I fear that like his last Oscar-winning drek, that some people will walk out of the theater having bought into the manipulated "facts". I fear a repeat of the same ill-informed thinking of "Agree with him or not, his movie gives you a lot to think about".  Because in reality, they really don't give you much to "think about". Quite the opposite. These are films that are designed to indoctrinate.