Revisiting Fahrenheit 9/11

Four years ago around this time, I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" in theaters. It was the first time I had ever wanted to see a documentary in a theater. However, who could resist such an incendiary film? Gore supporters were hungry for a film like this since the 2000 election fiasco was swept under the rug without a real debate. The close election and the various issues that cropped up was the perfect time to debate the "Constitutional Crisis", but it was quite disturbing that when our nation has these rare occasions, we prefer to sweep it under the rug and not deal with it because "it's messy."

Before the film hit theaters, it already faced a couple controversies:

(1) Ray Bradbury, who wrote the novel "Fahrenheit 451" was upset that Michael Moore co-opted his title and sought to have it removed. However, as the courts pointed out, Bradbury didn't have an exclusive claim to the word "Fahrenheit", so anyone had the right to use it in a title. Besides, it was a brilliant title on Moore's part. The tagline for his documentary was "The temperature at which freedom burns." So true, since the Bush Administration had used the tragedy of 9/11 to suppress our freedoms and subvert our republic.

(2) Disney, as owners of Miramax Films, refused to distribute the documentary even though it won the prestigious "Palme d'ore" at the Cannes Film Festival in 2004. It wasn't surprising though, as Jeb Bush was governor of Florida at the time and the Disney Corporation has a huge interest in the Orlando area of that vacation state. Anyone who didn't think the two were connected truly is denser than Minnie Mouse on helium.

But the Weinstein brothers won out, buying the film outright and distributing it under a new company. The documentary was the first to gross $100 million and I remember reading that young people in Iran couldn't believe it. Conservatives claimed that the film made our country look bad, but when Iranian students were in awe that such a film could be made and then make a lot of money showed them how truly great our country is. That's something I wish conservatives could understand. Freedom of speech is one of the things that baffles foreigners all the time, ever since Jefferson was president when the French couldn't believe that he would allow the press to print such vicious things about him. It shows that our country is strong, that our government isn't threatened by alternative opinions or words. Arresting, torturing, and killing people because they have different opinions or speak their minds hasn't made countries that practice that any stronger. America is strong because we protect speech and political opinions. So, quite to the contrary...a film like "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not "subversive", "anti-American" or "treasonous." It is the embodiment of what our Bill of Rights is all about.

When the film came out, I considered it to be the "Common Sense" (Thomas Paine's pamphlet that roused the colonists to the idea of independence from England) of our times. I was surprised that it started with the 2000 election, and even more surprised that Gore had to preside over one of the most heart breaking scenes I never even knew about: he had to keep silencing his supporters who wanted to log an official complaint into the Congressional record and launch an investigation into voting fraud in Florida. I kept wondering what was going through his mind when members of the Black Congressional Caucus were making statements on his behalf. It was shocking, because what the heck happened to him? Someone obviously must have made threats to his family to get him to back off from contesting the election results. That was my impression anyway.

The most damning scenes in the film are of Bush in that infamous Florida classroom with the "deer in the headlights" look on his face when he's told that America was under attack:

"Mr. President, America is under attack!"

After being told the news, he continued to sit for SEVEN minutes, and the only thing he could think about was: "Why would anyone own a pet goat?"

On the most vital day of a president's administration, Bush proved that his inexperience truly did matter in the end. In 2000, we had a choice between one candidate who had eight years training under the wing of a president who had to find his own bearings in the first two years of his administration; and another one who had been in some adverse situations before (as a POW for five years). At the time, I remember a lot of Bush supporters say that they were glad that Bush was president on 9/11 because they think that Gore would've surrendered. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so outrageously sad.

I had two responses to that: (1) Bush looked clueless and after leaving the classroom, he fled to the Midwest on Air Force One and waited until three days later to appear in New York with a bullhorn in hand; (2) Gore has always been a bit of a hawk, so he wouldn't have sat on his hands and looked like an idiot. More than that, however, I believed then (as I do now) that had Gore been president, 9/11 wouldn't have even happened. The Clinton/Gore administration prevented terrorist attacks from occuring as planned for the 2000 Millennium celebrations in Seattle, Los Angeles, and Washington on New Year's Eve. Additionally, though I didn't quite believe it at the time, I'm now convinced that 9/11 was an inside job all along with Dick Cheney as the mastermind behind the attacks.

A celebrity (I forget who) said that "Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first time someone made a documentary to justify an Oscar speech. You have to wonder if that's true. Back in 2003, when Michael Moore won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature ("Bowling for Columbine"), his speech about living in an interesting time because they were giving awards away to non-fictional films while we have a "fictional president waging fictional war for fictitious reasons." He was booed off the stage (though I applauded from home). This was around the time when we were just going to war against Iraq. It's funny how liberals and their hesitation with the rush to war was booed and ridiculed, but now only a handful still support the war. Who's visionary and who's sheepish? I'm glad that people like Michael Moore have the courage to withstand ridicule and make his point. Unpopular opinion might be uncomfortable, but if you're right, history will vindicate you.

For those who still think the Iraq War is just...well, if you truly believe that, then why hasn't your beloved president asked Americans to sacrifice to support his war effort? Why don't more Bush supporters enlist and volunteer to fight over there?

Four years ago, I saw this film when I visited a friend of mine in Iowa. We went with an Army buddy of his, his girlfriend, and his parents. After the viewing, I remember his mom saying that the film was "unpatriotic." I was shocked how she could think so. The film ended with the most brilliant observation. Moore stated it so plainly. He showed the elites like Bush with all his rich buddies, laughing and celebrating, then showed the poverty of American cities and the young people without a lot of employment prospects taking the oath of enlistment. He quoted from the novel "1984" about how the power elite wage war against foreign powers and it doesn't matter who we fight, that we just continue to fight...because the war is not about anything in particular. It's simply a way to keep the elites in power while the average citizen pays the biggest price for the burdens of war. Is that justice?

I especially love how the film ends...with Moore quoting Bush, who messed up in his delivery of the famous quote: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Bush mangled it and said: "Fool me once, shame on...shame on...fool me again...you can't get fooled again!" Moore ended his documentary by saying, "For once, we agree!"

So...Bush supporters: Are you still being fooled by your beloved president? Or have you finally seen the light? Have enough Americans died in Iraq yet to prove to you that it was a fool's mission? If not, what's it going to take? Does it anger you that Bush might leave office without ever bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice? Or do you still blame Clinton for not capturing Bin Laden (even though his attempts to do so was accused of being "wag the dog" to distract Americans from the real scandal of his lying about an affair with an intern)? Hey, don't get mad at me. I'm just pointing out that you backed the wrong person. You could've had a President McCain, but you chose an incompetent, inexperienced frat boy and he choked on the day leadership mattered. I totally understand why you'd be angry, but don't direct that anger at liberals. You need to hold your president accountable for his failures and maybe decide not to vote in November, because you obviously don't know how to pick a competent president. Leave that to the people who were right about Bush early on.