Yet another dead-on piece of analysis by former CalPundit Kevin Drum:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_06/004229.php
Here’s the key grafs:
Now, as it happens, I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a bit mediocre even as polemic, but the thing that really struck me about the film was the almost poetic parallellism between its own slanders and cheap shots and the slanders and cheap shots of pro-war supporters themselves over the past couple of years. If Moore had done this deliberately, it would have been worthy of Henry James.
Take the first half hour of the film, in which Moore exposes the close relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saud. Sure, it relies mostly on innuendo and imagery, but then again, he never really makes the case anyway. He never flat out says that the Bush family is on the Saudi payroll. Rather, he simply includes “9/11,” “Bush,” and “Saudi Arabia” in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that George Bush is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the Saudi royal family.
Which is all remarkably similar to the tactic Bush himself used to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. He never flat out blamed Saddam, but rather made sure to include the words “9/11,” “Saddam Hussein,” and “al-Qaeda” in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that Saddam had something to do with it.
As a political piece that’s what I thought of F911 - it had plenty of problems with facts and theories but it worked as an attack piece, countering the massive vitriolic stream of attack pieces that Pro-Bushies have put out in the last few years.
Also, purely as political theater, it was masterful. I went with Tom and a bunch of the guys and it was a really enjoyable experience.
Dan