Saturday, October 02, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11 is Bush-bashing through and through, but how come I like it? 1. Because I've always hated Bush (the guy looks like Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine), and 2. It affirms my opinion (and of many others)that Bush took us all for a ride in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush is the kind of President that America should not have in the post-Cold War era when no single nation can challenge it, especially when it wants to violate International Law. The single principle that made the United Nations a reality is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which proscribes aggressive war. But look at what Bush did -- he used the events of 9/11 to create fear among his countrymen and rally them to war against the wrong guys. In the process, he ignored the United Nations and formed what he called was the Coalition of the Willing ("Weaklings" is more like it.) After Afghanistan and Iraq, the United Nations can only be labeled at best as America's lap dogs. Fahrenheit 9/11 explains very well the opinion that Bush should not have been America's President in 2000 and 2004, not just for the sake of Americans but also for the sake of the rest of us whose lives are hopelessly tied down to Amercia's fortunes. Great -- so how come I have my reservations about this film? Well, because it is clearly propaganda, and a well-made propaganda at that. I've always been suspicious of propaganda, because they mix truth with falsehoods, and also, propaganda lose their value in due time when the politics of the day has changed. This film measures up to the best propaganda film documentary as each frame of this film appears to be authentic, that is why it's very good. Yet, clearly it doesn't aspire for truth. It limits its point of view to Michael Moore's political persuasion. No problem with that really, but for the fact that I normally don't pay PHP 130 for an hour or so of political propaganda.