Fahrenheit 9/11

The film is what it is, a polemic against George W. Bush. The president is portrayed as a lazy man from a privileged environment who lied about his reasons for going to war. The 'documentary' was never intended as a fair or even account of events. It is one man's point of view and nothing more. Moore stated one reason for making the film was to bring more young people to the voting polls. His may have succeeded in that regard.

One man's truth is not always the same as another's. I doubt there would be such an uproar if it was about Clinton. The uproar against the film seems to be directed not so much at its 'accuracy' or 'truthfullness' but to its target, Bush. It is no more distorted than Roger and Me or Bowling for Columbine.