So, Fahrenheit 9/11. A lot of people will have seen this documentary before we did, so I’m not going to talk too much about it. I’m probably going to have quite a bit to say about the reaction to it, though. Quickly on the documentary, then: it was a remarkable movie. It was everything that a good campaigning documentary should be: passionate, funny, heart-breaking, hard-hitting. Having watched it, I see no basis for the criticisms I’d heard about it. I’m not going to address the specific criticisms, because that’s a never-ending argument to get into. I’ll talk about why I think the criticisms came about.

This movie has been criticised by both some on the right-wing and some on the left. The right-wing are easier to understand. This movie is a direct and sharp attack on their view of the world. If what it says is true, then they are responsible for the deaths and injury of thousands of innocent people for no reason. Not just Iraqis and Afghanis, but Americans, British and dozens of other nationalities. This is blood-on-hands territory, and admitting you have blood on your hands is tough. It’s certainly not going to be easy to approach with an open mind. Far easier to attack the messenger rather than the message. Thus we have comments about Moore’s own new-found wealth, his supposed ego, and so on, as though any of these things could possibly be relevant to the message of Fahrenheit 9/11. As though being wealthy means he cannot hate how the poor bear the brunt of what has happened and how civil liberties have been eaten away. Like I said, the right are easy to understand. Their fundamental beliefs are challenged, and they blindly fight. Like the smoker who denies the link between smoking and cancer, despite vast evidence, the person on the right who supported the war and the economic model that needs it is in suicidal denial of the message of this movie.

Those on the left are a bit harder to understand, because this is their message that they are denying. Let’s divide the liberal critics into two approximate groups for this. Firstly, there are the liberals who supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, who in America supported the Patriot act (who in the UK supported the never-ending series of similar laws). In many ways, their motivation is the same as those on the right. To admit now that the wars were wrong (despite the evident lack of WMDs, the non-existent link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and so on) would be to accept the guilt of the deaths of so many people. For the liberals who have prided themselves on being on the side of the poor and the weak, this would be unbearable.

Then there are those on the left who may or may not have supported the war, but now do not. Why are some of them still criticising the movie? These are a particular type of predominantly-middle class liberals who have always learned that they must be constrained and unbiased in their arguments. They must put both sides of an argument, even if one is wrong or a lie, because that is being fair. Above all, they must never, ever show emotion or passion. To them (and this is how I was brought up, too), a documentary must be measured and slow. It must put all sides and it must not state its own opinion. It is an embarrassed form of liberalism. Afraid that it will be criticised by opponents, it qualifies everything it says. Thus, when it talks about this documentary, it feels it must also offer some criticism as well as praise. Well, I’ve got some news: this approach doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because your opponents don’t fight this way. Your opponent has passion and unswerving belief that he is right. If you are willing to admit two sides to every story and your opponent isn’t, if you won't show your belief and your passion, your opponent is going to beat you. In a harmless intellectual discussion in a coffee bar, that doesn’t matter. It does matter here. This is too important for middle class niceties. Michael Moore has no time for these niceties, and he has produced perhaps the most powerful and effective attack against Bush and his allies that we’ve seen. The liberals who criticise it out of fear that they will be seen as partisan and passionate are fighting for their opponents and devaluing this tool.

So, should there be no debate or criticism of this movie? Yes, of course there should be (I’m far too middle-class to say anything else). But if it is to be criticised let it be on these grounds only: Firstly, on the facts presented. I have seen no evidence to suggest the facts that were presented were incorrect. If they are, this is a valid criticism and should be made public. Secondly, on the questions Moore asks. Moore asks questions in this movie. If anyone thinks these are questions he should not be allowed to ask, then they should say that.

These would be criticisms of substance. Others are not criticisms worth listening to. Otherwise, let us celebrate and support a movie that is both a great piece of theatre and an impressive campaign.