Over the past year, Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has been talked about almost everywhere, endlessly debated by our cable news providers, written about in newspapers and op ed columns across the country, and most notably discussed by President Bush and referenced to by Osama Bin Laden. Needless to say, Michael Moore and his most recent documentary have brought some information to the table that needs to be discussed. Supporters and critics would agree that such talk and hype, good or bad, makes the film a success. Opposition to the film would say that Fahrenheit is a personal attack on President Bush. Both "parties" have a good argument, and have made those arguments since the first talk of the movie being produced. To understand why many people don't accept the film, and many people do, we must do two things. We have to dissect the history of Michael Moore; his party affiliations, credibility as a journalist, political support and motives. We also must look at the people who are opposed to the documentary. I, myself, am interested in why people are so adamantly hateful toward this seemingly harmless journalist and why a two-hour documentary that explains to the people what has been happening since President Bush took office is observed as such a raunchy, anti-American film. I want to see what Michael Moore has to say. I wanted a view that wasn't the media's and I wanted someone to explain what is going on and Fahrenheit 9/11, whether you believe it or not, will make you think and I believe that is Michael Moore's goal, not to smear the President. Regardless of what perceptions people may have, Michael Moore does a service to the American people by making people more informed and interested about what he feels is going on in America, right or wrong.
             The movie begins with the conclusion to the 2000 election. Moore has a knack for being able to work in quick jabs at the opposition while also providing i...