Moore is, depending on what you want him to be, most likely either a villain or a would-be hero. To many members of the left, he is the harbinger of the awful truth that we either psychologically or physically turn away from because it is simply too difficult to face the facts. To many members of the right, he is a lying, conniving manipulator of the facts for his own personal gain. As goes the political ideology of each viewer, so go their opinions of both Moore and especially of his latest project, in which he challenges assumptions about the President of the United States (George W. Bush), policy decisions made by the current administration, and in effect, if the status quo is really to the benefit of the American people, or if it is a sham.

But this is one of the main problems: Almost everyone knows how they will feel about Fahrenheit 9/11 without having to see it. That’s too bad, because to ignore the relevance of everything it shows us is as bad as to take it all at face value without question.

The film begins with a recounting of the election night of 2000 told (not surprisingly) in the tone of one who believes George W. Bush is an illegitimate president. Moore builds up to the beginning of Bush’s presidency, notes his excessive vacation time, and then recounts the terror of September 11 by replaying sounds from it while displaying a black screen. The response to the events of 9/11, Moore’s film suggests, has been not so much to make America safer as it has been to scare America into backing other projects set before us under the false pretense of national security (hence the subtitle, “The temperature at which truth burns”). The wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq, according to Moore, were prosecuted more for financial interests than anything else. In uncovering the President’s past in the Texas Air National Guard, Moore discusses his connections, business failings, and subsequent bailouts by powerful Saudi oil interests who sought to curry favor with the former President Bush.

So go the themes of Fahrenheit 9/11. In fairness to those who judge the film based on their reactions to the politics involved, it must be said that these are extremely touchy issues. Many liberals are still steamed about the 2000 election and believe they were conned based on technicalities in the recounting process. Conservatives dislike both Moore’s politics and his methods—Bowling for Columbine at times used fishy statistics, conveniently edited stories, and an excessively glib attitude during some of Moore’s performances.

But beneath the surface of all the emotion, there’s both good and bad to be found in Moore’s latest film, and it’s more coherent in its thesis than Columbine. Richard Clarke makes a fairly damning appearance when he says that he was told to find reasons to invade Iraq when he said none existed. On the other hand, Moore spends much time discussing how members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the United States when all other planes were grounded after 9/11. The implication is that they should have been questioned about the attacks and about the possible location of Osama, but this was a decision by Clarke himself according to an interview with The Hill. Ouch.

Otherwise Moore’s presentation is undeniably powerful. At his most effective, he lets others do his talking for him. We hear Britney Spears essentially telling us to be mindless, unquestioning zombies when it comes to politics. We see numerous assertions of “exactly” where Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are before the invasion. We watch as politicians who allow other Americans to fight and die balk at the thought of their own children enlisting in the military. Despite President Bush talking a big game about increasing things like national security and veterans’ benefits, we hear evidence to the contrary. Later, Moore shoots an interview across the street from the Saudi Arabian embassy while talking about favoritism enjoyed by rich Saudis, he is approached by two Secret Service officers. He simply asks, “So, do you guard foreign embassies often?”

It’s by comparing comments from before and after the invasion of Iraq, by sniffing out evidence that was censored for political convenience rather than national security that Moore makes the strongest parts of his case. That the film doesn’t paint the rosy picture of American politics might not be favorable for some, but that by itself doesn’t make for valid criticism. As Moore reveals more and more unflattering footage of his subjects, one has to wonder how much he could possibly be skewing the material when he’s not the one doing the talking. However, this is Michael Moore, and it wouldn’t be one of his films if he didn’t pull at least one or two outrageous stunts. After hearing that most congressmen may have passed the Patriot Act without actually reading it, he takes to the loudspeaker of an ice-cream truck in Washington, D.C., and reads the legislation aloud.

While the film suffers from some of Moore’s usual penchant for exaggeration and falls short in some of the connections it attempts to make between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia, to dismiss it outright can only be done by true believers who would not really consider it in the first place. There are simply too many important aspects in this film that have gone almost completely unheeded in mainstream press for fear of controversy or criticism (including footage of Iraqi civilians and US soldiers that is not played because as Moore says, it would be a “downer”). Fahrenheit 9/11 falls short of being the absolute indictment of the Bush administration because there isn’t quite enough evidence to prove every nefarious connection or motivation it suggests, but at the very least it presents us with some interesting questions, and the facts (and the people) often speak for themselves.

But much as President Bush’s past catches up with him in the film, Moore’s credibility problem is exactly why every claim he makes is investigated, why every statement is put under the microscope. As much damning evidence as Moore may present, he’s taken on such a huge project that many of the film’s topics really need more treatment than the short time they’re given. In the end, we are shown why we shouldn’t, as Britney Spears says, “Just trust the President,” but we’re also shown why we shouldn’t simply take everything from the filmmaker at face value, either. The irony of the film is that is exactly its point.