Anduril, first of all, your "eight points" in support of the war is very well-written and researched, and I agree with much of what you say. Michael Moore does tend to simplify things and present only one side of the argument; I think he intentionally tries to be inflamatory sometimes (all the time?) in order to promote dialogue. In that sense, as has been pointed out in several reviews, he's not being particularly faithful in his attempts to create a true documentary. But his films, at their best, provide another much needed source of information for mainstream audiences to form opinions about their elected policymakers.

Any insinuations in F911 that the Saudi government was directly involved in the terrorist attacks or that the Bush Administration had advanced knowledge is bogus. That's the stuff of conspiracy theories. But the film does a good job of detailing the extensive relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family, and it's certainly enough to make one uneasy. On the morning of 9/11, the Carlyle Group, a group of ultra-rich investors including G.H.W. Bush and Bin Laden's half-brother, was meeting in Washington D.C. As Moore points out, these guys aren't out to rule the world per se, they just want to make loads of money. And, they're heavily invested in defense companies, so the ensuing war escalations benefited them greatly. Indirectly, Bin Laden made his half-brother a much, much richer man. That's not the stuff of conspiracy theories, but it's still discomforting. Also, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and we weren't allowed to interview their families after the attacks. I'm glad to see these facts pointed out in the film.

I don't believe the one true intention of the Bush Administration was to invade Iraq to capture its economic spoils. That's simplistic. As you point out, there was also the hope that the "liberation" of Iraq would have a "domino effect" throughout the Middle East. That's something that's going to take years to see. The tenuous stability in the region is in large part a result of the corrupt, autocratic, and hypocritical regimes there. Reform, or a move towards democratization, in the region can be seen as an important step towards promoting stability there and bringing peace to the rest of the world. The biggest concern I had was whether such need for reform required the out-and-out invasion of the Iraq, including the "shock and awe" bombing campaign. That seemed to do more harm than good.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administation has not been honest with us in its justification for the war. The initial justification to invade was based on an "immediate threat" due to Saddam's WMD. Nothing was found; you say that he possibly had time to move everything to Syria. That still doesn't explain the claim made by Bush (based on British intelligence) that Iraq had imported high-grade uranium from Niger. This turned out to be a fabricated fact. The Bush Administration had several opportunities to refute this information and they didn't do so. Bush included it in his 2003 State of the Union address as one of the reasons why it was immediately necessary to invade Iraq. So, you can see the cynicism towards Bush & Co. and the lack of trust in what they say?

I don't know how you can think the American news organizations are "liberal", whatever that means. I think they're so sterile and timid, due to business interests of their parent companies, that they completely miss out on their journalistic opportuntities (and obligations). Unfortunately, it's come to the point where only Michael Moore is providing the mainstream audience with these images they can't find elsewhere.