Spinsanity has a decent rundown of the problems with the film. They also linked to this post by Kevin Drum over at Washington Monthly which is worth a read.

In the end, however, I think people are nit-picking to discredit several wider themes. Maybe it’s just because I never watch documentaries as gospel… it’s not news, it’s film. Drum puts it best:

What to say? The argument over the film mostly seems to revolve around whether it’s factually accurate and presents a logical case, a conversation so pointless as to be laughable. I mean, it’s a polemical film from Michael Moore, not a Brookings Institution white paper. It’s like complaining that editorial cartoons are unfair because they don’t portray the nuance of serious policy discussions.

…

So is Fahrenheit 9/11 unfair, full of innuendo and cheap shots, and guilty of specious arguments? Sure. But that just makes it the perfect complement to the arguments of many in the pro-war crowd itself. Perhaps the reason they’re so mad is that they see more than a little of themselves in it.

Let’s be clear here: the various news networks do precisely the same things as Moore does in the movie but do it under the guise of “fair and balanced reporting” while Moore says up front, I have an opinion, I’ve laid out my facts, and try to refute them. I see nothing wrong with that.

I’m actually enjoying the debates that have started up because they are showing where the grays are. The grays are interesting. The grays show the tradeoffs we’re willing to make. Someone here believes that the war is about keeping oil prices low, a laudable strategic interest of the U.S. in their mind. I’d rather deal with the roots of terrorism, which is, in essence, a class war writ large across the globe. Poverty, oppression, and despair are roots of hate… We could’ve done something to foster a bigger middle class in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, we focused on big industry and allowed more cronyism to take root. It’s pretty frustrating to me to watch this happen.