Uncovered: Tout sur la guerre en Irak

Do you remember us going into Iraq, supposedly in search of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Do you remember when the failure to find any WMDs caused the purpose of the war to shift to Iraqi Freedom? And now that Iraq is NOT free, and it is clear there never was a connection between Saddam and Al Queda, our President says the invasion was ALWAYS about making America, and the rest of the world, a safer place... Don't you believe it. Robert Greenwald's UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq is a thorough, even-handed dissection of what the Bush administration said; when they said it; how they twisted the truth for their own purposes; and how we, as a nation, were manipulated by our own leaders into invading a country, killing thousands of its people, and (justifiably) incurring the outrage of an entire world. And for what? EVERY American should see this movie before they go to the polls in November. Knowledge is power; get powerful.

This film is absolutely no different than the film "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (2003)". I find that funny because that film claims in the title to be "The Whole Truth", which implies that it is complete. If it wasn't complete, why call it that? If it was complete, why make another film that not only rehashes the same stomping ground, but literally is the same film with the same cuts and dialog (with the addition only of 27 minutes)? At the very most, this should be called a director's cut of the original film, not an entirely different one. The other things that are laughable about this film is it is missing so much about the war in/on Iraq. Anyone who watches the History Channel on a regular basis knows that. There are so many OTHER documentaries made by them which are very good (this is not), and they could actually make the claim that they are "The Whole Truth" or even call themselves a film about the war in/on Iraq, as these make the spurious claim to do so. But, this is just another in a long line of "crockumentaries" made and distributed by the special interest group moveon.org, which is a group who's only intent is to remove George W. Bush from power, a puppet of the Democratic Party. Now that shines serious doubt on the quest for accuracy by the filmmakers. It would be the same if George W. Bush or The Republican party commissioned and distributed a film to be made about Iraq with a group of "experts" they hand picked that they knew would spout off whatever they deemed appropriate for the advancement of their cause, and sold and promoted it under the guise that it is a documentary with the final word on Iraq. This would be especially fishy if it was produced and distributed right before election time so as to try to have a direct effect on the upcoming 2004 election, which these two films are trying to have. If that were to happen, people would call it propaganda, which it would be. This film also clearly is, and anyone trying to dodge that issue is blinding themselves. Like I said, if you want to see a real film about Iraq, watch the History Channel, not propaganda. As for me, I equally despise the Republican and Democrat Parties, so don't go pointing your finger at me--I am probably the least politically biased of all the reviewers of this film as a result. 5/10

This Greenwald documentary, like Unconstitutional and Outfoxed, is well-composed and remains interesting even for those who are already familiar with the facts, fallacies, and spurious claims. The most remarkable aspect is that the experts are almost entirely very conservative, long-term veterans of the government(Armed Forces, State Dept.Foreign Service, CIA). Their considered, cautionary statements are contrasted with obvious misrepresentations by the administration (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice). The real-dynamic of the film arises from this "apolitical" stance in a way that could not be achieved if the administration opponents were liberals or peace-activists. Viewers will walk away with deep concerns about how the policies of the US, both domestic and international, can be made in an environment where government propaganda is uncritically disseminated by an increasingly docile media. Rating 9 of 10

My brother's girlfriend has a sticker on the back of her car which reads 'If you're not completely appalled, you haven't been paying attention.' This is a movie for those people who are not completely appalled, because if you've been paying attention then you already know most of what this movie has to say. Or maybe I've just been paying attention too much. I never for a second bought the ludicrous story of weapons of mass destruction, not from day one. I had a friend of several years in Fresno that I longer talk to because we got in such a heated discussion about Bush's upcoming war. He thought that at a time of crisis it was important that America supports it's president, I was sure, and still am, that supporting a president as he makes such a massively wrong move could only make it worse. Just because a moron made his way into the White House is no reason to show the world that we are an entire country of morons, because we are not.

I like that the movie stays away from the hard line tactics of Michael Moore, placing words in people's mouths and making dangerous assertions in order to get his point across. Moore has good points and its important that people see them, but his methods are not the greatest. Uncovered: The War on Iraq is made up of the testimony of 27 government officials, most of whom were involved in the events that led to this ridiculous war in Iraq, as well as lots of archive footage of top Bush administration officials putting their feet so far in their mouths that they may need to have them surgically removed.

It was mere months before Bush gave Hussein his 48 hour warning that both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice stated that Saddam had no weapons and no means of obtaining any weapons. Next thing you know he is an imminent threat who could launch WMDs within 45 minutes of giving the order. How can people be so blind? When Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, the right wing, particularly radio talk show hosts (keep your eye out in Uncovered, by the way, for footage of Michael Savage, one of the most hate-filled and nakedly racist men ever allowed near a radio microphone in the history of the medium), were so shocked and frightened that they immediately denounced it as things like a 'pack of lies' (Rush Limbaugh).

My question would be something like, Did Bush ever say 'Some call you the elite, I call you my base'? Did he ever say that or was that another of Michael Moore's lies? In Uncovered: The War in Iraq, Director Robert Greenwald leaves no room for such hollow and weak arguments. The film is literally packed with video evidence of top Bush administration officials stating their reasons for the war, which gradually change as their faulty intelligence becomes apparent. First we went to war to rid Hussein of WMDs, then we were in Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then when that failed too we were there to make America safer, which has also failed. What's next?

Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein is a villain and the world is better off without him. Which renders very difficult to explain the footage of Donald Rumsfeld, the SITTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, SHAKING HANDS WITH HIM. Hussein was a brutal dictator, that is not a subject of debate, but neither is the fact that Iraq and Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. This has been staring Bush and America in the face since 9/12. Hussein was an ENEMY of Osama bin Laden. But is the world really better off without Hussein in power? I'll be the first to say that the world may very well be better off without him, but there are two things that I can also say for certain – Iraq is not better off without him, and America is not better off without him. Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and insurgents and is massively unsafe for everyone within the nation's borders, and Bush has demolished the image of America as a benevolent force in the eyes of the world. We are no longer a benevolent force, we are the bully that no one likes.

Hussein had no weapons on mass destruction and Iraq was not a terrorist nation UNTIL America INVADED AND OCCUPIED IT. As Bush himself said in front of lots of rolling cameras, he wouldn't be happy if he were occupied either. But hey, the first rule of politics is that the man who orders the execution never drops the blade, so Bush's total lack of any kind of military combat experience will make no difference as he sends thousands of young Americans to their meaningless deaths with the flick of a pen and an arrogant smirk for the passing cameras.

Bush went to war in Iraq, among other selfish reasons, to finish what his father left undone when he lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton, and the movie ends with a powerful quote from a book by George H. W. Bush himself, which stated that a ground war in Iraq would have led to an occupation that would result in countless American deaths and no end in sight. Evidently his son is so against accumulating knowledge that he doesn't even read books written by his own father.

Here's something that really gets me, people attack Clinton because bin Laden was offered to him but he wanted to pursue legal means rather than reckless military action, like Bush, so bin Laden wasn't captured and later attacked us on Bush's watch. Rather than go after bin Laden to clean up what supposedly was Clinton's mess, Bush diverts the vast majority of funds and military force AWAY from the pursuit of bin Laden in order to 'use 9/11 as a reason to go after Iraq' (Rumsfeld's words), attacking and removing from power a man who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Way to go, Bush, because of what you've done, the insurgents planting roadside bombs in Iraq and killing our troops are acting in SELF DEFENSE.

The election, which takes place a mere 8 days after the time of this writing, is the most important election in American history. Lives are at stake, and the mere act of voting Bush out of office can perform miraculous work in repairing at least some of the decades and decades of damage that he has done to this country in his four illegitimate years in office. He has destroyed America's image in the eyes of the world, and in the catastrophic event that he wins a second term (whether by being elected for the first time, or by being wrongly appointed again), we will effectively show the world that we as a country agree with his illegal tactics and arrogant foreign policy.

It is absolutely IMPERATIVE that this does not happen, and films like Uncovered: The War on Iraq are exactly what we need to stop it.

19 March 2003. Over three years now since "we" attacked Iraq and we're still there – with hundreds killed in insurgent attacks just the other day, no real end in sight and the US and UK politicians doing everything they can to work out how to "cut and run" without making it look like we're "cutting" or "running". Ironic then that the majority of those who opposed the war want to stay and ensure we stabilise the region – just shows how sensible these people are because the worst thing we can do now is just give it all up as a bad job, we did it now we must pay the price – and with Iran now in a more powerful position in the region than ever, we have yet to really see what that price will be.

As many of my fellow "cowardly liberals", I watched this film not to really learn something but just to feed my outrage at what has happened over the last five or so years in my name. I was surprised to see those reviewing this film attacking it for ignoring the weapons found and dismissing the film as having been overtaken by evidence discovered after the film was made (2004). Well, I suppose some viewers will have watched it just to pick holes at it. I want to review the film rather than the war but I will say that the case made in this film about the lack of WMD and the manipulation (putting it politely) of intelligence doesn't seem to me to have been a case that has been disproved. I'm not sure if these people disagree with Bush's statement of Dec 05 where he said "many intelligence agencies judged that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and it's true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong", because it seems he is backing up this film's earlier claims. Perhaps these viewers also disagree with the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings in Sept 06 that "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda... refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support" and that "Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qaeda - no post-war information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with Bin Laden" – again something this film claims as well, contrasting nicely with Cheney's assurances in Sept 03 that he had evidence of "Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organisation". This was the same Senate report that reported "post-war findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judgement that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program". Those reviewers also seemed to find it very easy to dismiss David Kay but handily ignore that his replacement Charles Duelfer could find no evidence of movements of WMD out of Iraq and also could not find evidence of a weapons programme. The best he could come up with was evidence that Saddam had a pool of experts that could have been used to start such a programme – worrying perhaps but still light years from the claims made by Bush, Cheney, Blair et al.

So if you can know all the knowns we now know and still scoff at the idea that the Iraqi war was planned long before it was justified then this really isn't the film for you because you will only see this as liberal lies and dismiss it as such. Stepping outside of my politics as best I can, this documentary is pretty interesting in how it builds its arguments even if it is very one-sided and not really a discussion so much as a presentation. The opening credits are terrible and made it feel like a cheap TV special and the first 5 minutes spent introducing all the experts was pretty dull but after that the film moves quickly through several subjects using news footage of the Bush administration contrasted with comments and insight from an impressive range of experts. It is very one-sided of course but, unlike Michael Moore, this at least feels like it is a reasoned argument rather than bullying and pushing. Of course it is more enjoyable if you are the choir to be preached to but if there are any neutrals left this film should certainly make a good case.

Overall then an one-sided documentary but a well handled one that brings together expert contributions to build a convincing argument about whether or not we were deceived into going into Iraq. Unlike those that criticise this film for being off-the-mark, I do think time has shown its arguments to be spot on. The delivery could have been a bit more professional but the way it builds its case is engaging and well done.