Early in WMD, Michael Moore tells conservative blogger and filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney that instead of whining about Hollywood's leftist bias, conservatives should make their own films and compete head-to-head. California real-estate broker Brad Maaske took Moore's advice and produced this documentary, which argues that Saddam Hussein's rule was so bloody and brutal that America had the right - indeed, the duty - to remove him from power.
After a brief review of Saddam's early life and rise to power in Iraq, much of WMD is made up of interviews and footage compiled by Kurdish filmmaker Jano Rosebiani, in which the Iraqis describe how they and their loved ones suffered at the hands of Saddam Hussein and his "security" forces. Ba'athist torture is described, in stomach-churning detail.
Family members grieve for their loved ones, many of them mere children, murdered for real or alleged activity against Saddam's regime - or simply to teach their compatriots a lesson. Mass graves containing dozens of bodies are uncovered, and one man recounts how he was lined up with several other men at the edge of a pit, who were shot dead and dumped in. (Sadly, he does not explain how he survived.)
And in some particularly chilling footage, apparently taken from old Iraqi government's archives, we see Saddam's forces carrying out some of their most notorious atrocities, including the 1988 "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds. Eyewitness testimony should always be viewed with a somewhat skeptical eye, but Saddam Hussein's atrocities are well-documented, and this portion of WMD is emotionally devastating.
Indeed, it might have been a better film had Maaske and co-producer Earl Grizzell used the entire 90-minute running time to show what Saddam Hussein did. All but the most ardent opponents of the war would have to admit that the world could not tolerate this man remaining in power, any more than it can tolerate the continuing genocide in Darfur. (Actually, considering that the world seems perfectly content with the Darfur genocide continuing, maybe that's not the best example.)
But the film loses its focus in the last 30 minutes or so, beginning with a lengthy segment showing the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath. I'm willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt as to whether they're accusing Saddam of involvement in the attacks - their point seems to be that after 9/11, America could not stand by and wait until its declared enemies strike U.S. soil - but many viewers certainly won't see it that way. (That said, seeing these horrible events once again is overwhelming, and reminds us, once again, what a disservice TV news outlets have done in showing this footage so sparingly.)
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Michael Heumann
Good analysis. I'm guessing that the underlying point you're making here about "political" filmmakers like Moore, Maloney, and Maaske is that, despite any partisan points they might want to get across, they need to be honest when the facts might not always side with their side. That's the hallmark of classical argumentative strategy, and the very lack of this kind of honesty in public discourse is exactly the reason so many people are turned off by politics, even when the political topics in question are so important and so essential to engage in.