This controversial documentary takes you behind the walls of the U.S. government as CIA, Pentagon and Foreign Service experts address the government's reasons for launching the "preemptive" war on Iraq in 2003. Through interviews, more than 20 experts (including weapons inspectors and a former CIA operative) offer their views on what they claim was distortion of intelligence information by the Bush administration to purposely mislead the public.
While there is nothing new here that the press hasn't already brought to light, seeing the timeline of the past two years compressed into a single hour, and the cast of characters clustered together on a single screen, starkly highlights the Bush administration's inconsistencies and the damning evidence against their case for war. According to a poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, as reported by the Boston Globe: "Supporters of President Bush are less knowledgeable about the president's foreign policy positions and are more likely to be mistaken about factual issues in world affairs than voters who back John F. Kerry..." "
perceptions did not vary significantly by level of education among those who plan to vote for Bush." "
the dissonance among Bush voters reflects the country's difficulty coming to grips with the discrediting of the rationale for the Iraq war."
- egb 1714360
Uncovered is a very good documentary. Maybe not one of the best made on the War so far, but it offers something that is not necessarily found in other Iraq War docs. It goes very in depth, at times sacrificing the broader picture, but it works for what the film is trying to accomplish. The film largely focuses on what lead to the start of the war and the deception of Congress and the nation as to the reasons for engaging in the war. It is certainly a very biased film, it never even pretends to be objective. It sets out to show the audience how the nation was lied to by the White House, and how that led the nation into a war it was not prepared for. (Not trying to spout my own opinions here, this is simply the thesis of the film.) At time the film becomes a little sprawling and sidetracks from its goals. But when the film is on track it makes solid logical points, utilizing experts from the US Government and the UN weapons of mass destruction inspection units. It is certainly biased, but gives reason for being so, and constructs a solid argument for how the initial lies about intelligence reports led to an under prepared army invading a country without an exit or peace strategy. Its an unpolished piece of work with grainy stock footage and low production quality, but it is very engaging and interesting and quite a good film.
- Dlukenelson