dabev1945 This film has some merit. It includes videotaped quotes from several major players in the Bush administration. Where it falls down is in it's editing. Anytime a neocon is depicted on screen you can hear the dissonant violins playing in the background and the scene is immediately cut to some unknown ex-government staffer decrying the statements as neo-nazi rather than neo-con (or any other modern political philosophy).If the US has decided that WMDs are unacceptable in a world of global Islamic terrorism, that should be debated on those merits. Instead, this film conflates 9/11 and Iraq in a manner that is worse than anything that the "power players" in the US have done, and goes forth to insinuate that they are war mongers trying to bring about the 2nd coming of Christ, at the behest of the Jews.These major faults degrade the usefulness of the film to "junk propaganda" status that does nothing to further the political goals of either side, and removes it from the realm of documentary. With proper editing, this could have been a good film, but the blinders were tied a too snug.

OttoVonB Michael Moore take note: this is how one makes a documentary. Proof that you can be objective and subtle and still produce a riveting piece of film-making.William Karel, already director of "CIA: Guerres Secrètes", a fascinating account of the CIA from creation to present, now turns his sharp eye to the Bush Administration. The result is a seamless flow of confessions and archive footage, expertly edited together to make the decade's political thriller. The only unpleasantness derives from the fact that this is actually happening. Unlike Fahrenheit 9/11 who's good moments were scarce and far between, Karel's film holds to many bewildering moments to summarize in one review: from Robert Byrd's ignored plea before the senate to Jerry Falwell calling the Prophet Mohammet a terrorist, from the Carlyle connection to Perle's sly retorts, "Le Monde Selon Bush" keeps you breathless, baffled and ultimately angry.Many topics are covered, among which America's eerie flirtation with extreme religion and an increasingly hostile and oppressive political climate (Viet Diehn, creator of the Patriot Act, even gets his say). No corny voice-over covers this story (save for a few scarce lines when we change locations). Many questions are asked, many frightening answers given. The main draw is that the number of questions dominates, trusting the viewer to ponder things. In times where the media appear to be so toothless, this film comes as a sobering and vital piece of journalism.

loleralacartelort7890 This so-called documentary, if you can call it that, is named: "Monde selon Bush, Le". This documentary is nothing but boring facts/lies and accusations against the American Presidint George W. Bush. The french director of this so-called "documentary", had an opinion about Bush before he made the documentary. The the French director chose facts and lies to fit his own opinion about Bush - the reel facts, that supported Bush was of course erased from this "documentary", because it did not fit in the french director's political agenda. The evidence about Bush not winning the 2000 election is justified in this documentary (Kerry's 500,000 more votes than Bush is hard to look away from), but after that the so-called "documentary" falls apart. The so-called facts (which I personally really do not believe in) are ludicrous. For example the so-called "facts" about Bush's father (former President) and his grandfather's connections with Nazi Germany are just SO laughable and laughable, that I think I became dumber just by listening to it. The whole "documentary" is wrong and ludicrous. And you can clearly see that the French director has an political opinion (he hates Bush). This is not a documentary, it is just pure hate and political propaganda against Bush - no more, no less. Other than that the documentary is poorly made in comparison to reel documentaries like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 - which is a well made political documentary.All in all: Don't watch this poor workmanship.1 out of 10 - Nuff said.

vostf Sure William Karel won't indulge in some Michael Moore-like farcical overview. Karel is more of a documentary cistercian monk observing abstinence from humor and poverty of montages. Well, to observe the same austerity in reviewing 'Le Monde selon Bush' I must say it's a well-documented investigation over the Bush administration with revealing questions (V.O.) answered by about 20 interviewees ranging from journalists, CIA insiders to such big shots as Richard Perle, Colin Powell or Carlyle's 'Don' Carlucci.Strongly rooted in a careful definition of the Bush background and persona the documentary then grows into full blossom which might be overwhelming if you're not one hundred percent concentrated. There's so much to understand straight away then jump to the next implication that 'Le Monde selon Bush' is only valuable to people who already know it all. All the information is available here and there in articles and books so the documentary is only a quick recap for all you've heard, read or missed in the past couple of years. But that's definitely not a movie that will cater for grassroots audiences. What does remain on your RAM once you're through with the Karel weapon of mass documentation? Precise and revealing facts such as George W's passport (he didn't have one before 2000) or the vast array of links between political figures in office and industrial military businesses. Maybe it's enough to qualify for a PhD. in Bushonomics, cronyism and oversimplification. Maybe you'll leave that to other people.So what's the more important thing for a documentary? Be strictly un-intrusive, which implies to hold your breath for 90 minutes? Or to have people moved by what they see so they think about it thereafter?