I'm going to complain a bit about how the filmmakers behind the documentary Gunner Palace came at their work, but first I want to say that I give all the credit in the world to Michael Tucker for actually going to Baghdad and living and taking risks with the soldiers of the 2/3 Field Artillery holed up in Uday Hussein's former palace.

Having said that, most of the time I like to think that the filmmakers - Tucker and Petra Epperlein - stipulate to the idea that freedom for Iraqis without Saddam and Uday and Qusay's rape rooms and ethnic purges is a good thing.

Other times I'm not sure. Early on we're shown one of the toilets in the palace, which has a note telling soldiers that they can urinate in it, but do not sh*t in it. There are several moments in which I felt that Tucker and Epperlein were taking a dump on the soldiers' individual stories and achievements.

There's no question in my mind that the filmmakers have an agenda that's anti-Bush and against the war in Iraq. It's clear in the way the documentary is edited, and leads off with text that's a slam against the administration for declaring major operations to be over by spring 2003.

For instance, every time he would play an audio clip from Armed Forces Radio that talked about the positives of the conflict, the next scene would try to discredit the American view.

The film was shot in the fall of 2003 and spring of 2004, yet never mentions that Saddam was caught in December, 2003, and after Uday and Qusay were killed, yet neither is that mentioned.

Early in the film all of the raids seem for naught, as soldiers are finding neither terrorists nor ammunition. Later on, though, raids are more successful. Terrorists are rounded up, ammunition is found, money is found, and while it's all well and good for the filmmakers to freeze for a second on a shot of a kid watching their father get taken away it's tough for me to be upset when that guy is, well, a bad guy trying to undermine a stable Iraq.

All of this also took place a year before elections proved that Iraqis and Arabs in general yearn for liberty as much as Westerners. What we're shown, instead, is an audio clip talking about progress made in the Iraq Governing Council followed by a scene of officials arguing, because the filmmaker doesn't acknowledge that the different factions can form a working government.

In another way, Tucker would ask leading and loaded questions just short of, "Sucks to be you. Don't you hate being in a violent conflict?" As if that won't produce the answer he's looking for, mostly in the form of trying to paint the soldiers as powerless victims. When he tries to make a point about Humvee's lacking armor, it's much too simplistic than reality.

Don't believe me? Every single critic's reviews I've read so far all include at least one paragraph painting their disgust with the war based on the documentary. Not that this is a surprise, seeing as how critics are overwhelmingly left of center.

Still, despite all of their efforts, the spirit of the troops and the Iraqis helping us comes through stronger than any underlying negative agenda and proves that our job is being done and being done by the right people. They show examples of compassion, loyalty, courage, friendship and even self-sacrifice. Our (volunteer) troops are proud, strong, valiant, flawed and coping well in a wartime situation.

In no way am I saying that war is a Disney theme ride. The dangers Tucker shows are so real it's scary, and you worry that every time one of our soldiers walks around a corner or just rides through the market in the back of Humvee, one of our enemies could strike.

Our men and women in uniform are honest and open with Tucker, they work hard and they party hearty around Uday's opulent pool and putting green, and the interaction between the soldiers and the Iraqi interpreters is uplifting and humorous. When one American tries to give pointers to an interpreter on wooing women, you can't help but laugh and wonder if either culture has it right.

If there is a star, it's SPC Wilf, who comes up with some of the quirkiest, most humorous and thought-provoking comments. There's one moment when he talks about how Colorado is taking so long building an interstate that he's had time to train for the army, come to Iraq, destroy then rebuild a country, and the interstate is making "some" progress. And all the while he's telling this, a fellow soldier is miming what Wilf is saying. A great, great, moment.

It's said over and over by people who clearly aren't thinking it through that war is "not the answer." Sure, except for ending slavery, fascism, communism, what has it ever done for humanity? Why do I get the feeling that if Donald Rumsfeld announced the military would invade tomorrow, all the people with the �Free Tibet� stickers would be aghast?

In ten years, once democracy has taken hold in Iraq, not to mention the progress it's making elsewhere in the region, starting with Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and the first kind of elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, anti-war liberals will talk about the success "we" made. That will be bunk, as much as saying they took an active role in the end of the Cold War.

Before the war liberals marched with signs saying "not in our name." Don't worry, it won't be. If all of this is a portrait of Bush's aim of world destruction, then destroy away, Mr. President! (And could you make some oil deals while you're there?)