This thesis does a rhetorical analysis of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to understand its failure to achieve its goal of a George W. Bush defeat in the 2004 election. To do this I outline a theory of counternarrative which relies on argument theory to understand the resolution of competing narratives. I begin by creating a nuanced theory of counternarrative which relies on informal logic and Ralph Johnson's dialectical tier. Then I look at the construction of Bush's official narrative from his public speeches beginning on September 20, 2001 through the invasion of Iraq. After detailing Bush's narrative I analyze the moments of argumentative clash between it and Fahrenheit 9/11. I conclude that the failure of Moore's counternarrative was inevitable due to its poor argument construction and omission of the dialectical tier.