Well, Strick, Hitchens is far more eloquent than Moore will ever be. And, having seen the film AND read Hitchens' review, I happen to think that Hitchens is far more vicious in tone, although this is a value judgement. But where in the movie does Moore say anything vicious about Bush?

But beyond that, I love it when people who disagree with me try to point out that "your argument is just as bad as my argument." It's like, as I said on the recent WMD thread, "I know you are, but what am I?" So, okay, you may think Moore lies and distorts. You make think he makes illogical statements ike ad hominem attacks, and you can rightly castigate him for that if you can provide evidence. But if you really think this is bad, then why would you use an accusation of Moore to defend someone else who DOES THE SAME?

In other words, should we believe a review of the film that relies on lies and distortions to argue that Moore lies and distorts?

Why do they need so many lies and distortions, by the way, to make this argument? Because, as the NY times has argued, Moore's facts check out.

NY Times: After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).