LH, did you watch that film? For about 2/3 of it, the guy makes a credible case for Prescott Bush being either a Nazi sympathizer, or at least a Nazi facilitator and profiteer. But then, he jumps off into Arnold Schwarzennegger and W's upbringing as a Hitler disciple. There's a difference between presenting facts, criticising generally-accepted explanations, suggesting explanations, and then making a leap to an outrageous conclusion that has little to do with known fact and everything to do with an agenda that is, to my mind, the product of paranoia and hate.

To make outlandish accusations based on unrelated facts and questionable supposition has an effect opposite of the intended one : It makes any criticism of studies like the 9/11 report seem like a paranoid manifestation, and forces people like me into a position of defending an erstwhile political enemy. I see nothing in the conclusions of either the Nazi film or Spare Change that would provoke heightened study by any responsible reporter.