Nice to have an intelligent debate for a change on this topic. I think one of the flaws of the film is its assumption that everyone knows everything about the subject already (we never actually see any later reference to the lack of weapons of mass destruction after all the hoohaa about them), which may be true in certain circles in New York, but for a mass film, I think this is a mistake. It shows how inbred the film is in certain aspects.

The night raid is, to repeat, a classic example of Moore's carelessness. There is a young man apprehended, there is an AK-47 rifle, and you have a lot of scared army people in a dark house trying to find out if something is about to jump up and kill them. Whether there are outraged women complaining about the army in their house only matters if the forced entry is outrageous, if the person arrested is not dangerous. We are given no evidence upon which to make a decision -- if I were in the army and saw that, I would say, this shows you how tough it is to do our work.

The film works best on the big things. You don't need a detailed conspiracy theory to show that the Bush family is a bunch of country club corporate creatures whose interest in poor Americans is zero. As a matter of fact, it would be hard to prove that any member of the American government has no ties to oil money or defence corporations. As long as you have a system awash in military spending and campaign contributions, it is inevitable. All the rest is a lot of useless huffing and puffing.

yours,

Peter T.