Your assessment of Michael Moore could be absolutely correct or it could be absolutely wrong. I'll probably never know the real answer as I have no intention of seeing Moore's "Farenheit-911". This is nothing against the film (which I know absolutely nothing about ... even after reading the Slate editorial by Chris Hutchins). It's just that I haven't bothered going to any movie since summer 1998.

I was hoping, however, that you could come up with a more objective piece to read regarding the film and its maker than Hutchins' piece of garbage. His writing runs on and on and on and on ... and is much like the ranting-and-raving style of writing that one finds in campus newspapers. How in the heck did that guy get hired by Vanity Fair?!

Let me save other Army of One readers the trouble of trying to drag themselves through the Hitchins analysis. Here in a synopsis of what he wrote:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ...

Come on, JD. It's OK to give us the right-wing slant [:)], but at least make it a piece worth reading.

One more thing (and then I promise to quit complaining here). I was unable to pull up the F911 poster you linked to ... in fact, when I tried to do so, the damn thing hopelessly locked up my computer and I envisioned another "death by virus". I booted my way out of the mess and refused to try again.

I'm getting kind of tired of hearing your criticisms when you rarely bother to do the research yourself. It's pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and throw stuff but it's a little different when you actually have to take a position and defend it.
As far as the f911 poster, it comes up fine for me. Maybe you don't have Adobe Acrobat installed on your machine?
If you don't care for Hitchens writing then that's your perogative but it doesn't sound like you bothered to take the time to even understand his criticisms and it doesn't sound like you took the time to check out any of the other three links I cited either. That's too bad. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
-jdm.

That's a great article by Hitchens. Love him or hate him, he's a brilliant thinker and knows his history. I agree entirely with his unflattering portrayal of Moore.

Incidentally, he did a great documentary on Mother Teresa a while back that I highly recommend.

JDM ---

Please put your hands in your pockets, take a deep breath, and then reread my previous comment regarding Chris Hitchens' Slate editorial on Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11".

Okay, now please keep your hands in your pockets (and off the keyboard) until you finish reading this comment:

I have not and do not object to Hitchens' opinion or the information he uses to back up this opinion. Rather, I am objecting to his style of writing:

First, I wonder if either of us could come up with 10 people who DO NOT find this Hitchens' piece as being TOO LONG for comfort. (And please don't see this as a challenge to find your 10 people who feel otherwise JDM.)

Secondly, Hitchens' writing style is bothersome (at least to me). Perhaps, it is a lack of editing or absence of bullets, check marks or numbers, to help the reader wade through Hitchens' arguments. If I had the time, I would sit down and rewrite the darn thing myself just to show that the piece can be more reader-friendly WITHOUT my changing its content. (And, no, I am NOT trying to imply that my writing is superior to that of Hitchens.)

Yes, the poster you linked with does now come up for me and I have even printed it out. However, at 0400 today, the darn thing did not work for me and did freeze up my computer. I am grateful the thing worked this time.

Yes, I looked at the other links you referred to in your original blog entry. All I found were fellow bloggers stating their opinions without any examples or sources to back up the opinions. Again, I was trying to find more information regarding "Fahrenheit 9/11". People's opinions on Moore are encouraged, but I wanted to know more about the film and the allegations it implies.

Finally, whether either of us will ever admit it JDM, we are a lot alike in some ways. I am referring to your blasting me and challenging me to get off the sidelines and do some research myself. Okay, I've done a little (with emphasis on "little") research this morning. My goal was to come up with at least two pieces of writing that could help me understand what "Fahrenheit 9/11" is all AND be articles that are organized and well-written.

I offer the following examples. Of course, they may not be the blast of hot air you were looking for, but I do think they deserve at least a quick read:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/reviews/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=10005...
(Kirk Honeycutt review from May 18, 2004)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/entertainment/film/3722769.stm ...
(Ian Youngs review)

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/9010438.htm?1c...
("Fanning the flames," Jack Douglas Jr., Dallas/Fort Worth Star-Telegram staff writer)

Now, JDM, you may take your hands out of your pockets and fire away if you so desire. [:)]

You and I probably don't agree on much of anything, but I'm glad to see that you're blogging. The more bloggers, the better. Keep it up.

I find it hilarious that so many people are saying things about the new Moore film without actually having seen it. Doesn't that mean you are just making it up? Isn't that too easy? And dishonest? Or has someone rewritten the rules of logic while I was sleeping?

Sarah,
That's great. It's about time you started checking things out a little bit before making comments. Unfortunately, all the links you cited are truncated so I can't read the articles.
Moore seems to make a lot of accusations without bothering to check the facts first. One minute Bush is an evil genius busy plotting the overthrow of countries around the world. The next he's constantly on vacation and playing golf instead of doing his job.
When right-wingers started saying all sorts of crazy stuff about Bill Clinton I didn't buy into it because it was just plain goofy. I don't buy into Michael Moore's stuff for the same reason.
-jdm.

Charles,
Someone re-wrote the rules of logic while you were sleeping. Go back to sleep.
-jdm

Thanks for the terribly witty comeback JDM.

I will go with my first guess then and conclude you are just making it up. It's easy to pull something out of your ass, of course. It would be much harder for you to actually see the movie and attempt to think through the issues it raises.

I have been reading and responding to some of these rightwing blogs in the hope of learning something. What I have learned so far is the rightwing is angry and afraid. Pitiful, really, and certainly not worthy of this great country of ours.

Charles,
Yes we're all really angry and afraid - and pitiful too. Instead of getting all bent out of shape about people not seeing the movie why don't you tell us all about it. Tell us why we're wrong and then explain it to us. Maybe we'll agree and maybe not but at least you'll get your discussion.

It's much easier for you to shake your head and act like you're above the fray, just too darn enlightened to even bother to discuss any of the issues. Don't forget to make this blog a regular stop on your journeys Charles.
We'll have a great time.
-JDM

Clearly, we can't discuss the movie if we both haven't seen it. It would be like if we belonged to the same book group and only one of us read the book. What is the point?

As to the movie itself, I saw it, and it was great. It was funny, moving, and deeply patriotic.

Look at the following comments from the review on Fox if you don't want to believe me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html

As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, "F9/11" — as we saw last night — is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.

And, more to the point:

It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

Most significantly for you, Mr. Army of One, is the incredibly sympathetic and supportive point of view the movie takes of the troops in Iraq. The most moving parts of the movie are about the courage and resolve of the men and women in uniform--and the families who pull for them.

As a lifetime Republican, I was skeptical of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," but went to see it anyway, expecting a healthy dose of over- the-top banter between Moore and hapless interviewees in government, the popular press and at large.

What I saw, however, was a compelling assembly of facts and testimony taken directly from our nation's collective experiences and a clear indictment of our government's behavior before and since the Sept. 11, 2001, tragedy. When you consider all of it, you cannot come to any other conclusion than this: The Bush administration and its benefactors have clearly manipulated the fears of American people for the benefit of their own private interests.

When history is written, we will look back at this presidency and we will be ashamed as Americans for what has happened and that we were too complacent and trusting to notice. Thank you, Michael Moore, for waking us up.

Todd, You're entitled to your opinion. I haven't seen the movie so I can't dispute your impressions other than to say that reviews I have seen of the movie contradict what you say. I know, for instance, that the scene where Bush is shown commenting on terrorism then taking a golf swing is shown out of context. I've seen the entire clip and he's commenting on terrorist acts in Israel, not Al-Qaeda as the film implies.
I also know that Richard Clarke claims to have personally cleared the Saudi flights out of the US after the ban on flights was lifted. Yet Moore claims that Bush allowed them before.
There are no shortage of people pointing out the differences between Moore's version of things and the way things actually occured. I think you ought to check these out before you pronounce final judgement.
-jdm