Christopher Hitchens has a devastating review of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on Slate. He begins with a few words of description:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Hitchens then offers a crushing rebuke to Moore’s (and the Left in general’s) theory that Saddam really wasn’t a problem. The paragraph where he details Iraq’s role as haven for Abu Nadel, haven for Zarqawi after 9/11, its daily violations of UN Resolutions wrought by firing into the "No Fly Zone," and Saddam’s negotiations with N. Korea to purchase a weapons systems is too long to reprint here, but is worth reading.
Hitchens concludes with what should be a knockout punch to those who support Moore’s philosophy based on what they believe is best for the collected nations:
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD.
Do read the whole article.