  I lead such a sheltered life in here that I had to have another blogger point out to me that the definitive review of Fahrenheit 9/11 had been done a week and a half ago.
I missed it altogether, I sighed. It was written by Christopher Hitchens, and forms a pretty final judgement on his rotundity I'd say. What makes it, in my mind anyway, the final word is the fact that it can be said that Hitchens - a left-wing commentator of long-standing reputation who spares no one their foible - would probably be viewed by most who know of him as being on the "same side" as people like Moore.
Funny thing isn't it? I would guess that a great many of the Left would rather we not see Hitchens' work on this subject. More's the pity. Well... obviously Hitchens saw the film, which is still a damn sight more than I can say about myself - or the film's defenders . Below this post -a few days back - I recorded some suspicions about the flick; two actually. One suspicion said that the over-fawning, glowing review I had read led me to believe that Moore's chief tactic was the old "have it both ways" syndrome because the reviewer actually thought this was a good thing (You know... President Bush is just so stupid and he's actually the evil genius of the world all at the same time).
The other suspicion wondering aloud what relevence a question posed to pro-war congressman about whether or not they were letting their sons go to Iraq in the age of No Draft would have.
And it seems, by the look of things, my suspicions are confirmed. And then some! I read Mr Hitchens review and thought of all the people who defended the film (who also hadn't seen it yet), and wondered how they would explain the intellectual dishonesty they had to engage in to make the defense. I know how I deal with my intellectual dishonesty when I do it... I make believe it never happened. I wonder how that would be possible for them in this case... urlLink Watch this drive... Then I want an answer. urlLink MORE… 
