Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Despicable film by a despicable man

Mark Davis:

Let's get straight to it. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a despicable film, and Michael Moore is a despicable man.

I've spent considerable time decrying the often baseless attacks of today's political discourse, so I have a duty to back that up. Much of my work has already been done spectacularly by others. Writers and Web sites from coast to coast have obliterated such deceptive Moore assertions as:

• President Bush was invalidly elected.

• Key members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to escape FBI interrogation on a special flight before anyone else could fly (thanks to Moore hero Richard Clarke for exploding that whopper).

• Baghdad was a peaceful, idyllic garden that was blasted to smithereens by an American attack that wantonly targeted the innocent.

These are the intentional misstatements of fact that elevate Moore to the apex of American political bigotry. He may be fond of deflecting criticism with the "It's just my opinion" defense, but that won't wash.

Do we excuse the racial or religious bigot just because it is someone's "opinion" that blacks are inferior or Jews are the devil's spawn?

Make no mistake. This is the same kind of pathological obsession. And as the days pass since I've seen this piece of garbage, something has arisen that is as disheartening as the film itself: the number of people suggesting it is a worthy element in a debate on the issues it addresses.

Reviewer after reviewer go into a disgusting swoon, offering goofy qualifiers like "the film may contain some contested assertions" and "fact-checking is not one of its strong suits," but often the conclusion is that Moore's work is important -- even enlightening.

It's enlightening, all right. It will enlighten you on the subject of how pathetic one hateful man can be as he seeks to berate people with whom he disagrees.