Reading through the article, it seems that the entire thing more or less just says that Moore is wrong. If I'm reading it right though, in the entire thing, there is only one paragraph where he takes offense to one sentence in the movie. The comment on no Iraqi has killed an American. The author then goes on to mention that there were indeed terrorists in Iraq. Fine, that point may be valid. Moore exaggerated somewhat.
Christopher Hitchens doesn't even begin to talk about the allegations of financial ties between the Saudis and the current administration. Coincidences can happen, but there are too many members of the Bush administration who just seem to be too closely tied to organizations that could profit drastically from a constant state of war. That seems like a conflict of interest. Further, several of the paragraphs in the thing just mock Moore without attempting to counter anything in the movie.
"Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? " I don't think Moore ever implied the Saudis were evil, just some were greedy, like some Americans are greedy, which he talks about in more than one or two of his movies and books.
"The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly." Moore's point was that they don't hate it this time because they (royal family and other majour money people in Saudi Arabia) own big chunks of the companies who stand to profit from Iraqi oil.
Anyhow, I have great faith that Moore exaggerated a fair amount of his material, but this article does not counter more than one 'fact' in the movie. It is a criticism of Moore, not his information. And if you want to actually make a point, follow the money and show that it doesn't point at Bush and the current administration.
Okay, I'm done, now I get ripped apart.
