... Robert, and not just the short hand version for which you provided a link, but also the detailed supporting explanation at:

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Have you read it? I have also seen the movie. Have you?

Although I don't have personal knowledge about many of the issues discussed, it is possible to make some general observations about some parts of the Kopel article.

Some of Kopel's points state nothing more than his opinions, which are contrary to Moore's opinions. Opinions can't be either "right" or "wrong" and therefore having an opinion contrary to someone else's opinion, doesn't make the latter "deceitful".

Some of Kopel's points deny the accuracy of Moore's claims, yet Kopel offers no evidence to support his claims either. Just saying that something is untrue doesn't make it so.

Some of Kopel's points say that there is no "evidence" to prove a negative claim. It is, of course, difficult to prove that something did not happen; but relatively easier to prove that it did. So why didn't Kopel simply provide evidence that the events Moore claimed not to have occurred in fact did occur, rather than just saying Moore failed to prove that they didn't? (Sorry, that's a rather convoluted question, but I can't think of a better way to ask it. )

Some of Kopel's points, even if true in and of themselves, do not prove that Moore's somewhat different points are "deceitful".

Some of Kopel's points do exactly what he accuses Moore of -- selective presentation of facts which tend to support his argument, while omitting reference to facts which tend to refute it.

Some of Kopel's points are just factually incorrect themselves.
----- Point 12 (at least according to Clarke, who has said his plan was approved by "top White House officials"), 25 (self-contradictory), 33 (Moore actually said bin Laden "should be considered innocent until proven guilty"), 37 (self-contradictory), 43 (see the 9/11 commission report), 53 (Congressman Hunter's son was ordered to Iraq after the filming of Moore's statement that only one congressman had a child in Iraq & Ashcroft is not a congressman)

Some of Kopel's points complain about information which was accurately stated, but subject to differing interpretations as to its meaning or import. That Kopel happens to disagree with Moore's interpretation doesn't necessarily make the latter deceitful.

One point (59) refers to post-production promotion, which can hardly have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the content of the film.

Some of Kopel's point are just silly.
----- Point 1, 15, 36, 48, 55, 57

Even though Kopel claims that the first part of the film is "permeated with lies", he admits that the second part has only one (regarding a congressman's toll free phone number) and characterizes much of the third part as "not blatant lies" but "so one-sided" as to give a false overall impression. Which is enough to make anyone familiar with partisan politics laugh just a little.

Moore makes no claim that his film is unbiased. It is clearly a polemical, highly partisan, Anti-Bush hit piece. Sort of like what Bush himself did to John McCain in 2000. There aren't more than a handful of politicians in the country today who can complain, with clean hands, about the dirty tactics of other politicians or their supporters. That short list doesn't include either John Kerry or George Bush.

----- jim o\-S