Chri$ Hitchen$ for Rent It's time for Ad Hominem attacks on Michael Moore, and Chri$topher Hitchen$ responds with self-righteous, bitter invective that shot to the top of blogdex within a day. He writes, It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. Chris, you used to be quite a journalist. What happened? Have you started eating paint chips off the wall? Are the two brain cells you have left after all those three martini lunches in Washington playing freeze tag? Your writing indicates that your psychological processes have regressed to the point where I wonder if you're able to exhibit object permanance. Does "Peekaboo" endlessly fascinate you? It's time for you to receive some remedial education welcome to Shameless A's Principles of thinking #101 I: Grey Areas Exist Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. What kind of wuss argument is that? No, Chris, there is a middle ground. No one disputes that they have tremendous influence--oh, except you...If they don't "run" the government the only other option is that they have no influence at all. Brilliant. Politics ain't pregnancy, boy. You can be corrupt to various degrees. Have you become too stupid to realize that, or are you bending over for some unknown rea$on? Principle #2: Due to changing circumstances and the passage of time, thinking people can reassess situations and arrive at different opinions. Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. See Chris, there can be more than one right answer, or in the case of our incompetent leader, more than one wrong answer. The fact is, we were wrong to send troops in the first place, and then we were wrong to dismiss Gen. Shinsheki's assessment that we would need at least 200,000 troops to secure Iraq as "wildly off the mark". See how easy it is to change or modify an opinion! You can disregard Michael Moore all you want, Chri$, but what's really sad is that you've chosen to disregard 26 former intelligence officials, former generals Zinni, Shinseki, et al., and instead use what small vestige of your mind that remains as an apologist for a corrupt plutocrat. You're a ho, Chri$.