Publicity stunt? Where did Shaffer say that?

In the bit I quoted.

Look, it seems willfully naive on Slate's part to question - no, ridicule - Moore's need for a legal team and the wisdom of announcing ahead of what's sure to be a ferocious and relentless campaign against him that he's got one. If you were in his position right now, wouldn't you?

There's a lot about Slate I've enjoyed and at times even admired over the years, but this particularly distasteful one-two punch on the eve of F9/11's opening is deeply disappointing. I suspect there's a desire to distance Slate from Moore; too prole for Redmond, maybe.

Perhaps. Though I suspect that this is a case where both sides think the other is being disingenuous and cynical, when in fact both are quite sincere in the righteousness of their particular perspective. I don't doubt one scintilla Moore's genuine fear that he'll be relentlessly mauled by rabid ideologues who simply are not interested in facts, nor do I doubt that Shaffer is absolutely convinced Moore is but a deceitful poseur trying to intimidate those who would dare expose what he genuinely believes to be willful dishonesty on Moore's behalf. When taken with the rest of his piece, I think that quote is basically just his way of saying "bring it on, Mofo" to someone he perceives to be acting like a bully.

Either way, we should all be relieved when this bad boy hits theaters and we can finally see what all the fuss is about. I don't know about you, but I'm excited!

Oh, definitely. Unfortunately for me, it doesn't open in Germany until late July, so... I'll have to either remain very patient or do a little poking around.

Regardless, you may well have a point about Shaffer's throwing down the gauntlet. I look forward to David Edelstein's review.

While my vote definitely won't be going to Bush, I think your mini hatchet-job on Hitchen's hatchet job was somewhat overheated--Hitchens made several quite valid points and the piece didn't seem as vicious to me as you decided.

F9/11 will be a hit no matter what anyone says about it, so I think your hand-wringing and disappointment whenever an intelligent critic like Hitchens or White bashes it is ridiculous. It's not as though the film doesn't already have a prepped squadron of cheerleaders.

Well, I should admit up front that Hitchens sticks in my craw for essentially pulling a David Horowitz (i.e., leaping from the left to the right) without just coming right out and saying so. But I also sympathize a bit with Chris Parry, who writes in Hollywood Bitchslap that, while he was going to initially ignore Hitchens's piece as too rambling to bother with, a friend of his told him it'd convinced him to stay away from F9/11.

So, no, I don't find disagreeing and saying so ridiculous.

Supporting Bush's war is a rightist move, though claiming that it denotes a total switch to the right is not accurate. (Would it be easy to mistake Hitchens for Horowitz?)

I didn't say disagreeing and saying so was ridiculous, I said doing a lot of hand-wringing and making tut-tuts of disappointment was--pooh-poohing incisive critics for not getting on the film's bandwagon, as if their disapproval would seriously cripple the film.

I wouldn't dismiss Moore's film just because it's vitriolic toward the President, but apparently it's okay to dimiss Hitchen's piece because it's vitriolic to Moore and happens to slightly ramble (congrats to Parry, who proves he can selectively ramble back with the best of 'em).

Fair enough, IA. I'll still hold, though, that Hitchens's rant warrants criticism and as well as a skeptical thought or two as to what all that personal baiting of Moore is about. I'll also add that I certainly respect serious criticism of the film, clearly argued from a discernible point of view - such as Armond White's, which is entirely consistent with many other arguments he's made over the years - many times more than Hitchens's thrashing around furiously in the hopes of drawing blood. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Here's a good reply to the hatchet job that Christopher Hitchens did on Michael Moore's 9/11 film in Slate.

http://tinyurl.com/257er

I hope Hitchens chokes on the money he received to write that hatchet job in Slate. Liberal Media my ass!

Wait a minute was Hitchens really ever on the left? I dont know the guys whole history but when he was at The Nation wasn't he supposed to be representing the right? Since leaving the nation he might have moved a bit farther to the right but his column was called Minority Report for a reason.

As far as this piece goes, IMO he damages his arguement by making it a personal attack on Moore. If he wanted to discredit the film he would just stick to discrediting the film. Hes trying to ride the noteriety F 9/11 is getting by trying to get moore to snap back, possibly with a lawsuit.