Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore.

Writing for Slate, Christopher Hitchens provides an excellent case-study on the typically pathological writing style of conservative authors. I went searching for rebuttals to Michael Moore's "Farhenheit 911," and this is what I found. As usual, I have almost no inkling what this guy is getting at, and I don't have the time to try and mine the substance out of his overloaded language:

Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore. By Christopher Hitchens: One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? [snip] Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins.

I often try to find serious criticism of Moore's films, and this is the kind of nonsensical garbage that I consistently get. What the hell is this guy talking about, and why do I even care? I don't care. I only care about this statement: "The Lies of Michael Moore." Does no one in this post-9-11 world care about brief, clear statements? Does this author get paid by the word or something? I don't have the patience to wade through this whole piece of crap article. If somebody else has time, would you please condense the article for me and provide clear, concise answers to the following question:

What are the factual claims made in the film, by Michael Moore, which are false? In what way are they false, and what corrections would be appropriate?

Please help me, I just hate long-winded trash. I also hate the human-thesaurus routine. I scored almost perfect on my verbal GRE, but you don't see me shoving my much-learned academy-cock in the reader's face. In the analysis of Fahrenheit 911, I dont want to see any of the following:

• Generalizations about "liberals."
• Critiques of the motives of Michael Moore.
• Critiques of statements made by Moore, other than those made in the film.
• Speculation about what Moore/liberals "would have said" about Bush/whomever, if they had done XYZ differently.
• Any statements about Bill Clinton

Just the facts, please. And one last remark: there may in fact be some facts which could alter interpretations of the events in the film. We can all come up with facts that, according to us, should have been included. But omission of such information from a two-hour film does not amount to a "lie." A lie is a statement which is false.