Michael Moore is apparently in a huff about The Wall Street Journal's review of his latest film, Fahrenheit 9/11. The film focuses on the Iraq War and Bush's interesting ties to the Sauds, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. In the War on Terror, one would think that Saudi Arabia would be ground zero for an American invasion (the country has more radical Muslims than Iraq could ever hope to have), but Saudi Arabia has remained totally untouched in the War on Terror, even in light of the fact that most of the September 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The film is decried by Republicans as "partisan," but is attacking Bush a partisan thing to do? It seems as though people from both parties have been critical of Bush -- democrats for insisting that he's gone too far, and far-right conservatives for insisting that he hasn't gone far enough. His amnesty plan for Mexican immigrants has definitely soured him with the Pat Buchanan types who feel that immigration is a scourge upon the country.

Anyway, Michael Moore is upset. Apparently WSJ published a review of his film that was completely untrue -- because they reviewed a synopsis of the film:

This morning, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal -- who has not seen the film -- has decided, instead, to review a "synopsis" of the film. That's right, a "synopsis" from a fax of an early version of a press release someone gave him from the studio. Based on this, he accuses the film of being inaccurate. But guess what? Everything he says about the film in his column is completely false. I mean, seriously, NOTHING of what he describes is in the film!

Moore goes on to decry WSJ as "the biggest pro-war, pro-business paper in the country," demonstrating his uncanny ability to make an excellent point and then alienate anyone who might have been listening by flailing his arms wildly (Bowling for Columbine was an excellent film, but fell victim to this arm-flailing, as his pet issue of Flint, Michigan somehow ended up in there; the film will be remembered not for its critique of America's culture of violence, but for Moore's anti-Bush speech at the 2003 Academy Awards).

Moore himself is not entirely squeaky-clean. Two weeks ago, Moore announced that Disney was refusing to distribute Moore's film under its Miramax name, saying that it didn't want to get involved in partisan politics. Later in the week, Moore admitted that Disney informed him of its decision a year ago and Moore was just now letting the public know about it. He admitted that it was a publicity stunt designed to coincide with his film's showing at the Cannes Film Festival, making it appear as though Disney was trying to "ban" his movie ("it's too hot for TV!").