I hear you rattler. I love a good political debate, and never think of people who disagree as anything but friends, but I know a lot of people get too emotional about it. I have more respect for someone who argues the other side than those who never say anything.
Bowling for Columbine had some twisting of facts and events to make a point, but nobody debates that the Columbine shooting happened, and that we have a whole lot of gun deaths. But it wasn't really an anti-gun movie. Moore points out over and over that they have lots of guns in Canada, as well as worse unemployment, but they don't the violence. The central thesis was that the US has a culture of fear that leads to violence, which is, in my opinion, completely true. Our news from the "big corporates" is biased, but not for a political party, but rather for sensationalism and alarmism. They flood us with images of violence and crime, making them seem way out of proportion to the actual problems.
Anyway, F9/11 struck me as less of an opinion or editorial than BfC, and more simply fact-based. It's still a Moore-style commentary, and makes Bush look pretty silly, but there are fewer editing tricks and more straight info.
Whatever your opinion of Moore, I find it refreshing that someone actually admits they have a point of view. All news and editorial comes from some bias or specific point of view, but nobody ever admits it. At least Moore does.
Capslock