The "cost of war" that this editorial discusses is meaningless without the context of the benefits of the war, and the costs of not going to war. Gee, liberals are always talking about context, and root causes -- funny how simplistic they become when it's a message that reinforces their worldview. And that's fine -- but then they shouldn't pretend to be nuanced and intellectual.
I bring the article here for discussion so that we can at least discuss it in rational terms (his article about the film, not defend the ends it serves).
He knows what it is. He has no desire to dig into a deeper truth. His mind is made up. One has to wonder why he is excited about this film if it is just preaching to the choir. I don't mean that he is excited about this being a film "which could turn the tide" but that he genuinely liked the film, watching it himself.
I got bored with the first Matrix film because I could tell where it was going ("I can bend things with my mind") long before the character ever got there. Never bothered to check out the other two.
Harry doesn't exactly say that he found any of the details in this film to be "eye opening". If Michael really wanted to be confrontational and share details that the American media won't show he would include the interview conducted with Nick Berg and the longest version of the Nick Berg murder video. To whatever end he wanted to use that footage, Michael Moore is too big a wimp to touch it (opens a whole other can of worms).