While any documentary is likely to contain personal opinions either expressly stated or underpinning the presentation, I found the article posted by Ocean976123 more compelling than the movie.
If the criticisms of the movie in that article are well founded on the facts, the Moore movie starts looking less like an opinion piece and more like an opportunistic lie. It's one thing to offer opinion in order to interpret facts. It's quite another to intentionally misrepresent the facts to support an agenda. The latter has no value within the political process. The political process is not exempt from the "garbage in, garbage out" rule.
Michael Moore is a relatively well financed film maker. I'm inclined to think that either he knew that what he was presenting was misleading in many instances, or he could have easily checked the facts which would have disclosed the more accurate picture.
I enjoyed the movie as a piece of storytelling. Moore is funny and has a talent for editing. That's where my reverence for the movie ends.
The movie should not be referenced as a source of facts for political argument. It seems that even the Democrats are aware of the dangers of relying on the movie for this purpose, and have avoided direct adoption of the contents of the movie. Of course some individual democrats wish that everything in the movie were true, as that would confirm their pre-existing condemnation of Bush.
Democrats and Republicans both support intervention in foreign military conflicts, including civil wars and the oppression of minorities by foreign governments. The difference in their positions as to when and where the U.S. would intervene in the sovereign affairs of other countries is marginal. The attempt to characterize the Bush Administration/Republicans as uniquely "warmongering" is absurd.
If Kerry is elected, I hope it's because he has a better plan for completing the work that is left to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, not because the Democrats have a more entertaining film maker than the Republicans can recruit.