When it came out Fahreheit 911 was lambasted by the right as being lying propograda?

When Fahrenheit 911 came out, they pointed to minor or insignificant errors or inconsistencies to try to show that the major points, which were documented, couldn't be trusted. Now, they're saying that either McClellan should have quit back then if he knew what was going on, or he's lying now to sell books (Since apparently all those conservative who buy Limbaugh and Coulter's screeds wouldn't buy a book supporting the administration's side of the story). Whenever faced with facts they can't dispute, conservatives will always try to attack the messenger.

Their were a number of fallacies or manipulations of the truth in Moore's work, this document lists 59: http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

And having watched other Micheal Moore films, including edits that never made the final cut (which are very telling about Moore's filming style and presentation), I have to say I am not inclined to believe any view that Moore provides on an issue.

I'm not a HUGE Clinton fan, I thought he was a decent president, but even he took Clinton to task with some unnecessary insinuations that were largely the musings of Moore's creative and pessimistic mind.

I never saw the movie. Michael Moore has too free-and-easy a relationship with the truth for me to give him much time. But I think pretty much everyone knew from the start that the decision to invade Iraq was based on crap.

That's why the President doesn't even have a 20% approval rating any more.

I didn't do that. I just considered the source (and still do) and know it's just a lie. You don't compare apples to oranges and say because they both grow on trees they are the same. The only connection between what Moore and McClellan said is their names both start with M.

And you really should learn how to spell. Or at least use spell check.

It's all a common sense adventure. If you have paid attention to the Bush presidency and you can seperate your emotions from reality then obviously you know that a significant part of this guys book is proabably true.

If you have to believe what ever it is you have to believe in to get through the day then you will psych yourself into believing Bush did none of those things and you'll continue to make eccuses for him. I understand this weakness, a man has to have hope and telling him that his leader is lying immoral puppet can be too much to handle.

No.

Michael Moore and Scott McClellan both have something they want to sell you. Their chief demographic is the liberal. It stands to reason they're going to give their buyers what they want.

actually, like mac's book, mikey's film wasn't "lambasted" as a "lie" so much as an obvious money-making enterprise hiding behind political rhetoric.....basically pandering on the most visceral, rather than intellectual, level...

....not surprising that you don't remember that, seeing as the movie (much like scott's book will a couple years from now) has long since faded into irrelevance...

That movie was disturbing! I still remember the scene where this muslim man picks up a dead baby from the back of a truck (with other dead people). He holds the baby by 1 arm and 1 leg and shakes her in front of the camera....

but then the rest of the movie was crap.

Micheal Moore had a lot of guts to document what very few Americans wanted to know. American denial is a powerful thing.

Nothing with Michael Moore's grubby fingerprints is worth any real consideration.