I understand the refutation of Moore's accusations. And I read some, but not all of the links. The refutations are all based on the nuance, the intention, and slant of the film. Those are things I will concede -- the film is biased and slanted. But none of those linnks are nice, laid out, point by point listings of lies because there aren't any 'lies'. The refutations are long and laborious because it is necessary to first define what Moore was implying (which is subject to interpretation) and then refute that. I can do this with any political piece. If you want to call it biased, slanted, political propoganda, I would agree with you -- but you'll have to recognize that his tactics are used elsewhere as well, including at Fox News. You can call his film misleading, but you'd be hard pressed to find an out and out lie.
For an "out and out lie" you'll have to turn to the President's pre-war allegations about Iraqi "WMD"s, or Hussein's al Quaeda affiliations.
The truthfulness of Bush's assertions that there will NOT be a Draft... faces 4 years of testing.
