Who's the liar now bitch? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_en_mo/people_michael_moore_1
watching the movie, i saw that headline early on and i said: "that isnt true" because i knew every recount done by anyone showed bush as the winner. so moore was basing the whole early premise of the movie (that bush wasnt really elected) a a lie. and in fact EVERY recount showed bush winning, by various margins.
I'm tired of all the liberal rhetoric about how Bush didn't really win the election. Ok, he lost the popular vote but he still won 60% of the states, 30, and the only reason Gore was even close was because he won the huge states of New York and California.
Not that his credibility was ever up in my book, but that just shoots it all to hell. What kind of a dingleberry would... Oh wait, nevermind, Michael Moore would.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm? This puts alot of the issues about Moore and his movie together including linking to Moore's own responses. It points out things that are not true in the movie but mostly how Moore's uses an actual quote but through editing makes its meaning seem completely different than it really was. Like showing with Rice:
Moore's is famous for this type of behavior. In Bowling for Columbine he doctored speeches, quotes, and video clips to paint the picture he wanted. All of which I fine with when it's acknowledge as a propaganda film or fiction and not given an Academy Award for best documentary. But what else do you expect from the Academy of Motion Pictures. These are same people who gave a standing ovation to a child molester who's living in exile, Roman Polanski.
