You know, I took a long look at the Michael Moore is a Liar site.
Almost every caveat is a small matter of emphasis. For example:
Quote:
Page 23: Moore twists around the order of Attorney General John Ashcroft's claims in a Senate hearing in December 2001. Slamming Ashcroft for refusing to give the FBI permission to examine records of background checks for gun purchases by suspected terrorists, Moore writes "The Senate (and the public) only found out about Ashcroft's orders to stop the search for terrorists' gun files until December 2001, when Ashcroft not only proudly admitted to doing this in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but went on to attack anyone who would question his actions to protect the hijackers' gun rights. He told the panel that critics of his anti-terror practices were 'providing ammunition to America's enemies... To those who would scare peace-loving people with phantoms of 'lost liberty,' my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." Ashcroft actually made the statement (which we condemned at the time) in his opening remarks, well before he addressed the issue of gun checks. Moore's framing makes it appear as though Ashcroft's controversial statement was made with direct reference to the issue of checking firearms records.
Now, I'm not in favor of this kind of casual manipulation to make a point.
But I can't help but notice that: Ashcroft did, in fact, refuse to give the FBI permission to run background checks on suspected terrorist gun purchasers, he did seem entirely unrepentant before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he did make his little "providing ammunition to America's enemies" speech.
Which strikes me as a lot more damning than changing the chronology of his remarks slightly.
Lists of "17 errors" that are larded with things like an incorrect date or a point open to contention or something speculative that Moore has put forth that the list maker thinks is unlikely doesn't really demolish his credibility.
So the dismissive "Michael Moore is a proven liar" may be technically true, but leaves us with the obvious "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, deLay, Frist, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter are "proven liars", certainly by the standards applied here, and, if I'm understanding Scott's point correctly, should henceforth have their every utterance dismissed out of hand as completely without merit or credibility.
So I'll give you Michael Moore if you'll give me the list above. Otherwise, STFU.
