Strick, I hope you weren't talking about my response to the Hitchens review in another thread. What I said could have been CONSTRUED to mean I thought the review of the film proved he wasn't liberal anymore. In fact I think he proved that long ago, and the review has nothing to do with that. In my response, I was parodying a line in which Hitchens dismissed Moore in a similarly disrespectful way.

THIS is what I have objected to in reviews that try to show that Moore is "lying and distorting" They always lie and/or distort themselves in order to do it. Moore showed a montage of images to dramatize the fact that Bush has spent more time on vacation than any other President. "In one of those images, Tony Blair appears! Obviously, Bush cannot have been on vacation if he was meeting with a head of state, blah, blah, bluster, bluster!" cries Hitchens.

But he does not and cannot dispute the FACT that Bush spends more time on vacation than any president in living memory. So who is the bigger distorter of the facts? Moore, who may have inserted one image in which Bush was not on vacation, or Hitchens, who claims that this somehow invalidates the point?