"You begin your post by claiming I said something I never even implied..."

No, I just questioned the obvious implication of what you wrote which as as blythe in its scope as the point you quoted. You know what they meant, too, right? They say part of the family that the Bush family has some connections with (after challenging the perported depth of those connects) has never been associated with terrorism. You blew that a little out of context to make your point? Their point is that it's questionable suggest that since one or more members of a large family are terrorist, anyone associating with the family in general is associating with terrorists. There's no strawman. That's clearly what they and others think Moore tried to do.

Besides I'm not accusing anyone of distortions, only questioning certain people who rejected the reviews without reading them, exactly the way they claim others reject Moore's movie without seeing it.