Has Michael Moore become a full blown Truther?

[FactCheck]

"It seems that your entire case here is that you think Bush should have denounced them, and because he didn't, he thus supported them. I'd say this is the same as Dylan Avery claiming that since 80% of the population of the US don't say they disagree with him, they must support him."

Absurd analogy. It would be the same if 80% of the population was asked if they agree with him and they all said nothing. Do you think they would all say nothing?

"Sure I can see that politically Bush wouldn't have been worried about them attacking Kerry because it certainly wasn't hurting him, but he had no obilgation to refute or rebuke them ethier, just as Kerry had no obligation to refute or rebute CBS for the faked Bush memos they aired."

He had the same obligation McCain had when he denouced the SB truthers. A moral one.

"Esentially you are trying to tar Bush with the actions of the SBVT group when in reality he had nothing to do with them,"

That's a matter of opinion. My opinion is based on past history. He has outright lied about his opponents in the past. "Gore thinks he invented the Internet! Harharhar." Remember that? "He voted for it before he voted against it!" Harharhar" And conservatives lapped it up without using critical thinking skills. He voted for the democrat bill which had checks and balances while republicans voted and pasted a bill with no checks and balances. That's just two of a long string of lies Bush said about his opponents. No, he or the other republicans have no obligation to tell the truth.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701160013?offset=20&show=1
http://www.factcheck.org/article155.html

With all the lies hes told I'm supposed to believe them when they deny something? With McCain's honesty I'm supposed to believe Rove when he says he had nothing to do with saying McCain had an illegitimate black child? Credibility has to come into play when drawing a conclusion on two opposing statements.

"isn't this the same as blaming him for 9/11 because he didn't do anything to stop it?"

I blame him for not trying. Bush was charged with protecting Americans and when he was told Bin Laden determined to attack America he did absolutely nothing. Not one finger was lifted. Not a memo sent out to law enforcement as clinton did to be alert for possible hijackings. Not a memo to the FAA telling them to make sure pilots close cockpit doors. Not a mandate to force airline companies to install hardened cockpit doors. Nothing... In fact, Ashcroft was about to cut counter-terrorism funding on Sept 10th. The same day others were having meetings suggesting an attack was imminent. Could one of those things prevented 9/11? Sadly, we'll never know will we... Whether it fits the legal definition of negligent homicide I'm not qualified to say.

"(okay so he knew a little more about the SBVT than ther 9/11 Hijackers, but still...) Personally I think that Bush has done enough in the past 6 years to nail him as a blitherring idiot, without making up stuff to add to the mix."

I agree which is why I said it was only my opinion. But it doesn't come out of thin air and I think I've shown that. At a minimum we should have never voted him back in office.

Something Bush and the right had to counter with slander and nutcases with a grudge from the past.

I stand by that statement. Bush helped the lie to the point most republicans believed it. Lets call it an informed opinion. I don't want to give any other impression.

If you have read my postings here you'd know my view on American politics and Bush in particular very well, I don't hide them.

Trust me, the reason I'm a debunker is because I was fact checking liberals on another forum.

I understand where you're coming from.