Dis-crediting the rights attempts to dis-credit the left. A.k.a. Who is really full of shit?

I was reading an article on the BBC website regarding Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 911", they have two people's opinions on the film, one praising the film, and the other dis-crediting it. You can read it here.

This part rubbed me the wrong way: "Take, for example, the horribly misleading scene with Iraqi children playing in the bright sunshine with kites insinuating that Iraq was a paradise. This was over-the-top, but then Moore adds the voice over about how Iraq had never tried to kill US citizens or attacked the US any way. Obviously, Moore must have forgotten the first Gulf War, regularly firing on coalition aircraft."
In Brant Hahn's attempt to dis-credit Moore's comment regarding the fact that Iraq has never attacked American CITIZENS or attacked the US in anyway, he places some lame ass comment about how Iraq had attacked coalition forces during the first Gulf War. What Hahhn (knowingly or unknowingly) is changes Moore's argument. What Moore is referring to is that Iraq has never attacked any U.S citizens, as in regular people like you and I, and that Iraq has never attacked America itself, this being the physical geographic area that most of the world knows as the U.S..A. You may have an argument that Iraq has attacked foreign American military bases, or has attacked invading American troops, but this is not Moore's point, but Hahhn will try to make you think that in order to dis-credit Moore. I guess Moore should have been slightly more specific with the second part 'attacked the U.S. in anyway'. This can be interpreted in different ways, especially when you are ignoring the blatantly implied one, and being maliciously attacked in every way imaginable. If you would like to actually support your ideas and beliefs with facts please read the following: Please go through this.
It will shed light on America's military involvement in the middle east, and will make you question the validity of anything the American government says.

Here is a piece taken from Matthew Good's blog, please read it:

Imagine for a moment that 5 to 10% of what has befallen the people of the Middle East had befallen North Americans between 1900 and 2000. Imagine for a moment that various Middle Eastern nations were world powers and were in the position to carve up Canada, the US, and Mexico based on industrial needs and opportunities. Now, who in their right mind wouldn’t have a negative view of those powers?

Our definition of freedom is based on an insular understanding of ourselves, not one of the world as a whole. We claim ourselves champions of liberty yet exploit others for gain and yet are surprised when they dislike us.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote – “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

Eerily, Franklin’s words are just as applicable today as they were then. To define the “war on terror” as a broad engagement against those that “despise western values” is to allow it to include anyone that those who are in charge of fighting it see fit (Iraq is a prime example). Doing so has led to the diminishment of civil liberties not only in the United States but also in many other nations because of the tone set by the United States.

Violence begets violence, mistrust begets mistrust, ignorance begets ignorance. The most important question of our times is - who will be courageous enough to break the cycle?

History of the Middle East