Now, I'm thinking over the arguments my most respected anti-Moore source gives, and decide that they aren't so much facts refuting facts, but facts attacking certain points that aren't particularly the strongest of Moore attemmpts (with various degrees of success) to cast light on hidden truths. For example, Moore says that attacking Iraq was wrong tries to show that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US. This isn't true and was easily refuted. Moore doesn't exactly lie in his movie, but you also can't take his movie at face value. Was UN action so ineffective? No. We destroyed most of his weapons stockpiles that way. Should we have interrupted the inspections process, depose Saddam, then conclude that there are no stockpiles of signigicance left in Iraq, undermanned and without support of the UN? That's not as easy to refute.
Hitchens gives Moore grief for contradictions. Ex: Moore says it was wrong to invade Iraq. He then says that we attacked with too few soldiers. Contradiction? No. The second statement doesn't exclude the first. Part of the reason we were undermanned was because we went with little international aid. Secondly, it's possible to protest the war and care about the safety of our soldiers.