Oh, the hell with it. My wise advisor Todd is correct. The post was about the hypocrisy of Michael Moore. No more, no less. It stands.
[Original post in its entirety follows]
Simply put, Lauer took Moore to task for holding on to the Abu Ghraib images that Moore had long before the "official" photos were released. And rightly so.
Per Jeff Jarvis:
bq. Moore said that when the photos did come out, it was being treated in a "tabloid" and "s&m" way and so he said he decided to release the images he had in his "context," which is to say, in his movie. Lauer asked why he didn't release the images earlier -- the implication being that he could have stopped further abuse against the Iraqi prisoners. Moore said, to whom? Lauer said, to the government. Moore shook his head. OK, Lauer said, then why didn't you break the story? How, asked Moore, I don't have a TV show. You could have come to us, Lauer said, and we would have shown the story. Moore said he doesn't trust big media. He said he would have been accused of pulling a publicity stunt for his movie.
I cannot fathom any reason Moore did not approach the media or authorities with these images except two: 1) He wanted them for his film to maximize its impact and 2) He wanted to wait until it was closer to the election, in order to maximize the impact they would have against Bush.
Either way, Moore should be held accountable in some way. His reluctance to inform anyone in authority or in a position to help him make public notice of thse images is a most selfish act. Proper action on his part might have put a stop to the torture earlier. Instead, he chose to hold onto his dirty little secret for his own damn benefit. So who does Michael Moore care about? Obviously not the prisoners of Abu Ghraib, although he purports to. The only things Moore cares about are his ego, his fame and his profits. I don't understand how anyone can defend these actions.
[If anyone has a transcript of Lauer's interview with Moore please let me know]