Well Moore is an american that lots of people would like to find a way to shut up, and Osama is a foreigner that lots of people would like to kill. So yeah...
I checked the sites out before I replied.
www.mooreexposed.com/
The first one talks about the Truth of Michael Moore and makes claims about his being incredibly wealthy and thus unfit to say what he does. I would argue that it doesn't matter where he lives or how much money it makes any more than any of us really care how much Michaelangelo got paid to sculpt the David (not that I would ever compare Moore to Michaelangelo). The work is what's important and wouldn't be invalidated if Moore was rich, or poor, or a space alien for that matter.
On that note though, Moore has himself responded to similar websites and articles:
www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
But if you can't trust one website, how can you trust another? You can't. I have no way to prove anything about Moore but I don't really care to anyways. I'll take his word because he hasn't given me any reason not to. (More on that later)
As far as Bowling for Columbine goes, I walked out of the film believing maybe half of what Moore said. You simply can't take anything at face value, and yes his movie is filled with his own personal views- but its his movie. That's his job. There are lawsuits that could be brought against Moore for misrepresentation of character if Charleton Heston or anyone else thought that was what Moore did, if in fact "Bowling uses deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect" as your site suggests. People HATE this guy! You think for one minute they wouldn't try to shut him up if they could? Legally?
------
2nd site goes on about the Gun in Bank part of the movie.
--
www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html writes:
And in a distortion of reality that is comparable to the altered Bush '88 campaign commercial that I noted, Lyons found that the scene in a bank in Michigan that that opens the film was staged. Customers who open long-term CDs at the bank actually have to go to a gun store to pick up the weapon after a background check. Yet the film clearly indicates that the bank itself stores and hands out guns to customers and Moore even jokes as he walks out, "Here's my first question: do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" (This clip from the film can be viewed here in clip 3.)
--
The response:
The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"
There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
------
Links to references:
Here's the link to the initial ad:
www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko ... ankgun.jpg
Here's an actual story a newspaper did in 2001 about the ad:
www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko ... 010128.php
------
The difference? Moore has citations. He has evidence. He even has the Firearms license number belonging to the bank. Why else would a bank have a license to sell/distribute firearms?
Look all I am saying is that I hated Moore myself at first. I walked out of B4C thinking that he had some good points but that he was way too liberal- blaming LockheedMartin or the NRA for the Columbine killings for example. But the difference is, when he gives his opinion he says so, and when he is making a statement of fact he backs it up with references and physical proof.
I'm not a Democrat, I'm a scientist (lol) and I have a hard time disreputing someone who says what I don't want to hear when he has facts to back himself up. If you can show me hard evidence that what he says is untrue, and not just "We know a guy who knows Moore and HE says..." then I have no reason to mistrust the man.
I can't remember who said it, but "Experience never lies, it is only our expectations that does." I think it applies here.
Do mine ears decieve me? Does dAN post something half civil? 
