A one-story state?

It seems to me that it’s easy enough to dismiss or reject Michael Moore’s worldview and interpretation of facts and documentary evidence (hint to pundits: “documentary” means “based on documents”), but isn’t the nation entitled to at least have a counterstory to consider? Or is it unpatriotic to propose such a different storyline?
Since ’96 I’ve been calling elections based on competing narratives. 2000 was tie between “the son vs. Saddam” story and “dudley doright.”
Moore makes the point well in this ABCNEWS.com item (Michael Moore Discusses Documentary):

TAPPER: If the government of Iraq permitted a terrorist named Abu Nidal who is certainly responsible for killing Americans to have Iraq as a safe haven; if Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers in Israel who did kill Americans; if the Iraqi police — now this is not a murder but it’s a plan to murder — to assassinate President Bush which at the time merited airstrikes from President Clinton once that plot was discovered; does that not belie your claim that the Iraqi government never murdered an American or never had a hand in murdering an American?
MOORE: No, because nothing you just said is proof that the Iraqi government ever murdered an American citizen. And I am still waiting for you to present that proof.
You’re talking about, they provide safe haven for Abu Nidal after the committed these murders, uh, Iraq helps or supports suicide bombers in Israel. I mean the support, you remember the telethon that the Saudis were having? It’s our allies, the Saudis, that have been providing help and aid to the suicide bombers in Israel. That’s the story you should be covering. Why don’t you cover that story? Why don’t you cover it?
TAPPER: I’ve been told that’s all the time we have. Thank you very much for this spirited debate, I appreciate your time, good luck with the movie, Michael Moore in New York.