Moore Fights Unfair!

I am a strange duck in that I watch Cable News shout shows to relax. This unfortunate habit has lead me to be exposed to a lot of critiquing of Michael Moore. The leading one is "cheap Shot!" What exactly is the difference between a cheap shot and a "good" shot never gets spelled out. The next is "Moore has failed to muster enough logic to prove that Bush is, in fact Satan." So I'm on Political Animal and I read:

Take the first half hour of the film, in which Moore exposes the close relationship between the Bush family and the House of Saudi. Sure, it relies mostly on innuendo and imagery, but then again, he never really makes the case anyway. He never flat out says that the Bush family is on the Saudi payroll. Rather, he simply includes "9/11," "Bush," and "Saudi Arabia" in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that George Bush is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the Saudi royal family.

Which is all remarkably similar to the tactic Bush himself used to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. He never flat out blamed Saddam, but rather made sure to include the words "9/11," "Saddam Hussein," and "al-Qaeda" in as many sentences as possible, thus leaving the distinct impression that Saddam had something to do with it.

So now I wonder:

Is there a greater link between Bush and the House of Saud or Between Saddam and Al-Queda? Or is asking this question a cheap shot?