Fun Read, O'Reily vs. Moore

[Avestan]

Let the flames begin:

MOORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.

MOORE: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth

MOORE: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –

O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –

MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie

O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –

MOORE: But that was your question –

O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –

MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –

O'REILLY: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –

MOORE: No I’m not, there’s no dancing

O'REILLY: He didn’t lie

MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true

O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources

MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody

O'REILLY: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too

MOORE: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O'REILLY: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?

MOORE: No, I haven’t read his book.

O'REILLY: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?

MOORE: I know who he is.

O'REILLY: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?

MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O'REILLY: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.

MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...

MOORE: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O'REILLY: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –

O'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie

MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie

MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that –

O'REILLY: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—

MOORE: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—

O'REILLY: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead

MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question

O'REILLY: OK

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.

MOORE: And, but what were they killed for?

O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O'REILLY: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction

MOORE: But that was the reason

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction

MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat

O'REILLY: That’s right

MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?

O'REILLY: It was a mistake

MOORE: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.

O'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents

MOORE: So we agree on that

O'REILLY: but that is the historical nature of what happened

MOORE: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake

O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that

MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead

O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that

MOORE: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me

O'REILLY: Ok, now we are wandering

MOORE: No, but my point is –

O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question

MOORE: But why? What did they die for?

O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –

MOORE: No, that was not the reason –

O'REILLY: That’s what they died for

MOORE: -they were given –

O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake

MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –

O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question—

MOORE: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were.

MOORE: You would sacrifice your child?

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?

MOORE: Uh huh.

O'REILLY: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

MOORE: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.

MOORE: But we didn’t go after them—did we?

O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.

MOORE: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O'REILLY: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

MOORE: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O'REILLY: How?

MOORE: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was—

O'REILLY: Why was that?

MOORE: That’s my question.

O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

MOORE: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.

O'REILLY: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

MOORE: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O'REILLY: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?

MOORE: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O'REILLY: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

MOORE: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.

MOORE: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.

MOORE: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

O'REILLY: I know you are but—

MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O'REILLY: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—

MOORE: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself—

MOORE: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

MOORE: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—

MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?

MOORE: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.

MOORE: Now come on.

O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.

MOORE: How do you know that?

O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.

MOORE: How do you know that?

O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him.

MOORE: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---

O'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

MOORE: The people rose up.

O'REILLY: why? Because they went bankrupt.

MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—

O'REILLY: Alright alright.

MOORE:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O'REILLY: One more.

MOORE: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

O'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—

MOORE: Why didn’t they rise up?

O'REILLY: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—

MOORE: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__

O'REILLY: It is, it’s a shame—

MOORE:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—

O'REILLY: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?

MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O'REILLY: I would.

MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: Where’s the recruiter?

O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me.

MOORE: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O'REILLY: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…

[Akaran_D]

That's actually pretty funny.

[Winnow]

That can't be real. Even Michael Moore can't be that stupid IRL.

[Krimson Klaw]

I agree with everything Moore said with the exception of Bush lying. He did not lie IMO, he was more than happy to jump the gun to get rid of the guy that "tried to kill my dad". He would have invaded Iraq off the word of a psychic, he practically wet himself in anticipation at the opportunity. Everything else was dead on. I have not seen his movie, have never seen him debate anyone, but I loved the way he handled Bill.

[Thess]

I watched this on O'Reilly tonight - I found O'Reilly's comments after his interview with Moore to be pretty comical.

Something about blind idealogy being bad on both sides - just that coming from someone who is as religious as he is made me and my family laugh.

The democratic convention has definately brought about some odd interviews - listening to Al Franken interview Sean Hannity on air america radio was just weird.

[Voronwë]

i didnt see the video, and it is only part of the information to not see the facial expression and vocal tone, but O'Reilly didn't come off as well as he would have liked to on that one i think.

[Winnow]

I agree with everything Moore said with the exception of Bush lying. He did not lie IMO, he was more than happy to jump the gun to get rid of the guy that "tried to kill my dad"....

...I have not seen his movie, have never seen him debate anyone, but I loved the way he handled Bill.

The "tried to kill my dad" slant is way overplayed.

I like the way Bill handled Moore. Moore wouldn't admit that Bush didn't lie. He would have done a little better in that discussion if he admitted that but he ended up looking like a goof as he insisted Bush was lying instead of basing his decision on bad information.

[Krimson Klaw]

So in other words you agree with me...

[Winnow]

So in other words you agree with me...

I have a problem with your emphasis on the "revenging my dad" motive. I have no opinion on how Moore handled himself but Bill didn't put up with Moore's badgering. Moore thinks if he says something enough times, rephrases it, spins it or re asks it that people will change their answer eventually...Moore annoys much in the same way I do in that respect. It's ok if you're right but Moore needs to learn to spin off on another tangent instead of looking stupid asking the same question again and again without a new angle. He has no conversation hijacking skills and he needs that as the Bush is lying tactic isn't going to work.

[Wiever]

MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O'REILLY: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—
MOORE: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself—
MOORE: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—
O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

MOORE: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

What a ridiculous view of our soldiers who are adults that have volunteered to serve our country. If I am to die as a firefighter on duty, have my parents sacrificed me (their child) for a fruitless cause?

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—
MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?
MOORE: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

Dodging the question at hand, Mr. Moore?

MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.
MOORE: Now come on.

Ouch, but sadly it would appear to be true.

MOORE: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.
O'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—
MOORE: Why didn’t they rise up?
O'REILLY: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—
MOORE: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__
O'REILLY: It is, it’s a shame—
MOORE:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—

Do you think a US lead boycott against Iraq would really solve anything? The ones that would suffer are the innocent civilians that have been at the mercy (or lack of) of this dictator for years. Saddam would never give up without a fight. In a perfect world a boycott would be successful. Sadly we live in a time that we do not have the option of waiting around for a country to cave into a boycotts demands. Hell, while we are at it, lets have a bake sale, perhaps even a car wash fundraiser to pay for medicare (the world doesn’t work like this). Do you really think boycotting Iraq wouldn’t create more anti sentiment towards the US?

[Adex_Xeda]

That was a remarkably civil conversation between those two.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Great interview.

[Cartalas]

Mr.Moore has been Owned!!!

[miir]

Although it could be argued either way, I don't think anyone got 'owned' in that discussion.

I found it pretty entertaining, for the most part.

[Lynks]

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—
MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?
MOORE: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

Dodging the question at hand, Mr. Moore?

That sounded like O'Reilly was dodging the question to me. That being "Iraq is responsible for what" in the US?

[Voronwë]

good for Bill O'Reilly though for having somebody on his show that is just as much of a loud mouth as he is

[Sionistic]

hhmm, I always wondered what it would be like to put a humidifier next to a dehumidifier, now I have an idea!

[Niffoni]

I was just going to say, I'm surprised that neither of their heads exploded from being in such close proximity to one another.

And the weirdest part is that although they both come off as whiney and partisan, they actually articulated remarkably well. I would have thought they'd just scream at each other.

[Kluden]

Seriously, could possibly be Bill's best interview ever! He never told moore to "shut up", and he kept his interuptions short. He never took over a point from moore, let him speak/ask what he wanted, and only interrupted when he started repeating things.

Amazingly civil "conversation". I think it was more of a "cross - interview" for O'Reilly's show, and Moore's next move, "O'Reilly Likes It!"

[kyoukan]

if all o'reilly's interviews were like that, his show would almost be watchable. unfortunately the fact is he didn't bully moore like he bullies his other less famous guests, because moore is too popular to get away with it.

but then if he didn't tell his guests to shut up and turn their mic off and yell over them and kick them off his show so he could rant, conservatives would stop watching it altogether because they wouldn't be getting what they want: a fat white bully shoving liberals around and yelling about hippies.

[Deward]

I watched the tail end of this on tv. Was a good time and I must say that while the debate raged back and forth, I think Moore got the last good line in. Was very entertaining.

[Krimson Klaw]

Yea I was kind of shocked that at the end, Bill basically offered Moore an olive branch with his "I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?"

And then Moore goes for the jugular in closing with "Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?"

NOW DARKNESS, THE TABLES HAVE TURNED!

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Except that you and Moore are missing one enormous point......not even ONE single parent in the entire United States signed their child up for any branch of the armed forces.

Very young adults make the choice to sign themselves up....knowing full well the risk they are taking that they could be sent to fight and die somewhere.

Moore could not shut up "about sacrificing you child". It is not possible for you to sign your kid up or every parent would. Go back through that and eliminate every reference to sacrificing the child and he has like 40 lines of text.

[Dregor Thule]

Backing the move to go to war is the same thing. Yes, you want to wish the troops success and safety. That's one thing. But if you're cheering on The Crusades while your son or daughter is fighting them, then yes, you are saying that you feel the means justify the end, even if it's their life.

You would think following arguments based on nothing more than thoughts and opinions would be easier for conservatives.

[Sylvus]

Moore could not shut up "about sacrificing you child". It is not possible for you to sign your kid up or every parent would. Go back through that and eliminate every reference to sacrificing the child and he has like 40 lines of text.

I think his point was that George Bush has no problem sending other peoples' children to go to Iraq and face the very real possibility of death, and that is a position that Bill O'Reilly supports as well. Moore feels it is a frivolous war, O'Reilly takes the counterpoint. So Moore asks - since O'Reilly wouldn't have problem sending other peoples' children to die for the war that he admittedly believes is justifiable - if O'Reilly would send his own children over there.

The point I think Moore is trying to make is that perhaps O'Reilly might not feel as strongly about what a just cause the war is if he faced the possibility of losing one of his own progeny. The prospect of losing a loved one, rather than a fairly anonymous soldier that one would probably never meet, forces you to think about it a little more carefully and could possibly lead someone to not blindly support someone for partisan reasons. If I were a huge Bush fan and wanted to support him, even though I wasn't 100% for the war in Iraq, it would be very easy to be vocal in my support of the war when it has little impact on my day-to-day life. Throwing one of my children into the mix would change things significantly, as it'd have to be a pretty compelling reason for me to want them to risk their life to fight for it.

It has nothing to do with actually sending one's children to war.

[Winnow]

It has nothing to do with actually sending one's children to war.

No one wants to send their children to ANY war. That comes directly from your instincts as a parent. Saying you'd send yourself gets the point across.

The world could be coming to an end and parents still wouldn't say they'd want to send their children. Bill or anyone else can't change their age. You'd have to ask people in the correct age category for military service that question.

[Thess]

Janeane Garafolo is on Hannity and Colmes tonight.

[Krimson Klaw]

She is? I have to watch that. I disagree with her viewpoints, but I respect the hell out of her debating skills. She will eat Bill alive. I will tune in for sure. I'm concinced that she could talk me into believing that the earth was flat she's so good. If you've never seen her voice her political opinions, Democrat or Republican, tune in.

[Thess]

Janeane is on air america radio every weekday, she's a good debater but she's not as good as air america radio's Randi Rhodes.

[Forthe]

I saw Janeane comment a couple of months ago that she viewed support for the war in Iraq as a character flaw. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

I didn't think she was a great debater to be honest but she was very well informed and she seems fairly intelligent.

[Thess]

I was wrong about Janeane Garafalo on Hannity - she was on his radio show today. I got confused because they started talking about Hannity and Colmes and her appearing on the show.

[Xzion]

Moore could not shut up "about sacrificing you child". It is not possible for you to sign your kid up or every parent would. Go back through that and eliminate every reference to sacrificing the child and he has like 40 lines of text.

I think his point was that George Bush has no problem sending other peoples' children to go to Iraq and face the very real possibility of death, and that is a position that Bill O'Reilly supports as well. Moore feels it is a frivolous war, O'Reilly takes the counterpoint. So Moore asks - since O'Reilly wouldn't have problem sending other peoples' children to die for the war that he admittedly believes is justifiable - if O'Reilly would send his own children over there.

The point I think Moore is trying to make is that perhaps O'Reilly might not feel as strongly about what a just cause the war is if he faced the possibility of losing one of his own progeny. The prospect of losing a loved one, rather than a fairly anonymous soldier that one would probably never meet, forces you to think about it a little more carefully and could possibly lead someone to not blindly support someone for partisan reasons. If I were a huge Bush fan and wanted to support him, even though I wasn't 100% for the war in Iraq, it would be very easy to be vocal in my support of the war when it has little impact on my day-to-day life. Throwing one of my children into the mix would change things significantly, as it'd have to be a pretty compelling reason for me to want them to risk their life to fight for it.

It has nothing to do with actually sending one's children to war.

I agree with Moore. Of course i have a rather radical view in this category (one that neither Bush nor Kerry would support) but if i were president (lol) and i chose to support a war, (specially a controversial one) i believed was necissary for the safety of my people, i would go out like the President in Independence Day, or King Theoden and lead my troops into combat, or at least show up at every major battlefield. I could never send other people to die in my stead

[Thess]

i would go out like the President in Independence Day

I saw this movie the other day for the first time in a few years. I almost cried when the president decided to risk his life to save his country, and the world.

[Cartalas]

Moore could not shut up "about sacrificing you child". It is not possible for you to sign your kid up or every parent would. Go back through that and eliminate every reference to sacrificing the child and he has like 40 lines of text.

I think his point was that George Bush has no problem sending other peoples' children to go to Iraq and face the very real possibility of death, and that is a position that Bill O'Reilly supports as well. Moore feels it is a frivolous war, O'Reilly takes the counterpoint. So Moore asks - since O'Reilly wouldn't have problem sending other peoples' children to die for the war that he admittedly believes is justifiable - if O'Reilly would send his own children over there.

The point I think Moore is trying to make is that perhaps O'Reilly might not feel as strongly about what a just cause the war is if he faced the possibility of losing one of his own progeny. The prospect of losing a loved one, rather than a fairly anonymous soldier that one would probably never meet, forces you to think about it a little more carefully and could possibly lead someone to not blindly support someone for partisan reasons. If I were a huge Bush fan and wanted to support him, even though I wasn't 100% for the war in Iraq, it would be very easy to be vocal in my support of the war when it has little impact on my day-to-day life. Throwing one of my children into the mix would change things significantly, as it'd have to be a pretty compelling reason for me to want them to risk their life to fight for it.

It has nothing to do with actually sending one's children to war.

I agree with Moore. Of course i have a rather radical view in this category (one that neither Bush nor Kerry would support) but if i were president (lol) and i chose to support a war, (specially a controversial one) i believed was necissary for the safety of my people, i would go out like the President in Independence Day, or King Theoden and lead my troops into combat, or at least show up at every major battlefield. I could never send other people to die in my stead

Sure you would

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I was wrong about Janeane Garafalo on Hannity - she was on his radio show today. I got confused because they started talking about Hannity and Colmes and her appearing on the show.

She made an ass of herself on that show today. She couldn't answer any of his questions. All walk arounds. Pathetic.

[Chidoro]

What I find entertaining about the entire "We went off of bad info" angle is that the order to follow proper channels was to allow the UN investigations to continue in order to prevent that from happening.

So basically, anytime government fucks up by jumping a warmongering gun w/out any pretense, the answer can be," Oops, my bad. Wait, not my bad, it was ...umm..THAT guy's bad, over there, yeah, he's the guy who told me to do it".

Fucking fools that buy into this shit. O'reilly doesn't even believe what he says, it's just an out that makes it look reasonable. And if you think I'm full of it, than you have never, ever, been in a position of decision making in a company that could possibly effect it in any way, shape, or form financially. You DON'T jump in half-assed if you don't have reasonable and backed data from secured resources. Seriously, O' Reilly taking the "duped" angle for world-effecting decision making is a fucking joke. $500k accounts aren't even approached with such frivolity.

[Siji]

$500k accounts aren't even approached with such frivolity.

But Bush has already proven the only way he can run a business is into the ground. And this business of war is a highly profitable one. Look at the Bush friendly companies that have made the most money from the US being at war.

[Voronwë]

Chidoro you absolutlely summarize my position about GW Bush to a "T".

Bush may not have lied, but he thoroughly mismanaged his responsibility. In the corporate world (where he also failed repeatedly) this type of half-assed decision making does not fly 1 fucking foot.

basically, if the US was a company, and he was the CEO, the board of directors wouldn't have waited till November 2, 2004 to fire his ass. (unless the board was populated with his daddy's buddies ).

[Fairweather Pure]

Very young adults make the choice to sign themselves up....knowing full well the risk they are taking that they could be sent to fight and die somewhere.

The majority of young Americans sign up with the military strictly for a college education that they could not otherwise afford. It is a contract that they sign with our government, where war is always possible, but far from thier minds and future life plans when they sign the dotted line. Thier only stipulation is that we only send them into harms way when it is absolutely necessary. The current situation in Iraq is entirely unnecessary, no matter how the Right tries to twist it. Poor men dieing for the rich man's cause has been happening since the dawn of civilization, so I'm not surprised it continues to this day. Dissappointed, but certianly not surprised.

[Chmee]

Nick Gillespe from Reason comments on Moore's appearance.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/006232.shtml#006232

So last night Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore went at each other The O'Reilly Factor, a clash of titans not seen since Godzilla mixed it up with Mothra or Liza Minelli took on David Gest. The fair and balanced folks at Fox News have posted a transcript here.

Now I can't stand Moore. But as a critic of the war and an occasional guest in the No Spin Zone who routinely has his mike cut off whenever I appear, I have to admit I was sort of pulling for the left's crying on the outside clown. I hoped at the very least that he would have held up his considerable end of the argument. But he didn't; more than that, his grasp of the facts seemed pretty weak or nonexistent.

Especially annoying to me--and again, I say this as someone who was against the invasion of Iraq--was Moore's insistence that the U.S. was somehow "sacrificing" its "children" in Iraq. I would do anything possible to persuade my kids not to join the armed forces (just as my father, a WW2 infantryman who "won" a Purple Heart in Europe) did everything to make sure I never signed up. But Moore's rhetoric falls flat when you're talking about an all-volunteer army that's made up of legal adults. Of course, that doesn't mean the U.S. should feel free to send soldiers everywhere, but it does undercut the Moore's implicit characterization of US soldier as 15 year old draftees.

[Wiever]

Very young adults make the choice to sign themselves up....knowing full well the risk they are taking that they could be sent to fight and die somewhere.

The majority of young Americans sign up with the military strictly for a college education that they could not otherwise afford. It is a contract that they sign with our government, where war is always possible, but far from thier minds and future life plans when they sign the dotted line. Thier only stipulation is that we only send them into harms way when it is absolutely necessary. The current situation in Iraq is entirely unnecessary, no matter how the Right tries to twist it. Poor men dieing for the rich man's cause has been happening since the dawn of civilization, so I'm not surprised it continues to this day. Dissappointed, but certianly not surprised.

That quote (and the rest of it) was used to show the faultiness of Morre’s parallel between our solders and “children.” Regardless if you believe in this war as being just or not, this argument was weak at best. I highly doubt that war is far from their minds when soldiers sign up for their country. My guess is that the many that signed up after September 11, 2001 would have a fairly polar opposite to your example of pursuing a college education.

[Cotto]

Here's one thing that has been bothering me for a while now.

Isn't the point of a leader, someone to take charge AND take the blame. no passing the buck and shit. I know thats how it works in businesses and the military (from what I've been told) isnt it also supposed to be true of government?

[Marbus]

"A Captian is responsible for the actions of his crew..." - J.T. Kirk (ST:UC)

[Karae]

I don't agree with Gillespe about "Moore's rhetoric fall[ing] flat when you're talking about an all-volunteer army that's made up of legal adults." That they are volunteering adults is wholly irrelevant when military service is advertised as a fun and enriching way to earn money for college, when a large number of those serving are reservists who never expected to see any real duty, and when the war they are fighting is entirely unnecessary and unjust.

Moore's question is entirely valid. If people like George Bush are willing to send other's children to die, they should be willing to send their own. Personally, I applaud O'Reilly for, at least, having the decency as a human being to answer the question honestly. His attempt to spin it and say that he would go is laughable, and disgusting given the name of the show.

It's a bold faced lie. He dodged Vietnam, he'd dodge Iraq. It'd be hilariously ironic, if it wasn't so pathetic, that O'Reilly has termed Bill Clinton "Slick Willie the Draft Dodger" on many occassions when he himself "dodged" Vietnam through college deferment as well - something he has struggled so greatly to cover up that not once, in any of his three books, does he mention the Vietnam War despite the fact that it is clearly one of the most significant events of his lifetime.

Sorry, Bill, you can't play hypocrite this time around. Slick Billy the Draft Dodger can't whine about Slick Willy the Draft Dodger anymore. Your guy dodged Vietnam and so did you. Kerry volunteered and served heroically. You must be very sad. I know you neocons enjoy playing hypocrite so very much.

[Winnow]

Sorry, Bill, you can't play hypocrite this time around. Slick Billy the Draft Dodger can't whine about Slick Willy the Draft Dodger anymore. Your guy dodged Vietnam and so did you. Kerry volunteered and served heroically. You must be very sad. I know you neocons enjoy playing hypocrite so very much.

Moore and Bill are equally lame and counter each other out. Kerry serving his country is great but a non factor in the election as his hippy days with hanoi jane counter that out in terms of election significance. Focus on national issues not character issues. You're losing the election if that's all you have to go on.

Character bashing doesn't win elections. I'd be all over the Stem Cell research ban, pushing some sort of environmental issues, making clear the differences between the radical right and left, pushing for civil unions and equal rights for gays if I was a democrat/kerry supporter.

Well the stem cell ban would help the democratic cause at least. I'm not even sure democrats give a crap about gay rights and civil unions.

[Karae]

Here's one thing that has been bothering me for a while now.

Isn't the point of a leader, someone to take charge AND take the blame. no passing the buck and shit. I know thats how it works in businesses and the military (from what I've been told) isnt it also supposed to be true of government?

Or, as was Truman's motto, "The Buck Stops Here."

They should have bolted that plaque to the Presidential desk.

Bush's behavior regarding the "intelligence failure" (i.e. when he lied about and exaggerated facts to gain support for a war he was determined to fight) is not altogether different than a five year old afraid of being punished by their parents.

A child breaks a valuable lamp. The parent confronts the five year old, "Who did this?" The child responds, "Not me!" The child then blames their siblings, family pets, and anyone else they can think of to take the focus off themselves.

George W. Bush fails to prevent 9/11. The American people confront George W. Bush, "Who let this happen?" George Bush responds, "Not me! It was the FBI and CIA not communicating. It was Dick Clark. They knew and never told me! It was a lack of imagination!" Never admitting the simple truth, he dropped the ball. They knew, they told him, he never listened, he never read the intelligence, and he never made policy to deal with something the intelligence community warned him about. He was too busy "working" on his ranch in Texas, or at Camp David, or one of his other favorite "work" locations...which all look surprisingly like golf courses or hunting grounds.

So if you believe in incompetence, hypocrisy, deterioration (and in some cases outright suppression) of freedom, violation of Geneva Convention, and standing divided and alone against the rest of the world cast your vote for the "do as I say, not as I do" administration and elect George W. Bush to another term.

If not, time to come to terms and realize you might have to vote for a war hero who's devoted his entire life to civil service.

I hate compromise.

[Jice Virago]

The debate was probably the best example of a reasonably civil exchange of two opposing ideologies. I have to give Bill some credit for being uncharactaristically reasonable and astute in many of his arguments. There were no winners or losers in the exchange, since it was primarily an argument over opinions and not facts. Bill lost more points than Moore, but he was also forced into arguing a lot of (GW's) indefensable positions, which is a losing battle to begin with. Essentially, they were arguing on Moore's turf, which skewed it into issues he was largely familiar with and strong on. The nation needs more exchanges like this, for informing the public if for no other reason.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

The debate was probably the best example of a reasonably civil exchange of two opposing ideologies. I have to give Bill some credit for being uncharactaristically reasonable and astute in many of his arguments. There were no winners or losers in the exchange, since it was primarily an argument over opinions and not facts. Bill lost more points than Moore, but he was also forced into arguing a lot of (GW's) indefensable positions, which is a losing battle to begin with. Essentially, they were arguing on Moore's turf, which skewed it into issues he was largely familiar with and strong on. The nation needs more exchanges like this, for informing the public if for no other reason.

Actually Bill is very well balanced 99% of the time. So is Sean Hannity.

If your looking for people to fill this idea of right wing wacko radio people, look at Rush a little and Mike Savage most definitely. Both of these make a lot of sense, a lot of the time, but 1/3 of the time they say some really wacked out fanatical right wing bullshit.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

George W. Bush fails to prevent 9/11.

Once again you show your complete ignorance.

9/11 was planned and being carried out through most of Clinton's terms. Only the end of the game was played out while Bush was in office and still in transition.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

http://www.iht.com/articles/58146.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... ommission/