Posted on 07/28/2004 1:19:49 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Some of the most heated political rhetoric televised on Tuesday came not from a speech made at the Democratic National Convention, but from a FOX News studio.
After running into one another outside of the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Michael Moore finally agreed to step into the ring with Bill O'Reilly for the first time since the release of his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
Left-wing rabble-rouser Moore and right-wing conservative O'Reilly sparred on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor" on Tuesday in an unedited interview taped on Monday. During the 12-minute interview, the two debated heated topics including President Bush's motivation for going to war, whether the United States should pull out of Iraq, and how to bring democracy to a dictatorship.
O'Reilly kick-started the interview, telling Moore that many politicians believe Bush was misinformed about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that he was not lying. "You want to apologize to the president now or later?" O'Reilly asked.
"Actually," Moore countered, "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 connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11."
During the interview, O'Reilly referred to Moore as "President Moore" and called him Saddam Hussein's "biggest defender in the media." Each discussion hit a brick wall over issues of semantics. "It's not a lie if you believe it to be true," O'Reilly said.
"Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do than to lie to a country to take them to war," Moore insisted. "He did not tell the truth."
Moore continuously asked O'Reilly the question he posed to a series of senators in "Fahrenheit 9/11": whether he would sacrifice his own child for the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
"I would sacrifice myself," O'Reilly said.
The question was revisited several times during the interview, and each time, O'Reilly explained that he would send himself, but did not say whether he would send his child.
Concluding a meandering discussion on how to properly introduce democracy to a dictatorship, O'Reilly began to close the discussion, saying he was glad they had the interview, and discovered that they see the world in different ways.
"Right," Moore said. "I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and ... you would?"
"I would sacrifice myself," O'Reilly said.
"Where can we sign him up?" Moore exclaimed, to which O'Reilly responded, "You'd love to get rid of me."
"No," Moore said softly, extending his hand slightly across the table. "I want you to live. I want you to live."
1. No children are being sent to war. All military personnel are over 18 years old, which is by definition not a child.
2. No one is forced to go into the army. We have not had a draft or conscript army in this country for 30 years and, according to the Secretary of Defense (accd to Mikey Moore the EEEVIL Donald Rumsfeld), there is no need for that anywhere in the forseeable future.
3. Yes, if necessary we must send our young, volunteer military personnel to do a dirty job. That involves death. So, yes, we must send people to do for the greater good. Your inference that they are dying in vain, or worse for a "lie" that really, at most, was poor intelligence, is the greatest insult to the memory of the soldiers, their families, and anyone else they have left behind...maybe, most especially the free women, children, and innocents in Iraq that, prior to that soldier's sacrifice, were been raped, tortured, gassed, or otherwise terrorized (YES TERRORIZED!) everyday.
4. You are a fat, lying piece of SH*T who should dropped F*CKING dead!
Ok, he might have left out that last part, but all of the other points would have shut his big, fat, lying mouth.
I think O'Reilly blew it in a major way. He appeared nervous and stuttered at one point. For taking on Moore, I think Hannity's the man for the job.
Think about that---he TIED Michael Moore! A documented blatant liar whose arguments could easily be anticipated and refuted. It was a sad display by O'Reilly who proved himself to be a hollow blowhard.
It was a TKO with O'Reilly flat out on the canvas.
I think Moore would chew Hannity up and spit him up. Hannity just isn't that fast on his feet. The only one who could stand up to Moore would be El Rushbo.
This is exactly why he had his ass handed to him. He couldn't adapt from just using talking points. He didn't counter Moore on Moore's terms. For example, he should have mentioned that all the soldiers in Iraq are volunteers. He completely blew it.
Then you must find it doubly insulting.
best wishes.
I agree, O'Reilly let us down. I would forgive him if he wasn't so damn arrogant. If you act like big sh*t, you better be able to step up to the plate when your opportunity comes.
yikes. good post. I completely agree. O'Reilly felt that he could not justifiably answer his question in that he is a middle aged man who never served.
It is this guilt that works in Moore's favor.
O'Reilly should have asked: "If you will not back down from calling The President a liar, then you must admit to me now that Bill Clinton, ALGore, John Kerry and the rest of democrats are liars as well!"
..then produce the documented quotes saying exactly what The President has said.
I sure hope O'Reilly doesn't try to go up against Stewart Smalley, aka Al Franken. If that's the best he can do against Lard Ass, I'd hate see O'Reilly embarrass himself again.
O'Reilly crumbled like the girlie-man he is. He did not refute Moore's talking points at all.
Moore 1
O'reilly 0
O'Reilly: "Mr. Moore, do you really believe Americans are some of the most ignorant people on the planet?"
O'Reilly: "Moore, why did you crack a joke after 9-11 that if blacks were on the planes, they wouldn't have wimped out like the whites did?"
The fact that none of these three questions were asked makes me think that O'Reilly was too busy partying the night before to do his prep work.b
Yeah, but it's difficult with a tall frame like O'R has to invert himself sufficiently to talk out of his ass. :-)
Michael Moore has a big advantage in his arguing. He does not have to believe anything he says. BOR tested that in the "interview" by saying they were at a convention with lots of people there, and Moore replied, We don't know if anyone is there until we look.
Moore can say everyone was happy in Iraq until we got there. He did not look.
Moore backed Wesley Clarke for president. He called him a war criminal in Kosovo.
Moore can ask the question about sending children to a war. But he denies war is ever necessary.
Moore can mourn the dead Iraqis in Iraq. But only the US casualties, not the Saddam casualties.
Moore can...
Moore is strictly an evil court jester, laughing at his power over the blind.
DK
You cannot have a debate with a liar. The audience won't know the history of lying, and may not be up the evaluation.
OReilly could have been harder on hammering Moore's many lies and anti-American statements.
But that didnt stop Moore from looking ignorant and dishonest.
***I don't know how Moore could find his device to make children!***
It's simple! Shove a stick up his butt, yell "SNAKE!" then grab "it" with a pair of tweezers.
He let Moore control the debate. Because of that, he lost.
I thought the interview was good. O'Reilly always knows how to ask the tough questions. Quality TV IMO.
Yes, that struck me as well. I know there are leftist liars out there, but quite frankly, Moore is a lightwieght. Is ignorance of eg what the 911 commission reported is dumbfounding.
OReilly should have been ready with a better answer to the 'would you send your child to die?' Q. He asked that in F911.
the answer is - no *child* is in the military. The heros in the military are more men than Moore will ever be. those men and women, even if still 19, are more mature and grownup than MM. And they are patriot heros for risking their lives.
OReilly should have asked Moore: Would you risk your life in haiti? Somalia? bosnia? korea 1950? Kuwait 1991?
O'R *did* nail him on the taliban, when Moore foolishly talked about 'I would go after bin laden'. what a maroon.
Oreilly should have reacted to the "I want you to live"
line with "no you dont. after 9/11 you said the wrong people died. it should be more 'red state' people."
***Any man who purposely goes out of his way to appear grubby, unshaven and poorly dressed in 100% of his public appearances has deep psychological problems. ***
When Robert Bloch wrote his novel PSYCHO the discription of Norman Bates fit Michael Moore to a T.
The Book, not the Movie!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.