Posted on 07/28/2004 1:19:49 PM PDT by churchillbuff
"MM insisted that Bush lied about WMD's because, even though Bush acted on info he thought to be true (as confirmed by the 9/11 commission), it still wasn't "truthful" information. Why, oh why, didn't O'Rielly counter with, "then Kerry and Clinton lied as well? They both told the public about Saddam's WMD's." Seemed like a no-brainer."
RIGHT!
MM was a target as fat as a barn door (or his a**) and OReilly took maybe half the shots he could have.
he was a bit passive and let the WMD issue dominate the debate, when in fact there are many reasons for the war, like terror links, which Moore didnt even have a clue about! OReilly could have nailed him on that:
"So the 911 commission says that Iraq offered safe haven to Bin laden in 1998, doesnt that indicate some links between saddam and bin laden?"
"So the 911 commision says the patriot act is a great benefit to America, agree?"
(getting moore to dispute the *War on Terror* would nail him as the kook that he is. WMDs not being in Iraq is the only non-kooky element to hang his whole worldview on. the rest is cr*pola.)
Actually BOR tried that hypothetical, but it was clearly too complex a thought process for Michael Moore, who just went on to spout his next lie.
BOR needed to be more 'no-spin' aggressive to quit Moore's slithering.
"It was a TKO with O'Reilly flat out on the canvas."
how so? Moore was a liar who admitted he wouldnt even take out the taliban, he didnt know saddam had links to terrorists, he calls our heros in uniform 'child'.
So Moore showed himself to be a moron and a liar.
For the many many reasons listed on this thread. They echo my feelings. Moore had control. O'Reilly crapped his pants.
WOW. That's interesting............and frightening.
I have a "child" serving in Iraq. He's 29 years old.
Screen name: smaagee
That's my boy!
I saw the interview too. I wrote on the thread that BOR should have been hader on his lies.
But any semi-informed person could see right through Moore's bluster as hollow and ignorant. He was not convincing at all. "Controlling" an interview means nothing if it just exposes you as a moron. That is what happened in the interview.
Moore could have been exposed even more had BOR been more aggressive, but he didnt come off well at all.
I think the trouble with the interview was that O'Reilly was so anxious to get Moore on his show for ratings purposes that he accepted Moore's demand that the interview be done immediately. Fox hyped the show like CRAZY. O'Reilly had no time to really prepare his "cross-examination". He should have had quotes to display, video of the 9/11 commissioners to play, quotes or video of the Butler report, Kerry, Clinton, HRC, Edwards, etc. disputing Moore's accusations, quotes from Moore's books showing him to be anti-American, etc. Television is a visual medium and O'Reilly could have shown him to be a liar and propagandist if he prepared. Instead it was Bill's word against Moore's with nothing to show the audience to dispute Moore's claims. Preparation is everything. Bill went for the ratings and not the Knock Out, and it showed. He BLEW IT!!
After that interview, if O'Reilly was a race horse, he'd have to be put down.
right-wing conservative O'Reilly
Actually, O'Reilly is a self-described independent.
Some of us at work thought O'Reilly was holding back. I wish he had informed Moore that he wouldn't send anybody to Iraq that didn't willingly join the service. Evidently Moore forgot that this is a VOLUNTEER military nowadays and the draft is a thing of the past. Nobody who is in the service was FORCED to sign up. Why didn't O'Reilly let him have it with both barrels?
I can't decide whether Moore or O'Reilly is more deserving of this special little gift.
Yeah. That's where it really fell apart.
Don't call Michael Moore if your house is burning.
"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.
Those who admire such a person likely suffer similar self image afflictions."
EXACTLY! What is it with Democrats and trying to look cheap when everyone knows damn well they have plenty of money to spare? It's like the digital watch thing. Clinton wore a digital watch, so now Edwards and KERRY (!!) wear those devices! It's ridiculous. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a Democrat thing as I can't recall ever seeing a Republican politician wear one.
Anyone know where I can get a transcript of the interview?
Just heard it on FOX. The COWARD backed out. (Possibly due to the pallet of manure left him by a local rancher?)
"..no one "sends their child" to war. its a volunteer military made up of adults."
I think that's an important point lost in Moore's emotional rhetoric, and Bill got caught up in it. No individual wants their son to die. But there are just causes for war. And our country has to have a military that is willing to kill and risk their own lives. And that military has to answer the call of the commander-in-chief.
Either we have a voluntary army, or everyone's son is eligible for the draft. (EVERYONE, no college exemptions!) But no parent is being asked to make the decision for their son to join the military.
-- Joe
So does Bill O'Reilly, who goes out of his way to often repeat that he is not a right wing conservative or even call himself a conservative.
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.