Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly Square Off In Televised Debate
MTV ^ | July 28, 04 | MTV

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: dncconvention; kerry; moore; oreilly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last
To: All

In Canada, I can't get FOX news. From reading your posts it sounded like MM pounded O'Reilly. I don't know him much but I have a question, is O'Reilly really a conservative?


81 posted on 07/28/2004 6:20:34 PM PDT by youngtory ("The tired, old, corrupt Liberal party is cornered like an angry rat"-Stephen Harper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07; deport; ambrose; KQQL

If you have a somewhat sick sense of humor, I refer to the link in the above referenced post. The video is making its way across the fruited plain. I'm leaning towards O'Reilly at present as the giftee. Granted, most here would choose Hillary.


82 posted on 07/28/2004 6:39:54 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Torie

LOL,LOL. That poor sob. Gives new meaning to biting the ass of those who feed ya.


83 posted on 07/28/2004 6:43:53 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Ain't it great? I dare not refer Sinkspur to it. You know how he is about pets. :)


84 posted on 07/28/2004 6:45:17 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jenya; sinkspur; Howlin; Peach; Petronski
I think O'Reilly blew it in a major way"""

O'Reilly admitted that we now know that Iraq wasn't a threat. After that, it was just arguing over details.

85 posted on 07/28/2004 6:47:47 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
O'Reilly admitted that we now know that Iraq wasn't a threat.

No he didn't. He reaffirmed that every single intelligence agency in the world said that Hussein had WMDs.

You'll lie like a dog to try to justify your pussified stance.

86 posted on 07/28/2004 6:49:46 PM PDT by sinkspur (There's no problem on the inside of a kid that the outside of a dog can't cure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

You keep repeating the same old lies. You keep saying Iraq wasn't a threat to us.

Do you understand that two administrations thought Iraq was a threat to us? Do you understand that even every Democrat under Clinton said Iraq was a threat to us?

Do you understand that the 9/11 Commission Report said that they had reports from 78 different sources that Hussein's regime was actively training officers for terrorist attacks against America?

Do you understand that the 9/11 Commission Report says that Iraq provided AQ with training, bomb making, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training?

Do you understand that the 9/11 Commission Report says that there were direct meetings between senior Iraqi intelligence officers and top AQ operatives that took place?

Do you understand that the truth about yellowcake uranium is the exact opposite of what Joe Wilson said it was and that Iraq was trying to buy uranium?

Do you understand that President Putin said publicly that Russian intelligence warned Washington several times following 9/11 that Hussein planned to attack America? Putin was opposed to the war in Iraq and has no reason to support the president on this matter.

Do you understand that Hussein knew that 9/11 was coming and bragged in July 2001 about AQ striking America on the arm that is already hurting (referring to the WTC) and we would never sing New York, New York again without crying?

Do you understand that Iraq was involved in the first WTC bombing?

Do you understand this is a war on terror in general, not just against AQ. The 9/11 Commission Report says Saddam supported Hezbollah, Hamas, AQ, the PLO. ALl of them.

Which part of any of this don't you understand? And if you keep lying, I intend to ask the administrators of this site to caution you, at least.



87 posted on 07/28/2004 6:50:09 PM PDT by Peach (The Clinton's pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Peach

LOL....... Somethings just can't be grasped no matter how many different ways they are presented...

But a good summation.


88 posted on 07/28/2004 7:28:19 PM PDT by deport (Please Flush the Johns......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
right-wing conservative O'Reilly

I dont' consider O'REilly to be RWC! He' leans right, yes, but he's not all the way here or anything!! :o)

89 posted on 07/28/2004 7:40:01 PM PDT by StarCMC (It's God's job to forgive Bin Laden, it's our job to arrange the meeting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StarCMC

Sheesh!! I need typing lessons! LOL!


90 posted on 07/28/2004 7:46:21 PM PDT by StarCMC (It's God's job to forgive Bin Laden, it's our job to arrange the meeting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Bill was right on the money about the fact that he could send himself to war, but he should of articulated the true issue better.

In yet another testament to Moore's lunacy, he suggested that any parent can "sacrifice your child". This, like everything else that comes out of his mouth, is meant to be inflamatory. I applaud Bill for not succumbing...

Mr. Moore, last time I checked, we lived in the land of the free where, children that have reached the age of consent, can make their own choices... and that there are laws against "sacrificing" another human being... That being said, they can choose to put their life on the line for their convictions, their beliefs... I applaud them for the courage and honor that they all embody that protects such a vile person.

Prayer; I just want to give thanks to You my Lord and Savior that I don't have to live in Michael Moore's version of the world. I lift Mr. Moore up to You and pray that when your plan calls for it, that he is shown the error of his ways, and that You would lead him to You and teach him the true meaning of Your grace and mercy just as You continue to teach us. And just as importantly, please continue to bless and protect the brave men and women that stand watch over us each and every night. Thank You G-d for all that You have done for us, past, present, and future! We Love You!

'Nuf Said


91 posted on 07/28/2004 8:05:54 PM PDT by SanityFromTheLeftCoast (An Optimist is what a Pessimist calls a Realist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
So does Bill O'Reilly, who goes out of his way to often repeat that he is not a right wing conservative

Yeah. Mr. O is a "Factorite," a party of one.

92 posted on 07/28/2004 9:32:43 PM PDT by My2Cents ("Fair, balanced...and unafraid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: killjoy
No, I think you're wrong. I agree O'Reilly should have (and I believe could have) kicked some major a** in his debate with Michael Moore, but he probably had agreed to a civil debate with him. He had the opportunity to go full out and attack Moore several times, but that would have taken him off track from the debate, which is what he kept on trying to bring Moore back to. Moore created the typical liberal argument... "well how about this? (*thinking to himself* uhoh, he has a logical answer to that, I wasn't looking for that)" -changes subject completly- rants raves- repeats himself silly-... sound familiar? yeah, its repeated by Moore, Hillary, sharpton, etc... and there's no real way to argue them because they don't make sense... and I think O'reilly did a good job showing that he didn't'.
93 posted on 09/13/2004 3:39:24 PM PDT by igor6200
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: igor6200
yeah, its repeated by Moore, Hillary, sharpton, etc... and there's no real way to argue them because they don't make sense... and I think O'reilly did a good job showing that he didn't'.

He let Moore control the debate. He was not skilled enough to take back control. He was well aware of how Moore debates, he uses the same tactics every time, and was not able to counter them. For that reason alone, he lost. If you are constantly on the defensive, the facts become secondary because it is impossible to get your point across.

94 posted on 09/13/2004 4:12:26 PM PDT by killjoy (My friends went to Mojo World and all I got was this stupid tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson