Moore's allegation is that President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. His proof of this is that before the invasion President Bush claimed that Iraq had WMD's but since then we have not found any therefore Bush lied. Pretty silly argument and I think O'reilly could have argued much more effectively against this sort nonsense:
1) One of Moore's main claims in F911 is that the Saudis control Bush - that Bush wakes up in the morning thinking of how he can serve his Saudis masters. If this is the case then one must wonder why on Earth Bush would make up lies about WMD's in Iraq in order to justify the invasion since the Saudis strongly opposed said invasion.
2) The UN, CIA and most other major intelligence agencies all agreed that Iraq possesed WMDs.
3) Recent reports, both stateside and from Europe, indicate that President Bush's statement about Iraq attempts to purchase yellowcake were indeed well founded.
4) Senate investigation report into Iraq intelligence concluded that there even though the intelligence was flawed there was no effort to distort that information. Similar conclusion were made concerning British intelligence.
5) Isaac Newton discovered and presented his theory of gravity/force/motion to the world. Of course Albert Einstien found that Newton overlooked a very important aspect of the theory. Yes, what Newton stated was untrue, but it was the best that he knew at that time. Can we conclude therefore that Isaac Newton was a liar?
Newton's laws work well as classical mechanics, they just are incomplete and break at near light speeds.
You make really good pts. I just dashed those off quickly. Yeah moore is bogus and it disappointing that oreilly gave him a pass. what a 'conservative'
And the part everyone ignores is that Iraq was sending money to suicide bombers families in Arafatville. That to me is funding terrorism plain and simple. If Bush made a mistake it was hanging his hat on the WMD thing too hard instead of "diversifying" the many justifications in a War on Terror context.