It seemed to me that O'Reilly let Moore control the interview. Moore ate up precious interview time when he had O'Reilly answering and debating "Children", Children being sent to war by President Bush, Children dying for Bush's Lie, "Would you sent Your Child?" ..and on and on it went till O'Reilly didn't have time to address any number of other lies in the Movie or Moore's deceitful tatics.
When I watched the interview, I definitely saw a different O'Reilly. He did seem like he was giving more latitude than he does his "normal" guests that are lying to him.
I do think O'Reilly was caught a bit off guard and didn't have a iron-clad reply to Moore's "Would you send your children to die in Fallujah?" He should have countered the arguement better (children can't enlist, only adults over 18 can; no one--children or adults--are forced to be sent anywhere as the military is an entirely volunteer force; etc.)
But, I understand why O'Reilly was caught off guard: how could any normal person anticipate such an insane questions (and I mean insane, as in need of clinical assistance)?
The mere asking of the question, while appearing to be effective, is not even a reasonable question. It is about as valid as the old demoCREEP approach that "Republicans want children to starve" or "Ronald Reagan steals baked beans from the homeless".
But, O'Reilly did miss the opportunity to point out to all Americans that the questions themselves point out how truly disturb Moore really is.