Posted on 07/27/2004 2:10:51 PM PDT by John Jorsett
Click here to go to the interview.
Oreilly didn't sound like he was in top form. He should have pointed out more clearly that a) our armed forces are volunteer-only, b) that doesn't mean soldiers should be free to pick and choose what engagements they fight in, c) there are no "children" in the armed forces, d) only a complete idiot would claim you didn't have to remove the Taliban to go after Al Qaeda, e) Michael Moore is a communist sympathiser who wasn't the slightest bit interested in seeing the fall of the soviets, and f) he has shown himself to be more interested in making a fast buck than freeing anyone from tyranny.
Moore beat him at his own game.
The interview reads like a pitiful wimp-out by O'Reilly.
I haven't decided whether to watch it or not.
There are 2 things that really bug me about this. First, we didn't go to war for one reason only (WMD) as many dems would have us believe. There were many factors involved. The second thing is trying to get Americans to believe that parents are taking their kids to the recruitment offices and saying "here, take my kid". Our wonderful soldiers volunteered their time for our country...a good cause in my eyes! I wouldn't "send" my child. I'd let my kid make that decision on his/her own like all the others did. This really makes me sick!!
Anyone see Ron Reagan Jr interview Moore yesterday. Its unreal how much Ron Reagan was agreeing with Moore.
Email O'Reilly! oreilly@foxnews.com Let him know everything you said here. He may read it, likely not, but gotta try right? I know O'Reilly isnt the most popular guy to freepers, but he strikes me as a decent guy. But I dont think he is exposed to half the facts we are sometimes!
Bill should have edited his interview in Moore fashion.
The best you could say about it would be to call it a push. O' should have said that no children are being sacrificed. Instead, it is brave men and women giving their lives for the sake of freedom. To call them sacrificed children dishonors them. Someone said O' isn't really a good interviewer. That's true. He's better at investigating and pontificating than debating. During the tense interviews he comes off as arrogant and just basically full of hot air and often gets knocked off balance. If it had been Mark Levin, he would have danced all over Moore's scraggly face.
Moore would have run away had O'Reilly been more logical and less willing to play along. Moore's got himself trapped in a cage of his own making. I think he is growing tired of it.
I think I'll wait until I see the whole interview before making any conclusions. Of course, Moore just opens his mouth and that alone will him to hang himself.
I agree. O'Reilly buys into the "it was all about WMD" argument and so he is not able to argue effectivly.
But even if you're going to misunderstand the full reasons for finishing the war in Iraq, you have to ask the detractors what do they want to do now?
Do they want to reinstall Saddam?
Do they want to re-open the rape rooms?
O'Reilly is right about one thing: Moore is Saddam's biggest defender.
Michael Moore and all leftists are hypcorites and liars. They are concerned with nothing and nobody except their own power. Your rights and your life, nor the lives of the 44 million and counting, are important...unless of course you're a manatee.
People join so that they may live! And so that their families and countrymen may live, So that innocents may live, so that slaves may be freed and grevious injustice corrected.
Damn it all -- not one thought of being in it for "sacrifice" should enter and sustain in one's mind Not the soldier, seaman, or airmen, or other person serving at some risk of life. And that includes many people in many professions. Say roofers -- a dangerous job, or tree-climbers --- iirc, tree-climbing is THE most dangerous of duties, of jobs, of professions.
In terms of mortality, btw, even serving in Iraq is less a danger than living, say, in Gary, Indiana.
Somebody should. A proper mockery that calls the truth on Moore's crass and evil propaganda.
No...O'Reilly has said since Moore started 911 that he wanted him and that Moore was avoiding him.
Question:
If you (meaning the conservative host) knew then what you know now (no WMD), would you sacrifice the lives of 1,000 of our kids in uniform?"
Answer:
We sacrificed the lives of 3,000+ on September 11 who did not volunteer to fight for our freedom. These soldiers go willingly.
"I don't like the idea of watching the schoolyard bully pick on the fat dumb guy. It isn't fair.:)"
But in this case it's hard to tell which is which. ;)
Why did O'Reilly let Moore get away with that "imminent danger" misstatement. UGGGHHHHH....
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.