O'Reilly vs. Moore

LOL! I'm lovin' it!!! Hate I missed it and will have to watch for reruns.

Was that on O'reilly's show?

I think moore won.

btw-this was the best quote.

Moore refused to admit the Butler report and the 911 Commission proved Bush had not lied.

He's a head case.

And, people don't send their kids to die--young adults choose to serve their country, or they choose not to.

Moore castigates Bush for pre-emption and then says he "never would have allowed" Hitler to come to power. My, Moore thinks a lot of his supernatural powers.

He was shown to be unwilling to admit the truth, and shown for his double standards--criticising Bush for something he said he would do himself.

O'Reilly nabbed Moore in the lobby of his hotel in Boston--after Moore kept begging off, saying he was too busy to do the show for a month.

I think it was a tie and they both looked foolish. O'reilly who likes to brag about never letting a guest wiggle out of giving an answer, did exactly that when he refused to answer whether or not he would send his own son to Iraq. Moore looked foolish (within the context of the discussion) when he refused to accept a difference between being mistaken and lying. If I, in giving instructions, were to mistakenly tell someone to turn right at the intersection, when actually he should turn left, I am certainly not lying.

One has to accept the consequences of being called a liar if they do not thoroughly question the source of information and pass on the lie. Bush did not do that. The information wasn't just mistaken conjecture, some of it was fabricated (a lie). Tenet's exit was also a "slam dunk."

Lightwizard, the reason I included the expression "within the context of the discussion" was because Moore did not challenge O'reilly's statement that Bush thought he was making a true statement. In no way can that be categorized as a lie. A child who answers that two plus two is five is not a liar.

Also, Sofia, Moore's premise was that O'reilly was the President. I would hope that as President he would not make special allowances for his son in combat. No good officer would.

That's if one believes Bush did believe he was making a true statement. Sorry, I don't -- I have strong doubts and always have about Alfred E. Neuman's character fidelity and phony posturing. I think he strongly suspected it was questionable but didn't have the common sense to want to see all the facts. Therefore, he passed on a lie.

I agree, revel:

"M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a "slam dunk" and your going to go to war."

Priceless.

I really like O'Riley.

I disagree with him half the time, but you have to respect how the man punches issues right in the face. His show is always interesting and controversial.

Frankly, I don't give a damn whether Bush was a liar or not without the evidence necessary to prove either way. I support the war in Iraq because we put Sadam there and it was our responsibility to take him out. Although, I have concerns about the new leader placed there, and fear it might lead to a similar vicious cycle.

Unfortunately, in dealing with countries with little to no civil rights - especially those where the dominant religion upholds uncivil political systems, there is not a lot an outside political force can do.

Just like Clinton, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Madelyn Albright, et al passed on a lie? Sheesh. I can't believe the picking out one fact and completely ignoring all the other evidence out there.

C-SPAN . org has an hour long clip of Moore discussing politics today. The title is "Michael Moore, ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' Producer & Director"

Michael Moore talks

The other people mentioned did not initiate a war in Iraq. A slam dunk is a basketball term. War is not a game. What other evidence? If there's "other evidence" why is the administration ignoring it. Colin Powell has admitted more than once the evidence was false. The other people were not in a position to check out the "slam dunk evidence." Only Kennedy who could have with other Senators and Congressman demanded more substantiation for what was more of an opinion than evidence. Let's just have more wars based on opinion. It's going on here daily.

(Not that the wimpy Democrats and I might add the Republicans in the legislature weren't still prostrate before the King of 9/11 and his court).

The problem is both moore and o'reilly are too partisan. moore will never admit bush is right and o'reilly wiould never admit bush was wrong even if in either case he was. also neither would admit that they themselves were wrong. So its two egos clashing...

In a television interview yesterday, Moore stated that if Kerry gets elected, the film-maker will be "pointing the camera" at Kerry trying to expose mistakes since that is what he "does." Moore is also a self-proclaimed Independent, and, I believe, not a member of the Democratic party. So, his views aren't really partisan. Biased, probably, but not partisan.

Michael Moore seems to believe he can strip a mask of hypocrisy from powerful people who supported the war in Iraq if he asks them whether they'd send their own children to fight there. He played this game in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11, buttonholing members of Congress as they emerged from the Capitol, and he did it again Tuesday on The O'Reilly Factor.

"Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?" Moore asked host Bill O'Reilly, after stipulating "there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world" besides Saddam Hussein.

"Depends what the circumstances were," replied O'Reilly, poised to fall into Moore's trap.

"You would sacrifice your child?" Moore responded incredulously.

"I would sacrifice myself - I'm not talking for any children - to remove the Taliban. Would you?" O'Reilly said, slipping out of the trap but still offering an unsatisfactory answer.

Why do people have such a hard time answering such a query?

If you are asked if you're willing to send a child to fight in Iraq, as Moore asked members of Congress in his movie, the sensible answer is, "My child makes his (or her) own decisions and I couldn't send him if I wanted to. If you're asking me whether I'd support my child's decision to join the military and take a chance on being killed in Iraq, then the answer is yes, I would."

And if you are asked, as Moore asked O'Reilly, would you "sacrifice" your own child to remove a brutal dictator, the sensible answer is, "Of course not. Who do you think I am, Abraham? If you're asking whether I'd support a war to remove a dictator if I knew in advance my child would die, the answer is also no. But we never know in advance who will die, do we? We weigh the costs and benefits of military action as best we can given our imperfect knowledge and decide which course we think is right. Supporting a war does not morally require me or anyone else to agree we'd 'sacrifice' our child.

"Michael, if I knew in advance that my child was going to be killed in a traffic accident unless cars were banned from downtown, I might start a petition to ban cars from downtown. But right now I'm not in favor of banning cars from downtown even knowing that someone else's child is likely to die in an accident there someday. It doesn't make me a hypocrite if I believe the benefits of permitting cars downtown currently outweigh the costs.

"Enough of your silly, emotion-laden questions. Go find someone else to harass."

Carroll: Moore's off-base questions

Pundits including comedians rarely admit when someone is right. Bill Maher was supporting some Bush agendas in the beginning of his Presidency but has withdrawn most of them. O'Reilly has criticized Bush on some decisions. Moore isn't addressing where Bush is right. That's not how politics works but it would be nice if it was. He is a prominant political geek and knows how to make an effective film. That's really all there is to it. Anyone want to be treated to Bill O'Reilly's home movies?