Reply
Tue 27 Jul, 2004 10:14 pm
Great stuff. Moore makes O'Reilly look like a complete tool at the convention. I particularly love Bill's take on how the president "didn't lie", lol!
(from the Drudge report)
TRANSCRIPT
Moore: That's fair, we'll just stick to the issues
O'Reilly: The issues
alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you've been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
M: He didn't tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O: Yeah, but he didn't lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that's not a lie.
M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage
O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn't the truth
M: Well, I'd have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn't true
actually 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 sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a -
O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president -
M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie
O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine -
M: But that was your question -
O: Just the issues. You've got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying
British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, "he lied." This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious -
M: Well, that's almost pathological - I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test -
O: Alright, now you're dancing around a question -
M: No I'm not, there's no dancing
O: He didn't lie
M: He said something that wasn't true
O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources
M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn't listen to anybody
O: They wouldn't go by Russian intelligence and Blair's intelligence too
M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said "What you got on Iraq?" and Richard Clarke's going "Oh well this wasn't Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda."
O: You're diverting the issue
did you read Woodward's book?
M: No, I haven't read his book.
O: Woodward's a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?
M: I know who he is.
O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said "President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, "slam dunk" if you're the president, you ignore all that?
M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn't communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn't have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th
O: Nobody disputes that
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.
O: You've got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they're all saying the same thing that's why. You're not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don't know a worse -
O: It wasn't a lie
M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information - not a lie
M: A seven year old can get away with that -
O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question?-
M: ?'Mom and Dad it was just bad information'?-
O: I'm not going to get you to admit it wasn't a lie, go ahead
M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question
O: OK
M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?
O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.
M: And, but what were they killed for?
O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people
M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator
O: Well we're back to the weapons of mass destruction
M: But that was the reason
O: The weapons of mass destruction
M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat
O: That's right
M: And there was no threat, was there?
O: It was a mistake
M: Oh, just a mistake, and that's what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, "We're sorry." I don't think that is good enough.
O: I don't think its good enough either for those parents
M: So we agree on that
O: but that is the historical nature of what happened
M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?
O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional
M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake
O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that
M: Really, I'm driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead
O: If it were unintentional and you weren't impaired or anything like that
M: So that's all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake - how would you feel towards me
O: Ok, now we are wandering
M: No, but my point is -
O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question
M: But why? What did they die for?
O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people -
M: No, that was not the reason -
O: That's what they died for
M: -they were given -
O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake
M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world -
O: Alright, I've got anther question?-
M: Would you sacrifice?-just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?
O: Depends what the circumstances were.
M: You would sacrifice your child?
O: I would sacrifice myself?-I'm not talking for any children?-to remove the Taliban. Would you?
M: Uh huh.
O: Would you? That's my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.
M: But we didn't go after them?-did we?
O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.
M: That's why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan?-you wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, would you?
M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
O: How?
M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was?-
O: Why was that?
M: That's my question.
O: Because Pakistan didn't want its territory of sovereignty violated.
M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn't go there. He got a two month head start.
O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
M: No, unless it is a threat to us.
O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long?-you would have let him go?
M: That's not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
O: Before?-from 33-until 41 he wasn't an imminent threat to the United States.
M: There's a lot of things we should have done.
O: You wouldn't have removed him.
M: I wouldn't have even allowed him to come to power.
O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore?-you would have invaded.
M: If we'd done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I'm trying to stop this war right now.
O: I know you are but?-
M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to?-
M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O: I would sacrifice myself?-
M: Your child?-Its Bush sending the children there.
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You and I don't go to war, because we're too old?-
O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
M: Say ?'I Bill O'Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah'
O: I'm not going to say what you say, you're a, that's ridiculous
M: You don't believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O: Look it's a worldwide terrorism?-I know that escapes you?-
M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O: Iraq aided terrorist?-don't you know anything about any of that?
M: So you're saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
M: You're not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O: I'm not? You're his biggest defender in the media.
M: Now come on.
O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: If you were running the country, he'd still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: You wouldn't have removed him.
M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---
O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.
O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
M: The people rose up.
O: why? Because they went bankrupt.
M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up?-
O: Alright alright.
M:--that's how you, let me ask you this question.
O: One more.
M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don't do it down the barrel of a gun. That's not how you deliver it.
O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam?-
M: Why didn't they rise up?
O: Because they couldn't, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off?-
M: well that's true in many countries throughout the world__
O: It is, it's a shame?-
M:--and you know what people have done, they've risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There's many ways?-
O: I'm glad we've had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright?-and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that's the fair way to do it. Right?
M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You wouldn't send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O: I would.
M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O: That's right.
M: Where's the recruiter?
O: You'd love to get rid of me.
M: No I don't want?-I want you to live. I want you to live.
O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is
END
LOL! I'm lovin' it!!! Hate I missed it and will have to watch for reruns.
Was that on O'reilly's show?
btw-this was the best quote.
Quote:M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn't communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn't have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th
O: Nobody disputes that
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.
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...
El-Diablo wrote:The problem is both moore and o'reilly are too partisan.
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?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace