Anyone see the two going at it on FOX? Moore agreed to come on for a few minutes. He did himself proud in my opinion...pulled an 'O'Reilly' and nailed him in a corner. trying to get the fox man to commit either himself or his son to securing Fallujah. Finally someone shut O'Reilly the ************ up. a very bitter leftie
It aired tonight at 7 central time here, I believe its replayed a few hrs later, on moore's site there is a little more info I think and when it will be replayed. hope that helps. Mr O'Reilly should on the brown shirt and be done with it...
It was awful. Just horrible. O'Reilly's main point was that Bush wasn't lying because the intel was wrong. The way for Moore to smash that pitch out of the park is to say two things. First, it wasn't BUSH who asked for the NIE, it was Dems in congress that forced him to seek it. So Bush didn't give a crap about the intel. Second, it's one thing to say Bush didn't know any better in September 2002. That's defensible. But by February 2003, after Colin Powell's UN presentation had been exposed, there were a dozen posters HERE who knew there wasn't anything in Iraq. So what the f*** could Bush's excuse possibly be? Congress couldn't ask for a do-over at that time, but Bush sure could.
from smudge: http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm Basically it was these two clowns bickering at each other. I thought Moore "won the debate once O'Reilly started yapping about WWII but then again Moore was asking when was O'Reilly going to send his kid to fight in Iraq. BTW, why does Moore always have to wear a silly hat etc.??
as opposed to the nuanced positions of Mr. O'Reilly.... I don't think Moore 'won' the argument or anything like that, but given the circumstances he held his own and threw some ******** back in his face. It was funny when Mr No Spin started ranting about Hitler though, and his response to when Moore pushed him on committing to personally defend Fallujah.... I think he had a bit of a spat with a CNN guy earlier in the day who was stating on live TV about all the people out there looking to kill him. O"Reilly also said on his show that he wanted to kill Moore, hence the comment at the end by Moore about how we wanted O'Reilly alive or something to that effect.
Both of them are morons but Moore is just utterly annoying. He is way too fat to be on the radio, maybe he should stop eating donuts and babies. He's so fat he rolls down the street and local boys hit him with baseball bats.
Moore may be considered the poster boy for left-wingers in this country, but if he really wanted to back up his liberal credentials, he would follow the advice given to him by PETA and go vegetarian or vegan.
I do believe this is the point where GringoTex comes in and says that real liberals eat meat while making fun of vegan Dennis Kucinich in the process.
If you read the transcript on Drudge(which I did before the telecast on Fox) you notice that O'Reilly cut off the last minute or two of the interview where Moore was asking O'Reilly to send his kid to Falluja. No spin my left nut
Damn. The neo-cons cant even SOUND tough anymore. My freshly neutered cat shows more sack. It’s like the Church of Bush castrated its truest believers, Heaven’s Gate-style. So enjoy your Zima/phenol-barbital with Fem-Boost smoothies, hop the next rapture train and resume your terrorist appeasing games in your own dimension. You don't have to go home, but if you stay here, misery awaits. This weekend, I heard some drunken bitch screaming that a Kerry win means we'll "become just like France." And she's right. Almost. Ron Reagan's "stem-cell" speech tonight was actually a coded call to action. We Franco-Americans are screwing an army of box turtles to repopulate those red states you currently occupy. They'll look just like ya'll would look with a full compliment of genes. And gonads.
A way to test this theory: The next time Moore makes a public appearance, the crowd should throw fruits and veggies at him. If he east them all up, it's a success. If he runs, he's doomed.
I suppose he might have edited out the last 14 or 15 times he asked him that question and it matters? I watched the whole interview and the end where Moore retreated to his lame question he askes everyone "Would you send your kid to Falluja?" over and over and over. Would you? He has redefined the word 'lie' better than Clinton redefined 'sex'. I think even less of Moore (is that an oxyMooreon?) after watching him blindly defend his spin. He is like a child that got caught in a lie and just screams "DID NOT" O'reilly's performance was nothing special, but with Moore opposite you who needs to be.
I don't think either person "won" the discussion...O'Reilly was ill-prepared to ask Moore the central question: Does you prefer glazed or cream-filled donuts? and Moore was ill-prepared ask O'Reilly the central question: What's Laurie Dhue's telephone number? All in-all, a bad interview! IntheNet
Moore made an excellent point: We went to war because of the imminent threat of WMD. Now the justification is that Saddam was an evil MFer. There's no way anybody can say with a straight face that the American people would have supported the overthrow of Saddam just because he was an evil MFer. I saw Moore on Larry King last night. Surprisingly, there were none of the fireworks as with O'Reilly. Larry asked if he thought whether or not the Bushies knowingly lied about WMD or were duped. Moore's response was: Best case scenario they were duped; therefore, they are stupid and don't deserve re-election.
your last point is crucial, even we assume that the whole wmd fiasco was one giant 'honest mistake', all the architects of the war should be at minimum thrown out of office/if not prosecuted for negligence. Letterman- how is Moore changing the definition of a lie? Are you really going to say w a straight face that the lack of an imminent threat in Iraq/wmd is all the fault of the CIA, that the admin's collective hands are clean? Do you think Americans would have supported sending troops to invade another country because of how bad a dictator's regime was. If you say yes you are full of ********. So what if He asked O'Reilly over and over again about his kid in Fallujah. Is it not true that those who have never fought are the quickest to send others to fight? Like the patriots in this administration you love so much. And you know what, O'Reilly the tough guy didn't have a damn word to say
Straight Face Here... that is precisely why we initially became involved in WWII... because "an evil MFer" was terrorizing Europe! A short time later, Korea and Vietnam could be directly blamed on "evil MFers". Straight Face Here Again... Later on, Manuel Noriega, certainly himself "an evil MFer" had to be stopped. Straight Face Here Again... one of the reasons we acted in Iraq was to free the Iraq people who had been terrorized by an "evil MFer". You see Revolt... WMD in Iraq (also confirmed by Russian and British intelligence) was merely one aspect of Iraq that made it a threat...its linkage with terrorist groups, its sponsorship of terror, and its "evil MFer" in charge made it a target after 9/11... Moore and like sissies would prefer that we let such "evil MFers" continue to kill... Moore would be perfectly happy to allow Adolph Hitler (first class evil MFer) to rome free in Europe... as Moore's selfishness would not have justified losing half a miliion lives to free Europe from Hitler's oppression! America's democratic ideals mean that we often have to act against "evil MFers" and loose American lives in the pusuit of liberty and freedom for all people.... I don't expect Moore to understand that, since he's an "evil MFer" himself! IntheNet