Michael Moore vs Bill O'Reilly... seconds away!

giftgrub

watched this on the fox news website

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

click on the Video Tab to right of the first para.

who do you think came out on top?

ChipZilla

So basically O'Reilly's take on things is that Bush didn't lie about WMD? The intelligence community misinformed him and now it's their fault? All O'Reilly kept saying was "The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake" and generally apologising for Bush. Apart from that he didn't have anything to contribute.

I would have expected a slightly better standard of discussion TBH...

Mighty_Mouse

Thought even berti and noonans discussion before the last election was more interesting than that.

Very little content

sceptre

Originally posted by ChipZilla
So basically O'Reilly's take on things is that Bush didn't lie about WMD? The intelligence community misinformed him and now it's their fault?

Aye, there's the crux and like you say, O'Reilly can't seriously think that'll wash. Bush has said "my job is to do my job" often enough that he might reconsider what Truman said about what that job was ("The President -- whoever he is -- has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."). Saying the president was misinformed is not a free pass.

Someone really needs to steal this from the Truman museum and install it in the Oval office again. Hell, we could buy one from here for $44, repaint the back (not with "I'm from Texas" but with "The buck stops with you, George") and send it in.

jank

it seemed like a very tamed down version of o'reilly

There were no knockout punches but moore won on points as o'reilly was hiding behind words and history

maybe the should have a deathmatch or something

Big Ears

MOORE: You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O'REILLY: I would.

MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: Where’s the recruiter?

O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me.

MOORE: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O'REILLY: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…

just a bit I found funny .

invincibleirish

yes i think the consensus was moore triumphed,i was surprised as i watch o reilly regularly and although i come from a position akin to moores' i thought o reilly would shout him down and win the debate,he did not though of course. although the actual standard of the debate was fairly poor.

bus77

Disapointed that Moore allowed Fox to reel him in for a rating boosting "debate" when obviosly they wanted to go no deeper than a little informal chat in between ad breaks.

cunting

QUOTE]Originally posted by invincibleirish
yes i think the consensus was moore triumphed[/QUOTE]

NO WAY JOSE. Megarich Moore looked like a doughnut, acted like a doughnut and even sounded like a doughnut. O'Reilly just had sit and smirk at the fat stupid fool as it repeated the same mantra "would you send your child to war" as if eighteen year olds can't make up their own minds without daddy's help.

Multimillonaire Moore is only a fad and wont have much mass appeal within a years time.

sceptre

Originally posted by ****
NO WAY JOSE. Megarich Moore looked like a doughnut, acted like a doughnut and even sounded like a doughnut.

What does a doughnut sound like?

cunting

Originally posted by sceptre
What does a doughnut sound like?

A jammy squelch.

Magnolia_Fan

O'Rielly was so tame with Moore...He had to be cornered on the street to appear on the show and then ...flop nothing...Moore answered every question with the same response...Would you send your children to die in Iraq?...which he'd answer I would go myself...Lame! O'Reilly should be ashamed with letting Moore off so lightly

There is no longer a draft...did anyone else find Moores argument slightly tainted? seeing as though troops volunteer

Drexl Spivey

O'Reilly just had sit and smirk

O reilly looked really aggressive and mean in the first half and then when it was his turn to answer he could only come up with "I would sacrifice myself" knowing that he wouldn t be called up...


Come on, even if you don t like Moore (it s obvious you don t ) be objective, Moore won the match.

O reilly admitted that 900 american soldiers died because of a mistake :eek:

So the question to O Reilly / Bush is :
You are admitting that The Premptive War was a mistake. Wanna apologize to the nation now or later ? ...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Drexl Spivey

Rumsfeld wrote an open letter in 98 to Clinton asking to invade Iraq for the Oil.


What a Coincidence...


If not for the information, it was Bush s fault and entire reponsability for authorizing an unlegitimate War + introcucing the concept of Pre emptive War.


Moore is a film director, he's not a politician, I don't see the necessity to see him being attacked by people like O Reilly.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Drexl Spivey

Among all the reasns he gives you can read :

"a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. "


He s not even impying that one of the reasons why US should invade Iraq is oil, he is writing it down.


I can not find the source where it says that Rumsfeld wrote this letter, but I don't know why this would be unbelievable. This letter has been signed by the new american century, but obviously 1 person wrote it down before it s been approved by them all. I think it was Rumsfeld.. Whatever.


"Moore is a film maker who claims to tell the truth so he's attacked by O'Reilly.
It's fair!"


It s fair to be attacked ? No way. I didn't like the : One of the issues is you Michael Moore + intimidating way of saying it. That was close to bullying.
Wanna see politically correct destructions of people with ideas, then watch HArd Talk on BBC. I will always remember Hard Talk with Richard Pearle, one of the heads of New american century. He s been broken down bit by bit by The presenter.


Anyways, Moore has the right to tell his opinions, and he made his point during this debate. O Reilly is up for the president, up for the war, but truly he s up for other people (or other children as Moore put it) to go to War. But if really you believe in a cause, then you are ready to go yourself and send members of your own family. Why would the soldiers trust Bush again, he s a President who make mistakes and they re dying as a result of his mistakes ?

Moore won the debate even though he could have argued better against O REilly, but it s not his job to be able to do that, he s no politician.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbled

**** wrote:

QUOTE]Originally posted by invincibleirish
O'Reilly just had sit and smirk at the fat stupid fool as it repeated the same mantra "would you send your child to war" as if eighteen year olds can't make up their own minds without daddy's help.

The point was would he send someone he loves off to die. In otherwords was it a just cause? Bush can send your child to war, and the amazing thing is if he wants he can make up your mind for you if push comes to shove.

Clearly O'Reilly didn't think it was a just cause to send his child off to war, but was willing to send himself because he knew they wouldn't take him.

vorbis

eh guys a bit of reality please. People aren't conscripted in America, most usually join for the education chances available. Still thought, IF YOU join an army, then there is the possibility that you could be sent to war. If you don't want to go to war, you don't join the army. Stop making it sound like these people were shipped off to Iraq against their will.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

Here's the interview (52MB):

http://69.9.37.162/the-oreilly-factor-michael-moore-interview.wmv

giftgrub

i've watched it again and to be honest i wasnt really impressed

i was watching fox the day before and the interview was being bigged up as the biggest since tyson v foreman

o reilly did look a little tame...ive seen him really go to town on "liberals" that arent as lefty as moore

i was left wondering what would happen if they gave it to the great conservative gorilla...Sean Hannity?

bobbyjoe

vorbis: eh guys a bit of reality please. People aren't conscripted in America, most usually join for the education chances available

.

They practicaly are conscripted by the backdoor. National Guard troops and reservists make up a large part of the forces in Iraq. people who joined to be weekend warriors, for extra cash or access to education, have found themselves in a full time war zone.

Its fair to say they knew that they could be shipped off when they joined but a lot of them definetly were't expecting it.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_reserves_072304,00.html

Currently, Reserve and National Guard forces comprise 39 percent of U.S. forces in Iraq, compared with 25 percent last year. But that number will grow to 42 percent or 43 percent next year, the director of operations for the Joint Staff, Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, told Congress on July 7

The US army is not as professional and well trained as the British as can be seen by the amount of trouble the yanks get into compared to the Brits.

Back to topic the interview was pathetic, 8 minutes wtf!!!
Moore isn't exactly a great spokesman for the anti-war side but at least he dosen't pretend to be impartial in the way O'Reilly does in his "no spin zone". Been watching Fox a bit for the last few days the anti Kerry bias is sickening.

Lennoxschips

I see that you can vote on Bill O'Reilly's website if you agreed with Moore or not. Except the voting is restricted to BillOReilly.com premium members who pay their subscription. Yeah, that's really brave and fair Bill.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Been watching Fox a bit for the last few days the anti Kerry bias is sickening.

I keep on hearing this, but to be fair the odd time Ive watched Fox if anything their presenters have stepped in to protect Kerry, like when one of their guests, a former military guy, was savaging Kerry for voting against every major procurement of new equipment of the US armed forces, claiming that Kerry was always voting to endanger troops by leaving them underequipped it was the Fox presenter who jumped on the guest and decleared that that wasnt fair to say and that it wasnt true etc etc.

Are they biased? Sure - but they arent as biased as they must seem to an extremist on the wing.

As for Moore, hes a twit, if hes the best the anti war/protest mob can present then theyve already lost the debate - The US army is volunteer based so this "Will you send your kid off?!?!? Huh?!?!?! Will Ya!?!?!?" is a pretty lousy argument. The only problem is that Fox presenter didnt have the two braincells required to spot the flaw in Moores non-argument - Everyone knows itll be a long cold day in hell before middle aged TV presenters are sent to fight in Iraq so his counter was pathetic.

Sure, Moores trying to show his opponents as hypocrites as theyre for war but not willing to go to war themselves - but they dont have to, theyve paid for a volunteer army to fight wars on their behalf. And on the other hand Moore has his own set of crazed beliefs that hes done nothing personally to back up either.

matthiku

This is really worth reading in this context:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002046.shtml - Lawrence Lessig and Bill O'Reilley

I guess some of you may know the law scholar Lawrence Lessig. In his blog, he criticises the not very moderate moderator (presenter) of foxnews Bill O'Reilley. He had invited the son of one of the victims of the September 11th attacks but then attacked him and kicked him out of his show. The reason: because he had a different political opinion then himself. In the following months, the moderator begun to present the events more and more independent from reality. And that's what Lessig now documents and why he asks for an apology from O'Reilley.

sceptre

Here's O'Reilly's aftergame comment. If anyone can explain the difference between a statement presented as fact that turns out to be untrue and a lie, please let me know.

sovtek

sceptre wrote:

Here's O'Reilly's aftergame comment. If anyone can explain the difference between a statement presented as fact that turns out to be untrue and a lie, please let me know.

Of course the bit of distorted logic O'Reilly is trying to apply here is (stop me if I'm stating the obvious please...) suspiciously like that spin point concocted by the RNC which goes "the child and Dick never said that" of course they did actually say that, and on more than a few occassions.
I thought Moore dropped the ball when the Big O tried to use Woodwards quote to "prove" Bush was being careful with intelligence. Of course Woodwards date for this supposed exchange came about 6 months AFTER Dick and Bush were already claiming Saddam had WMD's and they knew where they were.
Yes America's military is volunteer, for now! There is legislation already drawn up to start the draft though. The Pentagon was asking for draft board volunteers months ago.
As well, considering America's poverty level compared with other countries of the "first world" one might come to the conclusion that there aren't many choices for a significant part of the population. That's forgetting that Congress is Constitutionally bound to not go to war unless attacked , as well as adhere to treaties it enters into.

vorbis

They practicaly are conscripted by the backdoor. National Guard troops and reservists make up a large part of the forces in Iraq. people who joined to be weekend warriors, for extra cash or access to education, have found themselves in a full time war zone.

Its fair to say they knew that they could be shipped off when they joined but a lot of them definetly were't expecting it.

Its fair to say that the Americans have used reservists in previous wars so its not as this callign up of reservists is unprecedented. Pretty obvious really, if you don't want to go to war don't join the army: reservists or guard.

Also sovtek theres a big difference between drawing up legislation and trying to enanct it. Then again you would probably think that Bush would start a draft in election year.

Hobbes

vorbis wrote:

Also sovtek theres a big difference between drawing up legislation and trying to enanct it. Then again you would probably think that Bush would start a draft in election year.

Of course not, he will wait until hes relected.

jesus_thats_gre

matthiku wrote:

This is really worth reading in this context:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002046.shtml - Lawrence Lessig and Bill O'Reilley

I guess some of you may know the law scholar Lawrence Lessig. In his blog, he criticises the not very moderate moderator (presenter) of foxnews Bill O'Reilley. He had invited the son of one of the victims of the September 11th attacks but then attacked him and kicked him out of his show. The reason: because he had a different political opinion then himself. In the following months, the moderator begun to present the events more and more independent from reality. And that's what Lessig now documents and why he asks for an apology from O'Reilley.

The interview with the son of the 9/1 victem was shown on Outfoxed. Very interesting movie/doc.

Hairy Homer

Sand wrote:

The US army is volunteer based so this "Will you send your kid off?!?!? Huh?!?!?! Will Ya!?!?!?" is a pretty lousy argument.
Sure, Moores trying to show his opponents as hypocrites as theyre for war but not willing to go to war themselves - but they dont have to, theyve paid for a volunteer army to fight wars on their behalf.

That's a disgustingly smug argument which happily contains within it the seeds of its own downfall. It smacks of somebody who's read a few modern management text books and is convinced of the wisdom of sticking to one's own 'core competencies' while 'outsourcing' such menial unpleasant tasks as one is unwilling to do oneself (like fighting one's own wars) to specialist subcontractors.

The freedom with which many people join a 'volunteer' army is highly questionable. Most army volunteers are from the class of people who feel they have so few options that the prospect of a regular meal and some routine in their lives sounds tempting.

For me one of the best bits in 'Farenheit 9/11' is the scene in which a couple of lavishly uniformed marine recruiting sergeants cruise around a shopping centre, not, it must be said in a prosperous middle class neighbourhood but in a poor one populated by blacks and hispanics.

The hard sell would have been comic if it wasn't so tragic. 'Wanna be a musician? Hey, you know Shaggy was in the Marines once?' As if that correlation implies any possible causation. An earlier generation might have intimated that Jimi Hendrix would never have been a guitar player if he hadn't served in the US military, as he once did. (Well maybe it inspired his legendary pisstake of the Star Spangled Banner)

And even if you don't like Michael Moore, it's worth paying the admission price to that movie just to see the look on the Congressman's face when Moore asks him to get his son to sign up.

This has resonance in our own history. Many of our grandparents' or great grandparents' joined up in the British army too. Of my grandparent's families (all of them Irish catholic from rural areas) out of 11 males, 7 served in the British army at one time or another. Five died while in service, a sixth died shortly after the war from wounds received.

Why did they join up? Because they were dedicated imperialists? Because they had a deep affection for King George or Queen Victoria? Because they were keen to take up the 'white man's burden? Well I don't know, but I don't think so. Of my parent's generation only one man was a soldier. And that was as a part timer in the FCA. Furthermore, he was an officer, retiring as a commandant whereas all of the previous generation were privates or NCOs.

I once asked him about the Irish army joining NATO and his answer was most informative. 'We're not going back to being the Connaught Rangers.' In other words. Get your cannon fodder from elsewhere, Maggie/Tony.

Why does your argument contain the seeds of its own destruction? Because every empire eventually collapsed when it was no longer willing or able to fight for its own ends and delegated the dirty work to its subjects.

Shortly after the First World War, the chief of the Imperial General Staff was assassinated by two of his former troops, IRA Great War veterans. During the War of Independence/TRoubles call it what you will, a detachment of British soldiers were wiped out in Kilmichael by an IRA unit under the command of a former Bombardier from the Royal Artillery who had learned his trade in, of all places, Iraq. Doubtless he was fighting to 'liberate' Iraq from a local tyrant. Plus ca change etc etc

There are other examples of colonial soldiers turning their guns on their former masters, and not just on the British. If the yanks depend on their own despised underclass to fight rich men's wars for them, they WILL find that sooner or later those guns will be turned on them.

In fact, one could argue that Timothy McVeigh, a decorated US soldier, was the first in a trend.

Quis custodiet custodies?

Sand

The freedom with which many people join a 'volunteer' army is highly questionable. Most army volunteers are from the class of people who feel they have so few options that the prospect of a regular meal and some routine in their lives sounds tempting.

Almost never was. It *is* a volunteer force. Anyone who is part of the US armed forces wasnt press ganged. They had a choice, which you accept by claiming the option of joining the Army is tempting. They signed up to put their lives at risk in the interests of their nation, as determined by the political leadership, who were elected by the people.

There are benefits and consequences to their decision - one of the consequences is that when their leaders decide to go to war theyre the ones who agreed to go and fight.

So hence all Moores wailing about signing up Senators kids is stupid - the military recruiting age is usually 18 (?), round about the time a kid starts making decisions for themselves - often independant of their parents views and opinions. If they decided to sign up, then they decided to sign up. Not their parents. I think a young recruit might require a Parents *permisson* but a parent cant sign up his kid. So Moore is asking for a legal impossibility that only hightlights his stupid argument.

If Moore wants to criticise the concept of people being yanked of the street to die at the whim of their political masters then there are plenty of draftees in several European Armed forces who could die for the leaders mistakes, without having any veto on it.

If he wants to criticise people for not backing up their political beliefs then maybe hell want to donate all his wealth and property to some nearby african-american as compensation for the evil Moore as a stupid white man has visited on africans, along with his inherent racism.

And even if you don't like Michael Moore, it's worth paying the admission price to that movie just to see the look on the Congressman's face when Moore asks him to get his son to sign up.

Possibly because hes dumbstruck by the stupidity of the man.

Why did they join up? Because they were dedicated imperialists? Because they had a deep affection for King George or Queen Victoria? Because they were keen to take up the 'white man's burden? Well I don't know, but I don't think so.

Unfortunately soldiers do not fight for political causes, but because theyre paid to by the countries. Soldiers are expected to be politically apathetic - the US army doesnt mutiny because they voted Republican and theres a Democrat in the White House. Its part of the social contract where the armed forces accept theyre subservient to the will of the elected representitives - no matter if they believe it to be a bad decision.

Your ancestors joined up because it was a job. They fought because they agreed to. Simple as that.

Why does your argument contain the seeds of its own destruction? Because every empire eventually collapsed when it was no longer willing or able to fight for its own ends and delegated the dirty work to its subjects.

What are you talking about - thats speculation on the long reaching effects of volunteer forces fighting for reasons they dont necessarily belive in, not a counter to the US army being a volunteer force?

I mean, professional volunteer forces replaced the sort of feudal armies youre talking about where badly trained, poorly equipped, lowly motivated peasants were hauled from the fields to fight for their masters.

If youre not willing to risk your life on the whim of your nations political leaders - then dont sign up.

Problem solved.

Hairy Homer

Sand wrote:

If youre not willing to risk your life on the whim of your nations political leaders - then dont sign up.

Problem solved.

You know, I quite agree.

Do you think any of the flyers or brochures that the recruiting sergeants had in the movie featured just such a 'Government Health Warning'?

Of course they didn't and don't.

I suspect this may be one of the causes of disillusion.