Moore vs. O'Reilly

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.

 

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:

 

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…

 

The No-Spin Truth? Bill wuz OWNED.

[NoCalMike 0]

I saw it last night, and don't really feel either was owned, or either had particularly strong arguments. I have heard better from both sides.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I thought O'Reilly looked pretty dumb sitting there saying he'd go over in a second, knowing that he never really would.

 

And the entire arugment as to whether an untrue statement based on info thought to be was a lie or not was priceless. O'Reilly seemed to dance around the FACT that the government should be responsible enough to not send us into war against a nation that hadn't attacked us first on info that was likely untrue.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Mikey, the French helped out the Americans that were revolting against the British back in the day.

 

Oh, yeah. And you're fat.

 

(Reading that transcript gave me a headache...)

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Round 2, Zsasz.

[Guest SP-1]

O'Reilly was right in the beginning. A lie is a malicious attempt to decieve others when the truth is completely known. A lie is NOT acting based on the intelligence available to you. There IS a difference. To use a "christian" term, Moore's accusations are legalism at its worst.

 

If the cops mistake an accident victim for your wife and call you to tell you that your wife's been in a accident and you tell the person with you that you have to go because your wife's been in an accident, you haven't lied to your neighbor. You relayed the information available to you.

 

Calling that a lie is ludicrous and reaching hard for something that doesn't appear to be there.

[Guest thebigjig]

They both looked like blithering blowhards... O'Reilly was spanking him to begin with (you could tell Moore was uncomfortable being there) but when O'Reilly started to dance around a very important question like he does when he is asked something he can't answer without spinning... he started to bob and weave, but instead of making it a masterful art like say, Bill Clinton... O'Reilly just looked like an ignorant "I'm right, you're wrong... nah nah nah nah nah nah nah" asshole

[chaosrage 0]

The No-Spin Truth? Bill wuz OWNED.

You have to be kidding. Moore made a fool of himself and he just looked like a total idiot in that interview. Not knowing what a lie means, running from all his arguments, and attacking O'Reilly with the dumbest questions, like asking him if he would sacrifice his daughter...

[NoCalMike 0]

The one thing I don't understand is why some people feel the president should just be absolved of any responsibility for all of this. The intelligence was faulty yes, we can all agree on that, however still it was Bush that decided to go to war based on faulty intelligence, it was still his call in all of this all the while there was plenty of people in his own circle that seemed to heavily question and caution against the path he was taking from the beginning. And unless you think Richard Clarke is lying an every single one of his accounts, then it seems pretty clear that Bush was already convinced going to war with Iraq was the way to go, before any of intelligence reports started rolling in. If you read PNAC it pretty much re-iterates this sentiment and even states that america would have needed a modern day pearl harbor to set the wheels in motion.

 

PNAC

[Guest thebigjig]

The No-Spin Truth? Bill wuz OWNED.

You have to be kidding. Moore made a fool of himself and he just looked like a total idiot in that interview. Not knowing what a lie means, running from all his arguments, and attacking O'Reilly with the dumbest questions, like asking him if he would sacrifice his daughter...

How the hell is that a stupid question?? O'Reilly pimps such a noble and worthy cause, so Moore asks him a question that makes a hell of alot of sense... O'Reilly's answer was ridiculous! First off, as Moore pointed out, he is too old to go anyway. So the question is fair... if he believes its such a noble and justworthy cause, even if it was based on a false assumption... would he send his own children? Would he sacrifice what other American families have sacrificed?

[chaosrage 0]

How the hell is that a stupid question?? O'Reilly pimps such a noble and worthy cause, so Moore asks him a question that makes a hell of alot of sense... O'Reilly's answer was ridiculous! First off, as Moore pointed out, he is too old to go anyway. So the question is fair... if he believes its such a noble and justworthy cause, even if it was based on a false assumption... would he send his own children? Would he sacrifice what other American families have sacrificed?

The point he was getting at was no one is sending "children" to be sacrificed. Every single one of them decided on their own to sign up and go serve and put their lives on the line. So O'Reilly said he wouldn't send anyone to be sacrificed, he would sacrifice himself. Moore as usual evaded what he was saying by trying to be funny and telling him he was too old to go.

[Downhome 0]

When Moore asked O'Reilly if he would send his children to fight the war, he should have simply said that it wouldn't be his decision, but instead it would be the decision of his children.

 

He should have said that when the young people join the armed forces, they are taking on the responsibility that comes along with it. If you are asked to go and fight, you are to go. They know that going in. This is the only issue that I felt O'Reilly slipped on at all. At every other turn, he made Moore look like a moron.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Special Olympics.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

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.

 

I really think this was the turning point, seeing it on TV. Bill came off as someone who hadn't done his homework, and Moore had a giant smile on his face as he blustered. Also, you have to love the way he laughed when Bill went into his whole shouting mode that usually scares the lefties off.

 

I'm sorry guys, the New Right here can spin it any way they'd like, but I think Moore came out of the lion's den pretty much unscathed, and O'Reilly looked about as smart as he usually does.

[Guest thebigjig]

How the hell is that a stupid question?? O'Reilly pimps such a noble and worthy cause, so Moore asks him a question that makes a hell of alot of sense... O'Reilly's answer was ridiculous! First off, as Moore pointed out, he is too old to go anyway. So the question is fair... if he believes its such a noble and justworthy cause, even if it was based on a false assumption... would he send his own children? Would he sacrifice what other American families have sacrificed?

The point he was getting at was no one is sending "children" to be sacrificed. Every single one of them decided on their own to sign up and go serve and put their lives on the line. So O'Reilly said he wouldn't send anyone to be sacrificed, he would sacrifice himself. Moore as usual evaded what he was saying by trying to be funny and telling him he was too old to go.

Actually, his "tool old" comment was used to back up his point

 

The WHOLE point of the question asked was to point out that the war was waged on a false assumption... Moore says Bush lied, O'Reilly said he didn't but they both agreed that it was based on a false belief... So Moore asked Bill if he would send his children even if the reason they were going was obviously wrong, and Bill wouldn't answer it. He wouldn't say no... he wouldn't say yes. Textbook dodging

 

When Moore asked Bill what he would say to the parents of the soldiers that have died, and O'Reilly responded with "to remove a dictator and save thousands of lives" it proved to me right there that Moore once again had him... that was NOT the reason they went there. That wasn't the reason given... they use that reasoning because it's convenient

 

So I guess the first half of the interview went to O'Reilly, the second half to Moore... either way, they both didnt look good in my eyes in the end of it

 

which is what I was expecting

[Guest SP-1]

Hardly unscathed. O'reilly's points about the definition of a lie are still spot on. Considering that's one of Moore's biggest things he loves to shout, I'd say that's a bit of a scratch on him.

 

Of course, most adults can figure out the difference between a lie and having to go on what you have. I'm not defending O'Reilly because I'm sure I don't agree with him on alot of things, but Moore hardly came out looking like a champ.

 

DH is right though. The correct answer is pretty simple. Why O'Reilly dodged it like that I have no idea. He's smart enough to have come back with something sensible.

Edited July 28, 2004 by SP-1

[NoCalMike 0]

Coming up momentarily........

 

Hannity vs. Garaffalo........

 

you can stream Hannity's show from his website.......

[Downhome 0]

Cool, thanks NoCalMike for the heads up.

[chaosrage 0]

Moore: The president lied.

O'Reilly: He didn't lie, he was misinformed by the CIA. The director of the CIA told Bush it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD.

Moore: He shouldn't have trusted the CIA because they screwed up 9/11.

O'Reilly: The UK and Russian intelligence confirmed it.

Moore: Oh.... uh.. he lied because it wasn't the truth!

 

I think that was the turning point.

 

O'Reilly had to point out that UK and Russian intel both had corroborating evidence and he side stepped it each time. That had to be embarassing for Moore.

[chaosrage 0]

Actually, his "tool old" comment was used to back up his point

 

The WHOLE point of the question asked was to point out that the war was waged on a false assumption... Moore says Bush lied, O'Reilly said he didn't but they both agreed that it was based on a false belief... So Moore asked Bill if he would send his children even if the reason they were going was obviously wrong, and Bill wouldn't answer it. He wouldn't say no... he wouldn't say yes. Textbook dodging

Because the question didn't make any sense. Children aren't getting sent sacrificed to Iraq. There's no fucking draft. They all agreed to go and sacrifice themselves if they had to. It was their choice, not their parent's. They volunteered to join the military.

[NoCalMike 0]

Hannity just said Moore is roaming the floor and they are going to try and get him on the show......wow.

[Guest thebigjig]

Actually, his "tool old" comment was used to back up his point

 

The WHOLE point of the question asked was to point out that the war was waged on a false assumption... Moore says Bush lied, O'Reilly said he didn't but they both agreed that it was based on a false belief... So Moore asked Bill if he would send his children even if the reason they were going was obviously wrong, and Bill wouldn't answer it. He wouldn't say no... he wouldn't say yes. Textbook dodging

Because the question didn't make any sense. Children aren't getting sent sacrificed to Iraq. There's no fucking draft. They all agreed to go and sacrifice themselves if they had to. It was their choice, not their parent's. They volunteered to join the military.

So that line of thinking pretty much justifies just about any kind of military action??

 

The soldiers volunteered but they were sent to war under a false assumption, and the whole question was if he would send (or encourage) his children to fight a war thats based on a false goal

 

and he didn't answer

 

It's a perfectly legitimate question and he dodged it, end of story.

 

And besides, if you're going to bash Moore for asking a "stupid" question, then be fair and bash O'Reilly for offering a stupid answer... "I'd send myself"

[Guest thebigjig]

Hannity just said Moore is roaming the floor and they are going to try and get him on the show......wow.

how can you stomach listening to that pompous asshole for more than 5 minutes?

[snuffbox 0]

If the Fox News Dweebs have any credibility after this week I will be disturbed...

[NoCalMike 0]

Hannity just said Moore is roaming the floor and they are going to try and get him on the show......wow.

how can you stomach listening to that pompous asshole for more than 5 minutes?

Lots of Pepto-Bismol

[Guest Vitamin X]

I didn't think they had much credbility in the first place...

[Guest SP-1]

Moore's question wasn't legit, though. While I don't think O'Reilly gave the right answer, the question itself was kind of muddled. It's irrelevant whether O'Reilly would "send" his children. It isn't O'Reilly's choice as to whether his children join the armed forces or not. I don't know what the rules of Moore's fantasy world are, but in the real world it's the choice of the individual as to whether they sign up for military service or not. That's the answer O'Reilly should have given. Given the evidence, Bush didn't send troops over knowing the info was false. He's not sending children, either. Last I was aware, you have to be 18 years old and have completed high school or earned an equivalency degree to join any branch of the United States military. For those who still don't get it: only adults are eligible. Not children. Not 10 year olds. 18 year olds minimum.

 

Moore's just as bad about spin as O'Reilly.

[Guest thebigjig]

Moore's question wasn't legit, though. While I don't think O'Reilly gave the right answer, the question itself was kind of muddled. It's irrelevant whether O'Reilly would "send" his children. It isn't O'Reilly's choice as to whether his children join the armed forces or not. I don't know what the rules of Moore's fantasy world are, but in the real world it's the choice of the individual as to whether they sign up for military service or not. That's the answer O'Reilly should have given. Given the evidence, Bush didn't send troops over knowing the info was false. He's not sending children, either. Last I was aware, you have to be 18 years old and have completed high school or earned an equivalency degree to join any branch of the United States military. For those who still don't get it: only adults are eligible. Not children. Not 10 year olds. 18 year olds minimum.

 

Moore's just as bad about spin as O'Reilly.

Jesus Christ he's not talking about sending 10 year old fucking girls and boys...

 

your ignorance into what he meant by that question proves that you shouldn't even be in this discussion

 

And the government is responsible for sending troops to far away lands... and if turns out that the reason they have been sent there was phony... the government must be held accountable. It doesnt fucking matter if the soldiers signed up voluntarily... the soldiers signed up thinking that there government would be competant enough to use them if absolutely needed... not to be used as pawns in what will go down as the biggest military blunder since Vietnam

[chaosrage 0]

So that line of thinking pretty much justifies just about any kind of military action??

 

The soldiers volunteered but they were sent to war under a false assumption, and the whole question was if he would send (or encourage) his children to fight a war thats based on a false goal

They didn't know it was false at the time. And it wasn't the only reason given for the war, just the main reason. Another one was to take out a dictator responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Just because he was wrong about the WMD doesn't take away that fact.

 

Also what you said isn't the same thing as "OMG Would you sacrifice your daughter for Fallujah?!" That's the ravings of a lunatic.

 

And besides, if you're going to bash Moore for asking a "stupid" question, then be fair and bash O'Reilly for offering a stupid answer... "I'd send myself"

 

I said he could've responded better. But what's wrong with it? He said he wasn't speaking for anyone else. He can't force his daughter to enlist. He wouldn't send anybody, he'd send himself. And Moore talked his way around it.

[Guest SP-1]

Moore's question wasn't legit, though.  While I don't think O'Reilly gave the right answer, the question itself was kind of muddled.  It's irrelevant whether O'Reilly would "send" his children.  It isn't O'Reilly's choice as to whether his children join the armed forces or not.  I don't know what the rules of Moore's fantasy world are, but in the real world it's the choice of the individual as to whether they sign up for military service or not.  That's the answer O'Reilly should have given.  Given the evidence, Bush didn't send troops over knowing the info was false.  He's not sending children, either.  Last I was aware, you have to be 18 years old and have completed high school or earned an equivalency degree to join any branch of the United States military.  For those who still don't get it:  only adults are eligible.  Not children.  Not 10 year olds.  18 year olds minimum.

 

Moore's just as bad about spin as O'Reilly.

Jesus Christ he's not talking about sending 10 year old fucking girls and boys...

 

your ignorance into what he meant by that question proves that you shouldn't even be in this discussion

 

And the government is responsible for sending troops to far away lands... and if turns out that the reason they have been sent there was phony... the government must be held accountable. It doesnt fucking matter if the soldiers signed up voluntarily... the soldiers signed up thinking that there government would be competant enough to use them if absolutely needed... not to be used as pawns in what will go down as the biggest military blunder since Vietnam

Hey jig, it's called sarcasm. How have you been around here for more than 2 minutes and not realized that pretty much all of CE uses that particular verbal style frequently?

 

Moore asked a retarded question and I'm just SURE that our troops would love to know that they're considered children by the jolly fat man trying to bring them back home to the cradling, safe arms of the US -- well, cradling and safe when it isn't being attacked by terrorists at least.