MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION

[quaoar]

From Drudge:

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

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 –


....The interview goes on for quite a while.....

[dennis4868]

1. Moore was weak in proving that Bush lied

Moore could have said the following when O'Reilly said that Bush was given bad intelligence and did not lie:

The following was said By Bush in the run up to the war and all of which is not supported by any National Intelligence Report or any other intelligence agency:

1. Massive stockpile of biological weapons

2. Nuclear weapons program and could have a nuclear wepon any day

3. Unmanned aerial vehicle that can carry WMD to the USA

4. Saddam/911/al qaeda connection

5. Saddam wants to give his WMD to terrorist

6. Saddam will use his WMD against the USA

If none of this was supported by the CIA or any other intelligence agency then how can O'Reilly say that Bush was misinformed by the CIA?

Why can't a dem stand up and say this and put to rest this myth that Bush did not lie and was instead misled by the CIA?

[w4rma]

2. Requires the memorization of a long long list? (nt)

[cprise]

31. How about 3 items?

Sheesh.

[quaoar]

3. Another point

Even if Bush didn't lie and was just misled by the evil CIA, it's his administration. The buck truly does stop at the Oval Office whether he wants it to or not. And if the CIA was so incompetent, why didn't he fire Tenet immediately?

[Warpy]

4. All he had to do was point out inspectors on the ground

had already confirmed that Hussein had nothing deployable and that another few months would have confirmed he had nothing at all, and was 100% in compliance, yet Bush rushed to war.

He could have pointed out that all intelligence was filtered through the OSP at the Pentagon, that they knew what they were getting from Chalabi and Allawi was suspect (to say the least) but ran with it so they could rush to war.

It doesn't take much memorization to rub thier noses in the fact that UN inspectors on the ground illustrated Bush's lies before the first bombs were dropped.

Bush lied. O'Liely is a damned fool if he thinks he can convince people with brains that he didn't.

[LiberalVoice]

5. Can we get a transcript? eom

[quaoar]

6. The whole transcript

Is linked at the top. It's on Drudge's site.

[abelenkpe]

11. oh I don't know

I thought he did OK considering the constant interruptions.

[0rganism]

18. I e-mailed your list to Mike, hope you don't mind

Here's the text:

In your recent confrontation with Oh'Really, you expressed the POV that bush was lying w/o having the facts to back it up against the "it was a mistake based on faulty intelligence" red herring.

Please review this list. The following was claimed by bush in the run up to the invasion and is not supported by any National Intelligence Report or any other intelligence agency:

1. Massive stockpile of biological weapons ("we know exactly where they are," said Rumsfeld)

2. Nuclear weapons program and could have a nuclear weapon any day

3. Unmanned aerial vehicle that can carry WMD to the USA (made from balsa wood!)

4. Saddam/911/al qaeda connection

5. Saddam wanted to give his WMD to terrorists

6. Saddam would use his WMD against the USA

If none of this was supported by the CIA or any other intelligence agency then how can Oh'Really say that bush was misinformed by the CIA?

The crux of the matter is, bush and cheney sent Douglas Feith's operatives to the CIA for the express purpose of cherry-picking raw intelligence reports that would justify the decision they had already made -- to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. bush forced the intelligence to fit his imperial ambitions.

By not mentioning these factors, you do our cause a disservice; people NEED TO KNOW that the invasion of Iraq was a forced forgone conclusion, not an innocent mistake to be blamed on Mr. Tenet -- who, by the way, was doing a "superb job" according to bush.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxx

[dennis4868]

29. Not at all....

I hope it helps :-)

[MichiganVote]

20. I think that Michael had a different agenda

than to debate Shrill O'Reilly. Briefly, it appeared to me that he was intent on making Bill out to be the coward he is thereby debunking the supposed brass balls O"reilly likes to project. In that sense, I think he succeeded very well.

[leesa]

27. Moore is working very hard and doing a good job, why do you need

to slam him for, actually, a quite forceful statement.

[dennis4868]

30. I am not slamming him....

I am just sick and tired of seeing Dems on TV being told that Bush did not lie, he was misled by the CIA, and then not refute that myth with hard facts...Dems dont know what to say when they are confronted with the myth and look silly...they should study the facts and then they will be able to say exactly how Bush lied like I did in my post.

[2plus2]

37. you're right....

This is why we stay down, notice how the repugs can memorize and harmonize the "talking points" in perfect unison(which aren't' ever fact). But one of our own can't seem to recall History to refute the lies, this is a tactic that they prey on...are we all forgetful potheads? He could've had O'Really hiding under his desk if he'd had thrown the facts out instead of asking hypothetical questions.

[hadrons]

7. I love this exchange ...

Moore: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O'Reilly: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—

Moore: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O'Reilly: I would sacrifice myself—

Moore: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O'Reilly: I would sacrifice myself.

Moore: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O'Reilly: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

Moore: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O'Reilly: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

Moore: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

....

LAIR, you were draft age during Viet'Nam and your cowardly-ass was no where near an recuitment center

[delete_bush]

8. Exactly the right question to ask

Forget about O'Really?'s response, it doesn't matter. What is important is that the listener is indirectly asked the same question. I would hope that their honest answer would have to be no.

I've asked this same question several times to bush-bots and you get a sense that their few remaining synapses are working overtime to provdide a response.

When the Army needs more cannon fodder, I say "Send O'Reilly"

[jdj]

24. yes, absolutely. Game, set, match.

They're so desperate they'll probably take O'Reilly at this point.

Kudos to Moore.

[fizzana]

9. Moore should have brought up the 2001 statement by Colin

Powell stating that Saddam was no longer a threat and had no WMD's. Both he and Condiliar said that pre 9/11. If they believed it then, why did they change their minds.

No-one can rebut that argument.

[sampsonblk]

13. He did

I heard a smippet on the radio, and it seemed like Moore went into that issue. O'Reilly asked if Moore believed the GOP report as well as the UK report on WMD. And Moore said No, I believe what Colin Powell anda Condi Rice said back in 2001. The he went into detail on what they said.

I still say O'Reilly came out better in the exchange. Moore was off guard and unprepared for the interview.

[steely]

10. Was this a spontaneous interview?

What were the circumstances that led them to get together? The pic looks like it was taken in a parking lot.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. That pic couldn't have been taken today

or anytime this summer. Look at all the people wearing jackets. That's a cold weather shot. :wow:

[steely]

14. Yeah, whats up with that?? eom

[Mace]

16. bill

Bill pointed Moore out on the street and wanted to put him on the factor, Bill said he saw half of F911 and then the rest later on.

Moore agreed and they flamed each other.

I think that's right.

[steely]

19. Thank Mace! Wish I'd seen it.

little ambush backfire, eh bill?

[Chico Man]

25. It hasn't exactly been that warm in the Boston area

The guy in the background is wearing a t-shirt.

It is probably quite chilly around the time these folks get up in the morning.

[Mace]

15. just saw it

I thought moore had an edge against O'Reilly after watching it and he pulled through.

O'Reilly tried to put moore in a trap, but he pulled out and trapped O'Reilly himself.

[lovuian]

17. Michael Moore was Awesome

Michael Moore made the best point

We had a Preemptive strike on a country on a Lie and went to War and our children died for it

I found it interesting that Oriley doesn't know the definition of a lie

Moore had to explain it to him

[Doosh]

21. Moore did a good job

both were restrained, Moore wasn't the least bit intimidated and hammered O'Reilly on a few things, making Bill look a little nutty. I'd say MM got the best of the debate

[SalParadise]

23. My grandfather, an o'liely fan

actually said moore got the best of bill - that was a huge surprise to me to hear him admit that.

[Room101]

22. Moore should have mentioned the "Office of special plans"

GRRRR

[Zorra]

26. "Would you sacrifice your children?" O'Reilly's hypocrisy on film forever!

Would you sacrifice your children in Iraq?

I'd sacrifice myself.

But you would sacrifice other people's children, and not your own?

I would sacrifice myself.

Michael Moore made O'Reilly prove himself to be a hypocrite. O'Reilly would send other people's children to fight in a war that O'Reilly himself believes is justifiable, but he would not sacrifice his own children in that war.

Only yours and mine.

Mike wins big time. All the rest did not matter.

[TiredTexan]

28. I knew they were lying

when they said it would be a "cakewalk." How could Iraq be an imminent threat and a cakewalk at the same time? Either Iraq was dangerous and had WMDs, or it would be a cakewalk. It couldn't be both.

Worse, how can we justify the concept of "preventative war" when we don't have sufficient intelligence capability to know whether a preventative war is needed? Preemption can only be policy where we have crystal clear intelligence of an existing, not imaginary threat.

[Toucano]

32. Bush wasn't cleared of lying by those investigations.

The investigations say they COULDN'T PROVE that he lied. That doesn't mean he didn't lie. They may not have found the evidence he lied, but that's not the same thing as concluding he didn't lie.

Wasn't O'Reilly supposed to have publicly apologized when WMD's weren't found? Didn't he say he'd not trust Bush again? I don't follow him closely, but I recall hearing something about O'Reilly having to apologize.

[JuniperLea]

33. did the trascript come out before the show aired?

was this taped and edited?

[wishlist]

34. Don Imus just said Michael Moore ate Bill O'Reilly for lunch

Imus today has repeatedly talked about how MM demolished Bill O'Reilly on point after point.

[PATRICK]

35. O'Reilly is all bluster

and no logic and even less substance and that spun so hard that he is teetering on one leg with the dizziness of his own emotions. Moore is a calm rationalist and can runs circles around a goon like that. What some here miss, of course, is putting more substance into the "debate", when Moore didn't have to and it never got close to such a high toned level.

He's talking to an idiot not to those of DU who have better or fuller info than Moore presented or personally holds to. For that he needs to do an interview with Will Pitt or someone.

Any thinking person with calm courage can demolish the pathetic O'Reilly.
The irony is such a victory carries the weight of proving your point even though the famed Fox pundit is gagging in the sandbox.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

36. To quote Jon Stewart "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt?" n/t

[alfredo]

38. For a telephone pole near you.