Moore Failed to Crush O'Reilly !

[stewert]

Moore did ok but he failed to really hammer O'Reilly like he could have. He should have had some better answers to O'Reilly's right-wing talking points.

When O'Reilly said Bush did not lie about WMD's Moore should have said hey Bill what happened to the buck stops here. He should have pointed out that during the 8 years Clinton was President O'Reilly blamed every problem in the country on Clinton. Even things President Clinton had no control over. No matter what it was O'Reilly would say but Clinton is the President so he is at fault. From the day the factor went on the air O'Reilly blamed every problem in America on Clinton, he basically said the buck stops here on every issue.

But now O'Reilly refuses to blame anything on Bush, and suddenly the buck stops here does not apply. Suddenly the Bush stops everywhere but at the Presidents desk. Moore should have pointed out that hypocricy and that double standard by O'Reilly. But to be honest I am not sure Moore even knew that O'Reilly had said all that when Clinton was president. I know this crap because I have watched his right-wing ass for about 6 or 7 years now.

I would think if Moore knew that, he would have used it. How come Moore did not mention the OSP or the stovepipe article by Seymour Hersh. Are you telling me Bush did not know about the OSP, if he did not know then Cheney and Wolowitz should be put in jail for starting an intelligence service without Congressional approval or the approval of the President.

When O'Reilly pulled out the Bush did not lie BS Moore should have been better prepared. There are numerous web sites that have documented Bush lies. Moore should have printed out some of them and help up papers with the lies on them and said look Bill I have it in black and white right here. That's what O'Reilly does all the time, Moore should have used O'Reilly's own tactics on him.

I would have had pages of Bush lies printed out and ready to spring on O'Reilly as soon as he pulled his Bush has never lied BS. And yet all Moore could say was Bush said there were WMD's, then O'Reilly countered that by saying Bush was just going by the bad intelligence.

I think O'Reilly won that battle, because Moore failed to point out the Bush lies. Just a simple google search on "Bush Lies" will get you 1,970,000 matches. If Bush has never lied how come there are 1,970,000 matches.

Let me list some Bush Lies:

Bush said he would take the Iraq war vote to the UN and let the chips fall where they may. HE LIED, Bush did not take the vote to the UN because he knew it would never pass. Then he invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN. I would say that was a lie, but not in the world of O'Reilly, and Moore never called O'Reilly on it.

In February of 2003 Bush said he has not yet decided whether to go to war. HE LIED, In meetings (the day before Bush said that) with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said...."You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. 'That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not.'

Bush cited an IAEA report in 2002 saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." HE LIED, there was no such report in 2002, it was an 11 year old IAEA report from 1991, before the Gulf War.

And in fact, the white house even later admitted it was an 11 year old report. The only problem is they called it a mistake, yeah right, he accidently quoted an 11 year old report about WMD's in Iraq.

If you believe Bush did not know that was an 11 year old report I have a bridge to sell you.

Here is a web site with 30 lies by Bush and or his administration.

Top 30 Bush - Iraq Lies

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

How come Michael Moore did not have some of these lies printed out for use when O'Reilly pulled his Bush has never lied BS ?

Bush lied about the weapons inspectors.

Bush made these remarks to reporters on 7-14-03 with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at his side, in response to a question from the Washington Post.

As quoted on the White House Web site, Bush said:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

The Truth:

Everyone in the world knows that Saddam Hussein allowed a fully-equipped team of UN inspectors to comb every inch of his country - including previously off-limits Presidential palaces - for four full months."

Bush also knew it because he specifically urged the inspectors to leave Iraq when he issued his 48-hour ultimatum to Iraq on March 17, 2003."

There are many other Bush lies not related to Iraq, Bush lied about knowing Ken Lay, he said he barely knew him, even though he was his #1 financial contributor and he let Bush use Enron jets during his 2000 campaign. In my world that's a lie, not in the world of O'Reilly though.

I could fill a phone book with Bush lies, yet Michael Moore never cited any of them. The best he could do was this.

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

Moore said a little more than that but he never cited one actual lie by Bush. I could come up with at least 10 documented lies by Bush, and have it in 15 minutes. Yet Moore did not do it, so I was disappointed in his interview with O'Reilly. He knew what O'Reilly was going to ask him, everyone did, yet he was not prepared.

I love Michael Moore, but I give him a C+ on this one. Moore got some good points in, but he could have crushed O'Reilly with documented Bush lies and he failed to do it.

[tooie]

1. the seven year old comment was weak

I expected to hear better, more damning responses from MM. He seemed to roll-over a little

[vi5]

2. I don't disagree, but this interview was impromptu....

It wasn't pre-planned. Moore literally had a few hours to prepare. O'Reilly has been spending days and months talking and thinking about and salivating over a Moore interview. I can guarantee that Moore hasn't done the same thing with O'Reilly. O'Reilly looked like a fool for not admitting he would send his own child off to fight this war, and Moore looked like he was reaching at points.

Overall I'd say it was a wash.

[JuniperLea]

3. was it pre-recorded and edited?

i heard that it was but don't recall the source. anyone know something about this? if it was edited, i'm sure... well, you know.

[stewert]

6. Pre-Recorded.......

Yes it was pre-recorded, O'Reilly even admitted he recorded it monday night. I am sure it was edited, but Moore did not list any actual Bush lies. If he did and it was edited out I am sure he would write about it and post it on his web site.

I checked his web site and I don't see anything about the O'Reilly interview.

Someone said Moore did not have time to prepare, I disagree. All he had to do was tell O'Reilly to give him a few hours and he could have got all the info he needed right off the internet. He could have also set the interview for the next day. Moore had to know what O'Reilly was going to talk about, it's the same thing he goes over with any liberal he gets on the show.

Like I said, I love Moore, but he dropped the ball on this one. He could have crushed O'Reilly like a bug with documented Bush lies, but he failed. Unless Moore comes out and says the interview was highly edited he let O'Reilly do to him what he does to all the other liberals who get on the factor.

[shcrane]

4. Is there somewhere on the Internet that I could see that clip?

My father seemed to think that Moore made O'Reilly eat his words, and Dad loved the 7 year old comment. I'd love to see the clip.

[DrWho]

5. It was pretty lame

But I give Moore the victory for the following reasons.

OLielly in the past has called Moore a Liar, a Nazi and an American Hater.

OLielly didn't use any of those adjectives last night, cause he's a chicken shit.

[LittleApple81]

7. I think if you are not a mother you missed O'REILLY WOULD NOT SEND HIS KID

to defend Fallujah...
I think this probably impressed a lot of "poor republican" mothers whose sons might have volunteered for the army.
It impressed me at least, but I am a democrat...

[DrWho]

9. you can tell

Moore is just more emotionally into it.

OLielly just went with the facts and tried to sustain that.

But, moore also used facts as well, to support his emotion.

It was such a last minute thing, OLielly just didn't seem prepared.

More Hype then actual bang.

[Kazak]

8. I thought he DID crush O'Reilly...

And I loved it. The only thing O'Reilly had was: Well, you see things your way, and I see them my way...Bah!

[Cat Atomic]

13. I thought so, too.

When he kept on him about "would you sacrifice your child to secure Falujah?", O'Reilley's bullshit was obvious. O'Reilley isn't in Falujah right now, after all- so that "I would sacrifice myself" claim seems like pretty obvious crap.

I'll bet alot of the armchair warriors at home asked themselves if they are being just as bad as O'Reilley.

[apnu]

10. what are you talking about? look at this snippet

from sludge no less!


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?

[mzmolly]

11. I think Moore did better, because he was not the typical *angry* liberal

they want to make him out to be. He was soft spoken and repeated the question "would you send your child to secure Falluja" again and again. O'Reilly said in so many words, no.

So, in a word there was consensus that nobody's children should be dying in this war.

[Zorra]

12. I disagree. He did crush him.

MM proved that O'Reilly is a hypocrite.

When MM asked him if he would sacrifice his children to fight in Iraq, O'Reilly consistently evading answering his question. He responded with "I would sacrifice myself."

Clearly, O'Reilly, who supports the war, is quite willing for you and I to sacrifice our children in a senseless war, but he is not willing to sacrifice his own.

O'Reilly showed his true character, and it is not pretty.

MM crushed him.

[stewert]

15. I Agree And Disagree........

Once again let me say that Moore did ok, but the main part of the interview was did Bush lie. O'Reilly said Bush has never lied, ever. And he has said it at least 20 times in the last few months. If Moore would have just had one specific example of a Bush lie he might have shut O'Reilly up. Moore did not even have one specific example, not one.

Moore did not cite one specific lie Bush has told, and he did not provide any evidence Bush lied. Even though a 7 year old could have got on the internet and looked up 4 or 5 Bush lies in 10 minutes just like I did.

That would have really crushed O'Reilly, instead O'Reilly will now continue to keep repeating the crap that Bush has never lied. Moore could have hammered him big time, but he failed. I am referring to the specific issue of the Bush lies. If I had to grade the rest of the interview I would give it an A-.

But on the Bush lie part, Moore was a bomb. Moore was good, except for the Bush lie part. I am not saying he was bad in the whole interview, just that one part. I loved it, but I wanted more, and I expected more from Moore.

[librechik]

14. I thought M did well to be calm and defuse the situation

and I love his work and appreciate his passion

however--I find him woefully unprepared during interviews, and he consistently fails to definitively debunk the tired RW talking points they toss at him. it makes me shr8iek and throw things at the TV.

I know he is not a Middle East Scholar, or political scientist, so it is unrealistic to expect professional debate behavior from him. But half the time I'm saying "Damn! Michael! Don't you know (blank)???!! All of us on the forum do!"

Michael is adorable and disappointing, IMO

[Cat Atomic]

16. I think he's fantastic in TV interviews, personally.

Precisely because he *doesn't* try to disprove every lie his opponent tosses out. That's how they muddy the waters, and lead good people like Al Franken around from one subject to another. Moore gets one point- even it's just an emotional question- and repeats it again and again until he gets an answer.

If it were a real debate, I'd agree with you. He'd need to attack every lie and distortion. But you know how TV spots are. They're more like music videos than debates. It has to be simple and quick.