|
Michael Moore with Bill O'Reilly at the DNC
Michael Moore sure gave Bill O'Reilly a nice spanking at the DNC.
read for yourself. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents? O'REILLY: 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.” MOORE: But what were they killed for? O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people. MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war: to remove a brutal dictator. O'REILLY: Well, we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction. MOORE: But that was the reason… O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction… MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat… O'REILLY: That’s right. MOORE: And there was no threat, was there? O'REILLY: It was a mistake. MOORE: 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'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents. MOORE: So we agree on that. O'REILLY: But that is the historical nature of what happened. MOORE: 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'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional. MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake. O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that. MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead. O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that. MOORE: So, that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake — how would you feel towards me O'REILLY: OK, now we are wandering. MOORE: No, but my point is… O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question. MOORE: But why? What did they die for? O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people… MOORE: No, that was not the reason… O'REILLY: That’s what they died for… MOORE: …they were given… O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake. MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world… O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question… MOORE: Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet? |
I thought it was rather civil; both handled themselves as gentlemen, I will give them that.
Especially after O'Reilly had called Moore a coward many times because he would not come on the show... |
The only thing Moore spanked was his monkey...if the fat liar can still reach it.
O'Reilly is right. Moore is a coward and will not appear on his or any show that is not totally liberal. Since it was the DNC, O'Reilly was a gentleman and "interviewed" Moore instead of roasting him. Moore did not return the favor and was an ass who tried to take advantage of the situation. Typical. |
Id like to hear Fat Fuch er Micheal Moron take on Micheal Savage. Now that would be something to hear.
|
I agree that O'Reilly was a gentleman, but Moore made a valid argument in that exchange. It was not OK to send young people to die w/o better info then they had and no realistic plan to "win the peace". Bush kicked the inspectors out and started bombing and invading at a time when Saddam was zero threat to anyone, and it's not just hindsight. Plenty of people, (including me), disagreed at the time.
Also, FWIW, O'Reilly's demeanor has improved dramatically since getting his ass handed to him by Franken and several others over the "distortions" on his shows, and that is putting it politely. I actually enjoy listening to him now. :cool: |
errr... I guess I have to disagree w/ everyone here. I don't really think the Moore gave O'Reilly any 'spanking' (reading the complete transcript). Seemed like a fairly evenly balanced affair to me.
"O'Reilly is right. Moore is a coward and will not appear on his or any show that is not totally liberal." That statement seems patently ridiculous to me. Isn't the complete transcript proof that Moore did indeed appear on O'Reilly's show? I'm confused :( Does that mean he was a coward before, but isn't now? Are you disputing that he appeared at all? I guess not? I liked O'Reilly's 'gentlemanly' opening to the interview: "Wanna apologize to the president now or later?" |
Face it, BOR can't look like he is winning an argument unless he can cut off the other guys mike.
BOR is the guy who had to officially apologise, based on his own pre-war guaranttes, that he was wrong about the iraqi WMDs after all. The more I read on BBS's like this one the more aware I become that BOR has become the rush limbaugh for the right wingers with above average IQs. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The interview was pretty lame actually... O'Reilly accepted the premise that we were sending people to Iraq to die, so the whole interview followed right into Moore's hands.
One of Moore's big arguments is that Bush, Cheney, Haliburton & friends are all profiteering from the war on terror, right? Does Moore consider making a propanda film and making $100 million profiteering also? I'd like to ask the fatass what he thinks of that. |
Re: Michael Moore with Bill O'Reilly at the DNC
Quote:
But Moore's premise about sacrificing children is a false premise...Our volunteer army has no children, none forced into the military with a waiver stating that they will be safe, and a majority of which are Republican. Moore is less. |
Re: Re: Michael Moore with Bill O'Reilly at the DNC
Quote:
I don't think whether casualties are republicans or democrats changes the arguement at all? |
But the idea that we are sending our volunteer troops over there to die is just plain wrong. They joined knowing where they would likely be going, knowing the danger, and knowing what their mission would be. We liberated 50 millioin people, built hospitals and schools, and helped them train their own armies.
Do you ask the father of a police officer if he would sacrifice his son? How about firefighers? NO, you don't. They're doing a job which happens to be dangerous. You don't assume they're going to die. |
Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore with Bill O'Reilly at the DNC
Quote:
It is like asking if you are willing to "sacrifice" your child by letting him drive a car (much more dangerous than the military)....Obviously you would not answer, "Sure, I have no problem sacrificing my child's life in the name of transportation." |
I disagree. The question of sacrifice is central to the notion of 'war'. the decision to go to war must take into account the values of the lives that will inevitably be lost. To deny this, a leader would have to be a mad-man. I think Bush believes this, and made his decision on his interpretation of the information that was presented to him. i.e. he reached the conclusion that it was 'worth it'.
I'm always weary about the 'car crash statistics' argument... it can be used for almost anything. Bush made the decision to go to war. I wouldn't hold him any more responsible for the road accident victims than I would hold Henry Ford responsible for the deaths of soldiers in Iraq. Anyway, aren't more people are killed by cars than by murder, or terror attacks? Should cars be outlawed? |
Fint:
Since your answers seem to give some of us trouble understanding them, let me posit this: Why is it different for Moore not to want to show up on FOX and it is OK for the president not to want to show up at the NAACP convention? In both cases, the individual is certain to face a hostile situation. Don't you agree? Moore wanted to meet O'Reilly in a neutral place. I think that would be a natural reaction; the president agreed to show up at the Urban League. Both compromised. We all saw the same exchange. I thought it was civil and others saw it differently. Too bad two people cannot have an exchange of ideas without the supporters of one side resorting to name calling. Sad, really..... |
Mr Moore the facts of life are that war is a dirty business. I don't believe any man takes sending troops in harms way lightly. I think that sometimes it is necessary, and lives are lost and for those families I cry...Sadam to the best of intelligence which both political parties thought was accurate, along with our esteemable allly Great Britain thought the threat of WMD's was credible. Could the USA have taken the chanch...hindsight is always 20/20 MR. Moorer, it is nice to play Gawd after the fact Mr. Moorer. Perhaps you'd like to run the country, and then we can pick apart your decision making process.
|
Re: Re: Re: Michael Moore with Bill O'Reilly at the DNC
Quote:
I bring up political affiliation because I doubt highly, knowing the history of antipathy and animosity the left have shown for the military, that the military would rather take their orders from Democrats. It is Republicans who have historically supported the military, making Republicans the rightful spokesmen for their endeavors. |
And Mull your point is....
A. Michael Moorer is a sicko pinko B. Just misunderstood C. Is out of his mind and doesn't know what he is doing... |
Maybe things have changed since I retired from the Corps, but can somebody tell me exactly when our men and women serving in the military became merely "children"?
To hear people like MM talk about them, they are nothing more than lambs being sent to slaughter, with no idea what they are doing. This, I can assure you, is far from the truth. Training, training, training. This is what these people do. For those of you in southern California, how often can you drive down I-5, between Orange County and San Diego, and NOT see training exercises going on? How often do you have a day when tere is not the sound of F/A-18 fighter jets overhead. How often do you not hear the distant thunder of artillery round or tank firing, from inside Camp Pendelton? These are the sounds of men and women being trained to do their jobs. I speak of So. Cal, because that is where the majority of my stateside service was. The same sounds can be heard all over this country. The stealth bombers at Whiteman AFB in Missouri. The F-15's and F-16's at Nellis AFB in Las Vegas. The fighters and bombers at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City. The Navy ships coming and going from Norfolk and San Diego. This is what these people have been trained to do. Nobody joins the military to die, that's a given. the people that DO join are, however, aware of that possibility. Like Bryanthompson said above. It's the same thing as a policeman or a firefighter, or anybody else who's profession carries that element of danger. The training is designed to keep that to a minimum. Nobody wants anyone to die, but unfortunately, it is the nature of the beast. Today we have an all-volunteer force, made up of men and women who have made this choice themselves. Nobody has raided their homes and forced them to enlist or be commissioned. they serve of their own free will. will we have casualties in war? Absolutely! Are the casualties poor little lams who unwittingly were led to their slaughter? Absolutely not! For Moore and his kind to portray them as such is nothing but an insult to those who serve, and those who have served. Moore certainly has the right to speak his mind, don't get me wrong. As much as it pains me to listen to him spew forth his drivel, I respect the fact that he is well withiin his rights to do so. Just know, however, that he has no first hand knowledge of what he speaks, period! And for what it's worth, I am one veteran who is tired of listening to his diarhea of the mouth! He needs to find another "victim" to champion! rant over... |
I certainly do not see service members as children or lambs, and it's true that when they signed up for the free education they agreed to fight in any war or military exercise that our leaders engage them in.
However, there has always been an implicit understanding in civilised countries that they would only be sent to die, (yes), when it was absolutely necessary to the security of the country, not used as cannon fodder for political or other purposes, such as land-grabbing or other aggressive actions. Obviously this is what distinguishes the civil world from the other half, where soldiers are considered a cheap, renewable resource to be used however Baby Doc or Saddam chooses. A huge number of people in the world, and I do mean HUGE, believes that Bush and Co. violated that covenent in starting a pre-emptive war in Iraq that was completely illegal, unnecessary, (and not just in hindsight), and not a confirmed sucess by any stretch at this point in time. Building schools? Liberating people? From what?? Talk to me in 5 years. The freaking arrogance and hubris of the right-wing crowd would make many a dictator blush. As for the "Democrats/left hating the military", complete BS. One of these days I'm going to post my Dad's last campaign ad, (he was an elected Judge), we are Democrats and he proudly displayed the fact that he is a Korean war veteran as well as union member and a Democrat. This was well before 9/11 and the latest brouha. :cool: |
Here's a copy of an email I sent to O'Rielly on this subject.
"Bill, I like you. I don't always agree with you but you say what's on your mind. You've got sand. When I heard you lined up Michael "pass the fried chicken" Moore I was primed for a whippin'. But I think you let him get away. You didn't get outsmarted. While you chose to be a gentleman, Moore labored under no such encumberences. His crude question about sacrificing your son to take Faludiah was I'm sure practiced & well used by the time he tried it on you. Someone less polite than you might well have responded, "Given the choice I'd rather not. But if YOUR son was one of those getting their head hacked off by those vicious murdurers, would you want my son to bring them to justice?" This guy has managed to stay as slippery as a greased uhhh Michael Moore due to the manners of some good people. I have two words of advice should he show up again, bare knuckes. Keep up the good work! " And here is my buddy Abby's response to a left wing nutball who occupies a desk (as opposed to working) at the epa in DC's comments on my letter. "If you actually believe what you saw in unFahrenheit 9/11, you may try reading the 9/11 commision report that came out this week. Not only does it prove MM lied and misled, but at 9.95 from Kinko's you can get a real prespective of which administration truly failed our beloved country. However should you choose to continue getting your 'facts' from the movies, I suggest seeing SpidermanII.... it only took the masked Republican one day to knock the nit witted liberal Democrat Moore off the top.... How do I know Spiderman is a Republican? Because only a Republican would actually go do something to stop evil... A liberal Democrat like yourself, would simply try to find out who the Reublican was that made the Green Gobblin evil....... " |
Quote:
John Kerry said in his speech, "Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response." In other words, he's not going to take the offensive in making sure we're safe. No, he's going to wait until we are attacked to respond. Knowing what we knew at the time to be true, based on all of the intelligence, based on the history of what Saddam's done, any responsible leader would have done what Bush did. In fact, 45 countries did think he was doing the right thing when they contributed to the war in Iraq. Who opposed the war and why? France, Germany, Russia. France doesn't count because they're all sissies anyway. They were trying to protect themselves because they didn't want their corruption to come out with regards to the oil for food program. The germans will only join a conflict if they're the ones starting it. Russia had no money and has its own problems to deal with. Those are the three opponents of the war. You know what, we did consult the UN. When we got Resolution 1441, the 12th resolution against Saddam, and the security council voted unanimously to accept it. We tried to deal with Saddam, and gave him every opportunity to prove that he had nothing. You people say that we didn't let the weapons inspectors do their job. Hell, the inspectors weren't doing their job in their first place. By definition, they weren't allowed to. They weren't allowed into Saddam's mansions, and they had such restricted access it was impossible for them to really do their job. |
Quote:
I agree with Moore's point. It's very disappointing troops have died for a cause that seems to have vanished. If we are only there to liberate Iraq, what's the next stop? Are we prepared to invade dozens of other countries, including China? Of course, this is all hindsight. As long as there was no attempt to deceive, I cannot blame the government. If Bush and Co. deceived or lied, bring out the noose. Then again, if Bush was really trying to pull a big stunt, don't you think we'd have found Korean nukes in Iraq by day 6 of the invasion? |
|
Hmmm, what were the intial predictions for the duration of this war? 45 days?
No one, including Bush, wanted this to drag on. However, if he were to waver things would be much worse. As ugly as it is we have to stay the course. |
Rick, the war is over, at least the organized military part. The resistance has continued. Be sure you understand the distinction between war and resistance.
I watched the interview and the one thing that really stood out was that MM insisted on using the terms "sacrifice" and "sending children to die" as if everyone who serves over there is a sacrificial lamb or a child whose death is inevitable by just being there. That is disingenuous at the very least. MM just spouted his position over and over without even once pausing to consider or refute what OR was saying. It looked to be a stereotypical liberal response, "if I scream and shout enough, then nobody will take the time to think it through" I like the interview with Liberman much better. Even though he is a liberal, he is reasonable and you can have a conversation with him. |
The war may be over, but to be fair, a bullet fired by the resistance is just as deadly as one fired by a soldier from the other side. I see no difference. We are there, and will be there a long time unless we want to see total chaos. And the longer we are there, the more animosity there will be, with us perceived as occupiers.
Our folks are doing many great things over there, at the lowest levels...helping to actually construct facilites and repair damage while keeping vigilant for those stray bullets. Makes it difficult to wield a hammer when the other hand can't let go of a rifle. As to Moore.....How is he different than the authors of all the "streching the truth" books written recently by the right? The difference may be that Moore is smarter since his efforts have received more publicity and royalties. Both sides have their spinmeisters, profiting off the death and suffering of others, increasing the degree of hate and mistrust. Civil wars have been fought over less divisive situations than what we have right now. I really am amused at the "rightious indignation" of one side while they wink and shrug when asked about their just-under-the line libelous and slanderous attacks against the "enemy". Like I asked before and NO ONE had the cajones to respond: Since when do we refer to fellow Americans with whom we disagree as "enemies"? And which side does this more often? Shall we start reposting some of the more virulent comments? And we have how many more weeks before this mutual madness is over? |
Quote:
|
well, he's a leftie so he'd probably apologize to the alligator for invading his space.
|
Americans now realize that they are no longer isolated by from the realities of the rest of the world by the open oceans and, ofcourse, many are afraid. The knee-jerk reaction is to go and kick-some-ass and destroy the people who did this, maybe take out a few neighboring countries in the process and dispose of some annoying figure heads too. When we're done kicking-butt and have exhausted all our money and resources, and maybe had a few thousand of our troops die, maybe then we'll come to terms with the real problems that face us:
- The oceans do not isolate us from the problems of the world - Constant fear of an enemy will not keep you safe - Disenfranchised people, of any race or religion, will fight against what they see as a threat. The rest of the planet has come to terms with these realities, and soon so shall America. |
So MichMat, you work at UC Berkely?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I can personally guarantee you that not one of our soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines was sent to Iraq "to die" On the contrary, I would almost go so far as saying that each one of them was instructed NOT to die. Unfortunately, for friends and family of the military person, death is not alwasy avoidable. Still, I would say that nobody was sent there with the expressed intent for them to die. I'm not making light of the passing of ANY military person. Each one has my utmost gratitude and respect. They've earned it. I just can't seem to express it enough that each one of these people that paid the ultimate sacrifice with full knowledge that it could happen to them. Each military member is taught The Code of Conduct for US Armed Service personel. There are 6 Articles, the first of which reads, "I am an American, serving in the forces which guard my country. I am prepared to give my life in it's defense." Now, you speak of the war in Iraq as being unnecessary, but I beg to differ with you. Part of the reason for the 9/11 Commission was to determine what, if anything, could have been done to prevent 9/11 from happening. Looking back, it was fairly easy to see what we SHOULD have done, and which administration should have done it. As is often stated, hindsight is 20/20. If GWB, or whoever you would rather have had in office at that time, had the gift of foresight, 9/11 most certainly would have been avoided. Taking this war to the Mid-East just might possibly be the reason there has been no further attacks here in the US. If you look at all the gaping flaws in our airport seurity system, even today, it would seem obvious that something like 9/11 could possibly happen again. Having our troops in the middle of the Mid-East draws a lot of attention there. What do you think is more disturbing to the radical islamic terrorist: having the United States sitting half-way around the world, full of infidel Americans that don't deserve to live, or having thousands of those same Americans right in their own backyard....in the promised land? Our people are there doing the job they have been trained to do...engaging the enemy. IMHO, it is much better for the US and those affected by us, to have that engagement occurring on foreign soil. Imagine what it would be like if we were engaging them here in the States. Randy |
Well Randy, I respect you for your service, (and because you are a great guy), but I disagree with the strategy of invading Iraq. The actual people who had to do it, (soldiers and Marines), are for the most part the most honorable of all of the players in this whole mess though, IMO.
And FWIW, I am not a huge Moore fan but I do not believe that he has contempt for service members. Just my opinion. Some of the biggest liberals in congress have been the biggest friends that vets have had, like the late Senator Paul Wellstone from my home state Minnesota. :cool: |
Ahhhh, Denis, again we find something we agree upon. The service members, for the most part, ARE some of the most honorable people I have ever known. Your respect for them is appreciated.
Also, I don't believe I ever said that MM had any contempt for servicemembers. To the contrary, I believe he probably is concerned about them being in harms way. My problem with MM is my own perception of how he twists truth and fact to fit his own agenda. That's not to say he's got that market cornered. there are plenty of people like that to go around, on both sides of the aisle. |
Speeder, you'r a great guy, and I have a lot of respect for you, but I believe that you have contempt for our servicemembers.
"...when they signed up for the free education they agreed to fight in any war..." paints all military personnel as money-grubbing morons, too foolish to recognize the inevitable death as the consequences of their actions. It demonstrates a complete ignorance for the vast majority of us who signed up to do this thing not for the money but because we love our country. Tell just one young sailor, 19 years old, working the flightline to the point of exhaustion for the umpteenth week in a row that's he's just in it for the money. Let me know what happens. I could introduce you to one of the platoons of US Marines who guard our nuclear weapons -- tell that crowd what you seem to think of our military, please, let me know what happens. Heck, even the submariners, who get paid more than most... Find me one department head even, reeling in a whopping $95K with his dual-master's degrees and 10 years of high-intensity leadership experience, working yet another 100hr underway work week who'll tell you he's in this job for the money, for the "free education." So forgive me if I find your positive opinion on MM a little biased. Dan |
The GI Bill is probably one of the few perks upon which military personnel can openly boast. Let's also not forget guys like Pat Tillman or the little fellow who used to cut my neighbor's yard. He joined the Armed Forces shortly after 9/11. I doubt it was for the money or prestige...
|
Dan, I'm sorry if my "free education" remark came off as disrespectful, that was not my intention. I'll try again, very carefully: I believe that many young people sign up for military service for the opportunities that it provides, including the education, but I also believe that they more than pay for these benefits w/ their service.
Are the vast majority of them Patriotic and wanting to serve their country? Without a doubt. Realistically, though, in peacetime many, (most?), volunteers probably consider their service a fair trade-off for the benefits, and I agree that they, (you), deserve all of them and more. (That's the liberal in me, we are always for increasing vet's benefits). ;) There are many different types of people, as you know, in the service. People who enlist in the Marine Corps. or Army infantry it is safe to say might want to "see some action" more than other jobs in the military. I don't want to babble on and accidentally offend, so I'll quit now and just say Thank You for your service and I would never disrespect service members face-to-face or otherwise. :cool: |
Actually. Bryan, I am not surprised at your answer. It only proves my point...attack the individual, not the issue.
And, as for others: For your information, labelling me as a liberal is an assumprion on your part. I am neither liberal or conservative; I refuse to march lockstep with any ideology. Try it some day. It might make for more interesting dialogue if you (a) had an original idea and (b) tried a little civility. So many of you on both sides of the spectrum live in your own little worlds with no experience in government. If you know all the answers, volunteer yourself to the party officials. I sure they could profit from your unbound expertise. Honest, the attacks become more personal, more strident and more desperate. As I suspected, not one rationale for caloing another American an "enemy"...Intellectual bankruptcy. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website