Pinging on the Bill O'Reilly / Michael Moore interview at the DNC Convention on Tuesday, 27 July.
I saw the interview and was never more disappointed in O'Reilly. I could have done a better job. Moore's logic was so full of holes. Sean Hannity would have torn Moore apart.
Bill blew what could have been great. Email Bill and tell him how he "blew it!" I did.
O'Reilly failed miserably.
Don't let the liberals frame the question: "Would you sacrifice your children for Fallujah or Iraq?"
Our soldiers and marines may be our sons and daughters but they are NOT children. Our military services are all voluntary, and whether we like it or not these are young adult men and women who are able to make up their own minds.
We are not marching 10-12 year olds down to the recruiter and saying "Please take our child to Iraq to be sacrificed for "Big Oil".
The way the libs are framing the question is abominable and they should be called on it. You failed to do that with Michael Moore last night.
The question is that if bush lied like moore said, then why isn't he going after clinton or kerry or any of the other congressman or senators for lying about the WMDs? I mean clinton said Iraq had WMDs too and he also lied. Does anyone else see a double stnadard, but of course Oreilly wasn't smart enough to point it out.
..then produce the documented quotes saying exactly what The President has said.
Very cogent questions. In fact, virtually all the questions that needed to have been asked of the slob.
The proper answer would have been, "My children would need to be 18 or older to sign up at a recruiting station and as such I would not be sending them anywhere. They would be volunteering to go. Just like everyone else who is in our military."
Fox News had a GREAT interview with an Iraqi who actually was shot and fell into a mass grave, faked death and then literally crawled out latewr and survived. If Repubs could get this guy at their convention and tell his story
and re frame this whole Iraq issue... Election is in the bag...
O'Reilly could have done so much better. I'm thinking he gave MOO a pass either to try to convince MOO to return to his show, or because they made a prior agreement to only ask pre-read and prepared questions.
O'Reilly should have known better than to softball this guy.
When fat ass asked him if he would let his children die to secure Fallujah. He should have responded with...
"Our troops joined the MILITARY. They SIGNED up to join the MILITARY.What the hell do you think they're supposed to do in the military help old ladies cross the street."
But I wasn't expecting much from BOR
The obvious follow up is this:
OK, we did not find stockpiles of WMD's, but we have found a few dozen which could have been capable of killing tens of thousands of people. Why did the "inspector's not find those? Also, how would we have found them if we had not gone into Iraq with our military?
Are you, Mr. Moore, willing to risk thousands of lives on inspections that did not work and on Saddam Hussein's word that he does not have WMD's? I'm not, Bush is not. But apparently John Kerry is. What say you Mr. Moore?
The question he should have asked was:
Why does anybody care what two overweight bloviating loudmouth doofuses like us thing?
Could this thing possibly be a little more overblown, really people, OReilly stopped being interesting the day his rating came close to Larry King, that's when he sold out and became all about outrage and volume. Who cares what he has to say to anybody, much less an equally uninteresting michael Moore.
The Left does not get the point that WMD's or not, the US now knows for sure. That's a big question to know a certain answer to.
Was it worth a thousand US lives to invade Iraq? Only history and the people who will not be blown up by a nuclear weapon made in Iraq and placed in Boston by Al Qaeda will know for sure. Hussein had options and chose not to use them. Israel was getting close to using the "Samson Option" against the Baghdad support of the suicide bombers. This left the US with only one option. Invade Iraq to find out for sure and to remove Hussein and the funds for suicide bombers in the process. Hussein's money was a "WMD" in its own way.
IMo OReilly did a very poor job of interviewing MM...
First of all...Is he bigger than the convention ? Granted the convention is boooooring, but I am sick of pundits ! Talk AFTER the event, not during.
Moore cleaned his clock. O'Reilly stammered...and he is the biggest school yard bully on t.v. He embarrassed himself imo, and I thought Moore (who I have no use for by the way )..had a better demeanor, better argument for his "cause", and was talking with conviction.
O'Reilly had upper most in mind ONLY to make a fool out of Moore..and WIN THE BIG EVENT. He is a " fake , phoney fraud " (ala/Bob Grant ! )
name&townname&townname&town, if you wish to opine!
....Keeeeeep it pithy!
O'Really is spinning his interview with Moore on his radio program. He's actually glorifying himself much more than his usual self-promotion. Let me quote him directly:
"...Moore could not answer the questions..."
"...there are NO WMDs found at all. But Bush didn't deceive, he was mistaken..."
"...I received 20,000 e-mails so far..."
"There ARE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE WRONG. They are irrational...stay away from them [strongly implies he is not irrational whereas Freepers and Moore-supporters are irrational]"
(In O'Really's classic annoying tone) oooooo-kay?! Okay.