It's on Drudge, if you don't have cable or satellite, or you can watch the streaming video here. (Click on the "Video" tab, and then the "O'Reilly vs. Moore" java link.) I especially loved this exchange:
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
"But Beeilll," he's thinking, "it was George Bush!"
God, what a bloviating idiot. And this is the guy who wanted us to treat Saddam Hussein with reasonable doubt. Just incredible.
And here's another gem:
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.
Just priceless! Michael Moore would have had the forsight to pre-empt Hitler and Tojo, but he wouldn't touch the Taliban or Saddam Hussein!
By the way, I just love having the Fox News Channel, which was really a side effect of getting satellite so I could watch bicycle racing. The FOX Special Report was identified by a joint study conducted by Stanford and UCLA, along with the Drudge Report, as being the least biased major news source in the US. You want information about UNSCAM or Sandy Berger, both stories that are almost completely ignored by network news, you have to go to FNC. If you want a news channel that doesn't let partisans get away with repeating memes like those promoted by Moore, go to FNC. If you want news about which Olsen twin has an eating disorder, go to network news. Sheesh. And they wonder why all those other sources are losing viewership to Fox.
Posted by Demosophist at July 27, 2004 10:51 PM | TrackBackAlong those lines, I am immensly tickled that one of my very good friends, who is very 'progressive' watches Fox. He doesn't agree with their take on things, but he does enjoy the fact that their news coverage contains actual news.
Elsewise, I would love to see Michael Moore debate, on prime time, someone like Cheney. MM isn't nearly as bright as he would like to believe he is, and as is demonstrated above, can be led like a lamb to the slaughter.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at July 28, 2004 11:45 AMM: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
*boggle*
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Shorthand rhetoric, you know. I'm sure he meant that... Hitler... Well, what did he mean? I need to brush up on my political shorthand.
Posted by: Scott at July 28, 2004 06:23 PMWhat he clearly meant was that Hitler had absolutely no forewarning of the Pearl Harbor attack, but in response to the immediate declaration of war against Japan he decided to throw his hat in the ring and declare against the US.
Either that or he means that Hitler was a Japanese national.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at July 29, 2004 02:57 PMKuwait has banned F9/11 because it is hostile toward allies: toward the Saudi Royals and itimplies that they and Bush were in cohoots against the American people.
Posted by: Jane at August 3, 2004 01:01 AMI think everyone is entitled to an opinion but that doesn't make it a truth.
Posted by: Karen at August 3, 2004 06:49 PMYeah Bill O'Reilly is a real brain trust. So since pre-emptive war in one case may have been justified, that means it is always justified? Reminds me of those right wing radio hosts who get so swept up in supporting the troops that they seem to imply that you can't question any war the United States fights anywhere! I never got the logic of that. Wouldn't it be more supportive of the troops to be intelligent about where we are going to put them?
I think a more intelligent response than a doctrine of "always or never" pre-emption is to examine each case individually, right? I think 9/11 has made some people see the world very black and white, with a bunch of enemies out there in foreign countries, and then the good old USA here at home. Iraq is not Al Quada. Nobody was even talking about Iraq after 9/11. I can't believe how snowed so many people have become.
It's not simple at all. It's so obvious now that Iraq never had any link to Al Quaeda, and clearly didn't threaten the U.S. So that's out. As if the war in Iraq ever had anything to do with Saddam executing Iraqis? Come on. Would you like us to go topple all those dictatorships in Africa now? Seriously, by your logic you would have to. Do you really want the United States to be the colonizer of the world? It's a crappy job, I'll tell ya, as we're finding out in Iraq. All our poor young men are just getting slaughtered.
This is way worse than Vietnam, and even more senseless.
Your blog seems at least mildly intelligent. Maybe this isn't a waste.
Posted by: pooj at September 15, 2004 03:05 AM