Moore vs. O'Reilly who won?

Gordon B · July-28th-2004, 10:25 AM

Transcription of Moore vs. O'Reilly exchange

I'm no fan of O'Reilly but he won the exchange, IMO.

Root Doctor · July-28th-2004, 10:26 AM

Neither. Both are unbelievable morons.

stonemonkts · July-28th-2004, 10:29 AM

They both came off like adolescents. Grade-school level intelligence at best.

As far as which dipshit "won", it all depends on which side you agree with I suppose.

Derek Taylor · July-28th-2004, 10:37 AM

What Root said.

Steve Reynolds · July-28th-2004, 11:05 AM

just read it

the Fox guy that I can't stomach - but only because Moore is a sniveling little twerp

Al in NYC · July-28th-2004, 11:06 AM

When I saw that this was happening I thought to myself "who could bear to sit through THAT?"

Gordon B · July-28th-2004, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

They both came off like adolescents. Grade-school level intelligence at best.

As far as which dipshit "won", it all depends on which side you agree with I suppose.

I don't like either of them but if you think that Bush believed that Saddam was hiding WMD's, then O'Reilly wins. The evidence is much stronger that Bush, like most people, wrongly believed that Saddam was hiding WMD's than that Bush knew before the war that Saddam did not have WMD's.

SEJ · July-28th-2004, 11:21 AM

Oh, if only Moore and O'Reilly could rise to the level of discourse to be found in the Alley...

Uli · July-28th-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I don't like either of them but if you think that Bush believed that Saddam was hiding WMD's, then O'Reilly wins. The evidence is much stronger that Bush, like most people, wrongly believed that Saddam was hiding WMD's than that Bush knew before the war that Saddam did not have WMD's.

completely disagree. Wheather you believed that Bush thought that Irak had WMD's or not they lied. They have admitted that the WMD arguments where just the easiest to sell to the public. If it sold but it did not hold it's a lie!

groover · July-28th-2004, 11:25 AM

I'd call it a draw. Moore apparently feels that the WMD evidence was still not solid enough, and that Bush knew that, despite what the official record shows. He's entitled to his opinion, though Moore did not fully address O'Reilly's challenge.

To his credit, O'Reilly showed Moore more courtesy and respect than he often shows guests on his show whom he disagrees with. O'Reilly is a formidable opponent, with Masters degrees in Public Admin and Broadcast Journalism, which qualify him as a master debater. In fact, some people would simply call him a master-baiter.

RBS · July-28th-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groover

I'd call it a draw. Moore apparently feels that the WMD evidence was still not solid enough, and that Bush knew that, despite what the official record shows. He's entitled to his opinion, though Moore did not fully address O'Reilly's challenge.

O'Reilly has Masters degrees in Public Admin and Broadcast Journalism, which qualify him as a master debater, so he's a tough contender. To his credit, O'Reilly showed Moore more courtesy and respect than he often shows guests on his show whom he disagrees with.

Yeah, he's the "shut up" guy, right?

clinthopson · July-28th-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

They both came off like adolescents. Grade-school level intelligence at best.

As far as which dipshit "won", it all depends on which side you agree with I suppose.

Yep!

Deke · July-28th-2004, 11:45 AM

I didn't get past one screenful. Fact is, if the report did say that Bush never said that there was irrefutable evidence of WoMD, then the report's wrong. They showed him saying it on the news following our Butler report. They also showed Tony Blair in Moscow saying that 'All the evidence' went to prove that Saddam had WoMD, Putin waited for a translation then smiled and said something. The interpreter said 'Actually, all our evidence says that he hasn't', at which point Blair got very flustered. Apparently he really hadn't been expecting that. The item finished with a European conference, and I'm not sure who said it, I think it was Chirac. "Yes. I've seen the evidence, and I don't believe it."

Incidentally, all 5 chiefs of intelligence sent Blair a joint communication just before the war saying that all the evidence suggested that it would be sheer folly to go into Iraq, and that the world would be a far less safe place afterwards if we did.

Blair chose not to believe that.

Or at least, he chose not to mention it until the war was 'over'.

moneyp · July-28th-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I don't like either of them but if you think that Bush believed that Saddam was hiding WMD's, then O'Reilly wins. The evidence is much stronger that Bush, like most people, wrongly believed that Saddam was hiding WMD's than that Bush knew before the war that Saddam did not have WMD's.

I don't think Bush cared if Saddam was hiding WMDs. That would have just been a plus. When Colin Powell came out with that weak-ass evidence, the first "evidence" that the administration was willing to show us, and saying things like since Osama was actively rooting against the U.S. against Iraq, that *that* showed a connection between the two, it was clear to me that they didn't have much.

No, Gordon, not asking for empirical evidence, not having a smoking gun before you decide to invade a freaking country (not that that's the reason we invaded, anyway, it was just a good excuse) and telling the country that you *do* have empirical evidence, that is a lie.

Uli · July-28th-2004, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mone peterson

I don't think Bush cared if Saddam was hiding WMDs. That would have just been a plus. When Colin Powell came out with that weak-ass evidence, the first "evidence" that the administration was willing to show us, and saying things like since Osama was actively rooting against the U.S. against Iraq, that *that* showed a connection between the two, it was clear to me that they didn't have much.

No, Gordon, not asking for empirical evidence, not having a smoking gun before you decide to invade a freaking country (not that that's the reason we invaded, anyway, it was just a good excuse) and telling the country that you *do* have empirical evidence, that is a lie.

Bingo!

So far we have established that before the war the evidence shown for their belief was debrieved as mostly baloney and that WMDs weren't the real reason for war anyway.

You call it what you wanna, Gordon.

patricia · July-28th-2004, 12:08 PM

Let's return return, briefly to the presentation by Colin Powell to the U.N., shall we??

Powell had a vial of what he represented as enough poison to kill thousands of people. It was simply a prop.

Powell had aerial photographs of what he SAID were mobile labs, but were simply trucks in the desert.

When the U.N. inspectors wanted the information about the purported storage and hiding places that the administration said it had, they were told that the information, though of course it existed, was "classified" and would threaten world security. Thus, they deliberately hobbled the U.N. inspectors, knowing that they actually had no detailed locations of any such things.
So, a lie.

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OR CHEMICAL LABS WERE FOUND.

Making the country believe that all this evidence of potential mayhem existed, when it didn't, because of flawed intelligence, simply makes the rush to war even more obscene.

If I pass along a lie, because I have been told a lie and don't verify the truth of what I'm saying, I am a party to that lie, so I am a liar. There IS NO getting around that basic premise.

The war in Iraq is based on lies. It should never have been launched.

jesus marion joseph · July-28th-2004, 12:12 PM

I saw the first five minutes or so of this "debate", and was surprised at the level of civility each showed the other. Other than that, and without yet having read the transcript, I'm guessing that they ended up agreeing to disagree.

Uli · July-28th-2004, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patricia

When the U.N. inspectors wanted the information about the purported storage and hiding places that the administration said it had, they were told that the information, though of course it existed, was "classified" and would threaten world security.

afaik the UN inspectors did inspect some of the sites used in Powell' s dia show and reported no WMD's.

frankiepop · July-28th-2004, 12:17 PM

i dunno i didnt read it but i cant stomach steve reynolds and i think he is a sniveling whining little twerp

stonemonkts · July-28th-2004, 12:17 PM

What Moné said.

Aside from the lie, it was just a catastrophic example of very shoddy governing, poor foreign policy, and to make matters worse, horrible execution of military resources (mostly due to an arrogance on the part of Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, those two fuckers should be stood up against the wall without a blindfold).

Jazzooo · July-28th-2004, 12:50 PM

If the 9/11 commission can now state with certainty that the intelligence was flawed, don't you think (Gordon) that someone could have and should have expended the same due dilligence before we rushed into attacking Iraq? And if you didn't feel 'rushed,' then we live in different Americas. There was a lot of questioning going on then, but the administration wouldn't slow down.

Of course, in retrospect, we should have confirmed the evidence. What a concept! And no, 'everyone' didn't believe the evidence, and 'everyone' didn't agree with the way our administration handled things based on the bits of evidence which did seem credible. The fact that Bush and his administration continue to insist other things when their conclusions are actually counter to the available evidence (the connection between Saddam and 9/11--Cheney and Bush were saying it again only a couple of weeks ago, remember?) is more of the same thing. "Believe us even though the evidence is sketchy--we're right, and even if it turns out we're wrong, we're still gonna maintain that we were right."

bobetterblues · July-28th-2004, 01:52 PM

Exactly Jazzoo, if that kind of thinking were acceptable, this administration and any other that follows would be allowed to do anything they want without any accountability.

Wasn't it Russia, and most other nations belonging to the UN that wouldn't help us, one bit, in Iraq?

The whole world knew it was bullshit, yet dipshits like Bill O won't go back on it.

The best way to preserve a lie is to keep telling it.

Ron Thorne · July-28th-2004, 03:28 PM

Anyone seen Colin Powell lately?

Al in NYC · July-28th-2004, 03:50 PM

Of course this all posits that all the talk of the purported WMD threat meant anything at all other than providing a handy fear tactic PR smokescreen for our invasion.

Since there are dozens of other countries we know to either have or be developing Ws of MD, many of which are as nasty or even nastier than Saddam's Iraq (and far less constrained), and about which we are doing and have done approximately nothing (not that I'm saying we should), I still find it hard to believe that so many actually bought that WMD BS in the first damn place. The issue is an ideological, economic, and international power politics one that has nothing to do with U.S. national security, since Iraq was never a threat to our security. So all of these continued arguments about "did they or didn't they" and who knew what when are pretty much entirely beside the real point.

Deke · July-28th-2004, 06:13 PM

Suddenly, for no apparent reason, I find myself wanting to say 'North Korea' and 'Zimbabwe'.

Ah, that's better.

JazzAt52ndStreet · July-28th-2004, 09:37 PM

Though I'm very fond of Moore.....he really had nothing inteligent to say right here...O'Reilly got my vote.

-52nd

GoodSpeak · July-29th-2004, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I'm no fan of O'Reilly but he won the exchange, IMO.

Please.

Everyone who believes that, stand on your head...

GoodSpeak · July-29th-2004, 12:20 AM

O'Reilly is SO fulla shit it just staggers the imagination.

To even suggest if you to say something that isn't true isn't a lie [which is exactly what the republicans crapped their collective pants over when what Clinton said about Lewinsky wasn't a lie], is patent bullshit.

The decided difference is that Clinton has apologized [and was found innocent by the US Senate] and Dubya continues to LIE about what it is he went to war over.

Gimme a break.

I mean, GEEZ, Gordon.

When will you actually wake up to the reality that your precious republicans are harboring for themselves everything it is they find absolutely abhorrant in the Democrats?

Crimony

jesus marion joseph · July-29th-2004, 12:25 AM

Goody, he wasn't found "innocent"; they decided that his actions did not rise to "high crimes or misdemeanors". Big difference. If he was "innocent" he'd still have his license to practice law today.

And where the hell have you been lately, anyway?

GoodSpeak · July-29th-2004, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Goody, he wasn't found "innocent"; they decided that his actions did not rise to "high crimes or misdemeanors". Big difference. If he was "innocent" he'd still have his license to practice law today.

Not exactly.

OJ was found innocent, but stripped of his wealth in a seperate civil trial.

Clinton was found innocent by the US Senate.

He was stripped of his right to practice law by a group of vindictive republican dickheads in Arkansas.

BIG difference, my friend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

And where the hell have you been lately, anyway?

Um...on vacation?

sheesh.