O'Rielly versus Moore, really (1414 hits)
Category: NewsRating: 1.28 on 66 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by runninginplace (View user info) at 2004-07-28 15:24:03 EDT
Fox News O'Rielly v Moore
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html
Bill had to watch Moore's movie and submit to recieving questions from Moore. It has to be aired unedited.
and Cut and Paste for everybody to read w/o going to fox news
MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: That's fair. We'll just stick to the issues.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The issues... all right good. Now, one of the issues is you because you've been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain and now the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
MOORE: He didn't tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn't lie, he was misinformed by — all of those investigations come to the same conclusion. That's not a lie.
MOORE: Uh huh. So, in other words, if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage...
O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn't the truth.
MOORE: Well, I'd have to turn around to see it and then I would realize, oh Bill, I just told you something that wasn't true... actually it's President Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a...
O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing: If you, if Michael Moore is president...
MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie? I show all that in the movie.
O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine...
MOORE: But that was your question...
O'REILLY: Just the issues. You've got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying... British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious...
MOORE: Well, that's almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test...
O'REILLY: All right, now you're dancing around a question...
MOORE: No, I'm not. There's no dancing.
O'REILLY: He didn't lie.
MOORE: He said something that wasn't true.
O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources.
MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn't listen to anybody.
O'REILLY: They wouldn't go by Russian intelligence and Blair's intelligence too.
MOORE: His own people told him. I mean, he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said, "What you got on Iraq?" and Richard Clarke's going "Oh well this wasn't Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda."
O'REILLY: You're diverting the issue... did you read Woodward's book?
MOORE: No, I haven't read his book.
O'REILLY: Woodward's a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?
MOORE: I know who he is.
O'REILLY: OK, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said, "President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, 'slam dunk.'" If you're the president, you ignore all that?
MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O'REILLY: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn't communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn't have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th.
O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...
MOORE: OK, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a "slam dunk" and your going to go to war.
O'REILLY: You've got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they're all saying the same thing that's why. You're not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
MOORE: 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'REILLY: It wasn't a lie.
MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.
MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that...
O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question...
MOORE: "Mom and Dad it was just bad information..."
O'REILLY: I'm not going to get you to admit it wasn't a lie. Go ahead.
MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question.
O'REILLY: OK.
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?
O'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were.
MOORE: You would sacrifice your child?
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I'm not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you?
MOORE: Uh huh.
O'REILLY: Would you? That's my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
MOORE: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.
MOORE: But we didn't go after them, did we?
O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.
MOORE: That's why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O'REILLY: OK, well look you can't kill everybody. You wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan — you wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, would you?
MOORE: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
O'REILLY: How?
MOORE: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was...
O'REILLY: Why was that?
MOORE: That's my question.
O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn't want its territory of sovereignty violated.
MOORE: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn't go there. He got a two-month head start.
O'REILLY: All right, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
MOORE: No, unless it is a threat to us.
O'REILLY: 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?
MOORE: That's not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
O'REILLY: From '33 until '41, he wasn't an imminent threat to the United States.
MOORE: There's a lot of things we should have done.
O'REILLY: You wouldn't have removed him.
MOORE: I wouldn't have even allowed him to come to power.
O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore. You would have invaded.
MOORE: If we'd done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, whoa, I'm trying to stop this war right now.
O'REILLY: I know you are but...
MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O'REILLY: No, we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to...
MOORE: So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself..
MOORE: Your child? It's Bush sending the children there.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE: You and I don't go to war, because we're too old...
O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
MOORE: Say, "I, Bill O'Reilly, would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah."
O'REILLY: I'm not going to say what you say, you're a, that's ridiculous...
MOORE: You don't believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O'REILLY: Look it's a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you —
MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don't you know anything about any of that?
MOORE: So, you're saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O'REILLY: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
MOORE: You're not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O'REILLY: I'm not? You're his biggest defender in the media.
MOORE: Now come on.
O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
MOORE: How do you know that?
O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he'd still be sitting there.
MOORE: How do you know that?
O'REILLY: You wouldn't have removed him.
MOORE: Look, let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done; you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted...
O'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.
O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
MOORE: The people rose up.
O'REILLY: Why? Because they went bankrupt.
MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up...
O'REILLY: All right, all right.
MOORE: ...that's how you, let me ask you this question.
O'REILLY: One more.
MOORE: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don't do it down the barrel of a gun. That's not how you deliver it.
O'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam...
MOORE: Why didn't they rise up?
O'REILLY: Because they couldn't, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off...
MOORE: Well that's true in many countries throughout the world...
O'REILLY: It is, it's a shame...
MOORE: ...and you know what people have done, they've risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There's many ways...
O'REILLY: I'm glad we've had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that's the fair way to do it. Right?
MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE: You wouldn't send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O'REILLY: I would.
MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O'REILLY: That's right.
MOORE: Where's the recruiter?
O'REILLY: You'd love to get rid of me.
MOORE: No, I want you to live. I want you to live.
O'REILLY: I appreciate that Michael Moore everybody. There he is.
User Reviews
Submitted by big_wigger (user info) at 2004-10-22 14:56:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
heres a +2 to soothe your troubled mind
Submitted by big_wigger (user info) at 2004-10-21 17:08:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
your funny
Submitted by big_wigger (user info) at 2004-10-20 17:53:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Faggaford at 2004-08-03 15:24:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
and -2 to DJMATT. OReilly is a whiney little bitch who wanted to shut down the fucking internet because people were making fun of his pathetic excuse for edutainmaganda. ie we all have to get spots on Fox News if we want our opinions to matter to the almighty conservative irish faggot.
Submitted by Faggaford at 2004-08-03 15:16:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Runninginplace, you ditzy frou-frou blonde, you don't even know what the term "objective journalism" means, do you?
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-08-03 10:44:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Icarus you dumb bitch, thanks for the retaliation. I just posted this b/c I knew there would be some interest in it from previous discussions on uber. I never claimed it to be original, but it is hardly propaganda seeing as it is an interview. The post never even ventured an opinion, it just presented something I knew some folks here wanted to read.
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2004-08-03 02:07:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
gee, it seems that some liberals around here are pissed off that Bill O'Reilly is one of the single most watched news opinion shows around, and that Fox News has BY FAR the highest ratings of all the US news networks.
Maybe people watch Bill because they like PERSPECTIVE. Maybe they like to watch him because he doesn't let people spew a line of obvious bullshit. Maybe it's because he's equally as critical to both republicans AND democrats, when they screw up. (He keeps demanding, writing letters, etc to the Bush Administration to come forward and admit that the WMD intel was false, for example).
Who knows. All i know is, Bill kicks all your asses. Go on, give me examples on how he's a psychotic right wing nutcase. Come on.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2004-08-02 18:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
_Q_ owns everyone.
His brilliant summation below hits the nail on the mutherfucking head.
Read it. Consider it. Research a bit of U.S. history, and you will see that the U.S. Government coupled with the military is the largest terror organization in the world.
Read this you bitches:
http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2004-08-02 18:29:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, I support going into Afghanistan, because they actually had terrorists and THAT was confirmed.
And just because they had WMD and supposed ties to Al-Queda does NOT constitute war. The Russian intel believed they had it, but did Russia go to war with them? Fuck, no. We went to war with them because they're an easy target and have oil.
And am I alone in thinking that the fact that his daddy went in there that W wanted to "finish his father's work"?
Submitted by UlfGabe (user info) at 2004-08-02 18:07:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"To try to say that we just attacked him because we wanted to is retarded. There was CREDIBLE INFORMATION from three MAJOR COUNTRIES of the world. "
Information coming from 3 major countries can be all bullshit, especially if they feed from the same shit trough.
"To say that the US went to war without support of the public is retarded. Why? BECAUSE 95% OF THE COUNTRY SUPPORTED THE WAR. "
Note: Propaganda about WMD, Al-keida, and the fact that the US was going to be attacked tomorrow if the US didnt strike first against Saddam is what brought around public opinion. Differentiate beween informed consent, and ignorant consent.
If you lived in a world of colour and everything was normal except I told you the colour Blue was red and red was blue, upon exposure to the "real" world of everyone else you would fuck up left and right. The public Fucked UP In A Bid Way by putting their trust where it did not belong, as has been proven now. This is where the anger originates. Thats it.
"Now, we come to where we are. Guess what? OH you shouldn't be at war!
Ok, have it your way. The US pulls out. Drops everything, packs up, and pops smoke.
What do you think would happen? "
The country would be in a huge shithole. so dont pull the troops, The US made a mistake, fess up for it, try to fix it, dont let it happen again.
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2004-08-02 18:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh my fucking god, I wanted to watch that so badly, but I couldn't because we had some family shit going on. Thanks so much, because I would've dug this up at least a week from now, if I didn't feel too lazy.
Submitted by LedHead (user info) at 2004-08-02 17:56:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
How do you like it how do you like it, more more more...Micheal Moore is a big fat stupid white guy.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2004-08-02 17:49:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fox News and Bill O'Reilly... true paragons of journalistic integrity... if you're going to spout mindless propaganda, do everyone else a favor and come up with something original. At the very least get your info from one of the dozen odd US network that pretend to be objective.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-07-30 11:37:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
All the terrorists in the middle east have rushed into iraq to fight our soldiers there. Is it better to have them fighting our finely equipped and trained military or should we have waited until they came into our country from the open borders with Canada and Mexico?
Submitted by atz (user info) at 2004-07-29 00:03:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A typical bullshit argument between a conservative and a liberal.
Submitted by Brianthetruthspeaker (user info) at 2004-07-28 18:04:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is the third transcript I've read today of the interview
And they were all crafted to look like Moore won,
I listened to the whole interview. And well that's not how it went down.
Also O'Rielly wouldn't have been my first choice for the interview
I would have rather it had Been Rush or Laura Ingraham.
That fact that Moore agreed to sit down with bill makes me a little suspicious.
Submitted by Pacifist248 (user info) at 2004-07-28 18:02:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:38:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok. Let me start this off properly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR.
Now that that is over.
To say that we went to war for wmd would be the correct answer. Bush acted on information obtained through MANY different sources, including our intellegence, russian intellegence, and british intellegence.
To say that all of a sudden everyone is saying "we didn't go to war for WMD, we went to get Saddam out of Iraq!" is retarded. No one is saying that. What people are saying is that the WMD was a mistake, that he acted on bad information. As a by-product of that bad information, a horrible dictator is overthrown.
"BUT YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT...."
Shut the fuck up. We didn't pick and choose did we? We went after Iraq because we were given CREDIBLE information by THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES, saying that they had weapons of mass distruction.
To try to say that we just attacked him because we wanted to is retarded. There was CREDIBLE INFORMATION from three MAJOR COUNTRIES of the world.
To say that the US went to war without support of the public is retarded. Why? BECAUSE 95% OF THE COUNTRY SUPPORTED THE WAR.
Now, we come to where we are. Guess what? OH you shouldn't be at war!
Ok, have it your way. The US pulls out. Drops everything, packs up, and pops smoke.
What do you think would happen?
-----
Guess what, Iraq having WMD's isn't the reason we went to war. It was, according to the Bush admin., having WMDs -AND- being tied to Al Qaeda; they were a threat. I can get you credible info on many counties that have WMDs, does that mean we should attack them?
Submitted by winowarrior (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:46:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:38:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Has anyone considered that those commissions were totally fucking bias? They were set up so that they'd only look deep enough to find the CIA at fault.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think anyone who isn't laughably gullable should realize that the CIA, or any organization, is never going to point blame at the president. Just like any boss, he displaces the blame because being in charge gets you deeper in shit before it hits the fan.
Submitted by dada <sevenarmy.at.netzero.net> at 2004-07-28 17:44:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
fuck the middle east theres too many problems . we surely all can live without em!
Submitted by winowarrior (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:42:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Bush lied because he implied that, with 100% positivity, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Ashcroft even said that "We know where they are". The intelligence was intelligence only, the fact that Bush and his cronies jumped on it and gave it Biblical status to promote their agenda is close enough to constitute lying because the US never ever had solid 100% proof of WMD.
And Moore doesn't have to come up with solutions, that's not his job. That is the job of our state, local, and national representatives. The job of every patriotic American is to be skeptical, just like Moore, and shout truth outloud, just like Moore. If we weren't in Iraq, we easily could have stopped the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, 30,000 civilians dead.....In months!!! That constitutes some sort of armed response. Not some nut with no capability to deliver any kind of blow to the US.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:38:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Has anyone considered that those commissions were totally fucking bias? They were set up so that they'd only look deep enough to find the CIA at fault.
They both look retarded in that conversation.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:23:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
**BECAUSE 95% OF THE COUNTRY SUPPORTED THE WAR. **
95% are you SURE about that?
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:16:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-07-28 17:02:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
QueenAshlee,
Moore did get "PWNZANDJ!" but not in the literal sense. In reality what happened was O'Reilly asked Moore very few questions and received no direct response from Moore, at least not anything that resembled an answer. Moore is a ridiculous radical that has too many opinions but not enough intelligence to back up his claims with supportive solutions.
That's the main problem with Moore. Too many claims, not enough solutions. Anybody can sit and point the blame, telling people to look here or there and they will find lies, deciet, propaganda, etc., but did he ever offer a solution on how to fix such problems? Yes, one: elect a new President. Politically speaking, Moore is a joke.
_________
Are you aware that you could completely interchange the two men's names and that response would still work?
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:13:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That's the main problem with Moore. Too many claims, not enough solutions. Anybody can sit and point the blame, telling people to look here or there and they will find lies, deciet, propaganda, etc., but did he ever offer a solution on how to fix such problems? Yes, one: elect a new President. Politically speaking, Moore is a joke.
--------
Random Joe, how can you expect one man to be so good at everything? Moore is excellent at what he does: exposing truths. Yes, he is strategic in what he exposes, but you can't blame him for not being able to come up with solutions, either.
Why don't you take the information that he is presenting and offer a solution of your own? That is what it seems like he is trying to inspire with his actions. I really like that.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:12:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-07-28 17:04:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
And spell the name right. It was in the trascript a mere 50+ times.
----------------------------------------
fuckin a. i did spell that shit wrong sooo many times. oh well. spelling was never my strong point.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:09:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That's why I see arguments about Bush's "shifting justifications" for the war as being b.s. I think the justifications were progressive (as in: one progressed to the next) rather than changed to hide something.
-----
Yes itchy, they were progressive with time. But doesn't that sound like what a liar does to cover up when they are caught? Either that, or something a fool does when he acted when he should've let things reveal themselves more? I'll give bush the human benefit of the doubt and say it was the second. He may not have lied, but I think he acted entirely too swiftly.
I would sure like to see this intelligence that Bush acted on. It better have been the still smoking shell of a chemical warhead in their possession, considering the speed with which this war came to a head.. and where it ended up.
Bush is no genius. (How the hell did he end up with a nomination for a nobel peace prize?) He may have been part of the orchestration of what is occuring, but nothing more than a very important cronie. No way in hell he masterminded any of this.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:06:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think micheal moore made some very intersting points, But as far as I am conserned they both lose.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:05:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:01:44 (#)
Ranking: 1
President Bush, Sr.:
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs...[and] the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I find that ironic, since the Shiites started to revolt on Bush's order and got crushed b/c we didn't come through with the aid as advertised. Hell, it made it a lot harder for G.W.B this time around b/c poppa fucked up.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-07-28 17:04:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And spell the name right. It was in the trascript a mere 50+ times.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-07-28 17:02:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
QueenAshlee,
Moore did get "PWNZANDJ!" but not in the literal sense. In reality what happened was O'Reilly asked Moore very few questions and received no direct response from Moore, at least not anything that resembled an answer. Moore is a ridiculous radical that has too many opinions but not enough intelligence to back up his claims with supportive solutions.
That's the main problem with Moore. Too many claims, not enough solutions. Anybody can sit and point the blame, telling people to look here or there and they will find lies, deciet, propaganda, etc., but did he ever offer a solution on how to fix such problems? Yes, one: elect a new President. Politically speaking, Moore is a joke.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:02:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Moore just keeps sticking to his story that Bush lied.
He seems determined to try and get O'Rielly to say he would send his own kid to die in Iraq if it would help. I don't think that is a very fair question. Would you go yourself is a better one.
I am really interested in seeing the rest of the interview. I agree with loki that everyone has a different opinion on the same thing, but I think Bill came out ahead on this part.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2004-07-28 17:01:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
President Bush, Sr.:
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs...[and] the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:54:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I love how people call Bush an idiot one second and then the next he is a diabolical genius who orchestrated the entire war for his own profit.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:50:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:27:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore got pwned.
Truely we see what a dumb ass Michael Moore is.
____
What transcript were YOU reading?
Submitted by Joe at 2004-07-28 16:49:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
By the way, if Bush lied about the war, so did Clinton, Kerry, Russia, the UN, ect...
Submitted by Joe at 2004-07-28 16:47:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sick of this "would you send your children into war" bullshit. It's their choice! Everyone is someone's child, but if I decide to join the military and go to war, my father is NOT sending me to war. The president is the one who sends people to war, and my choice to join. God I hate Moore...
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:47:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Itchy, I don't think we were ever justified in going to Iraq, no matter what Bush's intelligence said. His intelligence said what he wanted it to say.
He went there to protect his own goddamned interests, and I'm left with a shitty $50K a year job, one less neighbor (killed in Baghdad) and a high school friend (MIA).
My friends are not coming back. I don't care what the fuck I'm paying for gasoline. If I could get them back by paying my entire salary for gas to get to work, I would. Bush is lining his pockets. If he gets reelected I'm fucking moving.
Submitted by facts (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:43:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:25:42 (#)
Ranking: 2
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:43:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It is fascinating to see that everyone has their own take on the outcome of the exact same conversation.
I guess my main problem with this whole A-raq war bit is that maybe Bush fell for this crap, and maybe just maybe he believed that they had these weapons, but I he didn't give the inspectors time to find out for sure nor did he have the backing of the UN. He took the gamble, he lost, according to Robert's Rules of Order he should fall on his sword.
(yes I am mixing several metaphors there - deal with it)
For someone who claimed to have a problem with "revisionist history" he sure as shit changed the reasons we're over there after the fact.
The whole time he was running for office, he and his ilk bitched a blue streak about bleeding heart liberal nation building. Now that he's in office, what are we doing - nation building?
This go it alone cowboy attitude has gotten a lot of people killed and made the world a far more dangerous place, nice work asshole.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:42:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh yeah and I'm an American!*
*Blantantly obvious from my posts
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:42:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
O'Reilly's a cunt that just tries to bully his interviewees. Actually, I believe it was Maddox who dubbed Bill as a "blubbering vagina."
Moore is a little full of himself, but he spills the beans, at least.
Submitted by itchy (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:41:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Just briefly for WQP:
I can see your point, but I think it all boils down to the whole thing that Moore and O'Reilly got into about whether or not Bush lied.
If it wasn't completely insane to think that the information about Iraq having WMD's was legit, then he (Bush) was justified going in. Even the 9/11 commission says that there were ties between Al Quida and Iraq (note: NOT between Sadam and 9/11). So, if we are justified, we go in.
We go in and guess what? Our intelligence was wrong, no WMD's. Now what? If we just say, "oops, sorry." and get the hell out of there, anarchy will ensue. We've taken out any form of government that existed there, and without a force there to keep order, the same kind of thug will just move in to take over. So what do we do? Well, Sadam is gone, that is a good thing. Let's hype that. Let's also help the Iraqi's set up a government. That also sounds like a good idea. Let's do it.
The logical breakdown that people seem to keep missing is the concept of "time." Unless you think Bush was lying even though every other respectible intelligence force in the world had the same information we did, going into Iraq was justified. BUT after we found out that all that information was wrong, what the hell were we supposed to do?
That's why I see arguments about Bush's "shifting justifications" for the war as being b.s. I think the justifications were progressive (as in: one progressed to the next) rather than changed to hide something.
That's just my take on it, but I could be an idiot.
Submitted by 1Point21Gigawatts (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:41:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:37:52 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:27:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore got pwned.
Truely we see what a dumb ass Michael Moore is.
-------
You should look into being a figure skating judge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with everything _Q_ said, but this little bit of hilarity is fantastic.
Maddox' opinion on O'Reilly is dead on.
Good read.
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:38:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok. Let me start this off properly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE WAR.
Now that that is over.
To say that we went to war for wmd would be the correct answer. Bush acted on information obtained through MANY different sources, including our intellegence, russian intellegence, and british intellegence.
To say that all of a sudden everyone is saying "we didn't go to war for WMD, we went to get Saddam out of Iraq!" is retarded. No one is saying that. What people are saying is that the WMD was a mistake, that he acted on bad information. As a by-product of that bad information, a horrible dictator is overthrown.
"BUT YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT...."
Shut the fuck up. We didn't pick and choose did we? We went after Iraq because we were given CREDIBLE information by THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES, saying that they had weapons of mass distruction.
To try to say that we just attacked him because we wanted to is retarded. There was CREDIBLE INFORMATION from three MAJOR COUNTRIES of the world.
To say that the US went to war without support of the public is retarded. Why? BECAUSE 95% OF THE COUNTRY SUPPORTED THE WAR.
Now, we come to where we are. Guess what? OH you shouldn't be at war!
Ok, have it your way. The US pulls out. Drops everything, packs up, and pops smoke.
What do you think would happen?
Submitted by Chief_Rugger (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:23:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm with ALah on this one, halfway through my head started to throb. Moore is the liberal Limbaugh
Submitted by reallybored (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:21:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If your conservative/republican you're gonna say Bill pwned!
If your liberal/democrat you're gonna say Moore laid the smackdown!
Either way it doesnt matter, they are both extremists fucks who have no idea what the average american wants.
If you cant realize that, you need help. And by help i mean a fucking bullet to the head.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:16:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You have no idea how proud I was when our PM told Bush to go fuck himself over invading Iraq.
So proud.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Listen, people who are soliders have agreed to protect your country through war if necessary. A solider has to follow orders whether they believe in that order or not, just because they are in Iraq fighting does not mean they believe they should be there.
The point Moore was trying to make is that this war should not be happening, bottom line. Why? Because your country was told one thing to get you there (WMD, Immediate threat of attack, ties to terrorism), that turned out to be falsified. Now you are told that the reason was different from the original (to oust a brutal dictator), which never was the reason as to why you went in there, but is in fact the highlight of your actions so far. Now, you are being told that you are staying there for another reason still (to establish democracy). When do the lies stop? When does the speculation stop? When will you know the truth?
Let me examine the three things I said breifly
1. WMD, Immediate threat of attack, ties to terrorism
- The USA openly brandishes WMD.
- The USA has several well documented cases of serious "supportive" ties to terrorism and terrorist organizations
- The USA appears to attack for no good reason lately, several bullshit ones perhaps, but no one real morally justifiable reason. So anyone really could be under immiediate threat of attack from the USA
Why then, doesn't the whole world attack the USA based on these three... apparently valid reasons... that were originally used to justify an invasion of Iraq?
At best, the US gov't went to war, FUCKING WAR, based on speculation and, in my opinion, a potentially beneficial end result.
A fact that I will state today is that I can believe an empire like the US wanting to continue its hold in top spot through any means necessary. I also believe that there is something wrong with using violent war to get what you want to do so, but whatever you deem as practical AS A COUNTRY, will be done through the consent of the public. That consent of the public is an exercising a basic tenet of a democracy.
The events that have occured to lead up to the Iraq invasion, led by George W Bush, are a violation of that tenet. He has violated your right to control the action your government takes.
2. To remove a brutal dictator
Not true, or else the US would be on a little freedom campaign, declaring war on anyone who has ever killed an innocent person.
3. To establish a democracy
Ahh, now were are getting closer to the truth. Are we really trying to establish a deomcracy, or are we trying to establish a system that will be more co-operative with the US in future business deals?
I simply do not want to delve any further than I already have into the hypocracies of the justifications cited to go to war with Iraq.
I do want to say again that through invading Iraq (and Iraq only, I agree with the invasion of Afghanistan, I do not agree with it being ignored now, however) your president is violating your freedom to control his actions. He is acting without your consent. Now, those in power (and those who support them) are throwing all kinds of 'to the victor go the spoils' type justifications as to why this war is good.
You know what Bush? If you wanted oil, and wanted to take it by force, do it, but be honest to your people about it. If they want to do it, they will. But stop lying to yourself by thinking you are still the good guy heroes in all of this, because you are not. You acted Unilaterally, against most of the world's wishes, and your country is still divided because they are good people, and want to believe that their gov't would never act to represent them as otherwise.
The point Moore was trying to make is that this war should not be happening because the reasons given to the people who are carrying it out were not true. Bush admin manipulated and confused the whole world into allowing this to happen. You may support the benefits that your country is, and will, see from occupation, but what you are gaining now may not have looked so attractive had the truth been told to you from the start.
The bottom line is that the Iraq war is bullshit, and the US is committing evil acts as we speak. Acts that you are still being told to believe are not evil, and some of you are still buying into it.
The greatest evil though, is that very little is being done to change it.
Submitted by deenie (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:14:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
fuck moore...fuck him in his fat ass...
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:13:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
best reply ever
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:25:42 (#)
Ranking: 2
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Submitted by Totally_useless (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:13:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Once again.
Our soldiers are not defending our country with this war. It is politically motivated, and a damn shame. That is why Moore kept referencing to O'Reilly sending his kid there. Bill could not say it because he knows that we're not there for the right reasons. Bill danced around that question like a ballerina...
I say that both Dubya and Bill got pwned because of the media stir that Moore's movie has caused. This is definitely not doing harm to the Democratic platform, and is also definitely not helping the Republicans. I don't stand behind [Moore's] philosophy that Bush purposely lied about WMD or even turned his back on the truth. But I am smart enough, even without Fahrenheit 9/11, to realize that we are not there to defend our country. Our boys are not dying for something so valiant as protecting our soil and our people. But in the end, it comes down to one of my favorite quotes:
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic"
-Joseph Stalin
Submitted by DonkeyOnTheEdge (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:09:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If anyone was owned, it was the viewer. I wanted to see pistols at 10 paces or some fancy sword work. Damn you, media whores, damn you.
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:06:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by savethepunks (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:01:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Moore wins when he brings up Iraq having their own revolution. Just about every country
in the world has had a revolution of some sort at some time. Had the people decided to have a
revolution and we sent aid, then you could say we were doing the right thing for the people.
But to pick and chose which evil dictator you no longer like because they no longer are honoring
your oil contracts is not helping the world.
============================
Umm... oil contracts?
U.N. ban on Iraqi oil sales anyone? Anyone?
Submitted by Thanatos (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:03:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice post. Moore did suck ass. I only read about half, but Moore's a broken record. Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.Bush lied.
When will he get sick of hearing himself talk?
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:02:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
A zero until I read:
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:38:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore is a fucking moron.
"he sent the chil'en! he sent the chil'en! He sent the chil'en ova to A-rack an tha ain't neever comin bach! It's all yo falt!
===========================================
+2, baby.
Submitted by savethepunks (user info) at 2004-07-28 16:01:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Moore wins when he brings up Iraq having their own revolution. Just about every country
in the world has had a revolution of some sort at some time. Had the people decided to have a
revolution and we sent aid, then you could say we were doing the right thing for the people.
But to pick and chose which evil dictator you no longer like because they no longer are honoring
your oil contracts is not helping the world.
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:59:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Totally useless:
That is what I was saying; That they signed the dotted line and agreed to defend our nation. They don't have a choice about what they do.
As far as bush and bill getting owned, why do you say that?
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:58:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He sent people who willingly agreed to defend their country. He sent united states SOILDERS, not a bunch of 6 year olds.
______________________________________________________________________________________
If they had died defending their country I am sure no one would have a problem, but since they died for a false cause that had nothing to do with this country's defense you can shut the fuck up. Also, soldiers looks like this - it helps if you are going to call someone a moron to not look like one yourself.
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:53:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore got his shizzle ruined...
ma nizz.e
Submitted by Totally_useless (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:53:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He sent people who willingly agreed to defend their country. He sent united states SOILDERS, not a bunch of 6 year olds.
------------------------------------------------
Hey. I'm willing to defend my country. But how does that factor into the whole transcript here? The point is we're NOT defending our country, but removing an evil dictator who killed thousands of his people over the years. Saying that we were defending the US by doing this would reaffirm Moore's point that we are there to stop terrorism.
Those who are in the military swear to defend the USA, but they ALSO swear to obey the orders given by the officers appointed above them. There is no choice for them. They are subject to the personal agendas of our president.
Bush AND Bill got pwned.
Runninginplace: No flak for posting only the transcript. Good job. Thanks.
Submitted by AlahAckbar (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:38:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore is a fucking moron.
"he sent the chil'en! he sent the chil'en! He sent the chil'en ova to A-rack an tha ain't neever comin bach! It's all yo falt!
He sent people who willingly agreed to defend their country. He sent united states SOILDERS, not a bunch of 6 year olds.
moore did get pwned.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:37:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:27:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore got pwned.
Truely we see what a dumb ass Michael Moore is.
-------
You should look into being a figure skating judge.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:37:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oh, and note that it is also just a partial transcript
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:27:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Moore got pwned.
Truely we see what a dumb ass Michael Moore is.
Submitted by runninginplace (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:26:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know I didn't add shit to it, I just wanted everybody who cared to know it was out there.
So if you if you want to -2 me for not posting any of my own work, fuck off.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2004-07-28 15:25:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!
Two man enter, one man leave!