For those of you who have not seen the interview here you go: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Questions for Debate:

1) Who do you think had the upperhand in the debate/interview?

2) Did O'Reilly give a fair interview?

My view:

I thought it was a VERY fair interview. both men conducted themselves in a very sensible, civil manner. I was actually surprised because we all know how hot-headed both men can get. I actually believe that O'Reilly was too easy on Moore. But that is probably because he didn't want to come off as the crazed lunatic. Overall i wasn't very satisfied. I think its because i wanted O'Reilly to roast Moore but he didnt. He hardly brought up his movie and all the lies and deceit. I would give the upperhand to O'Reilly, but not by much. Not because Moore was good, but because O'Reilly wasnt all that great.

What i didn't like was Moore using weird examples to justify his points. Such as: the whole thing about if he looked foward and he said there was nobody in the fleet center and all that stuff. I think (of course my opinion) that O'reilly had a good point about how Bush didnt lie, he just made a decision on the info given to him. I mean the president's job is to protect the country. If the CIA, Mi-6 and russian intel tells you that saddam has WMDs...who ae you going to believe? Also, the whole not going to Afghanistan thing was a true joke. Most liberals agree that Afghanistan was a necessary war to attack Al Queda. I do not understand how we could have got Osama without invading the country.

Moore tried to get O'Reilly on the "sending your kid to take Fallujah" thing. But i didnt see it as very fair because nobody in their right mind would say they were willing to send their kid or someone else's kid to take Fallujah. You just cant. You aren't exactly 'willing' but rather realizing that what needs to be done, needs to be done. I respect O'Reilly for saying he would send himself, i think it caught Moore off guard a little.

Thats my analysis, your turn...

I thought it was a good interview also. I think O'Reilly had the upper hand except for one point in the piece. When Moore kept badgering him 'if he would sacrifice his son to secure Fallujah' Bill said he would only speak for himself, not a son. Now it was opinion, there was no waffling on facts, but he seems sort of wimpy with his answer. But of course Moore didn't know the difference between knowingly lying and going with bad intel that the experts had. Must have attended public school.

I kept hoping he would call him on the Sacrafice your Child quote. I would have told him that nobody sacraficed their child. Their Child volunteers for service. Though you don't agree with it, they made the decision of their own free will. I'd, also, have brought up the "Send your rich kids to war" theme as well. Kids go to the military for the benifits they provide them, and for patriotism. These things usually appeal more to us lower - Middle class people. Telling someone to force their child to join the military is rediculous.. It's funny how he would be all for ignoring their civil liberties to prove a point. Thats my rant..


I think it was a tie..

Yeah I am with DTOM on this though I would like to add that every time Moore said would you send your child, I kept thinking OH GREAT, we would actually want a President that made decisions of National Security based on whether or not He or She would send their Child , Ahh Yeah, of course, no parent wants to send their child to war, should we all just sit here and get poop rained down on us? That's what I look for in a leader! Never look at the greater good, just internalize all affairs of the state and Dag Nab it! Just sit there on your hands and do nothing! I personally liked the ending where Moore reached out to O'Reilly and said NO, I WANT YOU TO LIVE! I am quite sure there are some peops out there, that will beg to differ with him!

I voted for O'Reilly. First I will admit that I don't watch or listen to these types of shows. This was my first O'Reilly encounter! Moore seemed to hold on to the "one" thing that he thought he had O'Reilly (sending your child to Fallujah) on and instead of making a point he tried to beat it to death. Which in the end didn't gain him any ground. I agree with the others, O'Reilly could have come back with a better answer, like, if my child joined the armed forces I would worry about his/her safety but if they were called to Fallujah I would hope for the best, fear the worst, be proud that my son/daughter was serving his/her country, and support his/her decision. So for that 1 issue it was draw. But O'Reilly won on all the rest. So Moore came across as a bumbling fool who is so engrossed with his own interpretation of the truth that he fails to see when he is wrong.

edit to add:

I think that had to do with him being ticked off at CNN for the "some people want you to die" comment.

Mindmesh:


It is called a draft, and we have had multiple in American history. I have to take with Michael Moore on this one, he has a point. The fact is too many minorities and low to middle income famililes are the ones facing the burden of the war. In Farenheit 911 Moore goes through all of this, making the point that the people supporting and voting for the war are not the ones waiting up at night because their child is in harms way.

1) Who do you think had the upperhand in the debate/interview?

I read the interview on Drudge yesterday (yeah I know, but it least THAT was accurate) and to me it was two guys just not listening to each other and arguing semantics. I can listen to Junior High School students do that if I want to. Not very scintellating TV.

2) Did O'Reilly give a fair interview?

About as fair as he ever gives. Arguing with the interviewee has never been a good interview tactic to me. Guess that comes from my cross-examination background where the goal is to get the person to a place where he can give no possible good answer -- if your goal is to make a point, not a informational interview. Yes I understand time constraints that exist on TV, but what passes for good interviews today is really pathetic.

Classic 60 minute "gotchas" where the guy just stares are the gold standard.

B

It was their choice to enlist in the military. They weren't drafted. I personally feel the draft is unconstitutional, either make it mandatory for everyone or keep it volunteer. I'm not saying that the lower and Middle class aren't providing the burden for this and every other war, but would you rather only send the rich.. 1% of the population to fight. There are more of us Middle and lower middle class people in this country. I don't know the percentages, but we volunteer because of who we are not because of who they aren't.

I have a cousin that actually left the Marine Corp so that he could go to Iraq. He's over there as a contractor protecting the Embassy. I have another cousin who is re-enlisting in the Marines because of the war. These are white guys. They're not trying to put this burden on anyone else; they're taking it upon themselves.

Bill may get sloppy on some of his everyday interviews but, like most of his high-profile interviews, this one was extremely fair.

O'Reilly won hands down, he made Moore look like an amateur debater (I would feel sorry for him were he a member of this sight ).

Moore was left with no logical points to his name, and simply a hollow appeal to pathos with the "send your child to Fallujah" nonsense.

Just as I expected...

I voted neither. First of all to declare one a "winner" and the other a "loser" reduces what should be a debate to WWE wrestling and that doesn't interest me.

Did anyone notice there was virtually NO critical observations from O'Reilly about "Fahrenheit 9/11?" What was all that drivel about whether Moore would have removed Adolf Hitler from power? We're still fighting World War II? Geez.

O' Reilly's pugnacious style of "interviewing" is confrontational and ideological. He has a point-of-view and I love the way he determines his show is a "no-spin zone." It's nothing BUT spin. Conservatives good. Liberals bad. Bill O' Reilly man of the people who's looking out for you. The poor slob on the other side of the microphone is a well-meaning, but hopelessly out of it looney tune.

Michael Moore is a good public speaker, but he was off his game here. Bill O' Reilly has come a long way from that tacky "A Current Affair" show he used to host and God bless him for recreating himself as a tough-talking, frank interviewer. But I'm not impressed by his act. O' Reilly isn't as even-handed in his scorn for conservatives as it is for liberals, so when he yaks about how he cuts through the bull of his guest, he's spreading a little manure of his own.

"Interviews" such as the one between Moore and O'Reilly generate considerable heat, but sadly, very little light.

1) Who do you think had the upperhand in the debate/interview?
I voted neither. I scored it 1-1 with O'Reilly winning the lie issue and Moore winning the sacrifice issue. It was frustrating to read though because you have two zealots who really arent' going to budge or offer a compelling dialogue on the matter.

2) Did O'Reilly give a fair interview?
I was impressed how civil it stayed. Maybe even a little disappointed But yes I think it was one of O'Reilly's more fair interviews. It sounds like there may have been some ground rules agreed to that may have aided Moore in avoiding O'Reilly from pulling his usual stunts.

Doc

O'Reilly. Moore's question of sacrifice was unintelligent, as previously stated, parents didn't sacrifice their children, their children signed up for themselves. This was the first time that I'd seen Moore speak on TV and I was surprised and dissapointed that he wasn't as smart as I thought he'd be. All Moore did was ask these questions designed to provoke an emotional reaction [i.e. the sacrifice question], but when you think about it calmly, you realize that the question is just fluff. O'Reilly made him look very bad, and O'Reilly isn't exactly a mental giant either, I like him, but he's no Jay Severin.

Yes, surprisingly. He didn't really try to roast Moore, just get Moore to answer questions, it was a decent job of interviewing, good job Bill .

CP

There is a word that sums all of that up....

Hooey

Come now nighttimer, why argue something that you likely know to be untrue?

Link to Post
Sure, O'Reilly's a conservative. But he's far from a knee-jerk reactionary. He is usually fair to liberals on his show.

Whether or not you consider the concepts of winning and losing applicable only to entertainment wrestling, most debates have a winner (the party that sustains the most logical argument) and a loser (the other guy: Moore).

What did you find unfair about this debate?

1) Who do you think had the upperhand in the debate/interview?

I'm with Jagwease on this one. For two of the most (ahem) colorful characters of punditry, this was a pretty "beige" interview. Little, if any substance...there was no "there" there.

As for the "send someone's child to war" business--it should be a well-thought out decision on the part of the commander in-chief to put anyone's child (i.e. military) into harm's way. I am still firm in my belief, as I'm sure Michael Moore is, that Bush's decision to put Americans into harm's way by declaring war on Iraq was ill-conceived, poorly thought out, and flat-out wrong. But in the long run, that'll be for the history books to decide.

2) Did O'Reilly give a fair interview?
O'Reilly wouldn't know fair if it jumped up and bit him on the posterior, but (from reading-I did not see the interview) at least he was far more civil than he's ever been. This was a case of two people talking AT each other.

Edited to add: oops, meant to mention I voted "Neither"

I'd have to disagree, I saw the interview last night and read it over again this morning. There were plenty of signs of interaction and recognition of the other's viewpoint (mostly from O'Reilly, Moore clung to his "Bush lied" drivel).

It wasn't the best debate I've seen, but juvenile it was not. Once again the "sacrifice your child" bit was simply unreasonable. As it stands now, a person can only decide for his- or herself whether to join the armed forces.

Moore didn't have a leg to stand, though he could have if he'd shown some flexibility.

Unless O'Riley volunteers service in Iraq, and thus risks his own life as claimed to secure the country, Moore won in the closing minutes.

The part about Bush lying or being mistaken is moot. Such a huge failing in a presidency -- is that forgiveable, lie or mistake? Meanwhile, it is impossible to prove that President Bush lied. Except that he did regarding African yellow cake. But that was just another incompetent thing, right?

And it begs the question for debate: How many incompetencies can we tolerate from an administration? That question was never addressed. I took points off on both sides for not wrestling with this nagging question.



This was not an interview. It was a confrontational digging at Moore. Moore got to dig back. He turned O'Riley's own claim to be willing to risk his own life for Iraq back on himself. Meanwhile, O'Riley came out weak with no acceptance of the challenge, thus showing that he really would not risk his life nor anyone elses for the benefit of Iraq.

Had I been the debate judge, it'd have been a slam dunk for Moore.

1) Who do you think had the upperhand in the debate/interview?

I voted neither, I don't think O'Reilly did a particularly good job, and Moore certainly wasn't on form.

O'Reilly's biggest points were the "lie" by President Bush and the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction discussion. O'Reilly's whole argument is specious at best and he brings up a lot of the same points that many of the people here on AD bring up when they are vigorously defending the Iraq war.

This quote pretty much sums up O'Reilly's reasoning on the lie:

He didn't lie, he was misinformed. That is a difference without a distinction. When we are talking about the President of the United States (Bush or anyone else) and the possibility of going to war (possibly one of the most serious decisions a president can make) I hold the President to a higher standard as far as being responsible for his actions. None of us can say for sure what went on during that decision process, maybe we'll never know. However I think that it is highly plausible that Bush wanted to go to war and when his intelligence organizations reported back to him he took them at face value without digging deeper because they told him what he wanted to hear. Another president might have dug a little deeper and thought things through a little more before committing us to a war based on what was later proven to be flimsy at best and non-existent at worst evidence.

So, O'Reilly can argue that he was "misinformed" and that he didn't "lie", but I don't see the difference when we are talking about the President. Too many people are regarding this part of the debate between Moore and O'Reilly as a "slam dunk", it isn't.

Additionally, he said "all those investigations" -- I guess he was talking about all the investigations except for the one that counted -- the one that Hans Blix was conducting.

As far as the WMD stuff goes, he went on spouting again many of the same things that people here state about WMD when they are trying to defend the Iraq war. I wouldn't say that O'Reilly or the people that hold that viewpoint here have come anywhere close to winning their case. As far as a recent summary of this debate, Vermillion's Post Here is very good.

2) Did O'Reilly give a fair interview?
Yes he did, and I don't watch FoxNews for anything other than entertainment value (and that rarely happens) so I wouldn't really know if he has a history of giving unfair interviews from first hand experience.

Not a chance.

During the interview, Moore himself volunteered it would be unreasonable to expect either Moore or O'Reilly to go to war because of their ages and other physical considerations. Therefore, the question of whether O'Reilly would go to war was a principle (as opposed to practical) issue.

O'Reilly said he would and explained why. Moore had no response.

At best a null issue. I say point for O'Reilly.

It would be moot if Moore would simply admit he had no way of knowing whether Bush lied. Moore instead clung to an (as you admit) unprovable point and did not exploit the incompetence issue (you admit that too).

O'Reilly takes that one as well.

I disagree. The difference is one of character if Bush was misinformed we have no reason not to trust him to tell the truth, as he knows it, on the issue.
Moore made an appeal to Bush's ethos, O'Reilly shut him down.
The Ref needs glasses!

That was major league brick...

But you don't know for a 100% certain fact that Bush was misinformed Turnea, that is just what you choose to believe. I personally think it was somewhere in the middle between an outright lie and being misinformed.

At any rate you are wrong, if you are making a decision as serious as whether the United States is going to go to war or not you had better make certain you have your facts straight and we are doing the right thing. This is especially true if we are launching a pre-emptive strike and we are not in immediate danger. I could possibly understand a knee-jerk reaction based on initial intelligence if we were directly attacked, but when we are talking about pre-emptive war the story is completely different.

If you owned stock in a corporation and the CEO made a decision which caused the stock to lose half its value and then blamed it on Joe from Accounting saying that his people "misinformed" him, would you be so quick to let him off the hook for losing half your money? I know that I sure wouldn't.

Leaders must be held accountable, the President moreso than any other kind of leader.

...and is this something you "just choose" to believe. Of course I can't know for certain whether Bush lied. I can only go with the preponderance of evidence which leads me to believe he was misinformed.

That is your subjective determination. It makes a difference to me whether a person knowingly lied or whether said person (even the president) was mislead. Character matters to me, and I will not hold a person responsible for what they could not have known.

I disagree with you here. First of all, even if we assume that Bush was misinformed, he should have acknowledged it long time ago. Either by resigning (some wishful thinking here ) or at least by admitting his own wrongdoing and APOLOGIZING to the nation for taking it to war for all the wrong reasons. However, when asked during the press conference if he has any doubts or mistakes regarding any actions he has taken, Bush had absolutely nothing to say.
I tend to believe that Bush was deliberately seeking out CIA reports that were implicating Iraq and dismissing reports which didn't support the story he wanted to believe (Richard Clarke's book as a reference to my assertion).

Ah! The subject of this thread. I voted "Moore won" because I really like how he pressed O'Reilly on what he would tell the family of the killed soldier that WMD was a hoax...

Interesting point, but to respond I'd say that is less an issue of honesty than the standard political positioning one gets from nearly all politicians.

You will note John Kerry didn't apologize for authorizing war either.

If Bush did so it would be a political disaster for him. His actions have not been frank but neither have they been dishonest.

I believe he merely assumed what the US thought for years (that Saddam had WMD) to be true as common sense.

You can decide whether this make him not worth voting for, but again it indicated no dishonesty.

..but that is simply a pointless emotional appeal. O'Reilly admits the war was a mistake. What intellectual point did Moore make?

O'Reilly does NOT admit that the war was wrong; on contrary, he continues to defend the war even after he admits that the WMD reason was wrong. He immedately invents another reason (removing a brutal dictator, freeing the Kurds, etc.) I want to hear one of them (O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.) admit that the war itself was wrong. Moore had a point because it's one thing to sacrifice 900 soldiers (plus countless Iraqis) to protect the country from WMD and totally another to remove one of world's dozens brutal dictators.

I voted O'Reilly based on what was asked... not what should of been. If we have questions we would of liked to seen asked, I would of wanted O'reilly to ask Moore if he felt that he acted responsibly in taking cameras and, out of nowhere, sitting next to soldiers and talking to them during a gun battle.

In any event....

O'Reilly to Moore

1. Will you apologize for calling Bush a liar?

Moore refuses claiming Bush still lied. Now regardless of what your personal feelings are about this, the 9-11 commission's report absloves Bush of lying. And when you have foreign intel agreeing with you, it's sort of hard not to believe it. So, since Moore ignored that...

Point: O'reilly

Moore to O'Reilly

2. Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead, what do you say to their parents?

O'Reilly offers condolences and says that they gave their live to remove a brutal dictator. Moore then (as if you didn't see that coming) ties that in with the "Bush lied, soldiers died" line and proceedes to bait O'Reilly into a few more questions regarding "...if I killed you child.." which was out of line. The most promenint one of this "I ask you one question, you ask me 10 irellevant, loaded questions" was the "Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the thirty other thirty brutal dictators." O'Reilly smartly plays this one and says he would not talk about that, but he would go himself. O'Reilly knows that the decision his child makes is his or her own.

Point: O'Reilly

*A close point seeing as how the 1-1 question template is now tossed out the window.

O'Reilly to Moore

3. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

Moore says he would sacrifice himself to go after the people who caused 9-11. Now, in this "boxing match", Moore has really good footwork. He sidesteps the question by saying this, and when O'Reilly points out it was the Taliban who harbored Al-Qaeda, Moore's respone is "...but we didn't go after them, did we?". Moore then goes on to explain how he would of been able to find and kill OBL. When asked -again- if he'doust the Tailban, Moore says no, saying that the Taliban was not a threat. Moore than asks if he would of removed Hitler, they have a nano-history debate which Moore loses, although he implies a good point about post WWI conditions providing a place for a Hitler to emerge (something I agree with Moore on?...dear God...someone get me a drill so I can bore out that part of my brain). But he did say he would 'pre-empt' Hitler, so...

Point: O'Reilly

Moore to O'Reilly

4. Are you for stopping this war?

O'Reilly responds with a no, giving his reason after Moore -again- asks him if he would sacrifice (gotta love the choice of words) his child in securing Fallujah. Moore gives good reasoning for staying in Iraq. O'Reilly then connects post-war Iraq with the war on terror. Moore disagrees. Looks stunned to find out that there are other terrorist groups than Al-Qaeda. They then debate Moore's 'defending' of Saddam and Moore goes on to say that the people of Iraq could of risen up and toppled Saddam. Another nano-history debate ensues and Michael Moore loses bad denying that we bankrupted the USSR during the Cold War.

Point: O'Reilly

Moore to O'Reilly (part 2)

5. How do you deliver democracy?

Moore then answers his own question with...another question. O'Reilly says that "you give the people some kind of self-determination..." also pointing out that Iraqis under Saddam had none. Moore then asks "Why didn't they (Iraqis) rise
up?" Moore seems stuuned that since other countries have done so in the past, Iraq couldn't of followed suit. At the closing, Moore -again- tries to bait O'Reilly into saying he'd sacrifice his child... Moore doesn't bite.

Point: O'Reilly

This judge's scorecard reads

O'Reilly: 5
Moore: 0

I thought the interview was fair and O'Reilly hadnled himself o.k.. As for Moore... the baiting of O'Reilly got on my nerves. He also did alot of dancing. Didn't look good. There were times when Moore was close to scoring, only because O'Reilly looked to let him, not because Moore was good.

Neither won. What a weak pathetic straight to DVD debate.
Moore " Oh the children, the poor children we sent to war'
What an insult and totally dishonest way of referring to our soldiers. Does Moore beleive them to be mental incompetents?
I thought Iraq was a bad idea but Never doubted the majority of soldiers who went were proud to go. They still are. Regardless of whether or not Saddam had WMDs they are all proud of the fact that they brought Saddam down. They are proud of the fact that whether Iraq becomes a democracy palatable to American sensibilities that they helped allow them an opportunity to decide for themselves.
Moores desperate clinging to the "But he actually lied" arguement ranks right up there with "It depends on the definition of,," that clinton offered.
Moore realizes his movie really loses its impact if Bush was simply misinformed.
Bush beleived the Intel, Kerry beleived the Intel, and Clinton beleived the Intel.
This is why im a cynical Bastage. Never trust what you cannot personally verify.
Wmd intel,God and the Warren commision.
As for the Oh So Brilliant Moore tactic of "Would you send your child"
Who the hell has the right to send anyone other than himself. Moore seems to be overlooking the sanctity of the indiviudal and their rights.
Upon being asked this question of deliberate over the top drama queen design OReilly's answer was the ONLY correct answer. He would go but he cannot speak for anyone else.

really Moore is kinda pathetic on his choices of argument.
If I accidentally killed your child would you hate me turned to just short of if i fed your child to rabid dogs when Oreilly failed to take the bait.
Pathetic

Oh hey Titus the requested drill has been shipped Fedex.

From the transcript"

I used O'Reilly's exact words, he admits it was a mistake meanwhile Moore's point remains an empty emotional appeal. OF COURSe O'Reilly wouldn't say "your kid died for nothing, sorry" he would give what condolences he could give. He himself admits it wouldn't be enough, but how this is a point for Moore is beyond me.

Meanwhile there are ten people who believe Moore won, having seen the interview I'd say that viewpoint is in desperate need on explanation.

turnea,



O'Reilly could go out to Iraq as a journalist. This is nearly as dangerous as going to war as a soldier right now. Principle unsupported by practical application is just blowing in the wind.

That's what Moore tried to demonstrate. He was clumsy at it (no intellectual giant here), granted. Bill Buckley would have done a lot better arguing either way.

I think Moore represents himself and his opinions through his movies. He has made it very clear that he thinks the American people are stupid and ignorant. He has been quoted saying this in public in foreign countries. He knows that if he is not publicly called on to substantiate the insinuations contained in his movie that many people will believe whatever they see in his 'crockumentary'. The majority of the people that believe him also hate President Bush and have a vested interest in believing him. I believe he knows exactly what he is doing......he is making money by putting together a completely biased film that the anti-Bush crowd will swallow 'hook, line and sinker'. The fact is that most folks that want to believe it will not go out and intelligently investigate the reality of it on their own. Most of them just 'feel' it is right. This is one of the biggest problems with our society and has been for quite a while. That is another topic though. I think O'Reilly was too easy on him but in the end O'Reilly had the better arguments.

That is myth actually, though most accept it as a fact. Minorities serve in higher numbers in the military than the percentage they make up in the general population. However, minorities are also a lot more likely to enlist in military occupational specialties that provide some sort of job training that they can carry over to civilian life. Because of that, whites make up a larger percentage in combat related specialties than their percentage of the general population.

While some may not make a distinction between soldier in Iraq that is a helicopter mechanic, and another soldier in Iraq that is a grunt, one "job" is a lot more dangerous than the other.

Military demographics



I voted neither as I had the same impression. I think it was a rather childish debate. Any two members of AD would probably have been a lot more interesting, with better points being raised on both sides.

I voted Moore, but I only watched the last bit of it. Moore's tactic of saying "Would you send your child to war?" seemed to be effective, with O'reilly stumbling around and claiming "I would send myself to war."

Of course, I think the question was unfair. No one is forced to go to war, they sign up. Parents don't send children, children send themselves. But as just a pure forceful tactic, it seemed to be effective.

From everything else I'm reading, it seemed that Moore lost the rest of the debate due to O'reillys superior knowledge. I can only claim that that end tactic was effective enough for me to hand it to Moore, in what I saw.

Perhaps...

Of course it would mean losing his job, seeing as I doubt FNC is going to give up the highest rated cable news show to have O'Reilly on location in Iraq.

This also ignores the fact O'Reilly is in fact an experienced war correspondent (El Salvador and the Falklands among other locations). He frequently relates a story about an incident in which he was very nearly killed.

Going to Iraq now would have nothing to do with his principled position to favor continued troop presence.


1. The transcript on the interview is available in the initial post.
2. Why even give credit for such a cheap emotional tactic from Moore?

I'll give it a look. I don't know if its the same as seeing them debate, though. As I explain below.

Because cheap emotional tactics work. When I am asked who won the debate, I reflect on personality, charisma, knowledge, and self-confidence. Being more informed is an advantage, not a victory.

Same goes for the 2000 debates. Al Gore was much more knowledgable than George Bush. However, Bush was able to win because, compared to Gore, he had greater personal magnetism (and he played the underdog position well).

That explains it then. When I think of who won a debate I try to decide who's argument stood up best to the scrutiny of the opposition. All points for charisma are secondary considerations at best.

Meanwhile...

How did you determine that? Where O'Reilly's point as weak as you determined Moore's to be?

I wasn't much of a debate I agree, but that would be because it seemed one-sided.

Turnea,



That would have been good to bring up. But it wasn't. O'Reilly missed an opportunity during the psuedo-debate-interview.

Moore missed one as well regarding the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. Only the President had access to all the classified information and the opinions of his military leaders. Only the President had responsibility for the decision to invade. It was a wrong decision. Horribly wrong. Deadly wrong. Fiscally wrong.

Putting myself in Moore's place, I'd likely have said that okay, President Bush isn't a liar.

He's a dangerously incompetent President. I believe that is worse.

Ah well, I'm not Moore. He really does stink as a debater, but then O'Reilly isn't much better. Stick to docudramas, Mike.

I don't think this thread is about me Turnea, but seeing how you dredged up my past remarks on Mr. O' Reilly, I guess I'll have to respond.

You left out the next line in my quote about Mr. Bill: But he's waaaaaay too thin-skinned.

Yeah, I do like the fact that O'Reilly reinvented himself and breathed new life into a dead career. I have seen him put Republicans and conservatives on the hot seat. But don't tell me that he doesn't have a conservative bias because its just not so.

I never called O'Reilly a knee-jerk reactionary. "Usually fair" to liberals? What about the other times? His sneering little jab at Howard Dean for refusing to do his show was really petty. If Dean doesn't want to talk with him why doesn't he just accept it instead of saying, "The Democrats did themselves a favor by not picking this guy." (I'm paraphrasing)

O'Reilly makes it seem that Dean, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson are ducking him by refusing to do his show. Maybe he should just accept they dont' WANT to and don't HAVE to do his show and stop whining about it so much

I stand on what I said about the low quality of the "debate" between O'Reilly and Moore. He went into a commercial break talking about "the heavyweight showdown" between them. We've come a long way from the days when William Buckley and Gore Vidal debated policy during a political convention (and began to insult each other).

There was no substantial discussion of the issues last night. It was a whizzing contest between two guys whose best-selling books compete with each other, and each have a vast group of admirers among their ideological base.

O'Reilly is the top gun on cable with the most watched show and Moore directed the first documentary to make over $100 million bucks. Neither one of those guys looks like much of a "loser" to me. Both Moore and O'Reilly are convinced of their own importance and significance.

I don't believe I said the interview/debate was "unfair" Turnea. I just didn't find it particularly interesting or compelling television.

You should also note that it doesn't matter, John Kerry was not the President of the United States and therefore is not the person ultimately responsible for the war. It is also a completely irrelevant straw man argument to introduce into this debate.



The main problem with your argument Turnea is that you do not seem to hold the president ultimately responsible for the actions of his administration and subordinates. This is a flawed point of view and runs counter to the very concept of leadership and the concept that the President is the commander-in-chief of the country. As a leader you are responsible for the actions of the people under you. They teach you this in the military and they teach it to you in virtually every leadership book ever written -- but actually taking responsibility for the actions of your subordinates is probably one of the hardest things for people to do, it runs counter to human nature or at the very least American culture (other cultures readily accept blame - e.g. the Japanese). If you care to argue that I'd suggest you head over to Amazon.com and order a few books on leadership then we can talk.

So far you have basically stated that you are willing to give the president a pass on Iraq because he was "misinformed". It isn't a question of what he didn't know, it is a question of taking the time to do some due diligence and find out if the "information" was indeed accurate. The manner in which the President rushed us to war when there was absolutely no imminent threat, suggests that he took the information at face value and then made his decision.

The CIA should definitely be looked into for getting it wrong, and Tenet deserved to lose his job. But the president should not be spared any blame whatsoever for not taking some time to think -- we are about to commit our soldiers to a war in Iraq, do we have a strong case here, and is it worth it? The results and aftermath of the war prove that he didn't take the time to do that. Because if he would have waited for Blix's report to come in he would have found that there was no WMD in Iraq and they were not a threat and the option of war would have been removed. He wouldn't have even had authority under UN resolutions to go in. It seems pretty clear to me that he didn't want that to happen because then he couldn't remove Saddam (and he has his reasons but it was nothing so noble as helping the Iraqi people) so he jumped the gun and charged in chanting show us your WMD Saddam, wink wink.

I am looking at the big picture and saying he lied, you are looking at a small subsection of it and saying he was misinformed. If you look only at the CIA reports, sure you could make a case that he was misinformed. But if you look at the events that were happening at the time, analyze the situation and the possible outcomes if various things had happened it starts to become pretty clear that misinformed or not, he acted on the information without a second thought because it suited his objectives. Does that amount to lying? I think it does, but I suppose you'll just say it is subjective.

I didn't think it was relevant to the point I was trying to get across. Namely, that when you said O'Reilly's "spin" can be summed up "Conservatives Good, Liberals Bad" you seem to ignore the fact that he criticizes conservatives as well.

I agree entirely, O'Reilly host an opinion program, his opinions are largely conservative. That said he can still reach beyond ideological dogma to have an intelligent debate, as I believe was done in this case.

Well is was only about 15 minutes, but I think some important issues were touched upon.

I also think that such confrontational styles of interviewing revels a lot about the way each participant forms his/her views. Moore seems to ignore the facts and go with emotional appeal. His part in this debate made me respect him less. (Before I had no opinion of him at all really, I haven't seen his films, plan to though...)

Ahh, OK, can't pass this one up:

[/QUOTE]O'Reilly makes it seem that Dean, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson are ducking him by refusing to do his show. Maybe he should just accept they dont' WANT to and don't HAVE to do his show and stop whining about it so much[QUOTE]


Hmmm. And this would be different from Bush not wanting to speak to the NAACP, and its leader's reactions, in some way I'm missing? Not that I'm disagreeing with your point, NT--just trying to make sure it is equally applied.

As to the debate itself, I voted neither. I would agree with NT as to the ridiculousness of the buildup. "Full of Sound and Fury, signifying neither", would have been a more appropriate lead-in. Kudos to O'Reilly for agreeing to Moore's conditions, and kudos to Moore for showing up. I don't think either particularly distinguished themselves from a debate standpoint. I would have to say that both were more subdued than I would have expected. As NT points out, I don't think the level of the debate had much danger of raising its viewer's IQ's significantly. I think Moore's tactic of asking whether O'Reilly would sacrifice his child was effective primarily because O'Reilly didn't do much to successfully counter it. This neutralized the other points which I think O'Reilly did well on. But I'm quite sure neither said or did anything that would sway anyone's opinion on the issue. If that's the case, then neither side won anything at all.

There's a bit of a difference between a sitting POTUS declining an invitation from the nation's oldest and most effective civil rights group and a partisan talking head decrying the fact that private individuals won't do his show.

I get your drift, Hobbes. I ain't drinking the Kool-Aid, though.

Important issues, Turnea? Like who would have gotten rid of Hitler first? Oh yeah, that's REALLY controversial.

Nighttimer, I believe the Hitler bit was to find out where Moore stood on preempting a threat that was not immeadiate to the US, as Hitler was in the 1930's.

1) Who won?

I think neither but O'Reilly did a terrible job for someone who specializes in putting people in "the hot seat." My main problem is that Bill pondered the question of "would you send your kids?" too long and dodged two important statements that Moore made. A) No rebutle on going after Bin Laden two months earlier & B ) he didn't fully develop a solid answer on how to deliver Democracy to a country. Also, Moore should have brought up the uprising after the first Gulf war when making his point about Democracy.

Overall it was a decent exchange but they should have went for an hour and just played it back for the whole show. 15 minutes was too short.

2) Fair?

Yeah because it wasn't an interview but an exchange but I am really disappointed in O'Reilly for letting Moore take control of the debate.

I thought it was a very fair interview and I though that Moore came across as the liar that he is. O’Reilly gave him a break by letting Moore get him to say the WMDs were not in Iraq. Actually there is still a great deal of evidence that Iraq DID have WMD. The fact that we had poor intelligence prevented us from finding them (or catching them as they left the country).

Overall O’Reilly was IMO far to nice to this moron.

Overall, I think this could have been a more exciting debate, and I find it a little lacking. As others have already pointed out, OReilly ignores the movie while asking Moore a question that the movie has dealt with. So he should already know Moore's response, and he could have brought up the "distortions".

I think that OReilly didnt really do anything except dismiss things Moore had to say. As cited below:


Bush did assert that theres a link between Saddam and 9/11, but OReilly doesnt even want to talk about it. I also think Moore brought up a good point about how we didnt do anything about Bin Laden, or the Taliban while OReilly goes on living in his little fantasy that everything is fabulous in Afghanistan (All those women are finally free!). The thing that made me cringe the most was Moore's first question, he could have asked something a little more intelligent...

O'Reilly made a valiant effort of saying that he would go to defend Fallujah, but that wasn't the question. At least he didn't say he was willing to send his child when he clearly is not, and that's the whole point, isn't it?

So--can a person who is avowedly for the Iraq War on the basis of whatever (removing Saddam, getting rid of WMDs, liberating the Iraqis) legitimately say "not my kid" when that kid is expected to go and serve his country? O'Reilly evidently does not think so, or he would have answered the question.

I think Moore had the upper hand.

No person, no politician, would ever in their right mind say blatantly that they are willing to send their kid or someone else's kid off to war. It doesn't work that way and it is a trap O'Reilly was smart not to fall into. The parents aren't sending the troops over there...the entire country is. So that entire question is baseless.

As many people pointed out...our troops are not "kids". They signed on the dotted line and most of them are proud to serve their country. To pass them off as ignorant and helpless is ridiculous. Also as someone pointed out earlier, our president cannot base executive decisions based on these arguments of "emotion." He does not have that luxury. What has to be done has to be done.

Some people saw that question as a score for Moore, when it really isn't. O'Reilyl telling Moore he would sacrifice himself is the only correct answer that could have been given.

Furthermore, O'Reilly really made Moore look like a fool on the whole Hitler issue and pre-emption. Moore said that we should have stopped Hitler and not let him come to power. I do not understand his logic. Of course it is easy in hindsight knowing that Hitler killed millions of people in death camps. But Saddam killed hundreds of thousands...i guess Moore believes in different degrees of genocide.

I want to make one point slightly off-topic because it has bothered me a little bit. I have heard people say that life in Iraq before the war wasn't as bad as people make it out to be and that nobody complained about Saddam and his 'secret police.' Well you know what... Saddam murdered everyone who complained. You wouldn't have heard anyone say anything after the fact because they were not around to talk about it. Its easy to sit back in this democracy that we have and say whatever we want. We can commend...we can criticize...we can complain. Its also easy to be hypocrites. We are all hyprocritical...sometimes we just choose which forms of hypocrisy are acceptable. We have people saying that we should have left Iraq alone because they were not a threat to us. Well, my response to that is that Saddam was a threat to civilization....and now he is gone. We are making an effort to give something, an ideal, something that could down in history as one of the greatest success stories ever. I am proud that our President did the right thing and stopped this brutal dictator. In this cynical world where vices and evil are championed it is good to see that some form of decency can break through. In fact, toppling Saddam and giving the nation of Iraq self-determination may be one of the most decent things this country has ever been a part of....and thats straight from the heart.

I disagree, PE. There is a big difference between supporting the decision that one's son or daughter makes to join the military, knowing they could end up in harm's way, and being "willing to sacrifice" that son or daughter. I know many parents who are proud of the military service of their sons and daughters, and who support the war effort in Iraq, but none of them would be willing to "sacrifice" their children. That's an unfair question.

I ran a quick check on the number of traffic fatalities in Los Angeles County and the latest statistics I could find were for 2001. In 2001, 768 people were killed as a result of traffic fatalities in Los Angeles County and 91,443 were listed as "injured". Yet, when my son wants to go out with his friends, I let him. Even knowing the risk involved. Am I willing to "sacrifice" him? Hardly. I tell him to stay safe, be careful and pray to God he comes home ok. It's the same thing I've told to some of his friends who are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, and no, I'm not willing to "sacrifice" them either. But, I do support what we are doing there as a country.

Edited to add.....

And yes, if they'd let me, darn right I'd go there in their place and you wouldn't have to put up with me here for awhile. But to paraphrase our governor...

I'd be baaackkkk....

Well now - reading the transcripts of this "debate" I'd say that if either Moore or O'Reilly tried to apply these same standards of work on threads here at AD, most of us regular posters would have them for breakfast.

Of course, it's somewhat harder to debate effectively in real time, since there is less thinking room, but even so, I'd say this is not really a barrier to most people here.

Now I've finished smarming...

1. The debate was poor quality, conducted by two men who both have entrenched opinions and both seem to have more than average difficulty seeing the other side of their argument. They also both have gifts for entrenching opinions of their audience - neither seems to have much talent for turning around their opposition, or for helping the undecided to make a decision. (Actually, Moore seems to have at least realised this weakness in himself and tried to tone himself down a little in Fahrenheit 9-11 with mixed results. I don't know enough about O'Reilly's recent output to comment on it.)

There was plenty of evidence of thesis and antithesis, but no synthesis at all. This is fine on what is essentially TV entertainment, but let's all be grateful neither of these guys hold elected office anywhere.

From what I've seen, it was more of a urination competition than a debate, and while they are often fun to watch or take part in, they aren't especially edifying for spectators.

2. I think it was fair, in very broad terms - certainly compared to what it could have been. I don't think it was a very good interview, but it was a reasonably fair interview.

O'Reilly said later that one of Moore's terms for appearing was that he was not to discuss the movie, and instead make it a "policy" debate.

No...

Bush asserted a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, so Bill was correct in his rebuttal.

I failing to see how Moore scored a single rational point throughout the whole debate.

It wasn't much of a battle of the wits, both sides thinking was rather muddled and derivative, but O'Reilly came out on top for sure.

CJ


I think this is the heart of a big issue when understanding Michael Moore's commentary that Bush Lied. In fact Bush did lie, but it is almost impossible to prove someone lied by some people's definition. If lie means did someone purposefully mislead, that is easier to prove than did some one say something contrary to what they actually believed. How would I know what was in someone's head to prove or disprove the second definition? The question is whether there was a deliberate intention to mislead the public by the administration with Bush as the leader of this group of people doing it. Now, Moore made a comment that a lot of people deem preposterous, but actually makes sense to me.



The point Moore is getting to is that you can not claim to be misinformed if you don't look at proof contrary to your assertion. Bill is saying Mr. Bush didn't lie, He was misinformed, but does that mean he wasn't informed of the people saying that Iraq wasn't a threat, that if they had WMD, it was minimal threat, that there was know significant alliance between Al-queada and Saddam. And if he had all this information then why didn't he give this to the public as well in his speeches.

I thought Bill ducked alot of questions... I think Moore did as well. They both asked irrelevant questions. What would you do to Hitler. Would you sacrifice your child. Moore question she be reworded to ask would you encourage your child to join the military as a grunt. I think Aquilla pointed out effectively that posed with the question, "Would you sacrifice your child....." whatever comes next the answer is still going to be "No".

In the end, I voted neither, I can really see the points that people are saying Oreilly won. And the issue that made Orielly stumble, was to me, irrelevant.
They needed a moderator, they needed moe time to listen and digest what the other was saying, the debate sucked, I'm glad I didn't see it only read it.