Michael Moore Vs Bill O'Riely

[Girl Toes]

A transcript of a televised conversation between two of my favorite people:

http://drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm

[TrumpsHair]

I saw the interview, it was hilarious. No matter what O'Reilly says about 'who' had information about WMD's, and whether or not is was a 'lie', or a 'mistake', O'Reilly still can't accept that WE'RE THE ONES who invaded Iraq. Notice he wouldn't agree to sending his own kid in to secure Fallujah.

[theBlubberRanch]

anyone know if the video is on the internet? love to see it

[jakeao]

Why the hell can't Bush supporters just abmit they were wrong about Iraq. Anyone can deny the truth, it takes a big man to say he made a mistake.

[monkeyboy]

Alright, I'm not a supporter of Bush...Moore, O'Reilly or anybody for that matter.

But saying, "Would you send you child to die in Fallujah?"
Is idiotic at best.

The people who fight our wars are adults/young adults who had the choice whether to join or not join the armed forces.

No parent gets to say, "I would or would not send my child to die in XXXXX."
It's not there choice.
No parent is going to say that, regardless. It's there kid. The whole statement was a cop out and a sympathy plea.

Nobody has to go, if you don't want to join the army - it's voluntary. You don't have too.

Sorry, that just bothered me about the whole interview.

[jp76]

Alright, I'm not a supporter of Bush...Moore, O'Reilly or anybody for that matter.

But saying, "Would you send you child to die in Fallujah?"
Is idiotic at best.

The people who fight our wars are adults/young adults who had the choice whether to join or not join the armed forces.

No parent gets to say, "I would or would not send my child to die in XXXXX."
It's not there choice.
No parent is going to say that, regardless. It's there kid. The whole statement was a cop out and a sympathy plea.

Nobody has to go, if you don't want to join the army - it's voluntary. You don't have too.

Sorry, that just bothered me about the whole interview.

The choice to join the armed forces sure looks a lot more enticing to someone who doesn't have any money and can get a lot of scholarships for college if he joins.

[bedbug]

The people who fight our wars are adults/young adults who had the choice whether to join or not join the armed forces.

But that's not the point. Many people who "chose" to go to war did so because of the promise of WMDs. Where the flip are they?

Why the hell can't Bush supporters just abmit they were wrong about Iraq. Anyone can deny the truth, it takes a big man to say he made a mistake.

Straight up!

That's all the republicans got on Kerry. Oh my God, he changed his vote on Iraq! Well ... anyone would've. We were duped on the WMDs. What the flip are we still doing over there?

[kcrusher]

O'Reilly was basing his premise on faulty information. Both UK and Russian intelligence did not specifically ever state that Iraq had WMD's. They indicated that there was a possibility or likelihood, but never that they had them. Not to mention Bush used information that was specious at best. Tenet told Bush what he wanted to hear because of the pressure he was put under to provide information to support the premise for war in Iraq.

Other than that, the 'interview' was a complete waste of time. Totally unworthy of even a mention as nothing was said or done that had any relevance.

[monkeyboy]

I agree, it is a lot more enticing.

Umm...shouldn't it be? I mean what? You want them to discourage people
from joining the armed forces? Perhaps we could flog anybody who does
it. That would keep people out of the armed forces.

I didn't have money for education past high school. Sure joining
the armed forces would have been nice. But! I don't want to kill, or take
the chance of being killed. So I didn't join, I pursued scholarships
got a job and worked my way through my further education.

I understance someone being a conscientious objector or outright pacifist.
There are plenty of other options for someone with little money to pursue education. Perhaps not the best options, but they do exist.

The truth is if you were "enticed" into joining the armed forces for the benefits, and didn't understand why those benefits are afforded you. I think that is called an irresponsible decision - On your part. If you join the armed forces, it's kind of understood fighting and possibly dieing could be in your future. People who join the armed forces in the US are not forced or coerced. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enticing people to fight for a country and offering them something in return.

[jp76]

I agree, it is a lot more enticing.

Umm...shouldn't it be? I mean what? You want them to discourage people
from joining the armed forces? Perhaps we could flog anybody who does
it. That would keep people out of the armed forces.

I didn't have money for education past high school. Sure joining
the armed forces would have been nice. But! I don't want to kill, or take
the chance of being killed. So I didn't join, I pursued scholarships
got a job and worked my way through my further education.

I understance someone being a conscientious objector or outright pacifist.
There are plenty of other options for someone with little money to pursue education. Perhaps not the best options, but they do exist.

The truth is if you were "enticed" into joining the armed forces for the benefits, and didn't understand why those benefits are afforded you. I think that is called an irresponsible decision - On your part. If you join the armed forces, it's kind of understood fighting and possibly dieing could be in your future. People who join the armed forces in the US are not forced or coerced. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enticing people to fight for a country and offering them something in return.

I don't think anybody who joins the armed forces doesn't realize the potential consequences. But, if you're poor, those consequences are something you might just have to swallow, if you want the education you can get from the army. People who have money don't have to even consider those consequences. I think it's overly simplistic to say that all of our choices are made on an equal footing and that the facts of our lives don't have a lot to do with them. The fact is, the majority of people who go to war and die have always been poor people, which is f'd in the a'hole.

[monkeyboy]

The people who fight our wars are adults/young adults who had the choice whether to join or not join the armed forces.

But that's not the point. Many people who "chose" to go to war did so because of the promise of WMDs. Where the flip are they?

Er...that has nothing to do with my comment. If you join the armed forces
you go when the government calls.

For any reason, right, wrong, doesn't matter. Yeah, maybe it's not right.
You didn't see me joining.

The truth is, there is no point to your reply. It doesn't matter why they went. They volunteered and they were called upon to do the job they volunteered for.

Now in the context of this interview, yeah...that was Michael Moore's point.
I'm not talking about that, though.

[monkeyboy]

I don't think anybody who joins the armed forces doesn't realize the potential consequences. But, if you're poor, those consequences are something you might just have to swallow, if you want the education you can get from the army. People who have money don't have to even consider those consequences. I think it's overly simplistic to say that all of our choices are made on an equal footing and that the facts of our lives don't have a lot to do with them. The fact is, the majority of people who go to war and die have always been poor people, which is f'd in the a'hole.

I never simplified things. Sure there are a myriad of reasons people
do anything. They have their reasons, and then the choices have
consequences. Nobody, in this country, has only one choice. I'm not saying
that the other choices presented to them were preferable. But! They did not have just one choice, regardless.

Yeah, it's messed up. Poor people fight the wars. Being Poor is hard, realizing a different financial situation is tough. That's the way it is.
So what's your solution? Don't fight wars? Do away with the armed services?
Make rich people fight war? Don't let poor people fight? Reduce our standing army?

[Mark67]

First, Michael Moore dominated O'Reilley. You got to love it. That doesn't happen often.

Second, we need to remember a key thing about this war. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were saying the exact same things Bush was saying on Iraq. Our Congress overwhelmingly voted for this. They lost their chance to mount an opposition or to at least say "Slow it down, let's get the rest of the world on board here."

The WMDs were oversold by Bush, but they were not the only reason. Certainly it's somewhat disingenuous and not at all satisfactory to say "We removed a tyrant," but it is also factual.

I am voting Kerry because I would like to see our foreign policy at least become more consistent and I would like to see other countries in the world share the burden of attempting to stabilize Iraq. The way things are going under Bush will have increasingly detrimental effects on our country's resources--and I mean blood and treasure.

[jp76]

So what's your solution? Don't fight wars? Do away with the armed services?
Make rich people fight war? Don't let poor people fight? Reduce our standing army?[/quote]

Yes, yes to the first two. Rich people start most of the wars in the first place, might as well let them fight them - reducing our standing army sounds like a great idea.

[monkeyboy]

Run for office then.