micheal moore vs bill orielly

[Shuzer]

Curse you for trying to bring order to this topic, blah! I agree, though. I was going to make an awful analogy, but I decided not to.

 

[Sai]

totally off topic, but when i was watching kerry's speech, after he was done talking they cued the music and then for some reason they put the voice of the director of the convention on the air, and he kept saying;
"Go balloons, Go balloons"
then some confety falls
"Hold the confety, go balloons!!"
and then more confeti falls
"Go ballons, Go balloons!!!
may be about 20 out of an apparent 300 fall
"What the **** are you guys doing, GO BALLOONS"
yea he started cussing live on cnn, it was pretty funny b/c you could tell the guy was really really aggravated and all the while your seeing kerry and his family smiling and stuff, when he's yelling his lung's out, that was probably the most entertaining part of the whole convention :|

 

[CyberSh33p]

All of you are still missing the point. We have the 9/11 report excusing Bush from any blame. We also have evidence (from 3 different sources) that Bush thought Iraq had WMD, and he was told those sources were accurate. Does that excuse Bush from his choices? No, but Moore needs to stop calling Bush a liar on this subject.

he did lie though. telling something that turns out false is indeed a lie, whether you knew it or not.

and we still have the question of why iraq? north korea is far more dangerous

 

[blahblahblah]

he did lie though. telling something that turns out false is indeed a lie, whether you knew it or not.

and we still have the question of why iraq? north korea is far more dangerous

When is making a mistake a lie? According to me, a lie is telling somebody something false, when you really know the truth. A mistake is telling somebody something is true then learning it is false.

 

[Korgoth]

I could see it now..if bush didnt send soldiers to Iraq and take Saddam out of power and the US had a major terrorist attack I can see all the Liberals crying and bi*ching bush didnt do anything about Saddam.

You still think saddam had something to do with 9/11? Saddam never attacked America, sure he was an evil dictator, sure he killed his own people, sure he has totured etc. etc. but thats not why we are there, thats not why we were told we were going there, and if your going to take out ever evil dictator on this planet you're going to have a hell of a lot more wars to fight. Point is, we were lied to, thats what moore is saying in the interview, thats what i've been saying for months on this message board. Saddam and al qaeda are two different entities, believe it or not, you've been decieved, and regardless if the out come is roses, i don't appreciate being lied to and being put in harms way, the deaths of innocents and military all for a fruitless lie. Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11, even though his intellegence told him of an attack on the horizon, read richard clarkes book (richard clarke was "the" terrorism afficionado for the bush admin. and he couldn't even get 1 single meeting with the president prior to 9/11)

 

[Sai]

you shouldn't state something of that magnitude that you didn't know was really true or false, either way you look at it he shouldn't have stated what he stated.

 

[what!?]

According to Dictionary.com the first definition of 'lie' is a Norwegian politician and first secretary-general of the United Nations (1946-1953). I am assuming that is not what Moore is accusing Bush of being, so the second definition of 'lie' is: To be or place oneself at rest in a flat, horizontal, or recumbent position; recline: He lay under a tree to sleep.

@#!$#%#@$ Lets scroll down the list shall we.


Actually the definition of 'lie' is: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. (emphasis mine)

Another definition of 'lie' is: To present false information with the intention of deceiving. (again emphasis mine)


So cut and dried:

Bush did not lie!!!!!!!

 

[CyberSh33p]

When is making a mistake a lie? According to me, a lie is telling somebody something false, when you really know the truth. A mistake is telling somebody something is true then learning it is false.

last time I checked a lie was something false, period.
and making a 'mistake' in this way is not in any way shape or form even nearly excuseable.

I think that load of crap o'reilly said about him not holding someone who ran over his child morally responsible was just that, a load of crap.

 

[gh0st]

According to Dictionary.com the first definition of 'lie' is a Norwegian politician and first secretary-general of the United Nations (1946-1953). I am assuming that is not what Moore is accusing Bush of being, so the second definition of 'lie' is: To be or place oneself at rest in a flat, horizontal, or recumbent position; recline: He lay under a tree to sleep.

@#!$#%#@$ Lets scroll down the list shall we.


Actually the definition of 'lie' is: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. (emphasis mine)

Another definition of 'lie' is: To present false information with the intention of deceiving. (again emphasis mine)


So cut and dried:

Bush did not lie!!!!!!!

well done, for some reason i had never thought of going to dictionary.com heh

 

[CyberSh33p]

nevertheless, such a mistake is inexcuseable. going to war is a pretty big thing to be wrong about.

Not to mention for any conspiracy theorists out there, bush could have known all along

 

[gh0st]

nevertheless, such a mistake is inexcuseable. going to war is a pretty big thing to be wrong about.

Not to mention for any conspiracy theorists out there, bush could have known all along

no mistake is inexcusable unless its such a VERY obvious mistake. bush did his job based upon everything out on the table. i think anyone would have too. (did someone say steak?).

 

[Yakuza]

you guys are splitting some insignificant hairs here ...he meant children as in "offspring" ...that was painfully obvious

Not realy cause he used the anology of hitting his kid in the street. And if it was a mastake how would it make him feel.

 

[Adidajs]

Bush didn't lie, he was misinformed. we still did a good thing in iraq for the wrong initial reason - we removed a dictator, who DID sponsor terrorism, just maybe not Al-Qaeda, but we haven't found WMD's. The Bush Administration HAS admitted to not finding WMD. When 3 intelligence sources tell you something, odds are you're going to believe them.

Moore's pathetic. He couldn't admit that a mistake is not a lie and he kept asking O'Reilly if he'd sacrifice his children. I'm sorry, but almost no father will willingly sacrifice their own child. They'd go first. So i saw abso-f*cking-lutely no reason how O'Reilly was wrong about not admitting to wanting to sacrifice his own child.

 

[CyberSh33p]

no mistake is inexcusable unless its such a VERY obvious mistake. bush did his job based upon everything out on the table. i think anyone would have too. (did someone say steak?).

dude. he went to war.
bunch of our guys died, remember that?

no WMDs, many didn't think they were there in the first place? North Korea over there is a known threat, we decide to take iraq cause they're easier?

Where were you last year?

 

[kidrock450]

You still think saddam had something to do with 9/11? Saddam never attacked America, sure he was an evil dictator, sure he killed his own people, sure he has totured etc. etc. but thats not why we are there, thats not why we were told we were going there, and if your going to take out ever evil dictator on this planet you're going to have a hell of a lot more wars to fight. Point is, we were lied to, thats what moore is saying in the interview, thats what i've been saying for months on this message board. Saddam and al qaeda are two different entities, believe it or not, you've been decieved, and regardless if the out come is roses, i don't appreciate being lied to and being put in harms way, the deaths of innocents and military all for a fruitless lie. Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11, even though his intellegence told him of an attack on the horizon, read richard clarkes book (richard clarke was "the" terrorism afficionado for the bush admin. and he couldn't even get 1 single meeting with the president prior to 9/11)

So saddam didnt have something to do with 9/11...He could have supported another terrorist attack if he wasnt takin out of power

 

[gh0st]

we decide to take iraq cause they're easier?

no we decide to "take" iraq because there was a genuine threat that the CIA, the KGB, and MI6 all outlined to president bush. as o'reilly said when tenet says its "bulletproof" or whatever, its time for the president to move into action, because he is legally required to do so. THAT is why we "took" iraq. argh why arent people understanding this :flame:

 

[CyberSh33p]

no we decide to "take" iraq because there was a genuine threat that the CIA, the KGB, and MI6 all outlined to president bush. as o'reilly said when tenet says its "bulletproof" or whatever, its time for the president to move into action, because he is legally required to do so. THAT is why we "took" iraq. argh why arent people understanding this :flame:

because we didn't have support from the UN, north korea was an obvious threat, no dispute about it.

course our companies got the oil and reconstruction contracts so no worries, right?

 

[Javert]

Michael wins, but I'll allow Repub's to call it a "stalemate".

Misinformed eh? You're telling me the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES...was misinformed? Trillions of dollars in intelligence and defense; the largest intelligence bureaucracy in the world; Hundreds of historians and experts with decades of experience; and George W. Bush was merely misinformed. He took the word of Mi6 and former KGB above his own intelligence??
And then when he found out his mistake, what did he do? Absolutely Nothing. And he can't pull out now and apologize and everything. That my friends, is a quagmire.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So saddam didnt have something to do with 9/11...He could have supported another terrorist attack if he wasnt takin out of power

Paul Martin could have supported another terrorist attack "if he wasnt takin out of power" too, but the US still hasn't invaded us yet.

What makes Saddam more terroristy that any other dictator?


This post is in commemoration of the HUGE post I wrote that was accidentally erased in a login mishap.

 

[kidrock450]

Paul Martin could have supported another terrorist attack "if he wasnt takin out of power" too, but the US still hasn't invaded us yet.

What makes Saddam more terroristy that any other dictator?


This post is in commemoration of the HUGE post I wrote that was accidentally erased in a login mishap.

does paul martin have a repuatation like Saddam? no

 

[Mechagodzilla]

no we decide to "take" iraq because there was a genuine threat that the CIA, the KGB, and MI6 all outlined to president bush. as o'reilly said when tenet says its "bulletproof" or whatever, its time for the president to move into action, because he is legally required to do so. THAT is why we "took" iraq. argh why arent people understanding this :flame:

-The US, Britain and Russia nations say Iraq could have big weapons.
-Many more nations say that it's too uncertain.
-Bush sends in weapons inspectors to make sure. They find NO big weapons.
So:
-Bush calls on the nations of the world to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.
-Britain and a few others join up.
-All the other countries don't.
And:
-The largest nation in the world invades one of the smaller ones. Evidence of big weapons: mostly against. Many people die, mostly on the side of the small country.
-Bush declares that he has liberated the peoples of Iraq.
But:
-Many Iraqis don't like being liberated against their will. Especially with casualties.
-Rebellion against the invading force is widespread and violent. Many more die, mostly on the Iraqi side.
-No big weapons are found yet.
So:
-People wonder where the big weapons are.
-The senate investigates, and they shortly discover that there never were any big weapons at all. They regret not looking into this matter in the first place, before the war started. Oops.
But:
-George Bush is still glad he invaded Iraq because Saddam was bad. "America is safer and stronger now," says Bush.

So:
-Bush could have listened to the UN, and he could have listened to the weapons inspectors who found nothing, and he could have listened to most of the countries on Earth.
But:
-He instead listened to Britain and invaded a small country with no means to harm him, killed many of its people, and then made them become US allies.
-This was because Iraq could have attacked America, even though Iraq never stated any intention or made any action that would imply that they were planning to do so.

In Conclusion:
Billy punches Al in the face. Why? Because Dan said that Al was looking at Billy's girlfriend.

While Al is still in the coma, it turns out that Dan was completely wrong.
Billy doesn't feel bad though, since Al wasn't really a nice guy anyways.
Al might even have stolen Billy's girl eventually anyways! They could even have married each other!
It's a good thing Billy punched him out.

In a fair world, Billy would be charged with aggravated assault.
His plan was "bulletproof".

 

[Tr0n]

I R Bushz0rz!!!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

does paul martin have a repuatation like Saddam? no

Okay then, I can play this game.

Russia has a history of conflict with the US (30 years ago). They have nukes. Russia invaded? No.

Korea has a history of conflict with the US (50 years ago). They are trying to get nukes. Korea invaded? No.

Iraq has a history of conflict with the US (10 years ago). They were suspected of having nukes. Iraq invaded? Yep!

So, what makes Iraq special? None of those three declared any animosity towards America. But, Iraq was singled out. Why? Who knows?

Why does one nation that 'might' have nukes get invaded, when many more that definitely have nukes are left safe?

 

[Yuri]

Why does one nation that 'might' have nukes get invaded, when many more that definitely have nukes are left safe?

Because Bush is going after the little guy first, I guess. It would be much quicker and simpler to invade Iraq. Does that give us good reason? I don't know, I wasn't there first-hand.

That was an interesting debate, by the way, although O'Reilly is too arrogant to debate... he ends up just mocking Moore... but I completely disagreed and was a bit pissed when Moore said that the Iraqis should have uprisen. Because, really, they couldn't in any way.

Just an opinion.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

... but I completely disagreed and was a bit pissed when Moore said that the Iraqis should have uprisen. Because, really, they couldn't in any way.

Just an opinion.

Well, they seem to be uprising well enough now that Saddam is gone.

Moore was just stating his opinion that the US's current justification for the war (liberation) isn't a good enough reason.

As he pointed out, the US has stood by and let other dictators be overthrown by their own people. At the risk of sounding repetitive: Why new treatment for Iraq all of a sudden?

I don't think Moore was objecting to the removal of a cruel tyrant.
He was just stating that it is not consistent with US history as a standalone justification for war.

 

[Moto]

Parents don't sacrifice their children. The "Children" sacrifice themselves. By the time they are allowed into the military in the U.S., they are adults and can finally make their own decisions. So parents have nothing to do with it. Kind of a dumb argument if I say so myself (the sacrificing of children and such).

 

[kidrock450]

Okay then, I can play this game.

Russia has a history of conflict with the US (30 years ago). They have nukes. Russia invaded? No.

Korea has a history of conflict with the US (50 years ago). They are trying to get nukes. Korea invaded? No.

Iraq has a history of conflict with the US (10 years ago). They were suspected of having nukes. Iraq invaded? Yep!

So, what makes Iraq special? None of those three declared any animosity towards America. But, Iraq was singled out. Why? Who knows?

Why does one nation that 'might' have nukes get invaded, when many more that definitely have nukes are left safe?

yeah you DO realize russia is an ally? part of the UN i THINK? Plus russia isnt run like hell is(iraq). and last I knew russia wasnt exactly a place where terrorists can be harbored.

 

[Rico]

Tell me something people: Why the **** do you care if the initial reason for going to war was wrong? Bush did the entire world a favor by capturing one of the vilest and evilest people on gods green earth. To say that he massacred his own people is an understatement, and anyone who has EVER lived under a dictatorship of sorts will know that you CANNOT simply just "rise up and overthrow the dictator" on your own a lot of the times.

Me? I'd say stop arguing about all this political crap and send that fat ass Michael Moore to Cuba, let's see how he rises up against Castro and takes control of the government, hell, if he believes in this crap so much how come he didn't prevent it from happening?

I'll tell you why because he saw an opportunity to make a wad of cash, do you people really think this scumbag to be the self-proclaimed "american hero" he claims he is? ALl I see is an overweight filmmaker who capitalizes on major tragedies...

But enough of this crap, I thought the interview was hilarious because O'reilly just wiped the floor with Moore. O'reilly seemed to know more about the topic overall than Moore did and all Moore could do was as always make emotional appeals and steer the conversation off-track.

You know, I'm really starting to wish election came sooner... All this stupid arguing between both parties is really starting to get annoying. It's like watching kindergardeners fight over the last twinkie.

BLEGH! I say to politics.

 

[umop]

That was a good debate, I enjoyed it. Thanks for the link.

 

[Venmoch]

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…




That made me laugh.

 

[Apos]

Two windbags, blowing at each other. It's pretty amusing that O'Reily believes Woodward's book exonerates Bush from hyping the intelligence, given that that one quote comes from months AFTER Bush and his surrogates had been hyping the war full bore and the CIA had been expressing discomfort with how sloppy and unqualified the publically released facts were.

Tell me something people: Why the **** do you care if the initial reason for going to war was wrong? Bush did the entire world a favor by capturing one of the vilest and evilest people on gods green earth.

Because the U.S. has the power to conquer any nation on earth. And yet, we don't generally do that, even if there are good reasons from a humanitarian point of view. There are many many more dictatorships just as bad as Saddam out there. But, actually, we were starting to do starting to do some of that. Clinton did it in the Balkans. And guess what? All the Republicans who are now demanding we never question our Commander in Chief during a war or that claim to care about human rights: they were all calling for Clinton's head over that war, saying it was a mistake or not worth it, etc. In case you've forgotten, GWBush CAMPAIGNED on the platform that we should not do nation-building or grand interventions on the scale of Clinton.

So it's laughable to turn around and then crow about GWBush taking over Iraq for the purposes of overthrowing a dictator. That wasn't the reason. Hell, Bush's own people were the ones who helped install Sadam AS A DICTATOR in the first place. They even continued to support him with money and weapons after he had committed geoncide. All in the name of realpolitik. Now they turn around and try to pretend that they did this out of some deep moral concern for Iraqi citizens? Bull.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I support such interventions in general. But that's NOT what was sold to the American public. And because it was a sloppy, amatuer rush job, it could end up doing more harm than good in the long run. Osama WANTED us to invade and occupy a ME nation. He said so, long before 9/11. It was half the POINT of 9/11: to force us to put troops out where his disciples could get them.

 

[Korgoth]

how do you know for certain bush didn't lie, and by lie i'm saying he knew he was telling a lie. It seems there is a lot of money to be made, a lot of gain politically and economically from this war, most of it going right into the pockets of companies they've (read bush and cheney) done buisness with, and if he knew he could use faulty intel as a scapegoat, why not sure for the profit/power. How can you say with a %100 certainty that this isn't what happened? I can't say for sure it is, but I'd like to think with all the shady buisness deals going on we would hold the PRESIDENT a little more accountable than we have. Why should these questions even have to be asked. If it is as cut and dry as you guys want to make it out to be, "well the intel was wrong, but who cares, saddam was a bad guy, sure a lot of good guys and innocent guys are dead now, but hell the world is missing a few bad guys". If the intel was to blame all along, why did he back track so many times? Why did the reasoning change from wmd to getting rid of a dictator, why didn't he allow inspections to last longer? WHY, JUST ASK WHY!!!!! thats all, i don't want you to think bush is evil, but if he is making calls that determine whether we live or die, at least ask WHY!!!!!!!!!!! i'm through

 

[moz4rt]

Did you guys forget that the UN gave Saddam 17 chances to disarm over the last 20 years? Each time the UN would pass another resolution saying they would take Saddam out if he didn't disarm and allow inspectors. They never did anything because they are cowards. The US (and the other members of the coalition) ended up doing the job of the UN. Saddam is now captured and Iraqis (especially women) now have more freedom than they ever had. This is definately a step forward.

Was it worth 1000 American lives to take out Saddam? Yes.






Was it worth 400,000 American lives to take out Hitler? Yes.



EDIT: oh and the debate was good.

 

[CptStern]

Did you guys forget that the UN gave Saddam 17 chances to disarm over the last 20 years? Each time the UN would pass another resolution saying they would take Saddam out if he didn't disarm and allow inspectors. They never did anything because they are cowards.

they went in numerous times and found NOTHING!!!!

The US (and the other members of the coalition) ended up doing the job of the UN.

so they found wmd? this is news to me

Saddam is now captured and Iraqis (especially women) now have more freedom than they ever had. This is definately a step forward.

you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Iraq was the only country in that region that allowed women to have careers, get an education, wear whatever clothes they wanted to ...these measures were all imposed during Saddam's rule

Was it worth 1000 American lives to take out Saddam? Yes.

then I guess the reason the US didnt invade the congo is that 3 million civilian deaths are meaningless becuase they're not american

Was it worth 400,000 American lives to take out Hitler? Yes.

only after the US was attacked ..oh and there were far bigger contributions from other countries ...your nationalistic ego is stifling

 

[Korgoth]

did you forget that saddam also stated numerous times that the weapons had been dismantled and/or destroyed? Alas, GW said he was a lyin' lets go anyway. But that is beside the point. The UN SHOULD have sent inspectors in, and they DID, diplomacy SHOULD have been givin' another chance and it was rushed, because of this "immenant threat" had the weapons inspectors respectfully been allowed to do there job, how would we have justified this war to the public. oh right, exactly, we wouldn't have went for it because the cons would have out weighed the pros in the eyes of the public.

This was painfully obvious we did NOT do this for the Iraqi people! One reason was given that, if we fight in Iraq al-qaeda will fight us there. But if we care so much for the people of Iraq, why would we submit them to guerilla warefare against terrorists who bomb them and kill them in the streets? Sure, the terrorists are fighting us there and not here, but remember, we did this for the people of Iraq. Anyone see the irony there?

 

[clarky003]

conservatives are looked upon as evil just as liberals are by conservatives.

go socialists!

yay! ,

I think O'reily seemed to be getting a bit hot under the collar in the video,

he had to raise his voice successively even when moore wasnt talking loud atall,,

so he was using his voice to divert attention to him away from moore, he didnt really seem to sure, more patriotic angerisim , rather than solid knowledge of the truth,.

Out of both of them, O'reily seemed like hed been more affected by the paranoia of terrorism, by the way he was responding to moore's more morally correct question's,

losing your cool can show irrational behaviour and lack of faith in what you believe, I dont think O'reily is truely so sure about what he believe's, and his judgement and view is more affected by his patriotic attitude rather than any kind of rational thoughtfullness.

I think its quite horrible,, because instead of cautious comforting speech's, bush instead gave fear and paranoia insighting language, over something that now isnt true, .

'there is nothing to fear , but fear itself'

 

[moz4rt]

they went in numerous times and found NOTHING!!!!

because the iraqi soldiers were telling the UN inspectors where to look. of course they're not going to find anything. you forget that Saddam closed Iraq to inspections for close to 10 years. if he had nothing to hide why would he close the country to inspections?

so they found wmd? this is news to me

no, the US and the coalition had to take care of Saddam because the UN cowards didn't keep their word.

you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Iraq was the only country in that region that allowed women to have careers, get an education, wear whatever clothes they wanted to ...these measures were all imposed during Saddam's rule

Ok you're right, Iraqi people had a better life under Saddam.
/sarcasm
go here

then I guess the reason the US didnt invade the congo is that 3 million civilian deaths are meaningless becuase they're not american

if we had invaded congo instead of iraq you'd be asking why we haven't invaded iraq. it's a lose/lose situation with you people.

only after the US was attacked ..oh and there were far bigger contributions from other countries ...your nationalistic ego is stifling

just think of how many lives would have been saved if we would have killed hitler before he began taking over europe. it might not have worked though because people like you would have called it an unjust invasion, or said we are sending our children off to die.

your are blinded by your seething hatred for president bush and the US.

 

[clarky003]

your are blinded by your seething hatred for president bush and the US.

I dont think he is, I think you just think he is because your trying so hard to validify exactley what has happened, if there wasnt a problem there woudlnt be any need to even try.

Moore is right, he did lie , in the very essence of the fact.,, rather than being thoughrough about it, and making sure, he blatantly said that Saddam,, not Al Queda (who sparked this off in the first place), had weapons of mass destruction and he would be ready to use in a short period of time. (to divert your attention is one thing,, but to divert it and get a major driving issue wrong,, thats pretty unacceptable from 'proffessional's' in there field.

the CI are proffessional's how can you F up that badly , I mean you could atleast say we are not sure.. and maybe thats what they did say, so the Bush administration's speech's consisted of lie's it seems,,

designed for insight? to grab american's by their patriotic balls and string them along without question?

who know's.. but the fact is ,, there are too many powerful influences here,, and if anyone accused the US G of lieing then that would just be outrageous , and would cause a major uproar, which is what people dont really want to hear,, weither it be the truth or not. But Michael more has a very moral, and valid point.

and How the hell do you know he hates Bush and the US? your just accusing him on questions that any rational thinking man would ask. your speaking like a confused scared man sir.

 

[Korgoth]

Are you blinded by your love for george bush? Do you think he is infallible?

 

[Sprafa]

After reading the post above, calling the UN coward, I feel a sudde4n urge to write "STUPID MOTHER****ER" 500 000 times