Like a flamefest come to life. . .

July 28, 2004 6:28 PM

Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly No, I'm not kidding. And yes, it is a Drudge link. Watch O'Reilly Godwin halfway through the interview.
posted by _sirmissalot_ (86 comments total)

404
posted by dejah420 at 6:36 PM on July 28, 2004

Fox News transcript here.
posted by Vidiot at 6:37 PM on July 28, 2004

Thanks . . . the Drudge link is still working for me, must be cached (?)

The Fox News transcript it identical, though.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:41 PM on July 28, 2004

A friend sent this to me earlier today and, even though I was in the middle of a project and too busy to stop and read it, I had to read it all the way through.

I just cannot understand why anyone listens to what O'Reilly has to say about anything anymore, he obviously couldn't give a damn about what his interviewees have to say and has already drawn his own conclusions. Why doesn't he just interview himself and be done with it (as in the SNL skit)?
posted by fenriq at 6:43 PM on July 28, 2004

the 404 is for some banner ad (or at least, that's what it looks like) that isn't loading. The Moore vs. O'Reilly thing is fine.
posted by advil at 6:43 PM on July 28, 2004

Where's the video?
posted by banished at 6:45 PM on July 28, 2004

If full show transcripts are available on the Fox News website, I can't find them. What I especially would like to have a transcript of is O'Reilly's wrap-up/final thought/last word after he played the tape of the Moore interview.

You know, the one in which O'Reilly denounced "blind ideology."
posted by Vidiot at 6:48 PM on July 28, 2004

Related photo of Moore & O'Reilly.
posted by arielmeadow at 6:52 PM on July 28, 2004

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.

I don't think you can use the "misinformed" defense AFTER you claim you have evidence so concrete and dire that it demanded an imediate invasion. Especially when cooler heads were pleading for reasonable deliberation and real coalition building.

Clearly, they thought they could dig something up after the fact to justify the (long-stated) neo-con agenda and it blew up in their faces.
posted by RavinDave at 6:53 PM on July 28, 2004

They deserve each other.
posted by Ty Webb at 6:55 PM on July 28, 2004

The video is available on BitTorrent. It's not especially wowser. I did think Bill was making a concerted effort to rein himself in, knowing that if he lost it bigtime on Moore, he'd lose face (in stark contrast to his treatment of Glick, who was and is a nobody).
posted by five fresh fish at 6:57 PM on July 28, 2004

The spectacle of two propagandists "interviewing" each other is what amuses me here. . . matter, meet antimatter.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:57 PM on July 28, 2004

the 404 is for some banner ad (or at least, that's what it looks like) that isn't loading. The Moore vs. O'Reilly thing is fine. -by advil

Advil is right. I dunno why (my) mozilla is choking at the ad and not loading the rest of the page, but it comes up fine in i.e.
posted by dejah420 at 7:06 PM on July 28, 2004

Maybe I don't read fast enough, but before I could get through half of the Drudge transcript, the page did an automatic refresh. How annoying. Lost my place, and really, not interested enough to continue reading.

The page has a 240 second refresh tag. So you have 4 minutes to read it or you lose your place!
posted by MiG at 7:09 PM on July 28, 2004

There is no dancing.
posted by Evstar at 7:09 PM on July 28, 2004

Reads like two 5 year olds on the playground. This is the media?
posted by infowar at 7:17 PM on July 28, 2004

Moore should have said something about the inspectors on the ground and letting them do their job...
posted by Space Coyote at 7:24 PM on July 28, 2004

thats not the media, thats one guy who found his place on "A Current Affair" (and never really left) and another guy who is an award-winning filmmaker who is currently breaking box office records with a freaking documentary.
posted by tsarfan at 7:30 PM on July 28, 2004

That would have been sweet if it degenerated into a sissy-fight. I'd pay money to see that.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:47 PM on July 28, 2004

Mushroom cloud isn't lying? Drones? "Al Queda-like organizations" isn't lying? Mobile chemical factories? Poison factory? Cheney still demanding there is a Saddam 9/11 link isnt lying out of one's ass? Taking a questionable premise and presenting it as the truth is lying.

I'll tell you why people watch this guy, he's their inner thug. The cons live vicariously through O'Reilly. He's the manifestation of the inner id of millions of Republicans. He could be cancelled tomorrow and ten others could take his place and enjoy his ratings.
posted by skallas at 7:48 PM on July 28, 2004

From following Vidiot's link:

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.

Dang. I never thought I'd read that last sentence.
posted by alumshubby at 7:56 PM on July 28, 2004

I don't think Moore comes off much better than O'Reilly here. He keeps asking O'Reilly if he would sacrifice his "child". Soldiers are not children, they are eighteen or older, and their parents do not make the decision to "sacrifice" them. O'Reilly says he would sacrifice himself, and that is the right answer and the only one he can properly make.
posted by orange swan at 8:09 PM on July 28, 2004

To avoid the refresh, get ahold of the scroll bar and don't let go.
posted by dobbs at 8:13 PM on July 28, 2004

I think they do deserve each other - of course in true nature the entire interview should have been conducted in the parking lot with Moore ambushing O'Reilly with a camera crew and O'Reilly screaming back "Just shut the f*ck up! I said shut the f*ck up damnit!!"
posted by jazzkat11 at 8:41 PM on July 28, 2004

Seriously, they both came off as brats.
posted by Mach3avelli at 8:49 PM on July 28, 2004

Soldiers are not children

Soldiers must go and fight when their government tells them to, much like a parent telling a child to do something for their own good, or just because they "have to". It is therefore the parents' or government's responsibility to make good honest decisions and not to waste lives in wars based on bad intelligence.
posted by milovoo at 8:49 PM on July 28, 2004

orange swan, you're missing the point, Moore is talking about having your son or daughter sent to war to die, not really about children in the under 18 sense, more about, would you be willing to sacrifice your genetic line's future for the false premise of the war.
posted by fenriq at 8:50 PM on July 28, 2004

"their parents do not make the decision to "sacrifice" them." - here's a thought experiment : imagine aliens - far more intelligent than those parents you mention - who work in the political sphere......
posted by troutfishing at 8:50 PM on July 28, 2004

orange swan, I'm not a parent so I can't say for certain, but I imagine that regardless of the age of someone's offspring, those parents consider their sons or daughters their children. I don't think Moore was making a point about the soldier's ages so much as he was making a point about the soldier's being some worrying mother's or father's child.

on preview, fenriq beat me to it.
posted by emelenjr at 8:52 PM on July 28, 2004

This thing is the perfect Rorschach test--the right-wing media outlets are full of stories about how Moore lost because he keeps on twisting the truth to fit his agenda, and the left-wing outlets are crammed with articles about how O'Reilly lost by showing what a big jerk he is.

Sad thing is, both sides are basically right.
posted by LairBob at 8:52 PM on July 28, 2004

I had to check who was saying what frequently during the transcript. That should say a lot about my feelings.
posted by angry modem at 9:12 PM on July 28, 2004

and, even though I was in the middle of a project and too busy to stop and read it, I had to read it all the way through.

I just cannot understand why anyone listens to what O'Reilly has to say about

Right...
posted by 327.ca at 9:13 PM on July 28, 2004

Lairrbob - your lair is dubbbed :"Public radio"
posted by troutfishing at 9:14 PM on July 28, 2004

Simply the perfect example of why those TV face-to-face, O'Reilly-style show is a pathetic format for a sensible debate.

Two people talking over each other. Sentance (and sub-sentance) grabs of opinion. One person asking the same question over and over, the other person avoiding answering it at all costs.

You Americans call this political debate?
posted by Jimbob at 9:25 PM on July 28, 2004

10 point must? * me gives the round 10-9 to Moore. Just for the It was a mistake bit. *
posted by psmealey at 9:25 PM on July 28, 2004

tf, I'm not sure if that's an insult, a compliment, or just an observation, but...yeah. You know anywhere better? ('Cause I'm looking...I'd love to have more than one station stored in my radio's memory buttons.)
posted by LairBob at 9:26 PM on July 28, 2004

Soldiers must go and fight when their government tells them to, much like a parent telling a child to do something for their own good, or just because they "have to". It is therefore the parents' or government's responsibility to make good honest decisions and not to waste lives in wars based on bad intelligence.

Oh, of course. And I realize it's common for parents to use the word children to refer to their offspring, even when said offspring is middle-aged. I just think Moore's "would you sacrifice your child" is cheap rhetoric - there are other prhases less emotionally loaded and more accurate that he could have used.
posted by orange swan at 9:26 PM on July 28, 2004

327.ca, you have some problem with my comment?

Are you calling me a liar?

On Preview, orange swan (going for the trifecta now!), we all know that Moore likes to take those low blow cheap shots when he can. You did see that pathetic "interview" he did with Charleton Heston in Bowling for Columbine, didn't you?
posted by fenriq at 10:10 PM on July 28, 2004

did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not! did too! did not!
posted by muppetboy at 10:43 PM on July 28, 2004

The problem I have with the "would you be willing to send your children off the the military" response is it is their choice to support the war, not the kids. Something so dramatic and emotionaly provoked, you can't expect the parent to decide. We have the military who agrees to fight in times of war. To me, the question is moot because it's irrelevant and like orange, I find cheap rhetoric and there are much better responses out there.
That said, I think anybody who supports the war should be willing to fight if need be. That's not to say they should go off to war (50% of the population going off to war? Grrrrrrreat idea!), but would not be opposed to being sent off to the war they support.
posted by jmd82 at 10:46 PM on July 28, 2004

"You Americans call this political debate?"

political debate would imply the existence of some form of civilization.

baudrillard hit the nail on the head when he said that america is the world's last great primitive society.

but as insane as we are, i do love america and americans... and we'll be making some amazing fiddle music as the flames rise higher...

i'm left thinking of a comment some character in a gore vidal novel made that american civilization would be "a good idea" and that "it's about time for us to have one" (or something to that effect).

i wish i felt that optimistic.
posted by muppetboy at 10:57 PM on July 28, 2004

praise be to nero's neptune
posted by Satapher at 11:17 PM on July 28, 2004

"thats not the media, thats one guy who found his place on "A Current Affair" (and never really left) and another guy who is an award-winning filmmaker who is currently breaking box office records with a freaking documentary."

If thats a "documentary" then Fox really is "fair and balanced".

Hint: Neither is true.
posted by soulhuntre at 11:18 PM on July 28, 2004

documentary is merely a film category, not an assertion of veracity.
posted by muppetboy at 11:28 PM on July 28, 2004

So a couple of half-deranged primadonnas raised their feathers and pecked each other for a half-hour. At least if this were an ordinary cockfight I might've made some money.
posted by dhoyt at 11:47 PM on July 28, 2004

And just imagine if it were a bucket o' cocks fight!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:52 PM on July 28, 2004

Moore came off better. Ask the parents of the soldiers who have died if it was their "children" who gave their lives. It's not cheap rhetoric.
posted by wsg at 1:22 AM on July 29, 2004

Ask the parents of the dead soldiers if they pee at least once a day.
posted by Witty at 2:02 AM on July 29, 2004

"You Americans call this political debate?"

No, we call THIS political debate ---> FUCK YOU

But back on track, I think Moore's point is well taken. Bush made the decision to send other people's children to war. Would you send someone's child to war based on the information he had? Your own child? What justification do you give to someone who's child died in Iraq? That we took Sadam out of power? That wasn't the reason we were given for going there. Moore makes a good point.

If Bush had to send his own child there we would never have gone to Iraq.
posted by Outlawyr at 4:39 AM on July 29, 2004

...I think Moore's point is well taken. Bush made the decision to send other people's children to war.

OMG.

Please. Would you just cut it out already? It's the job of the President to send the Army to war if need be. ALL Presidents that declare war "decide to send other people's children to war". Debate the "need be" point for another thousand years if you want to. But this crybaby arguement, like this is something unique to this President, is ridiculous.

Moore makes a good point.

If you say so.
posted by Witty at 5:39 AM on July 29, 2004

But this crybaby arguement

oh my, you're so tough -- as long as it's other people doing the dying for you, of course
posted by matteo at 6:11 AM on July 29, 2004

It's the job of the President to send the Army to war if need be.

Ironically this is the point of the lame debate between Bill and Michael. We did not need to go to war. If WMD were the reason we absolutely had to go and none have been found (despite claims by the Administration that they knew exactly where to find them) then we should have let the U.N. weapons inspectors continue to do their job. 900+ dead now and still no WMDs to be found. Therefore Bush sent other people's children to war for no good reason whatsoever.

Sure other presidents have sent America's children to war, but in most of those cases there were altruistic reasons to do so.
posted by terrapin at 6:14 AM on July 29, 2004

witty ... i suppose you think that the parents who grieve their dead are crybabys ... especially those who question the war they died in

here's an even tougher question ... what if the child had been drafted?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:18 AM on July 29, 2004

witty - it is NOT the job of the president to send the army to war, it's the job of the congress ... read your constitution, please
posted by pyramid termite at 6:19 AM on July 29, 2004

Well that was rubbish.
posted by Blue Stone at 6:19 AM on July 29, 2004

Exactly, the need didn't be, now lots of kids are dead, lots more have their arms and legs blown off, and no one's going to trust the US government when they say they "need" to go to war in the future.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:21 AM on July 29, 2004

It's the job of the President to send the Army to war if need be.

Witty, this is something unique for this president. America has not traditionally fought preemptive wars; the chaos in Iraq after the initial "mission accomplished" virtually guarantees we won't in the future, either. Thank God.

But put yourself in the position of a parent who's child is indeed in the military, was indeed sent into Iraq, might indeed have died. You and the country were told one thing about why this was "necessary"; but the goal posts have been moved constantly since then; even O'Reilly's strongest defense, at this point, is "Saddam was a brutal dictator." Which he was.

But you know there are brutal dictators the world over. And if I'm the parent of a soldier killed in Iraq, removing a brutal dictator who posed no realistic threat to this nation was not worth the life of my child.
posted by kgasmart at 6:26 AM on July 29, 2004

Witty how old are you?

No, really, how old are you?
posted by Outlawyr at 6:50 AM on July 29, 2004

I've had many people come to me, tell me that Fahrenheit 9/11 is full of lies, and that they'll never watch it.

I'm also beginning to think that while many will never publicly say this, most people backing Bush are for an American Empire.
posted by the fire you left me at 6:51 AM on July 29, 2004

documentary is merely a film category, not an assertion of veracity.

Actually, propaganda is merely a film category. Documentarians strive for a spirit of truth as their filmmaking canon. Propagandist films and filmmakers, however, rely on half truths, convictions by innuendo and undocumented assertions and conclusions.

I'm also beginning to think that while many will never publicly say this, most people backing Bush are for an American Empire.

That's a ridiculous statement.
posted by jazzkat11 at 7:15 AM on July 29, 2004

...it is NOT the job of the president to send the army to war, it's the job of the congress...

Fine {check.. ding ding!}. The point I was making was general, not an effort to define actual specific duties, powers or responsibilities. The fact remains, the following statement is just stupid:

"I think Moore's point is well taken. Bush made the decision to send other people's children to war."

What IS the point? I'm not trying to argue whether the war was right or wrong, whether Bush should or shouldn't have. Bush decided to go to war... and used the Armed Forces to do so. Until we have robots to fight all wars, then the only choice we have is to use "other people's children". So what is the point? That they ARE someone's children? Genius. Or is that you can replace the term "Army" with the flashier "other people's children"? How clever and touching. You so... human. If that's all that Moore can come up with for a point, he's an idiot (which for me was confirmed after watching the bowling movie anyway). To take Moore's side because you think THAT'S a "good point" is sad.

Moore: Bush sent other people's children to war!

Outlawyr: Wow, that's a good point Mr. Moore. I hadn't thought of it like that before. Now I can see things more clearly. You're a goddamn genius Mike. The way you exploited that crippled kid from Columbine in your bowling movie was pure genius too. Can I rub your belly?
posted by Witty at 7:20 AM on July 29, 2004

there are only two opinions, obviously
posted by klik99 at 7:21 AM on July 29, 2004

Witty, I'll guess.

13

Am I close?
posted by Outlawyr at 7:23 AM on July 29, 2004

69
posted by Witty at 7:42 AM on July 29, 2004

I'll bite.

Witty, I think the point is that Moore is trying to get people to admit that the number "900" (which is closer to 1000 now, I believe) isn't some abstract amount of "soldiers," but people's children. "X lives were being lost..." has become rather generic and acceptable, as it's repeated over and over again on the news. Moore's trying to get O'Reilly, and us, to admit to and see that we're talking about the LIFE of a human being. The lives of 900 human beings. And that "a mistake was made" just isn't a good enough explanation of why anyone's LIFE has been taken from them, especially when the supposed reasons for entering the war in the first place were specious, at best, and seem to have been erected out of balsa wood and chewing gum which were blown over long ago.
posted by papercake at 7:42 AM on July 29, 2004

Related photo of Moore & O'Reilly.

On Matt Drudge, from Tom Tomorrow's site:
So basically, rather than just give a leftie cartoonist a small photo credit, he steals the picture and goes to the trouble of changing a red traffic light to green, flopping the image and altering traffic signs, all presumably in a clumsy attempt to give himself some sort of imagined plausible deniability. What an asshole.

I couldn't agree more with that last sentence.
posted by btwillig at 7:58 AM on July 29, 2004

I'm talking years, not months
posted by Outlawyr at 7:58 AM on July 29, 2004

I'm also beginning to think that while many will never publicly say this, most people backing Bush are for an American Empire.

It's not empire so much as it is unchecked nationalism. I believe that in the wake of 9/11, a good portion of the public thought, "Screw it, it's time for America to do what America needs/wants to do, the rest of the world can come along for the ride if they want, but their disapproval will not stop us from pursuing our own interests first and foremost." I mean, I saw Charles Krauthammer come out and basically say this on C-Span one evening; why is nationalism such a bad thing? Why shouldn't America be nationalistic, first and foremost?

And the obvious answer is that given the amorphous nature of terrorism, antagonizing other countries via our "We're right and we'll do what's right whether you like it or not" attitude is ultimately counterproductive. As much as we may dislike it, as much as we may wish to stride the globe acting the one remaining superpower role, the reality is that we need other nations - more than your average nationalist would ever admit.
posted by kgasmart at 8:01 AM on July 29, 2004

18 and 19 year old kids ARE children. Sorry, maybe they're "legal" by most senses of the law (yet, they can't drink, but they can go die for our country?) - but 18-22 year olds are naive, know little about real life just yet, and really ARE children. Older children, perhaps, but children nonetheless.

I'm 26 and only in the past couple of years can I say I really feel like an "adult". Sure I took care of myself during college, paid most of my bills, but let's face it, at 18, you're a kid. At 19, you're a really stupid kid who thinks because he/she is now OLDER than 18, you know everything. At 20, you start to realize "holy crap, I'm still a kid". At 21, you're too drunk to pronounce "kid", and at 22 HOPEFULLY you've started to get your shit together.

Yeah, huge generalizations I know, but I find it really difficult to grasp that some people don't think 18 and 19 year olds are kids. They're kids indeed, and saying that they're full grown adults ready for being shipped halfway around the world to kill or be killed.. well, it's a harsh part of reality that I'm willing to accept, but I'm not going to call them anything but KIDS, because that's what they are.
posted by twiggy at 8:12 AM on July 29, 2004

baudrillard hit the nail on the head when he said that america is the world's last great primitive society

Is this just flamebait or are you really this much of a snob?

Nevermind. I don't really care.
posted by Bonzai at 8:16 AM on July 29, 2004

Documentarians strive for a spirit of truth as their filmmaking canon. Propagandist films and filmmakers, however, rely on half truths, convictions by innuendo and undocumented assertions and conclusions.

Early Academy Award winners for Best Documentary:

Why We Fight: Prelude to War (1942)
"...the series as a whole is credited with redefining the documentary as an art form."
"These movies were perfect for the US troops in World War II. They caused anger in the troops. It made them want to fight. As for being of historical value - well... they aren't. Take anything you watch with a grain of salt. Some of it may be true, some is not correct at all. The Americans use basic propoganda techniques"
"Admittedly a propaganda film, this 1942 documentary is quite informative"

December 7th (1943)
"What's most galling is the inaccuracies."
"The movie ends with a patriotic speech between the narrator and the ghost of an American sailor"
"Back in 1942 when this film was first shot, the inaccuracies and racism were overlooked because they got Americans' blood boiling."

There are plenty more - Victory at Sea comes to mind - but I can't take the time to hunt all of them up. Point is, F911 is a polemic, but that doesn't stop it from being able to call itself a "documentary." So can we get over this silly objection?
posted by soyjoy at 9:43 AM on July 29, 2004

The point wrt "children" is this:

Before you put someone's life in danger, you better have a damn good reason for putting their life in danger.

Only a sociopath has people killed on his whim.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:04 AM on July 29, 2004

I notice the image on Drudge is gone. Gee, I wonder why.

Also, this exchange was interesting:

M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…

O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth

M: 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…

Elsewhere:

After an interview with actor Ben Affleck on the July 27 O'Reilly Factor, FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly, who was presenting his show live from the Democratic National Convention, teased the upcoming segment of his show by saying of convention speaker Senator Edward Kennedy: "When we come back, we'll let you listen to Ted Kennedy for a while, if he shows up."

In fact, Kennedy had already shown up and had been speaking for several minutes, as O'Reilly need only have turned around to see.

So is O'Reilly going to apologise for lying?
posted by robcorr at 10:08 AM on July 29, 2004

Aquiles (extremely pissed off) once said: "Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight?"
posted by nandop at 10:51 AM on July 29, 2004

five fresh fish, thank you for saying that. I heartily agree.
posted by beth at 12:10 PM on July 29, 2004

The army is composed of other people's children. That's why any decent, thoughtful, honorable person would deliberate soberly and at length before making the decision to send those people's children into battle. It is quite plausible that most parents of WWII-era soldiers supported the decision to put their kids in harm's way in order to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese. The decision to send troops into Korea, however, was a bit more controversial. And by the time we get to Vietnam, where young Americans died by the thousands in a jungle many of their parents couldn't find on a map, people started seriously questioning the rationale. People die in wars, real people. That is a genuine sacrifice, not just for those soldiers, but for their families. "That's someone's child" is just a way of making it plain that that person's life really matters, and is not to be taken lightly or thrown away.

The offensive thing is not that young people - still kids, from the perspective of many older folks - are sent to fight and die in wars. What is offensive is that they are, and have been, sent to fight and die in a war when they didn't have to be, for reasons that turned out to be hot air. The "imminent threat" from Iraq was an illusion, but the bloodshed is all too real. I'm not sure that Bush and his buddies (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) fully understood that. I think it's telling that it's the generals (including Powell) and those who have seen combat with their own eyes who, far more so than the civilians in the Administration, were the most reluctant to go to war. They always are.

On preview: fff said it faster and better.
posted by skoosh at 1:40 PM on July 29, 2004

Witty, perhaps you should find yourself another nickname here because you are certainly anything but.

The obvious point that Moore was making is that Bush sent soldiers to die for a lie. Slow down and get your head around that. Now imagine one of those soldiers is your son and he's just been blown to bits by an Iraqi landmine while he's protecting some Halliburton tanker trucks.

Still willing to support the war?

Then you're just a fucking idiot.
posted by fenriq at 2:38 PM on July 29, 2004

Witty, perhaps you should find yourself another nickname here because you are certainly anything but.

You do know he makes a nickel, every time someone cracks that joke?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:19 PM on July 29, 2004

when i watched it, o-reilly mentioned Hamas and Hezballah in linking iraq to terrorists...anyone see that in the transcript? is there a non-Fox transcript available?
posted by th3ph17 at 4:26 PM on July 29, 2004

...still kids, from the perspective of many older folks...

Until your parents disown you or die, you're always "just a kid."

Hell, from this ripe ol' age I look at 20-somethings in University and think, "ah, to be so young, naive, and cocksure!"
posted by five fresh fish at 9:53 PM on July 29, 2004

no one's going to trust the US government when they say they "need" to go to war in the future.

At least something good can come of this then.
posted by thirteen at 3:05 AM on July 30, 2004

Witty, perhaps you should find yourself another nickname here because you are certainly anything but.

Ok... you can just call me Daddy instead.

The obvious point that Moore was making is that Bush sent soldiers to die...

Yea, I got that point... and I didn't need Moore to make it for me. I understand that the "children" of some people in this country were sent to war and some of them died. But they're soldiers, that's what they do. Tying up that point in a little yellow ribbon and calling them "dying children" isn't making that point any more clearer for me. It's a stupid "point". To say, "That's a good point Mr. Moore", is too suggest that you just didn't quite get it BEFORE the term children was used. In that be the case, the YOU'RE a fucking idiot.


...for a lie.

And if one doesn't believe in that premise? See, I don't.
posted by Witty at 4:46 AM on July 30, 2004

Really? What truth did Bush tell about the reasons to go to war?
posted by five fresh fish at 1:13 PM on July 30, 2004

inpHilltr8r, good because maybe he'll save up enough money to buy a clue because he's about as clueless as any other troll on MeFi.

Witty, why would I equate you with someone I love and care deeply about, you're just a loser troll.

In that be the case, the YOU'RE a fucking idiot. - care to slow down and maybe form a complete sentence?

Or did you have to get off the computer before your mommy caught you?
posted by fenriq at 4:17 PM on July 30, 2004

Witty, why would I equate you with someone I love and care deeply about, you're just a loser troll.

Ahh yes. The "you're a troll because you disagree with me" argument. Good one.

Or did you have to get off the computer before your mommy caught you?

Close. I had to get off your mommy before your other mommy caught me. Piss of fenriq. You're a tool. Take your whiney rhetoric to the voting booth, wouldja? I'll feel really sorry for your miserable ass when Kerry goes down in flames.
posted by Witty at 7:42 AM on July 31, 2004

You are both a couple of very childish twits. Take it to email, please.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:32 AM on July 31, 2004