MOORE VS. O'REILLY

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX

MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION

Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc7.jpg'>

 

FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:

 

 

Moore: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues

O’Reilly: The issues… alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush._ Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction._ Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

M: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.

O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’s not a lie.

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… actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a –

O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –

M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie

O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –

M: But that was your question –

O: Just the issues._ You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.”_ This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –

M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –

O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –

M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing

O: He didn’t lie

M: He said something that wasn’t true

O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources

M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody

O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too

M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”

O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?

M: No, I haven’t read his book.

O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right?_ Good guy, you know who he is right?

M: I know who he is.

O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?

M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O: I agree._ The lieutenant was fired.

M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence._ This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th

O: Nobody disputes that

M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th._ Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.

O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why._ You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –

O: It wasn’t a lie

M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie

M: A seven year old can get away with that –

O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—

M: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—

O: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead

M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question

O: OK

M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead._ What do you say to their parents?_

O: 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.

M: And, but what were they killed for?

O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction

M: But that was the reason

O: The weapons of mass destruction

M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat

O: That’s right

M: And there was no threat, was there?

O: It was a mistake

M: 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: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents

M: So we agree on that

O: but that is the historical nature of what happened

M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake

O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that

M: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead

O: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that

M: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me

O: Ok, now we are wandering

M: No, but my point is –

O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question

M: But why?_ What did they die for?

O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –

M: No, that was not the reason –

O: That’s what they died for

M: -they were given –

O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake

M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –

O:_ Alright, I’ve got anther question—

M: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this._ Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?

O: Depends what the circumstances were.

M: You would sacrifice your child?

O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?

M: Uh huh.

O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?

M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.

O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.

M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?

O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.

M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.

O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?

M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.

O: How?

M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—

O: Why was that?

M: That’s my question.

O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.

M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.

O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?

M: No, unless it is a threat to us.

O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?

M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.

O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.

M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.

O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.

M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.

O: I know you are but—

M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O: I would sacrifice myself—

M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—

O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’

O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous

M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—

M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?

M: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?

O: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.

M: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.

O: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.

M: Now come on.

O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.

M: How do you know that?

O: You wouldn’t have removed him.

M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---

O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

M: The people rose up.

O: why? Because they went bankrupt.

M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—

O: Alright alright.

M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.

O: One more.

M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.

O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—

M: Why didn’t they rise up?

O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—

M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__

O: It is, it’s a shame—

M:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up._ You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—

O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?

M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?

O: I would sacrifice myself.

M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?

O: I would.

M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?

O: That’s right.

M: Where’s the recruiter?

O: You’d love to get rid of me.

M: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.

O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…

 

END

sum it up! :crazy:

:eek:

That's great stuff. When you have the media heads of the far left and far right, it's doomed to be a battle.

that was great!

 

o'reilly is such a cunt!

hahah good shit.

nice find.. i wanna see Moore on OReilly's show..

This is going to be a good one.

i cannot count the number of ways i hate BILL O'fuckly. He is such a cock sucker.

Um... not a very good show from either of the two, but it's not surprising considering their gasbag tendencies. What is surprising though, is that it seems to me O'Reilly came out on top, which is downright pathetic.

Originally posted by heavyLox

i cannot count the number of ways i hate BILL O'fuckly. He is such a cock sucker.

true indeed.

no it was not "great", it was them playing word semantics. im glad they rehashed the same bullshit, cuz i dunno what i'd do if they hadn't

Originally posted by KYU

no it was not "great", it was them playing word semantics. im glad they rehashed the same bullshit, cuz i dunno what i'd do if they hadn't

 

no it was great, and indeed they played the back and forth game, but at least moore was able to call o'riley out there and create a dialog. i hope to see moore actually appear on the factor and debate that cunt opposed to a quick 1, 2 in the street.

There are times where I wish I had cable.

Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush....

http://www.kak.ru/images/archive/15/vodka/other56.jpg'>

Originally posted by the_gooch

at least moore was able to call o'riley out there and create a dialog.

there is NO dialog. They are both talking back at each other there is no hearing. Bill O'fuckly is only interested in listening to people who support his opinion.

Originally posted by El Mamerro

Um... not a very good show from either of the two, but it's not surprising considering their gasbag tendencies. What is surprising though, is that it seems to me O'Reilly came out on top, which is downright pathetic.

 

I'm going to have to agree. I was pretty disappointed with Moore's performance. I read the transcript before I saw it on TV, so I had time to digest what both said. I thought Moore didn't make any arguments, but merely floundered around and let O'Reilly dictate the tempo and focus of the discussion. Moore, like most partisan pundits, refused to concede small points that wouldn't have harmed his overall argument - that Bush is a douche and should be out of office. Instead, he hemmed and hawed and changed the subject and didn't answer questions he said he would answer. And, yes, O'Reilly was guilty of many of the same things, but I KNOW O'Reilly is a douche, so I expect it of him. I was hoping for more out of Moore, but came away disappointed. I attended a Moore speech a few weeks after he won the Oscar, and I thought he did a pretty good job. Granted, the show tonight was a completely different format, but his previous speech gave me higher expectations.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and the picture Brown posted at the top from Drudge's site? Stolen from Tom Tomorrow's This Modern World - without any credit, of course. I fucking hate Drudge, yet I still check his site every day. I suck.

 

Drudge's version:

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc7.jpg'>

 

 

 

Tom Tomorrow's

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/fatdave/tomtomorrow.jpg'>

(Hosted on in my photobucket, so I don't steal his bandwidth.)

is moore ever really good at the arguing? Orielly is used to talking over folks and brushing off poeples comments. Moore, to me, seems better at making lil dots for us to connect; so we get to his opinion falsely on our own, be they right or wrong. I will admitt to not paying close attention to Moore, so i could be off base. Please straighten me out if im wrong.

No, Hev, I think the dot-connecting comment is right on. Good point.

 

 

 

 

And watch Dean bitchslap Sean Hannity last night.

 

Dean: "[Y]ou should watch 'Outfoxed.' It's a great movie that says why people like you say things like that on this television station."

 

 

HA! I love Dean grinning at himself afterwards.

to much hypothetical shit

Hannity and Colmes transcript

 

DEAN: I think what we're seeing is there was a lot of anger at George Bush. We didn't feel that he won fairly in Florida. We did feel that he sent us to war without telling us the truth about why we're going. There's a lot of stuff -- we've lost a lot of jobs.

 

But I think what this convention really is, I hope, is a turning point. We can't win if we only have a negative message. Everybody understands that. So if we're going to win, we're going to have to have a strong, positive message coming out of the convention, and that's what we're trying to do.

 

HANNITY: Well, you say that about -- we weren't telling the truth about going into Iraq, but John Edwards and John Kerry both laid out the case about weapons of mass destruction the way the president did. Why does he get a pass from people like you?

 

DEAN: Well, there are other things that the president told us that were not so. There was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Even the 9/11 commission just said so. There was no...

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

DEAN: No, that's not what they said. As a matter of fact, that's what they didn't say. And if you think they should, you should watch "Outfoxed." It's a great movie that says why people like you say things like that on this television station.

 

HANNITY: Well, the fact is they did say that there was correspondence. There was activity between the two. And, my only point to you is, John Kerry can say that there is a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein, that his WMDs represent a real threat, but it seems the left gives him a pass. And George Bush is the only one who said these things now.

 

DEAN: George Bush wasn't truthful. I'm not saying George Bush is a liar, because I don't know that for a fact. I do know that George Bush didn't tell the truth. I don't know if he didn't tell the truth because he didn't know the truth, because his intelligence messed it up or the vice president's office told him something that wasn't so. But we know that the things that George Bush told us when we went into Iraq weren't true. And most Americans know that they weren't true.

 

HANNITY: Well, we know John Kerry, leading into this, Governor, he said that Saddam's WMDs are a real and dangerous threat to this country.

 

He said it only a year ago.

 

DEAN: That doesn't answer the question. The president of the United States tried to imply that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that was not true. He also tried to imply that al Qaeda -- and the vice president still does this to this day -- that al Qaeda was somehow connected with Saddam. And that was not true, and the president's commission said so.

 

HANNITY: All right. Governor, we're going to take a break and go take a look at former President Jimmy Carter who is now on the podium directly to my left.

 

DEAN: Thank you very much.

Originally posted by why write?

sum it up! :crazy:

 

Simply paraphrased:

You're on a text-based message board... time to start reading if you want to be a part of the conversation.

 

 

I agree with Mammero... O'Reily took that one. Moore just played the 'I'm on TV, aim for the people's emotions' card.

 

Good to see him actually debating for a change, but I think that kid who's father died in the attacks did a far better job of throwing O'Reily's own ignorance back into his jawline.

Holy shit, that was awesome!

 

 

 

 

M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

 

 

 

 

:lol:lol:lol:lol

 

 

 

And the Dean clip is awesome too, he just keeps grinning!

Dean is a madman he should be Kerrys running mate.

"Terror Alert: ELEVATED" -Fox News

 

 

:shook:

I don't think that O'Reilly won so much as they talked around the same 2 questions the entire time and came up with no answers. I think Moore's questions were lacking in originality and any aim or strategic attempt. I think O'Reilly's questions were the same propaganda he spews on his show daily rephrased to make rhetorical quesions. I think Moores answers were rewording of O'Reilly's questions to make the points he's already made dozens of times before in his books and movies. I think O'Reilly's answers danced around Moores questions in order to make the same points he's already made dozens of times in his books and on his show. I think I wasted my time driving to my friends house to watch this.

i hate it when politicians talk around direct questions. makes me feel like i wanna jump out of my chair and choke them.

but that's politics:rolleyes:

i agree it's a sad little tit for tat,

but i don't agree somebody 'won'.

o'reilly harps over the semantics

of what constitutes prevarication.

it's a shitty technique in lieu of facts and

events, and it makes for a real shit

conversation/debate. i'm not surprised

moore had a little trouble in the face

of this. garbage in garbage out.

the arguments were bullshit arguments, no one won...which means oreilly won, since ties always go to the moron.

moore danced around the 'lies' question because there was no other way to do it. fact is that 'lie' is a bit of a strong word. all indicators point to bush lying, but no irrefutable evidence has been found to prove it. either way, it was a completely irrelivent point chosen by oreilly because he knows there is no way to answer it. if you say 'yes, he is a liar' oreilly asks for proof. if you say 'it's not exactly a lie, but it's not the truth either', then you've just gone back on your word. it was a good tactical move, but it was nothing but smoke.

in turn, oreilly danced around the 'send your child to war' question. this was a played out topical, but as far as scoring points goes, it was a better one. by refusing to say 'yes i will send my child' he is saying by default, 'no, i wont'. he could have easily said 'i can not force my adult child to do anything, but if he chose to enlist he would have my utmost support' and it would have shut mike up, but he didn't.

the whole hitler angle is just so played out i cant stand it. the second someone brings hitler into an argument you should walk away, because it instantly proves they have nothing.

moore asked terrible questions. he could have very easily tripped oreilly up with the right questions, but he didn't. but as someone (pmb?) said, moore isn't an interrigator, so he's always going to appear less sure of himself and less authorative, which to the uninformed, looks weaker. it's not, it's just not his style. it's why oreilly gets all angry and yells and shuts people down, because he cant calmly prove them wrong. he can't discuss anything. to other ignorant people who don't care about the truth, that show of chest thumping is impressive, to everyone else, it's just pathetic.

 

whoever mentioned the kid who's dad died in the attacks, IMO, that kid served oreilly. actually, oreilly served himself, but that kid did a fantastic job of staying cool, and making oreilly look like a complete jackass.