Bill O'Reilly's Interview with Michael Moore: The transcript

Lindaland

Global Unity

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Bill O'Reilly's Interview with Michael Moore: The transcript
pidaua Knowflake Posts: 67 From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 02, 2004 09:28 PM Moore: Bush 'Didn't Tell the Truth' Thursday, July 29, 2004 BOSTON — This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," July 27, 2004 that has been edited for clarity. Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!" It was a match-up the media and political observers have longed for. No, not George W. Bush against John Kerry. It's Michael Moore (search) against Bill O'Reilly. Moore, the director who made "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) and created one of the election season's biggest uproars, said he wouldn't go on "The O'Reilly Factor" until O'Reilly saw the entire movie. And he said any conversation would have to be aired without any editing and with the opportunity for Moore to ask O'Reilly questions. All of the demands were met and Moore sat down with O'Reilly in the FOX News skybox high about the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Following is the full transcript of their meeting: MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: That’s fair. We’ll just stick to the issues. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The issues… all right 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 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later? MOORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction. 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… O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing: If you, if Michael Moore is president… MOORE: I thought you said you saw the movie? I show all that in the movie. O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine… MOORE: But that was your question… O'REILLY: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. 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… MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test… O'REILLY: All right, now you’re dancing around a question… MOORE: No, I’m not. There’s no dancing. O'REILLY: He didn’t lie. MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true. O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources. MOORE: 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'REILLY: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too. MOORE: 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'REILLY: You’re diverting the issue… did you read Woodward’s book? MOORE: No, I haven’t read his book. O'REILLY: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right? MOORE: I know who he is. O'REILLY: 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? MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job. O'REILLY: I agree. Tenet was fired. MOORE: 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'REILLY: Nobody disputes that... MOORE: 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'REILLY: 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. MOORE: 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'REILLY: It wasn’t a lie. MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that? O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie. MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that… O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question… MOORE: “Mom and Dad it was just bad information…” O'REILLY: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie. Go ahead. MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question. O'REILLY: OK. 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. O'REILLY: But that is the historical nature of what happened. MOORE: 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'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional. MOORE: No, not intentional, it was a mistake. O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that. MOORE: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead. O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that. MOORE: So, that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake — how would you feel towards me O'REILLY: OK, now we are wandering. MOORE: No, but my point is… O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question. MOORE: But why? What did they die for? O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people… MOORE: No, that was not the reason… O'REILLY: That’s what they died for… MOORE: …they were given… O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake. MOORE: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world… O'REILLY: Alright, I’ve got anther question… MOORE: 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'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were. MOORE: You would sacrifice your child? O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you? MOORE: Uh huh. O'REILLY: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban? MOORE: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil. O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban. MOORE: But we didn’t go after them, did we? O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda. MOORE: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there. O'REILLY: OK, well look you can’t kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan — you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you? MOORE: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people. O'REILLY: How? MOORE: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was… O'REILLY: Why was that? MOORE: That’s my question. O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated. MOORE: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two-month head start. O'REILLY: All right, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government? MOORE: No, unless it is a threat to us. O'REILLY: 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? MOORE: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States. O'REILLY: From '33 until '41, he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States. MOORE: There’s a lot of things we should have done. O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him. MOORE: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power. O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore. You would have invaded. MOORE: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, whoa, I’m trying to stop this war right now. O'REILLY: I know you are but… MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war? O'REILLY: No, we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to… MOORE: So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that. O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.. MOORE: Your child? It’s Bush sending the children there. O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself. MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old… O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it. MOORE: Say, “I, Bill O’Reilly, would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah.” O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous… MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this? O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you — MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq? O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq. MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here? O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don’t you know anything about any of that? MOORE: So, you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what? O'REILLY: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long. MOORE: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein. O'REILLY: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media. MOORE: Now come on. O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there. MOORE: How do you know that? O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there. MOORE: How do you know that? O'REILLY: You wouldn’t have removed him. MOORE: 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'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that. MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe. O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed. MOORE: The people rose up. O'REILLY: Why? Because they went bankrupt. MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up… O'REILLY: All right, all right. MOORE: …that’s how you, let me ask you this question. O'REILLY: One more. MOORE: 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'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam… MOORE: Why didn’t they rise up? O'REILLY: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off… MOORE: Well that’s true in many countries throughout the world… O'REILLY: It is, it’s a shame… MOORE: …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'REILLY: 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? MOORE: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would? O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself. MOORE: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah? O'REILLY: I would. MOORE: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now? O'REILLY: That’s right. MOORE: Where’s the recruiter? O'REILLY: You’d love to get rid of me. MOORE: No, I want you to live. I want you to live. O'REILLY: I appreciate that Michael Moore everybody. There he is. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html ************************************** You are free to decide what you think about Moore / O'Reilly and this interview. Personally, I saw the interview and watched as MM evaded questions and refused to give direct answers. At times he just kept throwing out "Sacrificing our Children" as though Bush is calling 7-10 year olds to fight in Iraq. My fiance is in the Army - should they send him back to Iraq you can bet he isn't going to say that his Daddy was made to sacrifice him for Bush's war. I don't think any parent is sacrificing their children (it is a volunteer military) nor is Bush trying to get our troops killed. People can believe what they want, and they will hear words and twist the meanings to reflect what they want to believe. It was already proven that there were THREE intelligence agencies: USA, the UK and Russia that reported information that was not accurate. There are some, like Moore that still want to believe Bush lied. Let me ask you this: If you were told to give a presentation on the rain cycle to a group of students and you based your presentation on three textbooks of information - only to discover that the information was not correct, would that make you a liar? Should you be chastized and ridiculed again and again. Now..keep in mind that maybe 90% of what was in the three books was true, but some information was left out. Should you be fired? What about when we accidently post articles that aren't quite true? Are we liars? I have seen several people do that AND I did that once as well. Someone pointed out to me an Urban Legend that I posted as true. It sucks to have to realize one has been misinformed. Bush wasn't wrong in believing the three intelligence sources. We did remove an evil dictator from office and routine tortures and rapes have stopped as a result. We have found chemical weapons and illegal weapons supplied by foreign countries to Iraq. ------------------ "Lahn dádzaayú nahikai leh ni' nyelíí k'ehge," Goyathlay (Geronimo) "Once we moved like the Wind" "Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar." This call and spur to the faithful servants of Truth and Justice was quoted by Churchill in his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC - May 19, 1940, London. IP: Logged
StarLover33 unregistered	posted August 02, 2004 10:27 PM I read the entire thing, and I'm really glad you posted that Pidaua! I've never seen Bill O'Reilly in action, but he sounds like a highly intelligent man. What an excellent transcript to read. Job well done for both of the men to represent their points of views. -StarLover IP: Logged
Randall Webmaster Posts: 4782 From: The Goober Galaxy Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 02, 2004 10:46 PM Love seeing the real MM come out. ------------------ "Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 03, 2004 12:59 AM O'Reilly was entirely too easy on Moore. Why is everyone letting Moore get away with asking the question, "would you "send" your child to Iraq to die? This is America, parents don't "send" assign, pledge or otherwise obligate their children to serve in the military. Notice Moore starts with a lying premise. God, I'd love to see Moore spend 5 minutes with Michael Savage Not that Moore would ever risk that. IP: Logged
Randall Webmaster Posts: 4782 From: The Goober Galaxy Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 03, 2004 01:51 AM MM would not last 30 seconds with Sean Hannity. ------------------ "Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged
TINK unregistered	posted August 03, 2004 07:49 AM Why did Mr O'Reilly say Tenet was fired? IP: Logged
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 03, 2004 12:27 PM I don't know why O'Reilly would say Tenet was "fired". Certainly the 9/11 Commission Report that was due out in the days just after he "resigned" made it clear intelligence was mishandled and misdirected by the CIA and the general tone of that report was in circulation before Tenet "resigned". Tenet was one of the "hold-overs" from the Clinton Administration and had a long run as DCI. What's your opinion TINK? IP: Logged
Randall Webmaster Posts: 4782 From: The Goober Galaxy Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 03, 2004 12:47 PM Letting people resign is a nice way of saying they are fired. "Resign, or else." ------------------ "Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 03, 2004 01:34 PM And who says the President has no heart? Letting Tenet resign for "personal reasons", presumably to spend more time with his wonderful family. IP: Logged
lioneye68 unregistered	posted August 03, 2004 01:53 PM I know people like Moore. They make up their minds that somebody is inferior in some way, and there is no way in God's green earth that they will ever reconsider their opinion of a person. No matter how many times over they are proved to have the wrong impression, they cling to it for dear life anyway. They seem to have a psychotic and desparate need to look down on others, for whatever reason. Probably, to make themselves feel superior. I absolutely despise people like that. They're just ugly inside. (in Moore's case, on the outside too) Great post, Pidaua. That was very interesting, to see how MM lacks any sort of a compelling arguement, he just repeats the same cliches over and over and over, emotionally charged cliches that have no real relevence to the meat and potatoes of the matter. He's exploiting people's emotions, and he's a slime-ball for doing that. IP: Logged
BugginOut6106 unregistered	posted August 06, 2004 10:37 PM Some what it is a volunteer war. Then why do recruiters target the underprivleged folk in innner cities and offer them free college tuition and the like. The rich don't send off their children to sacrifice their lives and sense of well being in the good ol US b/c they have others to do their dirty work. By offering the opportunity to fight for our country while attempting to throw money in evey direction, money for college, money/benefits for marrying and childbearing, into the government all for what?? Making us more enemies in the Arab world, capturing Saddam, which by the way has really been the only outcome of this war that had landed us into 400 Billion dollars in debt. Sure there are folk who "volunteer" for being a partiot. But I truly belive that the majority of folk who opt to fight in Iraq wouldn't do it if there were not fringe benefits. We don't volunteer for anything, The capitalistic mindset is against this. IP: Logged
pidaua Knowflake Posts: 67 From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 06, 2004 10:49 PM Buggin..Your stats are just plain wrong. When I have time I will hunt the thread where I posted ALL of the military statistics that put your "poor people in the military" theory to shame. Also, it is a myth that the military is mostly made up of poor minorities. I will get it to you soon so that you will be more informed concerning the facts. IP: Logged
pidaua Knowflake Posts: 67 From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 06, 2004 11:00 PM Since I only have the 2001 statistics available and I don't think that much has changed, I am not seeing the statistic that there large discrepancy between the number of minority military people versus white. In fact according to the 2000 census Bureau (and we know the numbers for blacks and hispanics have risen considerably) The population is such: White: ~75% Black: ~12.3% Hispanic: ~12.5% A. Indian: ~0.9% Asian: 3.6% The Military states that on active duty they stats break down as such: Men: White: 65.5% Black: 17.3% Hispanic: 11.4% Other: 5% Women: White: 52.8% Black: 29.5% Hispanic: 11.1% Other: 6.7% White numbers fall 10% lower than average, Black increases by 5%, Hispanic decreases by 1% below the average. The total breakdown is similar - in actuality more female minorities serve percentage wise than men, but men still make up more of the over all number. Civilians working in the military still fall within those overall US population lines. http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2001/contents/contents.htm http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf We can even take it a step further and look at the reserves: White: 81.2% Black: 9.0% Hispanic: 3.6% Other: 6.5% Now we see a different trend when it comes to the reserves. White tend to be 6% over the US census population numbers, Blacks almost half below and Hispanics fall by 9%. http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter6/c6_resrace.htm As far as education: Only 20% of those that enlist without a highschool education make it through that first year of enlistment, whereas 80% drop out. Another note, most of the people that enlisted had at least an Eleventh grade reading ability wheras the US population average is at the 10th grade level. Out of those in the reserves, it show that at least 81% were college graduates. Only 18% did not earn a degree and about 22% had a PhD or higher. Hmmm, funny enough the US population statistics demonstrate that only 15.5% of the US population (25 years or older) has a Bachelor's Degree, while 28.8% have a high school degree. It seems to be that the military actually promotes education and thus produces a higher number of educated people than the average overall US population. http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter6/c6_reseducation.htm I think this dispels the myth of the poor minorities making up most of the military. Here is another link about the selection and recruitment process: http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter2/c2_recruiting.htm btw, my Army dude is not poor, not a minority and loves what he does. My dad, although started off poor and is still a minority ( ), chose the Army to serve his country, as did several of his brothers /sisters, to see the world and get an education. He didn't wait for a draft. IP: Logged
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 07, 2004 12:26 AM Thanks for posting the stats Pidaua, I'm way past the point of patience with the incessant refrain the military targets the poor. It's BS and it's also a volunteer military. IP: Logged
LittleLadyLeo unregistered	posted August 07, 2004 12:05 PM Many of the guys I went to high school with ended up going into the military, mainly because they knew it was the most likely way for them to get away from small town life. They realized they did not have the grades or money to get to college AND they knew there was more to life than farming and getting drunk every Saturday. I would imagine that much of the same mind set would be found in those people from urban areas as to why they go into the military. It takes a dedicated individual to go into the military. It's hard work, low pay, and a lot of discrimination from "high minded losers." LLL IP: Logged
TINK unregistered	posted August 07, 2004 03:53 PM Of course it is a volunteer army, Jwhop. At least for now But whether or not the poor are targeted, who knows? Do you work for their advertising department? I have seen the ads, and I'm sure you have too. What do they offer? Skills and college money. The rich don't need those things. I work down the road from a Marine recruitment center. Wonderful guys btw, real gentlemen. And cute outfits too But anyway, they often come in and ask some of our younger male employees if they would like to join up. (they never ask the ladies. Hmmm) And what do they offer? Job experience and college money - an opportunity to move up in the world. If mommy is a surgeon and daddy is a corporate lawyer, I don't need the Marines to give me a push up in the world. But if mommy is on welfare and daddy is nowhere to be found, it might just sound like a good deal. Young men with little oppurtunity, little money and nowhere to go have been joining the military and their situation has been taken advantage of for a lot longer than our country has been around. Why do you think it would be any different now? And yes, I realize that some will join strictly for the honor of it. And no, I am not one of the "have nots" speaking with bitterness and jealousy. I am quite comfortable, thank you. IP: Logged
BloodRedMoon unregistered	posted August 07, 2004 07:59 PM mmmmmmmmmm Bill O'Reilly.... ------------------ Follow the moon - Follow the sun Let's make a deal this time to stay with the plan All that is needed is one leap of faith Everything else will fall into place Your life is a canvas -The colors are you IP: Logged
raine6 unregistered	posted August 16, 2004 12:05 AM "Fox News? Edited for clarity?" Hm, IMO it would be nice if the "real" O'Reilly could be seen in clip after clip shouting at people to "shut up!" in "outfoxed" -- the expose' about Fox News' "fair and balanced" reporting. Actually, I'm surprised Moore wasn't cut off ten seconds into it, O'Reilly's usual m.o. of warding off any intrusions of truth into his domain. [A complaint has been filed with the FCC about their outrageous lies, plain, simple and provable. The bigger they are, the easier they are swallowed whole. As Goebels said, "Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth." And Fox has been doing that for years now; their name says it all.] But alas, that won't happen; the ones who most need to see the real O'Reilly won't go near the film. Their minds are already made up--just like a guy on another site, who called the documentary everything from traitorous to satanic. As he went on, he revealed that he actually believed it was a BOOK!!! He knew nothing about it, yet had such fierce opinions. What does that tell you? And people quote these "experts" who are quoting O'Reilly, and think that they are getting "fair and balanced" reporting. {{(O.o)*}} Hence, they "wouldn't pay one dime to see Michael Moore's film..." That's the ubiquitous response from the "Robots for Bush." Wouldn't you think that independent thought would have at least come up with one person who might not have offered "a nickle"? It's almost as though it had been programmed in there... IP: Logged
pidaua Knowflake Posts: 67 From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 16, 2004 12:52 AM It is blatently obvious you didn't read the post Raine. Had you done that you would have noticed it is a "transcript" from a LIVE broadcast where millions of people watched the program - real time. By the way, have you seen the movie "I Robot?" I hear it was endorsed by the Bushies LOL..... IP: Logged
raine6 unregistered	posted August 16, 2004 01:49 AM Be nice. My comments weren't addressing the interview; had you read my post, you would have known that. IP: Logged
Aquarian Girl unregistered	posted August 16, 2004 11:58 AM This interview just further proves to me that Michael Moore is out to promote his own agenda which seems to be is all about perverting the truth, to what end? It is not immediately clear to me. As a Marine Corps wife of an enlisted man, I'm insulted that Moore thinks that my husband serves under financial duress (read: because he's poor and/or stupid which to me is implied by this argument) or for any reason other than love and pride for the Marine Corps and his country. Was I the only one infuriated by his repeating the perverted question "would you sacrifice your child?"... I think if I was watching that, I'd want to throw eggs at my TV in frustration. Nobody "sacrifices" their child. Most inane, irrelevant, DISHONEST statement made in that whole thing, designed to tug at the heart strings and divert focus from the facts of the matter. Ridiculous! quote: Hence, they "wouldn't pay one dime to see Michael Moore's film..." That's me. I would LOVE to see Farenhiet 9/11, however I don't want Michael Moore to recieve a red cent from me... So if you hear about a free showing somewhere in my area, let me know. I am in Australia right now and my mother and I are going to see Bowling For Columbine at a local university. It's the only way she can convince me to see a Michael Moore film... If he isn't making any money from it. And yes, I have read various chapters from his book "Stupid White Men"... What I have read has further enforced my low opinion of him. quote: God, I'd love to see Moore spend 5 minutes with Michael Savage Heheheh... I Michael Savage. I do not always agree with everything he says, but I admire his passion and integrity, the latter of which Michael Moore is severely lacking IMO. Savage Vs Moore? Yep, I would definitely pay to see that any day! IP: Logged
pidaua Knowflake Posts: 67 From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo Registered: Apr 2009	posted August 16, 2004 12:12 PM I admire everyone that is serving. I think that there are just too many people here trying to make it out like the men and women serving are all doing so under duress and that we are sacrificing our young. It's sad. Raine, you are allowed to have your opinion. The thread was about MM and O'Reilly's interview. Not Fox, not the movie per se or not someone's take on the owners of fox. I won't watch MM's movies because, like AquaGirl, I don't wish to give him any of my money. I think he is duping people and using the war and his hate towards Bush to fleece them. That is my opinion though IP: Logged
Isis Newflake Posts: 1 From: Brisbane, Australia Registered: May 2009	posted August 16, 2004 01:12 PM Raine, where does it say that Bill thought it was a book? I didn't see that.... Also, I think re: Bill, there's a fundamental distinction you're not making. Bill O'Reilly has an editorial show - he does not report the news. If people quote him as a factual source for news, that speaks more of their ignorance than Bill's. The entire news media, with the exception of Fox, is liberal, from what I can see. Many here have posted statistics showing that a large percentage (70+%) of the media is leftist and/or Democrat. I find it ironic that nobody speaks about media bias when the media is biased to their darling, Bill Clinton, but when Fox pops up to counter the left's stranglehold on the media, they scream bloody murder. I used to love Michael Savage, been listening to him since the mid 90s, but I must say, I can't take too much of him anymore. He has become pretty arrogant and much more rude since he became syndicated, especially since his short lived show on MSNBC. Now Glen Beck, has anyone listened to him? I really like him. Wry, cutting sense of humor, has all the passion of Michael w/out screaming and cutting everyone off. Much more humorous IMO. As for the subject of this thread, Michael Moore is such an insignificance in my life he hardly warrants a mention anymore. I equate him with a lying minister who manipulates his flock, abusing the power they've given him in their trust of his good intentions - but until the flock wakes up and see the deception, there's nothing outsiders can do. People love to hear people they respect tell them what they want to hear. I believe karma will take care of him and his deceptions, as it will all of us; his lies will someday come back to bite him in the ass, either in this life or the next. But that's just my opinion. ------------------ “The good things which belong to prosperity are to be wished, but the good things that belong to adversity are to be admired.” Seneca IP: Logged
Aquarian Girl unregistered	posted August 16, 2004 02:00 PM Pidaua, My husband joined when he was 17. He finished his first active duty enlistment just before his 22nd birthday. He left the military and then rejoined as a reservist in November 2003. He already has his GI Bill money and he's leaving a high paying civilian job in order to deploy to Iraq next month, so... like your fiancee, he really isn't being forced to go anywhere, he actually wants to go. quote: I admire everyone that is serving. I think that there are just too many people here trying to make it out like the men and women serving are all doing so under duress and that we are sacrificing our young. It's sad. Thank you Pidaua! The way Moore and his sympathisers go on, you'd think everyone serving in Iraq was drafted. They all volunteered, people. I do not know anyone in the military who is not offended by that condescending attitude where it's assumed they are serving only because they are dirt poor and underprivilged and Uncle Sam is taking advantage of them or whatever. I honestly cannot think of one person who is not proud of serving in the military or who has said something to the effect of "I only joined to get the GI Bill, but otherwise I totally hate this sh@t "... Cause if you felt that way, you couldn't stick it out for four years, believe me. IP: Logged
Aquarian Girl unregistered	posted August 16, 2004 02:07 PM quote: Now Glen Beck, has anyone listened to him? I have listened to his show a few times, but his voice and delivery kinda grates on me. IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com