My Analysis:


On Bush Lying:

Moore stated that Bush didn't tell the truth, and that is accurate (as far as we know). Since Bush did say that Saddam had WMD and we haven't found any, what Bush reported wasn't the truth. I think that is clear enough. However, a lie requires someone to tell something they know as false and pass it as the truth. O'Reilly is right, as far as we know, that Bush didn't lie.

Now they banter back and forth about this for a while, with them each stating two different statements as if they are opposites and mutually exclusive. They aren't. While Bush may not have told the truth, that doesn't mean he lied, especially if he didn't know for certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They are arguing about which way to view the hazy grey area that this issue lies in.

The change on this discussion is when Moore states, "It was a lie."

From that point forward, he is directly opposing O'Reilly's statement, and unless Moore has some information proving that Bush lied -- information nobody else has -- then Moore just made a false statement that is not backed up by any proof. In other words, he's doing exactly what he claimed Bush to be doing -- 'not telling the truth.' If we extend that with Moore's logic, then Moore is lying on this point, and he's pretty-much shot himself in the foot on this issue.

O'Reilly 1, Moore 0

On the dead soldiers:

Moore is stating that these soldiers died for something that wasn't there (WMD) and therefore their deaths were for nothing. O'Reilly's point is that despite there being no WMDs, they died to remove a dictator even if that wasn't the original reason they went in. These points, unlike the previous ones, are mutually exclusive. Either they died for nothing, or they died to remove a dictator.

Since Saddam was toppled, and since he was a brutal dictator, I'd say that their deaths enabling the latter to have happened pretty-much seal the deal on that issue.

The reason Moore may seem to have a point here is because of a popular misconception that soldiers need a reason. While I think a good solid reason is a good thing, and don't approve of going to war with Iraq, whether or not there is a solid reason they are sent to a foreign country is irrelevant in their charge of duty. To paraphrase the Last Samurai, "If you want me to kill terrorists, I'll kill terrorists, if you want me to kill Iraqis, I'll kill Iraqis." That is the charge of a soldier -- to follow orders -- not to question their legitimacy unless in direct opposition to their rules of conduct.

I don't know of any part of the UCMJ that states that soldiers can't go to war if the intelligence on the primary justification for the invasion turns out to be false, otherwise we would have seen a lot of people with legitimate grounds for leaving Vietnam, don't you think?

The fact is that, while tragic, it is the job of soldiers to do what they're ordered to. The fact is that they were charged with invading and securing Iraq because he had WMDs. The latter half turned out not to be true as far as we know, but that's irrelevant in the charge of the soldiers which was invading Iraq. What they accomplished was the ousting of a dictator, so despite the lack of the justification for the invasion, their lives were not 'for nothing' as the invasion certainly caused something.

O'Reilly 2, Moore 0

On making mistakes:

Moore's point is that these soldiers died for a mistake, and that people feel bad about it. O'Reilly agrees that it was a mistake, and says that there's nothing that can be done with it.

As many times as Moore tries to raise sympathy, O'Reilly sticks to his ideological guns. The fact is that mistakes happen, and mistakes are unintentional. Moore said earlier Bush lied, which is intentional, so he is weakening a claim (perhaps because he realizes that the slip he made earlier shoots himself in the foot). So we can see, first off, that Moore is backtracking from his earlier claims (probably due to lack of support).

O'Reilly makes a VERY Moore-esque statement in this section, stating that "...if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that." This re-states his original point that Bush didn't lie, and really hammers an important point home. Morally, that is in the absolute judgment of right and wrong, he cannot hold you responsible for a mistake, an accident. He, however, doesn't state that the mistake should be forgotten, or that the culprit shouldn't be responsible in other facets.

By making the argument more broad and using more refined language, he manages to make a logically sound statement that makes perfect sense.

For all of Moore's attempts to get O'Reilly to make a mis-step that undercuts his argument about Bush, it fails miserably as O'Reilly remains calm and sticks to his ideological guns, making a logically sound statement defending his point of view while not undercutting his argument by trying to leave out any discussion of other potential culpability the person who made the mistake may be subject to. Had he said, "I can't find you morally responsible, but I would enjoy seeing you thrown in jail and having your license revoked" then Moore could have come back with a statement about how Bush should be impeached and/or voted out of office. He didn't, and so I think O'Reilly handled the set-up perfectly.

O'Reilly 3, Moore 0

Sorry, forgot to mention I have pasted this from a friend of mine's opinion page. 'My analysis' at the top are actually his words, not mine. One of the best analysis ever, I must say.

Contd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On O'Reilly's children and willingness to die in these wars:

Moore tries to get O'Reilly to state whether or not he would send his children off to die in these conflicts. O'Reilly argues that he doesn't have the right to send his children, but would send himself.

Moore is trying to prove that O'Reilly is all talk and no action by asking whether or not he would send his own children off to war in these conflicts. O'Reilly accurately points out that he would sacrifice his life, but that he can't talk for his children. Moore tries to press the same issue several times, but O'Reilly keeps coming up with the same response -- 'I would sacrifice myself, but I can't make a decision for my children.'

I think O'Reilly is very strong on this point because he's right -- he can't speak about whether or not he'd send his children off to war, because it isn't his choice. He does, however, stick to his guns by pointing out that he would be willing to give his OWN life for the conflict. Since one's own life is the highest price you can pay realistically, O'Reilly is making the strongest statement possible without looking like an arse for saying that he'd make decisions for his children (who I presume are legal sovereign adult individuals).

O'Reilly then swaps the question around on Moore, asking Moore if he would give his life for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Moore goes through a huge process of entirely evading the question. He'd give his life to go after Al Qaeda, but he wouldn't attack the Taliban. He doesn't give any answer on how he'd do that, and switches to when it's justified to attack a government. His answer? 'Only if it poses a threat to us.' So O'Reilly brings up Hitler, to which Moore responds Pearl Harbor, and O'Reilly points out '33-'41. Moore claims mistakes were made in the statement, "Thereýfs a lot of things we should have done."

If we should have done something, and we didn't, that would be a mistake. And I don't hear Moore trying to crucify FDR... Therefore he is strengthening O'Reilly's earlier statements about mistakes being made.

But Moore goes further, and states that he would have made sure Hitler never came into power. O'Reilly (correctly) points out that would be pre-emption, the very policy Moore likes to criticize Bush over. Moore is not a fan of any of the cases where the US does covert things in other countries trying to interfere with their government (the whole Nicaragua thing in specific seems to be a favourite), yet he suggests that the same thing should be done in hindsight, oops?

Basically, Moore is using hindsight to support the same policies he speaks out against.

O'Reilly 4, Moore 0

On revolution:

Moore argues that Iraq could have changed regime via revolution, while O'Reilly argues that Moore opposes the ways that America supports revolutions.

Although slightly parallel with the previous line of discussion, I think this merits a separate point. O'Reilly points out that if Moore were president, Saddam would likely still be in power. Moore argues that there's no way to know that, because perhaps revolution would have broken out. They get into a discussion about the history of revolution and how people have successfully risen up against dictatorships throughout the world. O'Reilly points out that Moore opposed the policies of Reagan which helped to supply guns to these countries that revolted.

Moore doesn't respond to that point, and it is dropped, but Moore keeps prodding at the popular revolution concept as a successful catalyst in regime change. I think that Moore has an excellent point on rebellion, but that O'Reilly also has a point that Moore opposes presidents who have supported revolutions in other countries... I think they both have a good point and tie on this segment of the argument.

O'Reilly 5, Moore 1

Conclusion:

So in the end, I really think that O'Reilly's points were a lot stronger logically than Moore's, and that he made far fewer slip-ups on the issues. However, I think that Moore probably had a better command of rhetoric and didn't look that bad despite some of the gaffes he made. The fact is that Moore is great at rhetoric, but his arguments tend to be lacking of a real solid point or punch instead reveling in playful images and political satire of sorts. However, if you really read the transcript, you will realize that Moore's arguments, though maybe more convincing, just aren't logically sound.

People say that O'Reilly isn't that bright? Well, I think the fact that he came up against Moore and managed not to make any serious mistakes logically, or speak himself into a trap says something about his intelligence. Moore is the fiery speaker who relies on emotions to make points, and in some strange cosmic joke, O'Reilly actually became a calm debater concentrating on the facts rather than trying to belittle his opponents.

I think O'Reilly, while being a royal arse, is probably quite intelligent, gauging his tactics according to the person he's debating. Since he can't strong-arm Moore (getting emotional and loud towards Moore is the sort of thing that Moore thrives on and can work off of), he just stuck to the issues and made some dynamite logically sound arguments against Moore's points, and ended up making Moore slip up and contradict himself instead.

Moore, on the other hand, is full of rhetoric and preying on mistakes. I think that Moore was hoping to find the O'Reilly that you usually see on the program berating his interviewees and trying to belittle them, and catch him off-guard with a statement that O'Reilly shouldn't have made. The fact is that while there's plenty to be down on Bush and Iraq about, Moore picks very extreme things that aren't actually provable and changes the argument just enough to make it impossible to disprove (for instance changing 'Bush lied' to 'Bush didn't tell the truth'). This makes him weak if someone just sticks to the issues.

O'Reilly is a racist MF.
Bush is a stupid, for sure.
Moore Rocks !.
DP

About Moore Versus O'Reilly. I felt that Michael Moore cornered O'Reilly pretty effectively. First of, it was quite a travesty when O'Reilly couldn't answer Moore's rather simple question--whether O'Reilly was willing to send his son/daughter to Iraq to fight for America. Moore clearly elucidates that he would not send his children to Iraq, but O'Reilly dodges the question by retorting that he would go there himself, were it needed. However, he doesn't answer Moore's question head-on, even when Moore presses the question to O'Reilly a few times. Now, O'Reilly's pretext is that Moore was trying to bait him. Perhaps he was, but O'Reilly came out to be a hypocrite--supporting war against Iraq, which is being fought chiefly by young individuals for financial reasons, while at the same time not willing to send his own children to fight for America . That was the crux of Michael Moore's argument. This point is also, in fact, evinced by Michael Moore in his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11.
As for Moore's stance that Bush lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Moore's response was that yes, Bush lied about it. He in fact clarifies his position later on. When it was O'Reillys turn to answer Moore's question, Michael Moore asks him what he would tell the sons and daughters of the 900 deceased American soldiers. The way O'Reilly answered the question was that the war was a mistake, chiefly due to faulty intelligence. This was quite a laughable response, because Michael Moore pins him down. "So, you're going to tell them that we are fighting this war because of a mistake?" was Michael Moore's response, to paraphrase. That indeed made O'Reilly look rather silly. Mistakes and lies can occur together, FYI. A lie can't be a mistake? That's a rather inane point, if you ask me.
O'Reilly keeps telling his guests that even Russia and the United Kingdom actually came up with the same conclusion. Michael Moore simply answers that he should have listened to America's intelligence instead. He refers to Richard Clarke, who in fact, in his book makes it clear that Bush was intentionally trying to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein, even when pieces of evidence were rather questionable. In the end, Bush decided to use the Uranium lie and the Al-Qaeda and Saddam connection to persuade the American people. The CIA folks in fact had told Bush to cross out the Uranium line. Bush simply didn't listen. So yes, it was a lie. There was no proof that Saddam was trying to procure WMD materials from Africa.

O'Reilly's response that we went to Iraq to remove a dictator was pathetic at best. Moore simply rebutted O'Lielly's point by mentioning that there are 31+ dictators in the world. Why go after Saddam? Fact is that without the putative WMD threat posed by Iraq, there would have been no reason to go there. Furthermore, the primary reason given by the Bush administration to take us to Iraq was the WMD threat, and had nothing to do with any other reasons that O'Reilly likes to use as his talking points. Of course, Bush and Co later flipflopped and decided to come up with other reasons, but in essence, it was always the WMD issue that was the theme of BushCo's argument.

Babaal, I think you overlook the simple fact: Via Godwin's Law, O'Reilly loses the argument automatically when he becomes the first debater to invoke the Nazis to make a point.

Right, keeps comparing Moore to Goebbels. Comparing someone from a fascist regime to someone who is completely against war. Bleh.

Seems like Kerry's public support has increased after the convention. How many of you think Bush is officially in trouble now for the election?

thats y there is ANOTHER TERROR threAT :P ...

So according to the latest threats, the potential targets are:

3 cities and a total of 5 specific buildings.

-Prudential headquarters (high rise office building) in Newark, NJ

-NY Stock Exchange
-CitiCorp headquarters in NYC

-IMF in Washington
-another building in Washington DC


so if citicorp goes down, do you think they'll lose my student loan info and I won't have to pay ?

If it doesn't go down, just flee to Nepal and then you won't have to pay anyway.

LOL @ acharya...haha..dont know man..do U ??