I saw O'Reilly interview Moore, and I think he did a very poor job. Moore claimed that Bush said the sole reason for war with Iraq was WMD- Bill never caught this lie, or he did but didn't care to point out the fact that Moore was lying. Also, Moore claimed that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, but the fact is- Bush made it clear we should go to war BEFORE they BECAME an imminent threat.
Other than that, I don't share O'Reilly's feelings of Moore, as mentioned at the end of this column. I dislike Moore extremely. Any man who spends all his time putting out lies to a semi-uninformed public, having millions of fools buy into his lies, and these lies make Americans LESS safe- is a man that I cannot stand. Documents have come up that terrorist groups have actually used Moore's book, Dude Where's My Country, an anti-Bush book without ANY truth- it's been totally debunked by numerous websites and newspaper columns, magazine articles, etc., as propaganda...which proves that Moore's works of fiction ARE dangerous to Americans. Not to mention, Moore continually talks about how evil America is and how evil our system of capitalism is (the same system that allows Moore to own a mansion in Michigan and a million dollar apartment in Manhattan), that Ameircans are stupid, that we're all materialistic- which is bad (again, two mansions, Mikey), that this country is basically the biggest terrorist on the planet. I personally hate Michael Moore for the danger he puts our country in every day he goes out there and speaks. If he hates this place so bad, this country that has given him tens of millions of dollars, thanks to that darned evil capitalism, I personally think he should get the hell out and not come back.
O'Reilly is exactly right in the end- Moore lives in his own world where facts do not exist.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moore Sense Please
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jul 29, 2004
(Boston) Well, I finally tracked down Michael Moore. I saw him walking in the street outside the Democratic Convention Center and pounced on him like the paparazzi on J-Lo. Moore had been dodging me because his movie was becoming increasingly indefensible by something called "facts." But, to his credit, Moore took up my street challenge and agreed to appear on "The Factor".
We debated for ten minutes and Moore put forth the following:
That President Bush "lied" about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation and Lord Butler's British Investigation all say Bush did not lie.
Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.
Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.
Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms build up had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.
The filmmaker then went on to say that pre-emptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time ask him how he would have done that but I assume commandos would have been involved.
So, hey, Michael Moore this bud's for you. Thanks for showing up and debating. Now we know the under-pinnings of your world outlook.
What is still astounding to me is how many people continue to embrace the fantasies and deceptions of Michael Moore. Some people actually applauded him at the Democratic Convention, but the heavyweights stayed away.
In one bizarre scene, Moore was seated next to Rosalyn and Jimmy Carter. The couple stared straight ahead, looking like contestants about to eat bugs on the "Fear Factor," and the Kerry campaign has made it quite clear that Moore and other left-wing bomb throwers are not to be seen around the candidate.
In fact, the Kerry people actually censored some of the speechmakers from using inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric. That is almost unheard of at a political convention.
But old reliable Howard Dean came through. He continues to be Michael Moore's best pal, appearing with him at a Bush bash in a Cambridge hotel. It is absolutely frightening how close Governor Dean came to being the Democratic presidential nominee.
This may surprise you, but I do not dislike Michael Moore. He is a true believer. He wants a completely different kind of country, and he'll do anything to make that happen.
The problem with Moore is that the ends justify the means. He knows his statements and movies are not based on facts, but he continues to say they are. Even in Moore's world where truth doesn't exist, there should be some kind of ethical standard, but there isn't. And the fact that Howard Dean and other powerful Americans accept that situation is more troubling than anything Michael Moore could ever say.
If Moore's standards of what a "lie" is are applied to Bill Clinton, then we must conclude Clinton lied about that chemical weapons plant he bombed. It turned out to be an aspirin factory, so Clinton must have lied.
im sure there were certain mooreian circumstances in play that allow that to actually be a "mistake", not a lie.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at July 31, 2004 04:15 PMDoes it matter? Both Clinton and Bush were wrong to do what they did. Either they lied, or their gross incompetence cost people thousands of lives. Either way... I find your logic interesting though: If Bush does something bad, that's ok cause so did Clinton. It's the quintessential conservative argument isn't it?
Posted by: lowdown at August 2, 2004 11:23 AMbush didnt do a bad thing. hes ousted two brutal regimes in 3 yrs...two brutal regimes that funded, trained, harbored, and supported terrorist groups that are hell bent on attacking the united states AGAIN. i wouldnt call that gross incompetence, i wouldnt call it wrong, and i wouldnt call it a bad thing.
clinton clearly acted out on occasion merely to draw attention away from his public lies, his scandals (watergate, foster, monica, the chinese and nuclear secrets, etc), and his perjury. no one could deny the things clinton did were bad and wrong and harmful to the country...cant say the same thing for president bush. you might disagree with the war, and if you were president you might take a chance of being attacked, as opposing to going on the offense like bush has...but, no one could say that those actions are, without argument, wrong/bad/harmful.
im not even sure what lies/incompetence youre referring to with the current president. iraq, i presume, but we all know there were no lies/incompetence there. the cia gave the pres intel, russian president putin told him iraq had wmd, british mi6 intel said the same thing- also said he was trying to buy uranium from niger- which could be used for one purpose, a nuclear bomb of some sort, italian intel said the same thing...dutch intel shows attah- the 911 ringleader meeting with high ranking iraqi officials numerous times the yr before the attacks, hans blix himself said that nothing in the report hussein gave to the un sec council was new- it was all old info that was being rehased, and that there was no evidence of iraq destroying large quantities of chem and bio weapons. sarin gas weapons components (which ARE wmd- since they could easily be assembled) have been taken out of iraq, as have nuclear materials- which the new interim prime min. has confirmed...
taking all that evidence, plus his invading iran and kuwait, possibly a million people murdered by the man directly, hundreds of thousands in mass graves, an attempted assissination on pres g h bush, the cease fire agreement that was never followed, 17 un resolutions, demands for 13 yrs, etc. id say that any president who DIDNT act would be incompetent.
in the end, no one say that bush did anything bad to begin with, and they surely didnt say that it was okay (what he didnt do) because clinton did it. so, id say that your entire comment is therefore invalidated.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 2, 2004 09:29 PM"i wouldnt call it wrong, and i wouldnt call it a bad thing"
-That's fine, I'm not arguing whether or not the war in iraq was a bad thing (we're doing that on your tag board), I was saying that bringing up the bad things Clinton did is irrelvant to the defense of Bush's actions. It's simply a weak argument.
"clinton clearly acted out on occasion merely to draw attention away from his public lies"
- Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. There isn't really any evidence (that I'm aware of) that would suggest that was the case. The timing was suspicious, but that's not really enough evidence to "clearly" label it a fact.
"no one could deny the things clinton did were bad and wrong and harmful to the country"
- That's completely untrue. I mean, I'm not arguing on behalf of Clinton, but Democrats would.
"im not even sure what lies/incompetence youre referring to with the current president"
- Well no, you are sure. But I'm not going to argue the war with you here. All I'm saying is that assuming the war with Iraq was based on lies (and I know you don't think it is), it's a weak defense of Bush to say "Clinton lied to".
"in the end, no one say that bush did anything bad to begin with, and they surely didnt say that it was okay (what he didnt do) because clinton did it. so, id say that your entire comment is therefore invalidated"
- Actually, Micheal Moore, who was quoted, DID say Bush did something "bad". It's the response I take issue with. Read "Liberal Larry"'s reply again. In response to Moore accusing Bush of lying he says, "If Moore's standards of what a "lie" is are applied to Bill Clinton..." And little else. Instead of defending Bush he inexplicably bashes Clinton. And then you follow.
Posted by: lowdown at August 3, 2004 06:34 PMagain, no. larry never said that it was okay for bush to lie (bush didnt lie, and larry isnt implying he did, just the opposite) because clinton lied.
he was merely taking moores ridiculous definition of what a lie is and saying that, in moores world, clinton would be a liar, which is something moore probably wouldnt say- since hes a socialist lefty who adores the democratic party right now and hates bush for no reason.
so, youre obviously not understanding whats being said and why its being said.
as for clinton- actually, no REASONABLE person can argue that many of the things he did were wrong. no one in their right mind can condone a sitting president who commits perjury and tries to get others to do so as well to protect his career. nor could anyone condone lying to the american people numerous times on national TV/lying to congress/his staff, etc. no one could deny that his wife and his staff dug up dirt on the many women he groped/molested/possibly raped in an attempt to save his ass. bush, on other hand, doesnt have such a problem. you might think the war in iraq was wrong (and that leaving a despot to do his evil deeeds is fine), but most AMERICANS and many others around the globe think it was right. thats the difference beteween the two men- character, morals, standards.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 3, 2004 07:20 PM"again, no. larry never said that it was okay for bush to lie (bush didnt lie, and larry isnt implying he did, just the opposite)"
- Why bring up Clinton then? When responding to an accusation, what relevance could another man's alleged lies have to the discussion? If liberal larry doesn't think Bush lied than he should have focused on refuting Moore's accusation instead of bringing up a completely irrlevant topic that would do little to convince anybody that Moore's allegation was anything but perfectly accurate. By not refuting the allegation and instead changing the subject to somebody else, I couldn't help but conclude that liberal larry and yourself conceeded moore's criticism was correct. It's not such an unreasonable conculsion. Maybe next time the both of you will concentrate more on the subject at hand and less on a president who hasn't been in office for more than 4 years.
", clinton would be a liar, which is something moore probably wouldnt say"
- How do you know? Had Moore ever defended any of Clinton's "lies" before. Again, this is irrelvant to the topic, but if you want to prove Moore to be a hypocrite you would do well to find some evidence of Moore not holding Bush to the same standards as Clinton.
"youre obviously not understanding whats being said and why its being said."
- Is that what you really believe? Is this conversation really over my head?
"as for clinton- actually, no REASONABLE person can argue that many of the things he did were wrong"
- No one who fits your definition of reasonable. Fine.
"ink the war in iraq was wrong (and that leaving a despot to do his evil deeeds is fine), "
- It didn't occur to you that I might advocate other means (or at least the attempt of other means) of removing Saddam? Aren't you aware of the dozens of other brutal dictators in the middle east that were removed without a U.S. invasion? Or do you only follow Saddam's history because he's the only one Bush seems to care about?
Posted by: lowdown at August 4, 2004 12:27 PM"but most AMERICANS and many others around the globe think it was right"
- According to most polls only half of Americans still support the war. The majority of the people in the "coalition of the willing" were AGAINST the war as were the majority of the people in every other country as well. I don't have time now, but I'll provide you with some links later.
Posted by: lowdown at August 4, 2004 12:35 PM