Michael Moore vs. Bill O'Reilly streetside "debate" at DNC

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
This is from drudge, not sure if it will be taken down soon.

MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION
Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET

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

gygax! (gygax!), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, that will be a barnburner, I'm sure. Big dumb ratings for that one.

dean? (deangulberry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)

reading this makes me want to shoot myself

Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

or them

Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:16 (twenty-one years ago)

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.
Didn't the Senate intelligence comiitee explicitly state that they weren't ging to investigate Bush's use of the intelligence? And why did the Butler investigation get involved with this issue? and when did the 911 omission opine on this?
Bill o'Reilly wouldn't misrepresent complex findings for partisna gain, would he?

Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

The battle of belligerance. They both come off like total idiots.

roger adultery (roger adultery), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I love the debating technique of putting words in the other's mouth. It really makes your side look cool.

(And I am talking about both of them.)

Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

"Bill o'Reilly wouldn't misrepresent complex findings for partisna gain, would he? "

Nah...Bill "Mr. Integrity" O'Reilly?

latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

"partisna"

Symplistic (shmuel), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

"O'Reilly"

x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

The battle of belligerance. They both come off like total idiots.

FWIW, that's what the current state of political debate is.

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

it kind of bothers me that i think moore comes off as the worse idiot, though. i mean, i had much stronger impulses to scream at his comments.

Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Has there ever been a point in human politics where debate hasn't consisted of putting words into your opponent's mouth?

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

the great Marcel Marceau vs. Shields and Yarnell debate.

hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:39 (twenty-one years ago)

this is even more cringe inducing watching it right now on TV than it was to read.

AaronHz (AaronHz), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Moore sounds great here?!! maybe it reads better

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 27 July 2004 23:46 (twenty-one years ago)

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

okay, this made me laugh.


Kingfish von Bandersnatch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Arggghhh.

Andrew (enneff), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:31 (twenty-one years ago)

this debate sounds like an ilx thread! complete with the weird tangents into totally trivial points.

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah but nobody suddenly interjects and says HI DERE

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 02:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't have cable. Is it actually a "streetside debate?" Are they standing about face on a Boston sidewalk with spectators milling around? It would be awesome if someone could confirm the visual I have in my head.

theodore fogelsanger (herbert hebert), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 03:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Just watched it on Foxnews.com. I should have assumed that the debate took place in a convention press box. I was oddly excited about the prospect of O'Reilly taking "The Factor", literally, to the streets.

theodore fogelsanger (herbert hebert), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 03:38 (twenty-one years ago)

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.

The Butler inquiry did not even touch on the use of inetlligence, merely in a the garering and presntation of that intelligence and the politcal pressures place on the intelligence services to come up with intelligence so that no one had to lie.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 05:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that, intentional or not, it is important that there is a liberal that is willing to be as base and literal as the hate mongers on the right. Somebody has to wrestle the Russian to win the Gold medal. And you better have a big burly farmboy to do it. Or the Russians up the medal count.

Speedy (Speedy Gonzalas), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 07:11 (twenty-one years ago)

This is all half-remembered, but wasn't a whole new intelligence organization set up in the States *because* the CIA wasn't bringing in enough juice? By Wolfowitz?

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 07:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with Tracer actually. He's not great in the begining, but towards the end, he sounds a lot better than he usually does.

C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I like how in the commentary afterwards, O'Reilly tried to claim that he "really gave it to him" and didn't let him off easy. Meanwhile, Moore ended the interview by making O'Reilly the butt of a joke.

Maria D. (Maria D.), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 10:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Huh? Moore sounds like a totally uninformed idiot here. And I thought I was going to be taking his side, because O'Reilly is a douchebag.


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?

... a """slam dunk" ..

dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)

dave225 OTM.

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.

MM knows it was a left wing government, right? And he's supposed to represent America's left, right? And you can try contrasting this with MM's interest in bring democracy to the world later in the debate...

This is two dumb idiots shouting at each other in the street. To politics, it's the equivalent of 'Ask A Drunk' to ILE.

aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:20 (twenty-one years ago)

The true essence of politics IS two dumb idiots shouting at each other in the street! I am still bemused that people think it's a highbrow intellectual activity.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:28 (twenty-one years ago)

You're an American, right Dan? ;-)

aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Your parlimentary sessions are often broadcast over here, alan, and the only discernable difference is that your folks are skinnier and wear their suits buttoned up.

x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Your parlimentary sessions are often broadcast over here, alan, and the only discernable difference is that your folks are skinnier and wear their suits buttoned up.

That'll be the bun fight that is Prime Minister's Questions. The rest of it's much more polite and reserved, apart from John Prescott.

Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:39 (twenty-one years ago)

You can communicate exactly the same amount of disdain for someone in a florid, genteel-sounding speech as you can in a shouting match, hence "true essence". Politics is much more about discrediting others and manouvering people into doing what you want than it is anything else.

VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)

You can communicate exactly the same amount of disdain for someone in a florid, genteel-sounding speech as you can in a shouting match

Surely this would require one to be above the dumb idiot shouting threshold?
Politics is much more about lobbying than anything else. The discrediting bit is just to decide who gets to ride the lobbyists gravy train.

Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this thread is now more idiotic than its subject.

J (Jay), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 12:21 (twenty-one years ago)

This is all half-remembered, but wasn't a whole new intelligence organization set up in the States *because* the CIA wasn't bringing in enough juice? By Wolfowitz?

nope. The CIA is but one of about 12 intelligence gathering and analysis organizations in the government, but there have not been any new ones formed anytime lately.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 13:16 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm not really down with your armchair cynicism dan

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

there have not been any new ones formed anytime lately

*cough*OFFICEOFSPECIALPLANS*cough*

J (Jay), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

that's not technically an intelligence-gathering or analysis agency, but a war-planning office. Yes, they used intelligence (er...) gathered by agencies such as the CIA and DIA and others, but it was more of an ad-hoc thing put together by Rumsfeld. Unfortunately, yes, it had disproportionate weight over policy decisions.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

they did a little gathering of their own, too, I should state. But I still don't think it qualifies as an actual agency (which is why it's in some ways more nefarious).

good article on OSP here: The Lie Factory.

hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)

The reason that it's fair to call Bush a liar over Iraq is because he was determined to go to war against Iraq regardless of what the intelligence was. For Bush, WMD wasn't even the real issue, it was just the most convenient stick that he had to beat the Democrats and moderates in Congress over the head with to get the approval he wanted to go to war. Anyone who followed the intelligence about Iraq and WMD before the war knew that that there were lots of holes in the evidence - that much was apparent even from reading the relatively unquestioning news media. It was obvious that Bush was pushing the intelligence community for anything he could get on Iraq.

xpost - I second Hstencil's recommendation of that Mother Jones article.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah Stence, but that's a technical distinction, innit, since the OSP was getting the NSA and CIA "raw intelligence" and spinning it into WMD gold? At any rate, I suspect the OSP is what Enrique was referring to upthread, and that was all I meant.

J (Jay), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 15:08 (twenty-one years ago)

i want to punch michael moore in the mouth because the go-go's "vacation" is a song i was very fond of and now whenever i hear it i think about bush golfing

artiste, Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

They're both pretty much the equivalent of professional wrestlers.

Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody.

Huk-El (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

There have to be more gems like that buried in there on either side, but damned if I'll take the time to wade through it all.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't want to punch Moore in the mouth, but if I did, it would be because my agreements with him always break apart right at the point where he turns all America Comes First on us: to claim that the solution to an ill-advised invasion is to just give up and pull out is like saying the solution to shitting on your bed is to just sleep on the other side.

nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

But what if you're really tired?

Huk-El (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

FWIW, you can find the segment on BitTorrent now.

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.