Although I think O'reilly did a good job, I would have told MM that nobody has sent their "child" off to war.
MOORE: You wouldn't send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
I would have answered this way: I would have no control over my son or daughter entering into the military once they are legal adults. The last time I checked, the didn't let "children" into the military. You have to be 18 years old (17 with parents consent), and that Mr. Moore, is a legal adult. If a parent consents to a 17 year old joining, then they must understand that there are risk involved. I don't think there are any parents out there forcing their 17 year old to go into the military. The 17 year old "child" is almost of legal age. Bush did not send any 0-16 year olds to the war.
I see a trend with liberals and conservatives alike and I don't like it. If you will notice, anytime someone wants to make their case, they will somehow link it to children. This is a physiological way of getting sympathy for their cause. Sometimes, like MM's stance, it is not appropriate to link children to a view. They do that with things like the deficit, environmental and gun control. A good example is accidental deaths with guns. They say over 5000 "children" dies at from guns every year. What they didn't tell you is that the "children" included 18 - 21 year old gang members. They also included all types of death, not just accidental, to pump up the figure. The truth is that of 0-17 year olds, accidental death is less than 300 per year. That is too many, but it is a far cry from 5000. Listen and you will be shocked when you hear how almost everyone links their cause to children, just to get your attention and sympathy.
Take any disaster or terrorist event where ppl die or get hurt. They will sight how many died or were injured, then tell you how many were children. I understand that kids are innocent, but if a 25 year old on a train that was blown up dies, and they were the type of person that just went to work and minded there own business, would he/she not be innocent too? I mean, nobody went to the World Trade Center on 9/11 with the understanding that they were gonna die. They were all innocent, and it bugs me that we somehow want to point out the deaths of the ones with kids, as if their life was somehow more valuable. None of them should have died that day.
That brings us to MM's assertion that Bush lied.
MOORE: Uh huh. So, in other words, if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage.
I would have answered: If the stage was not visible and we were not in the room, and one of your trusted aids came to you and said that nothing was going on. You then told me that nothing was going on, you did not lie. You were mistaken, and there is a difference.
O'reilly missed a good opportunity to nail him to the wall and didn't.
Mr. Moore talks out of both sides of his face and Bill could have pounced on him for that. He said that he would have done a preemptive strike on Hitler, although they had not attacked us. In his little, liberal pea brain, he thinks that Hitler was with Japan in the Pearl harbor attack. Funny, I don't remember seeing any German Luftwaffe aces flying over Hawaii in the old movies of the attack. He actually believes that if he would have stopped Hitler, Japan would not attacked us. MM is a film maker, and nothing more. He is not even a good film maker.
If you want a breakdown of what is wrong with this film, go here or here from a liberal or here.
He blathers about Fox News reporting Bush winning Fla in 2000. He makes it sound like the fact that Fox reported it after 2 am, and John Ellis (Bush's 1st cousin) was running the election desk at Fox, somehow swayed the election. I don't understand. The only thing we learned from the Fla election debacle is that the networks should not be allowed to "project" a winner until the poles close in that area.
More on Moore L8r