« Ben Affleck and Bill O'Reilly | Main | Superflack Lizzie Grubman Hates the Word Flack »

July 27, 2004


John Climacus

O'Reilly could have handled a couple points better, I thought. He was pretty quick to roll over on the WMD-information-was-all-a-mistake line. I think the follow up to this should have been a clear statement that Saddam's WMD plans were a threat to us anyway, so we HAD to take him out. Scarborough might have done a better job.

But Bill's final comment, about Moore being completely blinded by ideology, was well and succinctly stated.

Not a Derb Fan, but still...

Derbyshire nails it with this post:



O'Reilly and Moore are both cut from the same cloth. They both dissemble, dodge questions, pander to the basest of emotions and oversimplify their respective ideologies. Nothing got accomplished in that interview.


"O'Reilly and Moore are both cut from the same cloth"

Except one hates America, lies through his teet and sees YOU as a Child to be controlled.

But other than that, the exact same.


There are a million different ways to pick apart Moore, and Democrats you feel are being dishonest in general. The "hating America" line is one of the weakest. To make that argument implies that opposition and questioning of a leaders' competence and actions is unpatriotic, which is simply untrue. Nothing is more patriotic, in fact, than complaining. Yes, even in a time of war.

Where Moore goes wrong is in oversimplifying issues and having a bad case of selective hearing. It's the same place O'Reilly goes wrong. Both of these stooges have contributed a great deal to the destruction of discourse in this country, attacking the person ("Bush is a moron..." "Kerry is a flip-flopping communist...") rather than attacking their arguments. Democrats and Republicans share equal responsibility for the toxic political climate that exists now.


Nothing is more patriotic than lying to support the cause of the enemies of the United State of America?

I admit I can't see into Mr. Moores soul. Maybe he loves Americans -- but he seems to have no qualms propping up those that aim to kill Americans. His actions indicate hatred.

But I bet he weally, weally cawres for all of us, huh?

PS: Learn what ad hominem is - hint: calling someone a moron is. Describing someone's politics is not.

BUT WE ARE ALL EQUAL MORALLY - right? I label your argument moronic!


Lying to support the cause of enemies? Please. Try thinking beyond the scope of Party-indoctrinated talking points. Much of the argument made in the second half of Moore's movie, which I'd wager you never bothered to see, was that resources have been diverted into Iraq which should have been used to fight the real War on Terror and shore up our own borders. That's unpatriotic? That's moronic? That's real.

Iran is about to blow up, and we don't have the political capital at home or abroad to do anything about it without completely alienating our allies. Like it or not, we will need international help for the nation building that comes in the aftermath of war -- as the current mess in Iraq clearly illustrates.

I know exactly what ad hominem arguments are, and if you did, you would know it's not considered valid journalism -- whether it's coming from Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore. That was my point. Personal attacks and lying are weak and cheap, and neither O'Reilly or Moore are above the fray.


It should have been pointed out to Moore that Americans do not sacrifice their children in war.

That atrocious act is best left to the Palistinians who seem to accept the idea without remorse.


1. Children don't serve in the military. You have to be an adult.

2. Adults make choices. Those who serve in the military have made their choice.

The comments to this entry are closed.