|
O'reilly won the point about Intelligence, not necessarily because he's right, but because Moore did not counter properly.Holes could be poked in the argument about Bush receiving misinformation from any of the sources O'reilly quoted.
O'reilly used the old post-justification for war (removal of ruthless killer Saddam) when asked why they went to war instead of admitting, as his own statements suggest, that they went to war on misinformation of a threat that didn't exist. There are any number of ruthless dictators that America is in bed with so it's obvious we never went their to remove Saddam for that reason. It would be easier for us to 'bring Democracy' to our 'friends' in Egypt than it is to our foes in Iraq. Wonder why we didn't chose to try our expirement in Iraq first.
Clearly, O'reilly was the more versed of the two in debating. Moore seemed ill prepared to answer directly and was easily flustered by O'reilly's quick spats (even though O'Reily wasn't saying much).
O'rielly again sidelined Moore by trying to draw parallels to Hitler's Germany and Iraq when there is no comparison there. Iraq is not a world power for one thing the way Germany was. Iraq does not have a sophisticated army (something we knew from the Gulf war). Iraq wasn't conquering powerful nations on a rampage the way Germany was in 1941. Why did O'rielly bring this up? So that Moore would get bogged down in it. Moore wasn't skilled enough to see thru O'reilly's childish comparisons.
Moore won the point about sacrificing for a mistake. At the very least, O'reilly could have said that he himself would sacrifric, AND that he hopes his children would want to do the same, of their own volition, if there was a real threat, although it's not something any parent would wish for their children. We know we won't be seeing his kids anywhere near Iraq nor the children of any of the other Elite's that are so gungho for war themselves.
Based on this interview I'd recommend Moore stick to making films and let the films speak for themselves.
|