MADER'S 'BRANTS O’Reilly vs. Moore August 1, 2004 - Let’s put this in perspective. Wilbur O’Reilly is that guy in school we hated, because he was a pretentious know-it-all. More arrogant than smart. Ya never really talked to him, because he had a way of saying ‘hello’ that just made you feel stupid. For those that hadn’t a clue, he seemed brilliant. And for folks with brains, we ignored him. Mikey Moore is that guy in school we all hated, because he was the whiner. He was the guy that would make lots of noise and complain something wasn’t fair. The guy that ratted everyone out for brownie points. He was the spoiled, insecure, creepy guy at the end of the lunch table we ignored. You know that border line stalker kinda guy. These two clowns actually debated each other during the Democratic Convention. The only high point of the event. Conventions are so boring the networks don’t like covering them, and the American people don’t like watching them. Is anyone surprised that Kerry got the nomination? If so, than you also may have been surprised when Rosie O’Donnell came out of the closet. The ratings prove my point. CSI pulled better numbers than the selection of the man that might lead our nation for the next 4 years. The only people that gain from political conventions are the hookers. Ask the ones working the Clinton party suite. But I digress. So you have these two self important, egomaniacs arguing about the war. The discussion itself is pointless, because they don’t even talk the same language. Moore bases his arguments on emotional, feely stuff. O’Reilly uses word play and manipulation. In short, actual fact and/or logic is irrelevant to either. The whole thing was a marketing opportunity for both men. Moore got exposure for his film, and O’Reilly got to throw his little “Drooges” a bone by whipping on the “Liberal fat boy”. Moore’s argument in 3 points: 1. Bush lied 2. What would you say to the families of the 900 dead service men and woman? 3. Would you send your child off to die in Iraq? O’Reilly basically had one: 1. Would you try to stop Hitler? To Wilbur’s credit he did try to point out to Mikey that Bush acted based on the information not only our intelligence community, but also other nations gave him, like Britain and Russia. It turned to out be wrong information, but Bush had to make a choice. Moore said it didn’t matter. Bush still lied even if he was misinformed and didn’t know it until later. Of course most of Moore’s arguments in Fahrenheit 9/11 are based on facts that the 9/11 commission has proven wrong since his film was released. Using Moores own standards for “telling the truth” He is himself, a huge liar. When O’Reilly was asked about the families of the fallen and would he send his or someone else’s child to war? He wrapped himself in the flag and spouted some patriotic drivel and would only say he would send himself off to war. The correct answer is that everyone’s child has free will. It’s a volunteer army. Those men and woman serving made the choice to be there. Don’t want to face the possibility of going to war? Don’t join! It’s their job to defend the nation. We don’t spend billions of dollars every year just so a few million people can get into shape, play with really neat toys, live in base housing and get their college tuition paid. Moore’s arguments date back to Vietnam. The difference today is there is no draft and more Americans get hit by lightening every year in the U.S. than have died in Iraq in a year and a half. So it has no real power. The rest is poorly conceived moral posturing that doesn’t hold up. We pulled out of Nam because of people dying, and yet we did nothing as roughly a million people where slaughtered in Cambodia. Same thing here. Moore’s moral compass wasn’t swayed when hundreds of thousands of people where tortured and murdered for decades under Saddam. Why no documentary about those crimes, Mikey? Something is only wrong for Moore, and his kind, if they are inconvenienced. Or a Republican is in office. This is an example of why you should never listen to anyone that uses “morality” to defend their point of view. It’s weak. I wouldn’t bet my life on someone else’s moral fortitude. The “lie” argument leaks like a sieve. If the president is going to make a mistake based on intelligence that says the country might be in danger, better he error on the side that doesn’t leave thousand of people dead in a major U.S. city by a “WMD”. That’s his job. My point is selfish I know. I’m sure Moore can relate. As for Bill, he is too self impressed with his own knowledge and flag waving to be an effective debater. He allowed himself to be baited by Moore, and he got his butt kicked. What depresses me the most is that in some circles these “utzes” are considered two of the best minds either party has to offer. God help us if this is the cream of American critical thinking. Later, Mader