I prefer Sicko

meh, politics are a tangled web

Some day,...

Some one should shoot or hit Michael Moore, Mr. "Sympathy for the Terrorists", cowardly b--. (P.S. I'm only the second 2 vote at da end? SINCE 04!) MCCAIN 08

Well, this debate went both ways

In the beginning it appears that Reilly was doing better as he established the apparently true point that Bush did not lie about the point that Iraq had WMDs, but was instead misinformed. But if Bush was specifically looking for those WMD's in Iraq as opposed to some other place, a point Moore made early on, then he was not acting impartially--he was seeking out an excuse. The fact that Bush tried to find another justification, namely that Iraq had links to 9/11, which turns out to be false, means that he was not deciding impartially. So Reilly won the first part of the debate but there is another truth that was only touched on, that Bush was specifically seeking a reason to attack Iraq.

In the second part of the debate, Moore's question and his attitude don't strike me as good points. 900 soldiers dead, 3000 Americans dead in 9/11--these are not large amounts of people in a country of 300 million. Definitely the 3000 people dead are a reason to track the terrorists down, but no justification for a war, and conversely 900 soldiers dead is nothing compared to WWII casualties (for example). It is very significant to those who personally were involved--but 3000 people die of natural causes every 7 hours in America.

The third point, made by Moore, is that recent successful revolutions happened because people rose up and overthrew their dictators instead of an external country coming in and deposing them. O'Reilly's argument that those revolutions would not have occurred without Reagan's passive military buildup is nonsensical and grasping at straws. A revolution has to come from within. There are plenty of dictators, and they can't all be overthrown--the people of the oppressed nation must support the revolution. So this is why I think there is so much trouble getting closure in Iraq. The people of Iraq are not yet ready for democracy, and there are plenty of dictatorships where the people are not ready for democracy. Why did Bush choose Iraq specifically? Oil

They are both idiots.

Both of these two are full of shit, but Moore takes the cake (literally). At least O'Reilly isn't making films to capitalize off of the suffering of others using half-truths to target people's misguided sympathies. Believe it or not, I actually fell for Moore's bullshit when I saw Fahrenheit 9/11, but after seeing it again I realized how full of shit he was. "Iraq never threatened the United States???" BULLSHIT!!!

When Moore kept trying to say "Would you sacrifice your child", he was targeting the parents opinion instead of those who ACTUALLY joined the military of their own free will. Of course no parent wants their child to die, but our soldiers were not taken from their parents, they willingly signed up and joined the military of their own free will and for their own reasons. If given the choice, I would sacrifice my life to end a war, I think most people would, other than the selfish of course.

For those of you who bought Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 crap, I suggest you rent the counter-film entitled "FahrenHYPE 9/11".

Moore the fatso?

I don't like how people say "Moore's a liar/asshole and he's fat too"
being ugly automatically makes one a loser right?
Fox channels specifically chooses UGLY democrats to go against their 'good looking' republicans so viewers naturally root for the good looking one.

O' Reilly just kept avoiding Moores questions while Moore answered clearly, knowing his facts.

I remember having my first impression on O' Reilly when I first heard him, he kept repeadedly saying "YOUR A MORON YOUR AN IDIOT" and thats what made me hate him. He always cuts the others off when they're WINNING too. jerk,coward, and liar.