The much anticipated Michael Moore-Bill O'Reilly debate was a big-time letdown. I had high hopes, but Geraldo's opening of Al Capone's vault really came to mind in watching the protagonists. Honesty compelled O'Reilly to make the argument, again and again, that George W. Bush was mistaken but not deceitful in taking us to war. Moore, on the other hand, repeatedly said the president wasn't merely mistaken but was a liar. Moore continuously asked O'Reilly if he would send his children to die in Iraq, to which O'Reilly continuously responded that he would go but wouldn't sacrifice his children.

Last I checked, no American "children" died in the war. But more than nine-hundred men and women did. The whole "it's about the kids" argument is enough to make one wonder if the reductio ad Hitlerum has been replaced by the reductio ad children. Anyhow, the whole thing was an "I'm right"/"No, I'm right" type of debate. O'Reilly wanted Moore on the program, but did he really want him on enough to allow the filmmaker to ask a question for every one asked by the host? When was the last time a conservative author interviewed by Katie Couric or Bill Moyers got to do that?

Flynn, you poor, whining sap. "When did we get to ask questions?" Come off it.

I agree, however, that the interview was a disappointment, as far as verbal fireworks were concerned.

Perhaps you should have tuned in to Inside Edition for their expose on Theresa Heinz-Kerry's Kennedy-hating quotes from the 70's...?

Or perhaps Bill should have just told him to "Shut Up!, Just Shut Up!!" Perhaps that would have worked...?

Le G.

PS: Obviously Moore uses the word "children" in the same way my father would say "I have two children," even though my sister and I are now 31 and 33, respectively.

Actually Moore means it much more strongly then you are indicating Le G, though, of course, not literally in terms of age. Well, come to think of it he may consider the 18 and 19 year olds in the military kids.

Anyway, this was the same usage of the word with O'Reilly as in F911 when Moore asked congressmen about sending their "children" to war. What Moore seems to not be able to grasp is that although in some circumstances parents do encourage their kids to join the military no American parent really ever "sends" their kid to war, as in every 18 year old makes their own decision about joining the military. Moore seems to think that American parents determine what their children do with their lives and I don't know where he got that idea from. He strangely seems to think we still have an active draft and the rich and powerful are bypassing it.

Michael Moore: just another pi$$ed off, whining Dem/Lib Bush basher with no real solutions to offer.

Makes for good theater though.

The answer is simple: if you don't want to fight in a war -- now or in the future -- don't enlist. Once you sign on that dotted line, the military owns you. They can do whatever they want with you and send you wherever they want, because you signed your rights over to them. Maybe more 18 year-olds should think about that.

Yes, perhaps they should think about whether they want to join the military and go to school, or whether they want to stay in the same sh*t town where they grew up, not go to college, and make $32,000 a year after taxes for the rest of their life.

Oh, and perhaps buy a house with the money they manage to save which they will then spend the rest of their life paying off.

Your lack of experience of this sort of life is obvious, and your lack of sympathy astounding, Mike.

As for what Moore thinks, and as for what he means by "children," I don't think it really affects his so-called arguments, which stand or fall on other grounds.

His point in asking the Congressmen to send their "children" to war is far less subtle than you're making it out, though, Bri. I think he's simply saying, "You allowed this war to happen by not standing up to Bush, but what personal stake do you have in the war's outcome?" The implication is clear -- many lower- and lower-middle class Americans are more or less compelled by economics to send their kids, and their kids make up a high proportion of soldiers. So when you send the military into conflict, you are sending these kids into conflict. Perhaps if your own kids were being put in harms way, you'd think more about what you're doing.

It's that simple. Not an astounding arguement, but it scores points rhetorically.

DPO

Oreily should of said somthing like Bush neither Bush nor the parents said you have to go join the military. These great men and woman relize that if i sighn and we go to war i could die. They sighn that was their choice not Mom not Dad not even Bush. They put them self there not any one else. What O'reily should of said was i would sacrifice my self but if you mean if my child told me he wanted to serve his country would i allow it then yes i would commend him in fact.

From the beginning of military history, it’s been the less fortunate (by degree) in our society who have done the grunt work and who have manned the forces. And those with influence typically have been able to maneuver away from doing military service unless they decided to join based on their own calling.

I think this issue goes beyond the idea that the parents are making conscious decisions to send their kids off to war and especially when it has to do with economics. Give the young men and women in our military some credit for making responsible and conscious choices (in most cases) to join up.

Some of these people signed up as reservists thinking that the paycheck and benefits would continue to roll in without considering the reality beyond attending monthly training exercises and two weeks of active duty each year. They were there because they wanted to be there and nobody coerced them into joining.

Then you have the ones who signed up for active duty because they thought it to be just that: duty.

Moore makes it out like some press gang went into poor neighborhoods populated by slack jawed, dumbed-down yokels and started bopping them over the heads to drag them off to war.

On a related side note, if Moore is so concerned with the plight of our young men and women in the military, why does he depict them as Neanderthals in his movie?

Bottom line is that whatever the reason they joined, they needed to consider the risks.

The bad Bushites were not, contrary to some believes, waiting for the right time to launch a war to put them in harms way.

After 9/11, anything could have happened and even if Clinton were still President (scary thought), military options would have been part of the menu.

O´Reilly, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc., sound like Lord Forquat in Shrek, "Some of you may die but that is a sacrifice, I am willing to make." O´Reilly knows he´s not going to give his live, but nearly a thousand of American soldiers have. "I will ive my life!" Give me a break. Randell