About Moore Versus O'Reilly. I felt that Michael Moore cornered O'Reilly pretty effectively. First of, it was quite a travesty when O'Reilly couldn't answer Moore's rather simple question--whether O'Reilly was willing to send his son/daughter to Iraq to fight for America. Moore clearly elucidates that he would not send his children to Iraq, but O'Reilly dodges the question by retorting that he would go there himself, were it needed. However, he doesn't answer Moore's question head-on, even when Moore presses the question to O'Reilly a few times. Now, O'Reilly's pretext is that Moore was trying to bait him. Perhaps he was, but O'Reilly came out to be a hypocrite--supporting war against Iraq, which is being fought chiefly by young individuals for financial reasons, while at the same time not willing to send his own children to fight for America . That was the crux of Michael Moore's argument. This point is also, in fact, evinced by Michael Moore in his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. As for Moore's stance that Bush lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction, Moore's response was that yes, Bush lied about it. He in fact clarifies his position later on. When it was O'Reillys turn to answer Moore's question, Michael Moore asks him what he would tell the sons and daughters of the 900 deceased American soldiers. The way O'Reilly answered the question was that the war was a mistake, chiefly due to faulty intelligence. This was quite a laughable response, because Michael Moore pins him down. "So, you're going to tell them that we are fighting this war because of a mistake?" was Michael Moore's response, to paraphrase. That indeed made O'Reilly look rather silly. Mistakes and lies can occur together, FYI. A lie can't be a mistake? That's a rather inane point, if you ask me. O'Reilly keeps telling his guests that even Russia and the United Kingdom actually came up with the same conclusion. Michael Moore simply answers that he should have listened to America's intelligence instead. He refers to Richard Clarke, who in fact, in his book makes it clear that Bush was intentionally trying to link Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein, even when pieces of evidence were rather questionable. In the end, Bush decided to use the Uranium lie and the Al-Qaeda and Saddam connection to persuade the American people. The CIA folks in fact had told Bush to cross out the Uranium line. Bush simply didn't listen. So yes, it was a lie. There was no proof that Saddam was trying to procure WMD materials from Africa. O'Reilly's response that we went to Iraq to remove a dictator was pathetic at best. Moore simply rebutted O'Lielly's point by mentioning that there are 31+ dictators in the world. Why go after Saddam? Fact is that without the putative WMD threat posed by Iraq, there would have been no reason to go there. Furthermore, the primary reason given by the Bush administration to take us to Iraq was the WMD threat, and had nothing to do with any other reasons that O'Reilly likes to use as his talking points. Of course, Bush and Co later flipflopped and decided to come up with other reasons, but in essence, it was always the WMD issue that was the theme of BushCo's argument.