My Analysis: On Bush Lying: Moore stated that Bush didn't tell the truth, and that is accurate (as far as we know). Since Bush did say that Saddam had WMD and we haven't found any, what Bush reported wasn't the truth. I think that is clear enough. However, a lie requires someone to tell something they know as false and pass it as the truth. O'Reilly is right, as far as we know, that Bush didn't lie. Now they banter back and forth about this for a while, with them each stating two different statements as if they are opposites and mutually exclusive. They aren't. While Bush may not have told the truth, that doesn't mean he lied, especially if he didn't know for certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They are arguing about which way to view the hazy grey area that this issue lies in. The change on this discussion is when Moore states, "It was a lie." From that point forward, he is directly opposing O'Reilly's statement, and unless Moore has some information proving that Bush lied -- information nobody else has -- then Moore just made a false statement that is not backed up by any proof. In other words, he's doing exactly what he claimed Bush to be doing -- 'not telling the truth.' If we extend that with Moore's logic, then Moore is lying on this point, and he's pretty-much shot himself in the foot on this issue. O'Reilly 1, Moore 0 On the dead soldiers: Moore is stating that these soldiers died for something that wasn't there (WMD) and therefore their deaths were for nothing. O'Reilly's point is that despite there being no WMDs, they died to remove a dictator even if that wasn't the original reason they went in. These points, unlike the previous ones, are mutually exclusive. Either they died for nothing, or they died to remove a dictator. Since Saddam was toppled, and since he was a brutal dictator, I'd say that their deaths enabling the latter to have happened pretty-much seal the deal on that issue. The reason Moore may seem to have a point here is because of a popular misconception that soldiers need a reason. While I think a good solid reason is a good thing, and don't approve of going to war with Iraq, whether or not there is a solid reason they are sent to a foreign country is irrelevant in their charge of duty. To paraphrase the Last Samurai, "If you want me to kill terrorists, I'll kill terrorists, if you want me to kill Iraqis, I'll kill Iraqis." That is the charge of a soldier -- to follow orders -- not to question their legitimacy unless in direct opposition to their rules of conduct. I don't know of any part of the UCMJ that states that soldiers can't go to war if the intelligence on the primary justification for the invasion turns out to be false, otherwise we would have seen a lot of people with legitimate grounds for leaving Vietnam, don't you think? The fact is that, while tragic, it is the job of soldiers to do what they're ordered to. The fact is that they were charged with invading and securing Iraq because he had WMDs. The latter half turned out not to be true as far as we know, but that's irrelevant in the charge of the soldiers which was invading Iraq. What they accomplished was the ousting of a dictator, so despite the lack of the justification for the invasion, their lives were not 'for nothing' as the invasion certainly caused something. O'Reilly 2, Moore 0 On making mistakes: Moore's point is that these soldiers died for a mistake, and that people feel bad about it. O'Reilly agrees that it was a mistake, and says that there's nothing that can be done with it. As many times as Moore tries to raise sympathy, O'Reilly sticks to his ideological guns. The fact is that mistakes happen, and mistakes are unintentional. Moore said earlier Bush lied, which is intentional, so he is weakening a claim (perhaps because he realizes that the slip he made earlier shoots himself in the foot). So we can see, first off, that Moore is backtracking from his earlier claims (probably due to lack of support). O'Reilly makes a VERY Moore-esque statement in this section, stating that "...if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that." This re-states his original point that Bush didn't lie, and really hammers an important point home. Morally, that is in the absolute judgment of right and wrong, he cannot hold you responsible for a mistake, an accident. He, however, doesn't state that the mistake should be forgotten, or that the culprit shouldn't be responsible in other facets. By making the argument more broad and using more refined language, he manages to make a logically sound statement that makes perfect sense. For all of Moore's attempts to get O'Reilly to make a mis-step that undercuts his argument about Bush, it fails miserably as O'Reilly remains calm and sticks to his ideological guns, making a logically sound statement defending his point of view while not undercutting his argument by trying to leave out any discussion of other potential culpability the person who made the mistake may be subject to. Had he said, "I can't find you morally responsible, but I would enjoy seeing you thrown in jail and having your license revoked" then Moore could have come back with a statement about how Bush should be impeached and/or voted out of office. He didn't, and so I think O'Reilly handled the set-up perfectly. O'Reilly 3, Moore 0