MOORE v. O'REILLY

Two great tastes that go great together, or something. Here's the transcript. Few things are more entertaining than watching two millionaires try and out-populist each other.

Moore's relentless "Would you send your child...?" questions were a perfect example of the transparent sanctimony which makes him occasionally so repulsive. O'Reilly's insistence that we went to war to remove "a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people" exemplified the worst tendencies of hidebound Bush partisans. I think the two of them should take it on the road.

Moore continues to insist that Bush lied, a weak claim considering that Bush, like all politicians, is surrounded by people who make sure that he never says anything which could conclusively be demonstrated as such. I think there's a case to be made that the administration cultivated bad information making it known, in no uncertain terms, exactly what type of intelligence they'd like to see, that is, intelligence which supported their conclusions, but that's different than lying.

Moore should stay with the 'incompetence' charge, which is easily demonstrated. At almost every step, the Bush gang ignored the advice of military, regional, and diplomatic specialists and followed instead the dictates of their ideology. The upside to this is that they've conclusively demonstrated that their ideology was, and is, bollocks.

Incompetence in this regard is also an especially effective charge against Republicans, given that "national security" and warmaking were about the only things left that Republicans could have claimed to have been any good at. They certainly can't claim fiscal responsibility anymore.

UPDATE: I'm really jazzed about the idea of Moore and O'Reilly taking a show on the road together, maybe a series of movies a la Crosby and Hope, or Martin and Lewis. I'm working on a script.