how funny is it that dave dips his pencil into bill's water. zing!

Norm, I jumped right from the "Late Show" to OGM looking for this clip!

Can always count on you for the good stuff. Kudos.

What an exchange... Oh man --

This thing's already a classic!

Thanks for putting it up Norm. Gotta show this one to my friends.

haha, O'Reilly is fun

I wonder if people really take Bill O'Reilly seriously. I mean that man is so ... DOH!

Once again, Dave letterman hats off and of course the Norm to bring it to people like me who are outside US and don't have access to this programs.

Aaargh. It's em-eye-six (MI6), not em-one-six, you fuckhead. As in Military Intelligence (Section) 6.

That was quite the blowout.

Letterman deserves every American's thanks for his strong response to this nonsense.

I have often heard BO'r warn Americans to watch what we say. I know he is just parroting Bush, Cheney, and others, but we Americans still have freedom of speech technically. No one can see the future but we can see which way the wind is blowing.

I wonder how soon before the new wave of McCarthyism really gains momentum? I bet BO'r is thinking not soon enough. BO'r is dreaming right now of the hearings calling Letterman out for such disloyalty to the Bush nation, don'tcha know it.

Yay Letterman! : )

There is something about Bill O'Reilly that reminds me of Pat Robertson. Maybe its the showmanship, the conviction or sometimes fanaticism. They are both popular entertainers but its something more. Maybe my sleepy brain is just playing tricks on me. But oh no, I just googled them both and Billy had already commented on his website:

"It doesn't really bother me that my media cohorts feel I am the spawn of Pat Robertson."

I don't think it is just the Christmas fantasy of BO'r that had me thinking this. Most Americans would laugh at calling Robertson a journalist but how different really is O'Reilly. Anyway I figure someone will get a kick out of the "spawn of Robertson" quote from O'Reilly that I found on his own website.

There should be a warning before BO'r's shows that they are for entertainment purposes only.

I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan, but i do think Letterman looked like "a pinhead" for not being able to debate O'Reilly and hiding behind the "im not smart enough to debate you" line. You can't say the guy is 60% crap when you can't back it up. I am only being objective. Letterman is clearly no John Stewart.

Yes, we heard you the first time, dave. You're not an O'Reilly fan. Got it.

Letterman is not about the debate. his show is entertainment. But I still think he schooled O'Reilly on some major issues, albeit very generalized. Why Bill is so anti-Cindy baffles me. Freedom fighters? What's wrong with that? They are freedom fighters. The insurgency is made up mostly of IRAQIS that want the US out of Iraq. We did the same thing in the 1770s. I feel bad for the Iraqis, but that doesn't mean that I support their violent means. They are between a rock and a hard place, and have no other way to further their own cause for freedom from the US. It's too bad that GWB took us down this road in the first place.

He talks about the gradual erosion of Christmas and what's going to happen if everyone acts like they don't care, but calling out Bush for lies and legal infractions is bad for the country. Brilliant. I wish Dave had pounced on that.

Did you catch BO'r's emphasizing "professional soldier" referring to Cindy Sheehan's son? That gave me chills. Once while discussing the war with a Republican and very good friend he told me that soldiers are compensated for the job just like any other profession and that death is something that comes with that job. The friend also told me that each person chooses to be a soldier and that there are risks to the profession. All that is common sense, but this discussion still troubles me. Being a soldier was considered just like any other job to him.

I believe that there exists a sacred trust between the people of a democracy and its soldiers when the government has abused its power. We sent soldiers into combat with inadequate armor, attempted numerous and substantial VA funding cuts, treated the national guard as regular military, lied to them about the reason for going to war, extended service to compensate for poor recruitment, called up retired service people, just to name a few issues. One 65+ year old man I met at the airport had been called up for his demolitions expertise training and had told the army that they must have made a mistake and was told the army doesn't make mistakes so he was leaving home. Unbelievable, I know...

There needs to be a Soldier's Bill of Rights. If we as Americans will call on soldiers to lay down their lives there better be a DAMN GOOD REASON! We failed our Vietnam vets when they came home. We failed the vets of the Gulf War - look at the data on suicides and the number that are on disability. Now we are failing soldiers all over again.

How inadequate are Democrats to not own this issue of protecting our troops?

Letterman sells himself short when he says he isn't capable of debating every point and misses a couple opportunities but he still owns the interview. Great clip.

Boy, do I miss Letterman!

My question is what is the other 40% of what O'Reilly says? Lies - "Let's stop talking about all of this lying" - maybe he would rather call if perfidy. Then 95% of "them thar "Mericans" wouldn't understand what it is.

I think I have mentioned before that I used to date a flight attendant whose roommate dated Bill O'Shithead (that was her name for him - not mine) and this was 18 years ago. He sure hasn't changed. He was a sensationalist reporter then and still is. It has been already proven that he has exaggerated the various Holiday/Christmas stories.

BTW: Fuck! yes! the men and women in Iraq are freedom fighters - no one likes to hear that but they are doing exactly what I would do if someone invaded my country. I would find any way I could to destroy my enemy. Would I be called an insurgent by (let's say Russia, if they were the invaders)? Damn right I would be.

What makes them different? Religion? Location? Culture? Language? Methodology of battle? If the US was fighting a standing Army there, would they be called insurgents?

The other consideration is that there is a lot of pay backs going on for 25 years of supression and torture. As has already been stated, you can't expect democracy to just blossom and flourish because you took out the despotic leader.

As I have said before, no matter how long it takes for the USofA to leave, Iraq will become a theocratic government and you will see a very bloody civil war - very bloody. Preventable - no. Deplorable - yes.

was the pencil in the cup intentional? huhlarious, but still rude

Freedom fighters? Are all of you dense? They don't fight for freedom (Like we did in the 1770's - to be free from a tyrant king)they fight for control. We are trying to establish a democracy, that is, citizens having a voice in their government. The insurgents don't give two squirts of piss to set up a democratic government.

As far as why we are there - we are there to set up a goverment that is non-western, non-Jewish, non-Christian, and sympathetic to the west to help curb some of the terrorist threat. Yes, it is a terrible uphill battle to install a westernized democracy (wow just think of the propaganda wars we'll have to wage against the al-jezeera tv network!). Sounds crude? imperialistic? tyranical? whatever negative adjective you want to put in there, but in the end it is strategically smart, and vital that we succeed at this. If it blows up in our face, so be it, but we have to try something. We overlook this crap in 1993 with the 1st World Trade Center bombing. We reaped our sown ignorance in 2001 when the towers came down. I think the time has come to be bold. God bless the soldiers (some of them my extended family members and close friends) brave enough to take on this endeavor.

As far as spreding democracy - give people the chance at somthing better that a porcelain pot to piss in and they might just take it. Get them modernized and able to build an economy where a dictator doesn't hog all the profits. Give them a shot at better health care. Let surrounding countries see that women can have rights too (and there's no need for vaginal mutilation).What's wrong with trying to spread our ideals on that?

I understand that bush lied to the american people, but that's basically because we can't come out in public and say exactly what we are doing there. That would make us look too mean. Geez, I guess it's hard being the only supper power left.

My $.02

M-one-6.. is that the UK equivalent of the C-one-A?

Mmmmm..."supper power."

i find this clip highly analogous with the one posted back in july '05 where john stewart interviewed rick santorum ...

santorum was very compelling in a well matched setting, and oreilly here was all over letterman. he got cheers and applause for crying out loud.

i think the setting is an all important issue in judging the value of an expressed opinion. if we're only going on oreillys unchallenged sensationalist broadcast then of course its easy to label him anything you want. but he made pertinent points to letterman and i thought had much the better of the interview in hostile territory...

"I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap" —David Letterman I love how you quote the above, but not the all important first half of the sentence, "I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO DEBATE YOU," or shortly after when Lettermen admits to never having watched the show, but having "read about it." I'm not an O'Reilly fanboy, but anyone who thinks Lettermen won that exchange is an idiot.

"I have the feeling that 60% of what you say is crap" —David Letterman I love how you quote the above, but not the all important first half of the sentence, "I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO DEBATE YOU," or shortly after when Lettermen admits to never having watched the show, but having "read about it." I'm not an O'Reilly fanboy, but anyone who thinks Lettermen won that exchange is an idiot.

Awwwwwkward...

""I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO DEBATE YOU," or shortly after when Lettermen admits to never having watched the show, but having "read about it.""

I'm fairly certain he was being sarcastic- Letterman knows that his show is mostly entertainment and he as most likely making a mockery of BillOroid.

for the first time in Lateshow history, Letterman takes a shower during the break.

No one seems to pounce on that thing about the school in Ridgeview, Wisconsin. Nobody changed the lyrics to the song, "Silent Night". "Cold in the Night" is part of a coherent Children's Musical written in 1988 called "The Little Trees Christmas Story". The words to some traditional songs are tailored, just as in any musical, to TELL THE TREE'S STORY. The Liberty Council, a group of rabid christian lawyers (eeww), and O'Reilly's goons pestered the poor school so much that now they are having the musical with the carols whose tunes the songs are sung to instead of the songs that are supposed to be sung, which will, I suppose, render the Musical incomprehensible.

F*ck, liberals don't do enough homework, conservatives do just enough homework to allow them to out-debate liberals. Letterman should have been better prepared. O'Reilly makes such egregious errors that it should be a breeze to snap his arguments in twain.

In terms of the "I'm not smart enough to debate you" comment, I think it is important to remember that this is an entertainment show built on segments between commercials. After around 11 minutes, it was time for a commercial, Dave was trying to cut the interview off. Then remember that Dave is known for his self-mockery. I think he clearly showed in the first half of the segment that he is smart enough to debate "The factor." I don't think you need to look any further than the exchange on Cindy Shehan. Finally, unlike John Stewart, Dave does not bring in guests to debate current issues, he brings in guests to talk about their most recent movie or book. When he does get involved in a political debate, he usually spends it cracking jokes the entire time. That is the format of the show. Here, he was forced to engage in the debate because Bill O'Reilly is a mouthpiece/moron. (I guess I may have lost my credibility with some people with that statement)

Letterman and O'Reilly are BOTH babbling boobs. But Dave is funnier and more human.

Well, Letterman achieved his purpose, and that's what matters. He didn't attempt to win the debate (which was supposed to be an interview?) but allowed for display the flaws in the Traditionalistic view of the present. Hence, our appraisal for Letterman. You don't always get what you want by winning. Sometimes you have to compromise in order to gain something, and at this session, that occured with positive result. What happened is that Letterman spoke out many issues the general public wanted to scream out at the conservatives and the government, all the while Keeping O'reiley calm.

To WSSIXER hmm...Insurgents don't give a crap to Democracy because they were able to live without them. the long history of having a biased dictator have let Insurgents unaware of the disadvantages of having a democracy. and also the biased view of the whole religious community, even banning the tv in the previous anti-'Western Influence' before fall of saddam, has led to the alienation of the philosophy and ideas of democracy. That does not automatically allow you to say they act how they are now, as there is a reason behind it that now all of us can see.

"What's wrong with trying to spread our ideals on that?

I understand that bush lied to the american people, but that's basically because we can't come out in public and say exactly what we are doing there. That would make us look too mean."

What's wrong is that the ideal is foreign to them, and with this method, we're just like attempting to teach 18 month old babies a new language with a gun pressing against its head. We need some time, more teachers, more talk shows that show the iraqis we're not there to take something from them, not some premature pulling out of troops or adding more troops.

The Who's Baba O'Reilly is now forever ruined for me.

Bill O clearly won that exchange, because Letterman's staff is too lazy to find out the real facts. For example, the Christmas issues taht Bill O was pointing out are NOT TRUE. The school thta changed silent night was performing a play that included that version - and included other traditional christmas songs. The story about probhitiion of red and green in the other school district is also NOT TRUE. If LEtterman's staff would have taken 30 minutes to search the net, such as media matters, they would have been able to get quotes from the actual players in these stories calling these stories fabrications.

The Who's Baba O'Reilly is now forever ruined for me.

Bill O clearly won that exchange, because Letterman's staff is too lazy to find out the real facts. For example, the Christmas issues taht Bill O was pointing out are NOT TRUE. The school thta changed silent night was performing a play that included that version - and included other traditional christmas songs. The story about probhitiion of red and green in the other school district is also NOT TRUE. If LEtterman's staff would have taken 30 minutes to search the net, such as media matters, they would have been able to get quotes from the actual players in these stories calling these stories fabrications.

Paul played Teenage Wasteland when Bill walked out.

What did that mean? Have I missed something there?

"Freedom Fighters" vs "Fighting for Control". It's just rhetoric meaning the same thing. People fighting for the freedom to control of their own land. Who one is fighting or how one is fighting does not change what one is fighting for. What exactly are the "insurgents" fighting for and against? From what I know they are fighting against what they see as an occupying force. I am less clear what form of self-government they would like to see instead of the democracy now forming, and I suspect they would like to see a return to a Sunni controlled state. Does that meaning they are NOT fighting for their own freedom? No it does not. Regarding the Americans in the 1770-80's rebelling against the British rule, this mainly benefitted the ruling American Aristocracy at the time, and certainly no one who was non-white or any indigenous peoples. They remained NON-free relative to the victors, and many of their decendants still have yet to fully savor this freedom 216 years later. Meanwhile, the hoped-for democracy in Iraq may come to be a Shiite dominated and non-secular "democracy", which may turn out to be a step "backward" for most Iraqis and leave them also less "free".

MikeC - you say that "professional soldier" bothers you. Why? That's exactly what they are! If you were able to poll them, 98% would be supportive of Bush and what he is trying to do in Iraq. They know that part of their job is the risk that they might die and they do it anyway.
I have watch Letterman for twenty years. I think he's great, but he showed his ass here. You all have no idea how much Sheehan and her protests affect the soldiers.... in a very negative way. She says that she's helping them and wants to bring them home. That's not what they want, they want to finish the fight, otherwise the soldiers that have died, like her son, will have died for nothing.
You might think that I'm a die hard Republican; I'm not. I come from a military family and I’m pretty sure that I have a much better idea where the soldiers and sailors are coming from than most of you.

Letterman needs to stick to humor and forget political debates. He used the typical emotional ploy of "have you lost a loved one in war?". Well, many of us have and we have not had Mrs. Sheehan's reaction. In fact, the left conveniently forgets that there is a father and there are siblings who DO NOT support her protest and politicizing of her son's death. Yes, she has the right to react any way she sees fit, but the rest of us have the right to comment on her protest as we see fit.

Freedom fighters? Hell yes.

I already feel like an insurgent in my own country.

How about a new rally cry, "Get the US out of Seattle" and New York, and SF, ...

Regarding Letterman's staff being unprepared to counter BOR's Anti-Xmas claims: Since he pulled a folded paper out of his pocket it appears that they might not have known he was going to quote these stories. You can't expect Letterman (via his staff) to have the counter-argument for every anecdotal trivia BOR might dredge up. Anecdotal evidence can be used very effectively by either side in a debate but unless there are statistics to back it up, anecdotes are nothing more than a rable-rousing tool, useful for people who are relying on the ill-informed public to get incensed and hopefully undermine your opponent.

Say what you want about Letterman not watching the show and not being able to back up his opinion, but at least he doesn't sink to Fox's Level of Name Calling and Accusations of Treason everytime someone disagrees with him.

And lets gain a little perspective here. David Letterman is an entertainer. Bill O'Reilly "claims" to be a journalist, I think maybe the way in which we judge and hold responsible people in the media should be different depending on what type of information they are "supposed to be" giving us. BOR tries to blur that line as much as possible. If he's satire, then call it satire, if its new he's reporting than it had better be FACTUAL.
I think Dave wanted BOR to back his stuff up.... Letterman has no responsibility to do that, he makes us laugh. And while BOR may make us laugh, its for very different reasons.

goddammit, teenage wasteland is not the name of the song, it's Baba O'Riley! get it?

Re: Sheehan. I think what is disgraceful is labelling Sheehan and others who protest Bush's failed Iraq policy, as un-patriotic, traitor, etc. which is what BOR is doing. Sheehan's negative effect on the troops is unfortunate since her attacks are aimed at their civilian leadership, for their ultimate benefit, and this negative effect is most likely due to neocon spinning like that from the Master Spin Doctor himself: BOR, from deep inside The Spin Zone.

Bill O'Reilly was a low rent Maury clone as a journalist when he did Hard Copy. The guy comes off as a Scumbag, he has the charm of a dentist who feels up your little sister in the chair when she's knocked out. I dont know why Republicans are so quick to defend this douche, because he's so transparent that I question people who follow his opinion.

I have to agree Dave is no Jon Stewart. I get he doesn't like O'Reilly, but if your going to have him on, load yourself up than saying something like "I think what you say is crap". What the hell was that? Why not go after obvious things, like him saying he wished Al Quada would blow up san Fransico?

Say what you want about Letterman not watching the show and not being able to back up his opinion, but at least he doesn't sink to Fox's Level of Name Calling and Accusations of Treason everytime someone disagrees with him.

And lets gain a little perspective here. David Letterman is an entertainer. Bill O'Reilly "claims" to be a journalist, I think maybe the way in which we judge and hold responsible people in the media should be different depending on what type of information they are "supposed to be" giving us. BOR tries to blur that line as much as possible. If he's satire, then call it satire, if its new he's reporting than it had better be FACTUAL.
I think Dave wanted BOR to back his stuff up.... Letterman has no responsibility to do that, he makes us laugh. And while BOR may make us laugh, its for very different reasons.

As usual, Bill O'Reilly kicks the shit out of the liberal left. Letterman is an idiot. Hell, even Letterman admits that he is not SMART enough to debate him. I'll agree with that. He's not smart enough to debate with a log.

I'm not sure what your smoking, but military support for Bush's plan has dropped significantly. Last year, according to a Zogby poll, it was mid 70's. Approval at this point is about 61%, according to the most recent poll (the most recent Zogby poll came out about a week ago). Military folk are generally more supportive of the president cause their asses are in his hands. The fact the they are dropping towards the 50% mark is huge. 98%? What crap.

I was in the military twice, and I think this president his policies are complete crap.

Yeah, and you know that Bill really can't call Dave out for being disloyal because more people watch Dave than watch Bill. Dave has more loyal fans and they know that Dave is a great interviewer. Best campaign interviews in '00 of both Bush and Gore were Dave. He is an absolute pro. It'd be crazy of Bill to call Dave out, especially when perhaps many of his viewers watch Dave too.

Dave has always been self-deprecating. It's also a calculated bone thrown to Middle America who appreciate the fact that he could have just said, "Bill, you're full of sh*t and I'm not talking to you any more on national TV" but obviously that wouldn't have played well. Also, Dave's a gentleman...unlike some people. Bill O'Reilly is a cowering, blustering chickenhawk. If he feels so strongly about the war, he should go fight.

O'Reilly mentioned that insurgents kill innocent civilians, however, he forgot to mention that US bombs killed more innocent men, women, and children than any insurgents ever have and ever will! I can't believe he worked for CBS and ABC; way to tell one side of the story!

I really don't like O'Reilly and I love Letterman, but this interview is just painful. It's very awkward so far (only 3 minutes or so in). I don't like it.

Odd..those who say O'Reilly won, did you even listen? Letterman made O'Reilly look like a silly caricature of a news person. He looked at him and said "Who cares?" He spoke for 90% of the people out there, no matter their beliefs. I have not talked to ONE SINGLE person who cares about the Christmas thing and I live in the Bible belt. People laugh at it..they think its a joke. And Letterman made it a joke. It doesn't matter if those stories are true or not..since when does 'red and green napkins' have anything to do with Jesus? By not engaging him too deeply, Letterman made O'Reilly look foolish.

Thanks, David, for saying what the rest of us always wanted to say to O'Reilly.

Letterman is a punk. He should be happy that Bill did his show, maybe it'll boost his shitty ratings. Letterman's blind faith for useless ignorance is too much to watch. Hey Letterman hates Leno too, he hates anyone that has more viewers. People who talk a big game and don't back it up with facts are just complete morons, zombies to the hyped media. Go Bill! His "objective" reporting is so different than average populous media that he affords the ratings.

Gee, I am sure Letterman is waiting with baited breath for his "Factor" cap, just like Bill should wait with baited breath the day Letterman watches his show.

Letterman finished it like a class act! I think it would have been fun for Dave to bring up O'Reilly's sex harrassment suit in October 2004 - to see how fast Bill would try and defend that one.

I held out hope that you would have this vid even before C&L did. You never disappoint, 1gm!

Gee, Letterman should wait with baited breath for his "Factor" cap, just like O'Reilly should wait with baited breath the day Letterman watches his show.

What really would have been a hoot is having Letterman bring up Bill's October 2004 sexual harrassment suit...like usual Letterman came off nothing short of a class act.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21855

bill o'reilly: The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy ...

This was after an appearance on the show in 2001 and he goes on to say that one must win over the audience and they were with him that night, etc.

with whatever side you agree with you will think won, i dont see how letterman won, sure he was more funny, but thats his job. He admitted himself that he had no facts and that he based his judgement on OReilly based on things he has read.

Without facts there can be no debate, it's just one guy talking and another guy saying "thats not true", without and qualifying statements. There can be no winner.

Thats just me, but i like to be objective so maybe my opinions dont count anymore.

RIP Logic.

with whatever side you agree with you will think won, i dont see how letterman won, sure he was more funny, but thats his job. He admitted himself that he had no facts and that he based his judgement on OReilly based on things he has read.

Without facts there can be no debate, it's just one guy talking and another guy saying "thats not true", without and qualifying statements. There can be no winner.

Thats just me, but i like to be objective so maybe my opinions dont count anymore.

RIP Logic.

What a doofus. Talk about getting facts wrong! It's M-"EYE"-SIX, NOT M-"ONE"-SIX.

Norm, you said it perfectly: You can't debate someone who has no respect for the truth. BTW, O'Reilly isn't a journalist; don't think he ever claimed to be. It's all about the money with him. Period.

The very fact Bill O’ has a very good PR staff that gets him on NBC’s The Today show where Kattie lobs pre-discussed questions at him and then he get air-time on CBS Letterman along with manufacturing pseudo-news about people who are supposedly anti-christian. It’s all a game, folks. And Bill is getting paid handsomely for all this attention.

The very fact we’re here blogging about him is indirectly like putting dollar bills in his g-string.

Damn, that was good of Letterman to put that neo-con asshole O'Reilly in his place. John Stewart didn't do it so I'm glad that Letterman did.

I'm sick of O'Reilly and the Bush Admin. always saying for us to watch what we say. This is a free country and unfortunately for Bush and his goons, Freedom of Speech was in the First Amendment, they can't change that. All I know is that the current administration is ushering in a new era of McCarthyism.

Damn, that was good of Letterman to put that neo-con asshole O'Reilly in his place. John Stewart didn't do it so I'm glad that Letterman did.

I'm sick of O'Reilly and the Bush Admin. always saying for us to watch what we say. This is a free country and unfortunately for Bush and his goons, Freedom of Speech was in the First Amendment, they can't change that. All I know is that the current administration is ushering in a new era of McCarthyism.

Wow...awsome.. You can't complain.We, here in Spain, don't have people like Letterman, Stewart or Leno

I wished...

Jeepers, discovering people like O'Reilly it's been a shock to me.

HEHEHE, good one, David!!! Greetings from Barcelona, Spain...keep the good work on onegoodmove ;-)

O'Reilly is # 1 in ratings; on the other hand, Letterman has sucked Leno's dick for 10 years so he should be careful with those '60% of what you say is crap' comments. There's a reason why some are #1 and some are #2 (or #3 some nights)

dave needs to stick to interviewing drew barrymore and madonna. thats why we fight for our freedom and the natural-born given freedom of others, so you you can watch TV, laugh and make your owns thoughts heard. any women sitting on her couch watching that Letterman show should wake up and see that WOMEN are now able to vote...and under the threat of being shot. thats excuse enough to fight and bring democracy to human beings around the world.

I wonder why Letterman didn't suggest this: If the Iraqis invaded America, would not O'Reilly be tempted to be a "freedom fighter" and kick the Iraqis out?

I wonder why Letterman didn't suggest this: If the Iraqis invaded America, would not O'Reilly be tempted to be a "freedom fighter" and kick the Iraqis out?

I wonder why Letterman didn't suggest this: If the Iraqis invaded America, would not O'Reilly be tempted to be a "freedom fighter" and kick the Iraqis out?

hooray for mr. letterman though i do believe 99.44% of what mr. o'reilly says is crap. once you get beyond hello and good evening, what else does this man actually have to say?

cll

hooray for mr. letterman though i do believe 99.44% of what mr. o'reilly says is crap. once you get beyond hello and good evening, what else does this man actually have to say?

cll

I think a majority of people on this blog have predisposed opinions that are really jading their opinions. I don't think anyone really won or lost last night. I think what it demonstrated two people with different beliefs. Letterman argued from an emotional standpoint and interjected some humor in it but really demonstrated how there has been created a "cultural" difference between the 2 sides. O'Reilly was acted like someone just as passionate about his belief but came across as the class room know it all that we don't like so therefore we don't believe. Both failed - O'Reilly had an opportunity just keep it light and have fun in an entertainment venue - he should have poked fun at himself - and Letterman failed because he demonstrated that he can't support his views as well as he should. They both should have kept it fun. My vote is they both lost.

Letterman's contempt for his guest was refreshingly obvious. O'Reilly is a national disgrace.

I think a majority of people on this blog have predisposed opinions that are really jading their opinions. I don't think anyone really won or lost last night. I think what it demonstrated two people with different beliefs. Letterman argued from an emotional standpoint and interjected some humor in it but really demonstrated how there has been created a "cultural" difference between the 2 sides. O'Reilly was acted like someone just as passionate about his belief but came across as the class room know it all that we don't like so therefore we don't believe. Both failed - O'Reilly had an opportunity just keep it light and have fun in an entertainment venue - he should have poked fun at himself - and Letterman failed because he demonstrated that he can't support his views as well as he should. They both should have kept it fun. My vote is they both lost.

Couple of facts:

• Sheehan didn't call the terrorist freedom fighters as OWrongly said she did.

• China, Germany, India and Russia didn't think Iraq was threat before Bush prematurely attackulated the country.

• 8 out of 10 times the people who support the Bush admin like OWrongly does leave out pertinant facts when it comes to their advocation of the Bush admin and their actions

Couple of facts:

• Sheehan didn't call the terrorist freedom fighters as OWrongly said she did.

• China, Germany, India and Russia didn't think Iraq was threat before Bush prematurely attackulated the country.

• 8 out of 10 times the people who support the Bush admin like OWrongly does leave out pertinant facts when it comes to their advocation of the Bush admin and their actions

I'm a Brit, and found it hysterically funny when O'Reilly referred to our foreign intellegence as M ONE six, as opposed to M I six. It's Military Intelligence dumbass. There's a contribution to his 60%...

jesus, will everyone stop posting twice? hit the button and then go and see if it shows up before you post again, you morons. o'reilly is a blow hard and dave handed him his ass.

Did I see a different interview? I thought Letterman came across as pretty silly throughout the interview simply relaying general sentiments to make people clap and pandering to the crowd. At no point did Letterman make any real statement ("I think you're making this up", "60% is crap") while O'reilly took clear and decisive stands throughout, AND backed them up. (whether you agree with them or not)

My favorite trick by Letterman was when Bill asked him how he thought the family members of living soldiers feel about the glorification of the insurgents and Letterman shoot back, "Why are we there in the first place?"...What?! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a good question that O'reilly asked. It's a shift of gears to get the audience clapping and completely dodges the question poised by O'reilly.

Did I see a different interview? I thought Letterman came across as pretty silly throughout the interview simply relaying general sentiments to make people clap and pandering to the crowd. At no point did Letterman make any real statement ("I think you're making this up", "60% is crap") while O'reilly took clear and decisive stands throughout, AND backed them up. (whether you agree with them or not)

My favorite trick by Letterman was when Bill asked him how he thought the family members of living soldiers feel about the glorification of the insurgents and Letterman shoot back, "Why are we there in the first place?"...What?! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a good question that O'reilly asked. It's a shift of gears to get the audience clapping and completely dodges the question poised by O'reilly.

I can't get this video to play, it sticks right at the pencil-dipping-- does anyone know if it's posted somewhere else?

Did I see a different interview? I thought Letterman came across as pretty silly throughout the interview simply relaying general sentiments to make people clap and pandering to the crowd. At no point did Letterman make any real statement ("I think you're making this up", "60% is crap") while O'reilly took clear and decisive stands throughout, AND backed them up. (whether you agree with them or not)

My favorite trick by Letterman was when Bill asked him how he thought the family members of living soldiers feel about the glorification of the insurgents and Letterman shoot back, "Why are we there in the first place?"...What?! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a good question that O'reilly asked. It's a shift of gears to get the audience clapping and completely dodges the question poised by O'reilly.

Did I see a different interview? I thought Letterman came across as pretty silly throughout the interview simply relaying general sentiments to make people clap and pandering to the crowd. At no point did Letterman make any real statement ("I think you're making this up", "60% is crap") while O'reilly took clear and decisive stands throughout, AND backed them up. (whether you agree with them or not)

My favorite trick by Letterman was when Bill asked him how he thought the family members of living soldiers feel about the glorification of the insurgents and Letterman shoot back, "Why are we there in the first place?"...What?! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a good question that O'reilly asked. It's a shift of gears to get the audience clapping and completely dodges the question poised by O'reilly.

I love how people trash others without quailifying their statements. 60% of what Bill O says is garbage? that may be true, but at least give some examples and cite your sources (I dare you to try to find unbiased sources - esp. on the internet). Correct him where he's wrong. Qualify and quantify (where applicable) your answers.

To LeftBanker: Please explain why he is a disgrace? Isn't he spouting off opinion like so many others on this board? Doesn't he have the right? Do please qualify your opinion.

YCHDaT: Did Sheehan call the insurgents anything but insurgents? Did we all get to see EVERY" interview clip she's ever done? Is he 100% incorrect in reporting that other countries' intelligence agencies did not have silimar intel? Did they have any? When was it reported? Where did you hear the info? CNN? Fox News? and 8 out of 10 times the people who support Bush... Yeah. please cite you 80% statistic.

There is crappy journalism all over the place and I doubt it'll get better. Sensationlized "yellow press" is how these channels stay in business. I would love to see a high circulation newspaper report only factual info and statistics from reliable research ie taking a true simple random sample to poll opinion or cite scientific or research based journals from various acadamia. Then maybe form an editorial from that. Not just make a story from whatever comes off the AP wire. I'd like to hear reports, not from just from our side, but cite stories from international publications as well. Face to face interviews with Iraqis from bahgdad and from more "rural" areas to see contrasting points of view. There a lot of crap being said out there, and crap is all it is. My $.02

god, you are all so fucking stupid. no wonder there's so many blowhard supporters here... 4 posts in a row and you still can't figure out how your hero Bill got his ass handed to him? Dave's contempt speaks volumes.

I love how people trash others without quailifying their statements. 60% of what Bill O says is garbage? that may be true, but at least give some examples and cite your sources (I dare you to try to find unbiased sources - esp. on the internet). Correct him where he's wrong. Qualify and quantify (where applicable) your answers.

To LeftBanker: Please explain why he is a disgrace? Isn't he spouting off opinion like so many others on this board? Doesn't he have the right? Do please qualify your opinion.

YCHDaT: Did Sheehan call the insurgents anything but insurgents? Did we all get to see EVERY" interview clip she's ever done? Is he 100% incorrect in reporting that other countries' intelligence agencies did not have silimar intel? Did they have any? When was it reported? Where did you hear the info? CNN? Fox News? and 8 out of 10 times the people who support Bush... Yeah. please cite you 80% statistic.

There is crappy journalism all over the place and I doubt it'll get better. Sensationlized "yellow press" is how these channels stay in business. I would love to see a high circulation newspaper report only factual info and statistics from reliable research ie taking a true simple random sample to poll opinion or cite scientific or research based journals from various acadamia. Then maybe form an editorial from that. Not just make a story from whatever comes off the AP wire. I'd like to hear reports, not from just from our side, but cite stories from international publications as well. Face to face interviews with Iraqis from bahgdad and from more "rural" areas to see contrasting points of view. There a lot of crap being said out there, and crap is all it is. My $.02

WSSIXER,

I hear the more times you post it the more valid it becomes.

Dave is not a journalist he's an entertainer. Bill on the other hand claims to be a journalist. Now shouldn't a journalist use facts to back up his statements if not then he's a propagandist.

Most people will take what they read or hear as facts while some will look into what's being claimed to validate the statements. What I've found is that O'Rielly is one of the worst offenders when it comes to smearing, distorting, and just saying whatever he feels like whether it's true or not to defend his opinion.

Debating, even though this was an interview not a debate, someone like O'Rielly is pointless. Look into his little song example and you'll find how much he twisted it to suite his needs. The same with the colors example he uses.

It was a funny interview that's all but I'm sure it will be spun into something bigger by O'Rielly. He's dedicating 2 hours to talking about it on his radio show. Was his ego hurt a little?

Okay, listen up.

I LIVE in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. Bill O'Reilly IS full of crap, as Letterman puts it.

Ridgeway High School is in (ready for a FACT, Mr. O'Reilly?), of all places, RIDGEWAY Wisconsin...about 10 miles east of Dodgeville.

Ridgeway's use of the chrismtas carol came from a christmas show they've been doing for some 18 years. Anyone in theatre can tell you that you have to buy RIGHTS to produce certain shows. This is a PUBLISHED script, not something "re-written" by locals hell-bent on destroying Christmas.

Also, O'Reilly fails to mention the NUMBEROUS PHYSICAL HARM and PROPERTY DESTRUCTION THREATS sent to Dodgeville High School and other schools by...ready, O'Reilly? GOD-LOVING CHRISTIANS!

Now ask yourselves: what does more harm to the image of Christ-loving people? The use of a script with good intentions? Or CHRISTIANS who physically threaten harm to others based on their "loving" principles?

I tell you honestly: people in this area were APALLED at the heinous acts of "Christians" acting on their "moral" faith and beliefs.

Dodgeville High School even issued a very intelligent memo trying to explain the situation and defuse the religious fanatics who threatened violence.

As a Dodgevill native, I am appalled, dismayed, and discouraged by Bill O'Reilly's wanton use of lies, deception, and impatience with fact-checking, all in the service of his own ego and morality-thumping. I only take satisfaction in knowing that the Man upstairs O'Reilly professes to defend will tweak O'Reilly's spiritual nose sharply for blatant disregard of fairness and truth.

Okay, listen up.

I LIVE in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. Bill O'Reilly IS full of crap, as Letterman puts it.

Ridgeway High School is in (ready for a FACT, Mr. O'Reilly?), of all places, RIDGEWAY Wisconsin...about 10 miles east of Dodgeville.

Ridgeway's use of the chrismtas carol came from a christmas show they've been doing for some 18 years. Anyone in theatre can tell you that you have to buy RIGHTS to produce certain shows. This is a PUBLISHED script, not something "re-written" by locals hell-bent on destroying Christmas.

Also, O'Reilly fails to mention the NUMBEROUS PHYSICAL HARM and PROPERTY DESTRUCTION THREATS sent to Dodgeville High School and other schools by...ready, O'Reilly? GOD-LOVING CHRISTIANS!

Now ask yourselves: what does more harm to the image of Christ-loving people? The use of a script with good intentions? Or CHRISTIANS who physically threaten harm to others based on their "loving" principles?

I tell you honestly: people in this area were APALLED at the heinous acts of "Christians" acting on their "moral" faith and beliefs.

Dodgeville High School even issued a very intelligent memo trying to explain the situation and defuse the religious fanatics who threatened violence.

As a Dodgevill native, I am appalled, dismayed, and discouraged by Bill O'Reilly's wanton use of lies, deception, and impatience with fact-checking, all in the service of his own ego and morality-thumping. I only take satisfaction in knowing that the Man upstairs O'Reilly professes to defend will tweak O'Reilly's spiritual nose sharply for blatant disregard of fairness and truth.

Funny how big-time journalist O'reily comes to the show fully prepared, (with his pocketful of lame and embarassing conspiracies that he is so certain are proof-positive of his paranoid rants), and gets totally shot down by a hip-shooting, apparently unprepared and painfully average tv host.

Thank you Bill, for offering up yourself as a live-TV cornerstone at the apex of US public opinion. What a welcome disservice you have done to your US-destructive cause. May you and your ilk rot in eternal hell for what you have already done to us all.

BORe isn't telling the rest of the story either, only the tidbits that support his culture rants

Re: the silent night---the song was adapted years ago to be a cohesive part of a holiday musical

Re; the library nativity scene--the nativity scene was put back in place a bit later--and it didn't take a lawsuit to get it there.

Re: the red and green napkins in Plano Texas. A parents association sent out a letter requesting white paper products for a winter party = snow = white. To be fair, the district and parents have a lawsuit happening over the whole christmas/holiday thing in the district that is ongoing for a year or so

I don't know how Dave could have disputed these cuz BORe pulled them out of his pocket.

True, staff could have done research re: the Factor examples that = 60% crap, but his show is about entertainment, not necessarily pulling out a list of examples to debate. Given the blow-hard quality of BORe that would have taken up waaayyy more segment time than allotted.

"I love how people trash others without quailifying their statements. 60% of what Bill O says is garbage? that may be true, but at least give some examples and cite your sources (I dare you to try to find unbiased sources - esp. on the internet)."

Go to mediamatters.org type in Bill O'Reilly in a search engine. Just in case you think it is biased they even record his TV show for viewing with each story.

You can listen to lovely things from Bill like... - Taxi workers in NY should be shot dead. - Saying that AQ are free to blow up San Franciso - Says French don't take a bath for 18 days. - Told his co-host to turn up in a bikini - Claimed Irish emigration was the same as African American enslavement.

But my personal favorite. Claiming that everyone is anti-christmas yet his site was selling "Holiday items". Only changed to christmas after another station reported it.

Then you can go to thesmokinggun.com and read the court documents concerning his harrassment case. You will never eat falafel again.

i noticed exactly the point o'reilly made...making it sound like cindy sheehan had equated us troops with terrorists but in such a devious way that if you were to play back his comment, he'd say "i never said that!"

i was also pissed by this disingenuous concern over how traditions like christmas are being compromised. if i were an american, i'd be much more concerned about how the constitution is being compromised and how the system of checks and balances is being compromised and how all the lies and cronyism are destroying people's faith in government. these are way more important than whether we say merry christmas or happy holidays.

the dislike dave had for him was palpable. it says something about the state of politics in the US that dave has gotten a lot more political in recent years. he's still done it with a wink, so you never really knew where he stood, till that exchange with o'reilly. you could tell how mad he was with the comment about sheehan.

finally, i dont really understand this american blindspot of being unable to put themselves in the other guy's shoes. why is so difficult to see that, yes, to the other guys, AMERICANS are the terrorists/bad guys. Americans are so blinded by their own propaganda that they are incabable of empathy. THEY are always the good guy, so the other guy must always be the bad guy. NO introspection, NEVER. it's unbelievable.

one more finally, i dont understand this logic that bush apologists now use, those who grudgingly admit that "mistakes were made" but that "we must now win" even if we're not winning for the reason we originally thought. if you perform heart surgery and mistakenly begin to remove the liver, to do you continue removing the liver and be damned with the fact you fucked up? or do you try to correct the problem before the patient dies? well, we know what americans do. full steam ahead!

So BOR thinks our "christmas traditions" are being eroded by Kmart or Sears or some other corporation. Well, when I grew up my "christmas traditions" were not created by kmart or sears...they became traditions because MY FAMILY made them traditions. Frankly, I could give a shit if corporations say happy holidays, merry christmas or eat shit! It's carrying on traditions at HOME that make Christmas "Christmas".

hey zak, you wonder about all of those things - I have the answer as to why there isn't more outrage - at the very least, 60% of americans are retards and incapable of forming and independant and intelligent thought, thats why. The readership of this site, and for that matter, the internet in general, does not represent the voting public. fer chrissake, there is a huge percentage of adult americans that can't even read and comprehend past a 4th grade level. it is a government of the powerful and intelligent, speaking to and being elected by the simple and easily manipulated. This will be the cause of the downfall of our beautiful democracy.

I see O'Reilly a bit like I see crackerjack ambulance chasing lawyers. They get one or two shreds of circumstantial evidence that support the point they're trying to prove for their client (in O'Reilly's case, the Bush administration), find some whackjob doctor who will provide professional testimony on the stand for a fistful of cash, and run with it.

There really is no way to debate a person like that and it's pointless to try to argue them point to point. They'll bog you down in the details they loosely tied together with the half-baked theory they're trying to support and call you "uninformed" if you disagree with the facts they provided to you via their vast army of haystack-picking minons. The best you can do is call them on it and move on.

I'd also like to point out that Letterman is an entertainer first, whereas O'Reilly is a political commentator first, so it makes sense that Letterman would take the route he did- he's there to entertain and not nitpick.

And Hurricane Spin hits level 5... oh noes.

dave sorta lost steam at the end... to really nail him, it would've liked to hear him bring up some of the specifics that bill asked for. there's plenty to choose from...

Ben, you're right. I was watching a show the other day about the fall of the Roman Empire. And it reminded me of what's going on now. It seems like there are always those in society who are able to view things as they really are and those who are deluded by rabid patriotism so much so that they can't see what's headed for them.

The US is in decay. Not because of Madonna or Jerry Springer, but because there are forces that are undermining the principles the US was created with. And unfortunately the overwhelming majority of Americans have been bred by their leaders to stay dumb. If Americans cared a little more about the lies Bush tells them and a little less about the lies the National Inquirer or People Magazine tells them, maybe things wouldnt be so bad.

In 100 or 200 years, historians will look back on this time and describe it as the point American's influence began to falter as China's began to rise. It has happened countless times over the last 10,000 years. It will happen again. Trouble is Americans, just like the Romans, Greeks, Muslims, Spanish and British before them, are too delusional to see it for themselves.

This is the very best video that you have posted in quite awhile. Letterman literally handed "falafel boy" his ass! I am going to make it a point to watch Letterman more often.

I think he did a real service for the anti-war movement.

Dave doesn't watch O'Reilly; well, neither do I but I feel like I'm informed about him even without his show. True, I don't watch the factor (no cable), but BO'R is a perfect example of a "news reporter" that's sensationalist enough to also be a topic of news. You can't escape some of the ludricrousness he spouts; TV, papers, blogs abound with quotes and clips from him (i.e. the recent "we won't do a thing [if al Qaeda attacks SF]" and his made-up war on xmas). He infiltrates without having to watch his show.

Dave did just what he should've; pointed out the hypocrisy and ridiculous nature of O'Reilly without a superior attitude.

MOMLY - The true title of The Who's "Teenage Wasteland" is Baba O'Riley. 'Nuff said.

I thought O'Reilly was surprisingly polite & level-headed in his delivery--the first time I've seen him as such. I was glad Letterman didn't try for jokes with every exchange, but he seemed ill-prepared and without a clear idea of why he had BO on there in the first place. Yes, his show's meant to be "just entertainment" as so many of you have said, but Dave did just bring O'Reilly on for an interview, not because Bill was hyping some new book or program. So I think the interview should have been conducted by Dave in a more neutral, well-thought-out manner.

Yes, we must avoid debate with people like O'Reilly. We just point out that it is biased and nonsense.

Good post.

A few things:
1)I actually do ponder the effect that Sheehan and her people are having on military morale; I can't imagine that her protesting wouldn't discourage at least some soldiers. That being said, I highly doubt that anything she can do will ever be as destructive the Presidential order that sent the soldiers there in the first place. More to the point, I'm sure that the American public will end up hurting the soldiers in the long term if they don't collectively ask about the case for the Iraq war and start demanding accountability from the people who have the power to send soldiers out to fight. As much as dissent may kill morale, unchecked and irresponsible leadership will kill (more) soldiers. 2)say, isn't giving AlQuada his blessing to destroy parts of a major American city...well, WORSE than Sheehan's message, in terms of morale-boosting, or anything else? Last I checked, no matter how misguided Sheehan's actions may be, she's trying to get people out of harm's way - O'Reilly is actively advocating death for people. Death for American citizens no less. I mean, hasn't he committed a hate crime against his own countrymen here? 3)(American) imperialism/self-preservation/pick-a-label: with respect to self-preservation, aren't there worse offenders out there? Rogue nations with actual confirmed payloads of weapons truly deadly to the US? Regarding furthering of self-interests: aren't there better ways of taking over a country than by sending underarmored and underprepared troops? If you're going to send people in to an utterly foreign nation, shouldn't you have a good plan first? And I'm not even talking about the cost in American life here (because quite frankly, it looks like it's a given that nobody in the US government cares about Iraqi life), I'm speaking about how much faster it would be for them to show massive profits off enterprise there if they were to establish conditions favorable to doing business there faster. 4)Letterman vs. O'Reilly - here's a question: wasn't this supposed to be an interview? On Letterman's show? Why the hell shouldn't he be pandering to his audience? They came to see him in action, not for debate. Huh. I should really listen to my own point here.

Yeah, we're gonna turn iraq into a democracy... That was the funniest thing said in that bullshit exchange.

So, we should support our professional soldiers, huh? By paying privates $26k/year to get their ass blown off?

We've spent over $250 billion and things are far from getting better: The number of insurgent attacks per day have gone from 61 to 100 in the last year.

Bottom line: This retarded war is ruining this country. How many more have to die? How many more have to grieve? How much more money do we have to waste? How many more lies are we supposed to swallow???

I'm actually glad to hear O'Reilly getting all gussied up over the obvious degredation of our core-values. It can only mean less time to spout about IMPORTANT things.

Let the baby have his bottle.

Smacked in the face by a flying falafel.

BOO-YAH!

Not to disparage anyone in the armed forces, they are there at the whim of corrupt politicians, but is it fair to say that from an Iraqi perspective, that American troops could be viewed as we view these "insurgents" (Iraqis)? I find it hard to believe that no women or children have died at the hands of American armaments....not that any of the armaments on this planet are likely American...since we produce more weapons than anyone else. Anyhow, O'Reilly is a douche.

I suspect zak is right that America is in decline. Mao considered and Osama's ilk consider us paper tigers so what does it really mean to be a super power. The powers that be think we can at the very least slow or overcome our real or perceived decline by war though. I think Americans are fighting 2 wars now - Oil War and Terror War - the sooner this is understood the better. Since people can't separate them, the waters are so muddied it is difficult to clearly understand what is happening. Bush's brain can't even keep the baddies separated, so how can an average American.

Why have war when you can have a cold war though. America sees China as a threat to its hegemony. Either way, this century is shaping up to be a frightening one. A scholar I was listening to who predicted the fall of the Soviet Union long in advance has predicted the fall of the US. I can't recall his name, the idea was so disturbing to me I didn't want to think about it but someone can track the person down I suppose by googling him, I don't want to right now.

Previous comments: 'professional soldiers' - of course soldiering is a profession and I stated that was common sense. One problem is that some people see them as wasted resources if they are not used. If we are going to treat soldiers as disposable then we better have a reality check. I am deeply concerned by those who view our soldiers with callous indifference to their suffering. The troops know dignity, honor and sacrifice. Please don't wish me or others to silence when I say I value their lives. No matter what the reasons they are injured, maimed, or die for they are still among the most honorable of us. The American people have a responsibilty to hold politicians feet to the fire if they misuse them. If they are misused it is not their fault and they share absolutely no taint of those who would lie to us about the war.

wssixer: You are woefully confused about the mideast and especially preWar Iraq. Also, the FBI knew about he first WTC bombing before it happened. Some not so crazy people think the same about 911. Your belief that we must do something, anything, even if it blows up in our face is nonsensical but courageous - I guess - not much to base a foreign policy on though.

About the BOR: Republicans and right wingers have a professional training program - I am not making this up - that states that it is better to make up false anecdotal stories to 'prove' a point rather than use facts BECAUSE anecdotes are always more powerful than facts. Some can call these falsehoods lies but that doesn't take away the power of the story. You can then attack those who call out the lies as misguided liberals or some such. Politicians have always lied but Republicans have mastered the practice it seems - impressive.

Wake up those who listen to Cheney/Bush, the repubs, BOR and Limbaugh. If you are right, then all we liberals are is noise. If we are right about any of the issues than you owe it to yourselves to think. Cognitive dissonance can be a good thing - embrace it.

Really, it seems like Letterman is just trying to be an entertainer. Bill O'Reilly is normally just a big flapping idiot, but that exchange clearly was not won by Letterman with comments like, "I'm not smart enough to debate you," or, "I don't watch your show, but I've read about it". Even statements like, "I think 60% of the stuff you say is crap" are just ad hominem, which just shows a weakness in one's argument.

Even in the comments here, whining about things like Bill O'Reilly saying "M16" - oh boo hoo, it isn't like the man is perfect (far from it). Bill O'Reilly may be mostly a sensationalist 'reporter', but that still doesn't make a charade like this one very meaningful in terms of real debate.

I did laugh my ass off, though, when O'Reilly drank out of that cup! Hahaha

"as many of you can see the road ahead is filled with danger it's not nuclear bombs we must fear but the human mind itself (or lack of it) on this planet it's time to go beyond the normal thing it's time to do the super thing it's time for devo"

-devo, 1981

I really appreciate the comments from those outside the US, for their perspective. Anyway, I thought I would say thanks.

I think this interview can be scored. If BOR was misrepresenting the facts in those cases I would give him a penalty. Letterman recognizing BS when he sees it counts as a valid block. Anyway, just for fun, maybe someone will work out the final score : ) Really, just for fun ; )

I hate all of you because all of you HATE AMERICA!!!

YOU are the reason America is in decline, you frikkin panzy-ass, weak-minded, self-centered, glutnous, selfish, lazy, spoiled, holier-than-thou pieces of shit. YOU are the reason America has turned into the toilet it has become. You.

YOU!!!!

Thanks Americahateseurope. You proved my point a thousand times over. You're never wrong. People just hate the US because they're "panzy-ass, weak minded, self-centered, blah blah blah" .. Yeah, that's it. Nothing to do with oil, nothing to do with going to war for lies, nothing to do with sanctioning torture, nothing to do with spying on your own citizens, nothing to do with destroying the environment, nothing to do with believing bullshit idiotic design instead of science, nothing to do with any of that. You're right and just like a lemming, you'll be right till you rush off that cliff right in front of you. See ya!

AMERICA.....EUROPE just points out stark reality that there really are two Americas. Not sure where that rage is headed. We are either going to unite or fall. This division is killing us.

I think everybody's missing the point. This was a very well constructed backscratching event. The ratings of both hosts will go up after this debate. Yes, the insurgents are terrorists but think about two other groups on the receiving end - the Iraqi people and the GIs (not gee ones) who are there just doing their duty. A lot of people have died in Iraq, including Mrs. Sheehan's son.

This site has been overrun by professional posters. This is part of the tactic. To spread SHIT in order to discourage reasonable opinion.

We are in a world of shit.

116 comments...thats gotta be a record

I want "60% of what you say is crap" as a ring tone for my phone! Someone do this please!!!!!!!

the one part he should have nailed o'reilly on is when o'reilly was talking of the evils of all the innocent women and children the insurgents have killed, yet can not historically critique the US involvment of bombing hospitals, schools, and other innocent targets (asprin factory anyone?).

billy o' is really quick to judge everyone else, yet i think the public has been quite easy on his as far as harassing that producer, and trying to have phone sex with her as he has a vibrator up his arse. lol, he can throw as many accusations as he wants at innocent people, yet when it boils down, the truth is that he is a bully who couldnt debate any really informed person on the so called 'far-left'. Paul Krugman proved this.

I won't quote the whole article BUT Media Matters For America reports that O'Reilly repaeted the FALSE claim the school changed "Silent Night" lyrics. Part of that 60/40 rule...

Go have a read:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009

"implying not only that does she view the insurgents as freedom fighters"

Funny you should mention sophistry, because that certainly seems to be a cornerstone of 'liberal' thinking.

So you know, Sheehan was quoted - I repeat, quoted - saying EXACTLY THAT to CBS. There is no LIE here. It's what the woman said:

"But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in ..."

Not terrorists. Not insurgents. "Freedom fighters".

The 'freedom fighters' stupidity has been echoed by tons of liberal mouth pieces, from Michael Moore to Cindy Sheehan. And libs respond in one of two ways: the straightforward ones lie, saying 'She/he didn't say that!'; the stupid ones actually believe that the statement is true.

Oh, those freedom fighters. Blowing up schools that dare to teach girls. Sending in suicide bombers to explode funeral processions of Shiites. Bombing wedding parties. Kidnapping UN and charity workers and beheading them on TV.

It just goes to show you how gullible people are, no matter which political party they align themselves to. What makes these people 'freedom fighters' in your mind? Because they say they are? Then the US government is a 'freedom fighter' to, because we claim to be bringing democracy to the people of Iraq.

Intelligent people learn to look beyond statement to true motive, and to look beyond their gut reaction. But most of the people here are just oppositional defiants. They make the following chain in their minds: Republicans in charge, US=bad, anyone who opposes US=good, terrorists blowing up school children are good! And they work backwards from that stupid rationale, and actually convince themselves that the terrorists are somehow defending their country ... somehow fighting for the rights of some unseen, voiceless people.

Morons. All of you. You need psychiatric help. So busy (rightfully) decrying O'Reilly for his nonsense, yet supporting Sheehan for hers. Sheehan is no hero. She's a media whore, milking the death of her son and pushing her own media-friendly agenda. Just because your son died in Iraq doesn't mean you know everything about everything, lady.

Everyone can be wrong. Including Cindy Sheehan.

"If you were able to poll them, 98% would be supportive of Bush and what he is trying to do in Iraq. "

Actually, the most recent poll of American military professionals came out to only 54% in favor of Bush's policies in Iraq, signifying a major drop.

Perhaps not with Darth Cheynious and his Dark Apprentice is the Force, and the Empire may crumble. Always in motion the future is, but perhaps, Freedom may come and create we may a New Republic.

Go enlist in the military, Joe. They need more fathead jerkoffs like you.

Oh, that's right, you, like your tubby pals Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberg, and Bill O'Reilly, have more "pressing" matters in your lives than to serve your country.

Like kicking around Cindy Sheehan and Rachael Corrie. What tough guys, what heroes.

Pig.

the best part about the whole 'freedom fighters/insurgent/terrorist' debate is that its all a matter of perspective.

im sure had o'reilly's kind been in britain around the time of our revolution, we would have seen him calling adams, washingon, jefferson and their kind not as revolutionaries, but as 'insurgents'. lol. seriously. there is no difference.

also causing a good chuckle: american established democracy....isnt this the first democracy we have tried to start? i believe we were all for dictatorships when we did it in iraq, iran, argentina, and venezuela....

Now, now, Joe. Don't try to confuse us with facts, our minds are made up.

I liked it when Letterman brought up that American Minute Men NEVER committed atrocities similar to those done by the Syrian, Kuwaiti, Saudi and other 'insurgents' terrorizing Iraq.

And David really shut down O'Reilly by using 'feelings' for a logical argument. Admitting ignorance on national TV takes courage, and Letterman displayed courage.

And as for Sidney Sheehan, its obvious that the death of a son who CHOSE TO SERVE HIS COUNTRY is just too difficult for a 'grieving' parent to deal with, especially with the pressure of media-whoring.

i cant believe that o'reilly makes sheehan out to be a puppet. its such a crass move. im sure she planted her son to get killed...and the far-left wheels are in motion!

im not even a big sheehan fan. i dont even think she is that smart. however, i do think she has every right as an american to put her foot down and state her opinion, just as we all do. o'reilly has every right she does, the only difference is that o'reilly can hide behind a desk barking insults nightly from a perch he doesnt deserve. he spreads more hate and divide than sheehan could ever do.

As Letterman accurately pointed out, people like O'Reilly tried to make a big deal out of the "Merry Christmas" sensation to deflect people's attention to a more important and bigger issue: the lying of Bush that has led to the costly Iraq war.

Letterman has impressed me as one with a good brain. The contrary is clearly found in O'Reilly, whose style and intellectual ability only attract the idiots, the morons, and the losers.

Great going Letterman! Keep up the great work!

Where'd the score come from? Because Letterman was more insulting? He admits that he can't argue based on facts, so he throws out a lame insult. Should have had one of his writers prepare a couple. ("You have a kid the same age as mine?! Good gosh, you look old enough to be my father!")

I think O'Reilly flustered Letterman; otherwise he would have remembered to call O'Reilly "sexist" for opposing Sheehan and "racist" for saying terrorists aren't freedom fighters. Missed a couple of easy ones there.

At least he remembered to ask O'Reilly if he had a son or daughter serving in Iraq. Good solid liberal sophistry (yay! I got to say it too!) - implies that O'Reilly's arguments are invalid, while ignoring the fact that a hundred times as many mothers of soldiers who died in Iraq disagree with Sheehan. They don't matter.

For a while it looked like O'Reilly's facts would confuse Letterman, but he got back on script. Maybe if he'd actually watched O'Reilly's show, he could have been more creative.

Since it's become a contest, I give the nod to O'Reilly - facts and manners vs. pettiness and (admitted!) ignorance.

O'Reilly RULES!!! You libs are done for!!!!!! LOL

WSSIXER said - "We reaped our sown ignorance in 2001 when the towers came down." Here we go again - the Iraq invasion was justified by 9/11 - here we go with all the stuff about bringing democracy to the Middle East. . . Yes, 9/11 proved we had a BIG problem with crazed, fanatical elements of the Muslim Middle East. It did NOT give any rationale whatsoever for attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 (Osama despised Saddam). Kerry was right when he said "Bush took his eye off the ball" as far as terrorism was concerned. Of course, NOW we have a big terrorism problem in Iraq. The O'Reilly's and their type - from Bush/Cheney on down - who support the Iraq invasion as some kind of vital sacred cause have cost this nation lives, money, and world credibility, when there were much more urgent tasks that needed doing - both in the Middle East and elsewhere. We need media commentators who acknowledge this, who live in reality instead of a fantasy world where the US is always right - and who don't insult and smear honest protesters like Cindy Sheehan.

I have one serious suggestion to those who support the idiot O'Reilly: sign up and go to Iraq and fight the war your masters started (but can't seem to finish). People who support an evil regime should not be part of the gene pool. The world would be a better place without people like O'Reilly and other brainwashed losers.

the truth is that neither o'reilly nor letterman knows any facts. the only difference is that letterman is honest about it.

im glad conservatives live by the the former host of a tabloid magazine. me personally, i would have gone with maury povich, because 'a current affair' had better theme music than o'reilly's 'inside edition'.

this was so fantastic. thanks for the clip hosting. it really made my day.

So Mr. "Oh'Really" tells us that those that blow up women and children are not freedom fighters. Maybe he is right, but that would mean that our troops are not freedom fighters either.

I think Cindys comment would not effect morale all that much.

Being sent to Iraq on a lie, not being wanted there by the general Iraqi public and your own administration not giving you the resources to do your job.

That would piss me off more then one mother upset her son died.

Just watched the clip - looks like Letterman is doing O’Reilly a favor, especially towards the end. I’m no fan of O’Reilly and wouldn’t let him speak for me, but what exactly did Letterman say that was of consequence? “You don’t have a right to disagree publically with Cindy Sheehan?”

Huh?

The only good side to this war is. That it has weekend the grip on South America. Venezuela got control of 32 of it's oil fields. I can't believe that there wasn't a crszy coup by the CIA . Maybe to busy spying on US citizens. I hope Bolivia gets controle of it's gas fields.And the rest of South America gets control over their natural resources. I know Iraq will lose their oil.

The only good side to this war is. That it has weekend the grip on South America. Venezuela got control of 32 of it's oil fields. I can't believe that there wasn't a crszy coup by the CIA . Maybe to busy spying on US citizens. I hope Bolivia gets controle of it's gas fields.And the rest of South America gets control over their natural resources. I know Iraq will lose their oil.

The only good side to this war is. That it has weekend the grip on South America. Venezuela got control of 32 of it's oil fields. I can't believe that there wasn't a crszy coup by the CIA . Maybe to busy spying on US citizens. I hope Bolivia gets controle of it's gas fields.And the rest of South America gets control over their natural resources. I know Iraq will lose their oil.

Congratulations Norm.

Looks like Bill's bong-hit army is freeping you pretty good. Oh, my bad. Bill's fans don't hit the bong. They like it in the other end. Anal-fixation. Not a pretty sight, but neither is Bill's bloviated ass.

Dave was perfectly Dave. He kicked Bill's ass or there wouldn't be so many of his dildo-loving pervy pals bothering to drop in at onegoodmove. Enjoy his steaming falafal while ye may. Big change a coming, and Bill won't be around to smell the loofas.

Great clippage, Norm.

There's a big difference between "invasion" and "overthrow." The US "overthrew" the Iraqi government. If the Iraqi people were living a good life without the threat of death from their dictator, without their money being taken, and without the fear of constant terrorists, it would have been an "invasion." Do I have to mention the threats, the mass graves, the lies, the slaying of his own parliment and people? Would you not PRAY for it all to end? I can't even believe I have to explain this. I'm really in the twilight zone.

"Go enlist in the military, Joe. They need more fathead jerkoffs like you"

For your enlightenment: the definition of ad hominem.

"the best part about the whole 'freedom fighters/insurgent/terrorist' debate is that its all a matter of perspective"

Not the case at all. One can certainly find examples of 'freedom fighters' and terrorists. Generally there are distinguishing characteristics in both the motives and practices. Terrorists just want to bring about terror, and to find power for themselves. They will do anything to bring it about (blowing up children, innocent civilians, etc). 'Freedom fighters' are generally concerned with liberating people from an oppressive regime ... and while they may kill people, their true motive generally keeps them from committing inhumane acts against the innocent.

Certainly anyone can call themselves a 'freedom fighter'. But it's pretty clear that the people setting off IEDs in Iraq aren't fighting for any freedom. And only a fool would side with them over the US in the current situation.

"also causing a good chuckle: american established democracy....isnt this the first democracy we have tried to start?"

You really need to shore up your education. We created democratic Germany. We also created the government of Japan. Both have flourished.

"So Mr. "Oh'Really" tells us that those that blow up women and children are not freedom fighters. Maybe he is right, but that would mean that our troops are not freedom fighters either."

This is strikingly similar to the equally ignorant argument against capital punishment - the idea that if you commit a similar act, it makes you equal.

Of course that's not the case. The difference is, it is not the aim of the US or its military to harm innocent people, children, et al. And nobody is happy when it happens (except your type, who love to use it to show how supposedly evil we are, and of course the terrorists). This is actually why the enemy uses children to build their emplacements, etc. They know it's demoralizing.

Contrast this with the enemy who purposely put children and innocents in the line of fire - sometimes making them the carriers of death.

There is obviously a difference there. And if you pretend not to see it, you're being more than dishonest.

"That would piss me off more then one mother upset her son died"

But can't both be wrong?

Can't we have the presence of mind to say O'Reilly is an idiot, and so is Sheehan?

All the people here would probably decry an emotional argument from any other source. Just because you agree with her supposed motives, what makes Cindy Sheehan so untouchable to you? She said something stupid and hurtful, and like anyone else she should be accountable for that fact.

I think the only one full of crap is the one who posted the original statement. Like him or not Bill hasa proven history of calling it down the middle. Our troops are doing wonderful things. They dont kill non-combatents. In fact they die protecting them. God bless them our country, our way of life and Bill who is looking out for us like him or not.

Bill was right on the mark tonight. Normally I dislike the man, but tonight I couldn't help but see it his way. Dave came of as an ignorant prick.

My (somewhat objective) dos centavos: Letterman is a comedian and interviewer, O'Reilly is the journalist. O'Reilly begins the interview with the Solstice joke and follows it up with a rant citing obscure news items (using the term most loosely). Should journalists be religious crusaders? Letterman asked the question without even having to say it aloud. I don't know how anyone could think it's Letterman's job to have a factual rebuttal ready for obscure factoids. It has taken me five minutes to find strong rebuttals to Bill's first two stories online... I'm not wasting my time looking up the others, so it's easy to understand why David used the 60% crap line. I just wish that after Bill admitted that the Iraq war was a blunder, Dave had my perfect hindsight and remarked that the spouting of half-truths, like Bill's Xmas fables, brought us into this blunder of a war. And that is the only reference Dave should have drawn between O'Reilly and the Bush administration; the recitation of fiction that takes the appearance of truth just long enough for the impatient or impaired to believe it.

If you were watching a prize-fight, then you probably thought O'Reilly won. If you were watching a chess match, then you probably sided with Letterman.

As Billy thinks hes all fair and balanced. He's not and to me that's lying. Let me tell you one thing working in customer service has showed me. People in general are not to bright. So if some one says they are respectable. Then we just think okay he's got a news show. He will report news that matters cus why would they give a random person a tv show for news. So as many viewers are buying into him as fact. That's plain sad. "Outfoxed" will tell you. David's job is to make people laugh. How do you think people would laugh to big scary Billy? David is not a person to debate cus he's a talk show host. That's all he has to be. Billy is to hold up things that happen as truth. Not as per picked out right wing actions. That's why it was funny. I don't even like David Letterman. Ha.

146(+) comments... letterman owns o'riley.... no doubt

For your enlightenment: the definition of ad hominem.

Gee golly jeepers, Joe, did you rememeber that deinition when you said the following in a previous comment on this thread, well before you were called a "fathead jerkoff"?

Joe: Morons. All of you. You need psychiatric help.

I suppose that's not an ad hominem because you're Joe and your silly fucking rules of engagement in blog comments sections do not apply to you. It's only an ad hominem when the pejoratives are flung at you.

This is what makes followers of the right-wing dogma such loons. Even when they lie, fabricate, and just make shit up (like the king of the loons, Bill O'Reilly), they are never wrong or breaking the rules. But oh do they expect the "other side" to play by the rules and behave, be polite, and let the right-wing loons scrap all over them.

Sorry, Joe, you lost me at "Morons. All of you. You need psychiatric help." Anything you said after that was feces pinched out of a bottom. Engaging in "informed discourse" or "logical debate" begins with you following the same notions, you fatuous douchebag.

Err, J. Rock, if you want to see pictures of women and children killed by our troops, they're not hard to find. al Jazeera ran them by the dozen during the first seige of Fallujah. start here. Dead children galore. Yes, some of those kids were killed by terrorist bombs. And some were also killed by U.S. air strikes. 500 pound bombs don't ask you whether you're a woman, child, or terrorist before blowing up and taking out everything within a 100 yard radius. "Smart" bombs don't yet have the capability to interrogate folks and decide on their own not to blow up or not. They just blow up, killing everybody in their blast radius.

Our military is very, very good at killing people. And, unfortunately, some of those people are women and children. Bullets don't stop going just because they missed the man you shot at. They stop going when they hit something. And when you're firing a lot of bullets, that "something" may well be a woman or child.

• Badtux the Reality-based Penguin

I think Letterman man a fool of himself. He never answered a question, just changed the subject or accused Bill of lying and making up stories. David made Bill look great, and letterman could not hold a candle, to Bill in a "real" debate.......

David asked Bill if he ever lost a child in combat, and Bill said "No", "Then how can you speak for Cindy" replies Letterman......

How many children has Letterman lost in combat? None, but he can speak for Cindy?

Just more of the left wing culture war, bringing down this country......

"letterman owns o'riley.... no doubt" hardly, David just made himself look stupid...

We need more O'Reilly's in the world..... thanks Bill!!

Words mean something...

insurgent: A person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government.

freedom fighter: Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate.

Freedom has a definition as well. Republicans favorite current definition of freedom: Departure from normal rules or procedures. The US and the world have rules though we often flaunt them.

There is no 'established' government in Iraq while the US is still there and the government is so new I am reluctant to call it established for quite some time. Many of those that fight the government see it as oppressive and illegitimate so unfortunately WE ALLOWED them to call themselves freedom fighters no matter how distasteful it sounds. Many Iraquis were even interviewed at the start of the war and said that they would tolerate the US presence only so long. We are fighting many who merely oppose our presence and at the same time are supporting Osama's claims against us. Those were Saudi Arabians on those planes, folks. We trained AQ and Osama. It is not the intelligence gathering that is broken in this country - IT IS OUR MORALS.

America bombed women and children although some people think that we have a moral high ground because we don't do it intentionally. The innocent lives were part of the calculations to be sure - they are part of collateral damage. However righteous you think this war, there is blood on every Americans hands, mine included, make no mistake about it. The Iraqui people may one day have beautiful lives but we cannot claim credit. There was a reason that the US gained its freedom and it came from struggle from within. Sure we had help but no one much wants to thank the French on the Fourth of July - think about it.

Sure there are suicide bombers and many/all of those are criminal acts. There is a reason that people fight that way - they feel powerless and want others to share their grief and death. War does terrible things to a people. Thankfully we probably do not have to fear invasion but that seems to have given us license to go on the offensive and ignore defense.

All those who think that the war is righteous need to think of what value is a human life.

It is my belief that a human life is irreplacable and more valuable than any possessions one can acquire. If the person is American or not they are just as valuable. That is not to say that criminals deserve our understanding, it is just a matter of belief in the value of life. I do believe everyone has a right to defense. I also believe everyone has a right to defend his or her homeland. Despite every opinion about the war, one thing is clear. Cheney came into his powers as VP having been the primary writer of a document to invade Iraq and distribute control of the oil fields. A number of Repub high officials stated that 911 was a "gift in disguise". Those that support the wars, I am not your enemy because I oppose them. Rather the enemy is our own executive branch.

BO'R is a distraction of course and no one has the moral right to heap abuse on a grieving parent. But she is a public and easy target. Republicans where are your morals now? Will you have the courage to question the president? It seems even BO'R is made of teflon, let alone the president.

Don't make a debate about insurgent vs. freedom fighter. They are the same thing. Don't focus on connotation, that's just silly. Also, no one debates the righteousness of the average soldier so lets stop trying to claim their honor for ourselves and no more pissing contests over what it means to be a patriot.

Also, US foreign policy is not about supporting democracies. We only support democracies when we have influence. "Democracy in the middle east" argument for Iraq is a smokescreen. There are many layers to the lies, they have not all been peeled away.

It's Jon Stewart, not John. And yes, I find Jon Stewart's interviews sharper and far more satisfying than this one by Letterman, even though Letterman had his good moments. American bombs kill women and children, too, and even wedding parties, too, and that's just one of the points to which Letterman could have responded. Even though it's not "our" intention, nor that of the US soldiers, it's the result and the process of war. We need to find better methods than the blunt weapons of war if we want finely crafted democracies.

I agree deeply with the comment that there are many layers to the lies.

Thank you for posting this interview.

Anyone who argues with O'Reilly is unamerican. how dare the liberal commies from the Un-American north let the great traitor Letterman to get away with all this crap. We gotta hate the enemy and destory.

Anyone who argues with O'Reilly is unamerican. how dare the liberal commies from the Un-American north let the great traitor Letterman to get away with all this crap. We gotta hate the enemy and destory.

i cant wait till the baby boomer generation starts dropping dead... or better yet rely on me to take care of them ... i will do everything i can to screw them to the ground and pay for the damage they have done... how about an old people tax ? when i am president i am going to blow all the social security money( that was intended to care for these old beasts) on bubblegum and iraqi flags

I thought it interesting, the discussion comparing America to Rome, and the further idea that this Empire is also in decline. I think in general too many humans think about things with too short a view of history. Not only does it seem to me that the Bush government of liars and such is a problem in that it affects how the world views America, but you have to look at the longer history of America from slavery, to Vietnam, and then to today. Now I don't want to be a mindless American basher or spread hate of America. There are lots of intelligent and compassionate Americans just as their are intelligent and compassionate people in every country. The problem is with who is in power, and yes the intelligence or as I mentioned earlier, the short view of history or those who vote them in. Even just looking at history in general and seeing that all great powers eventually tend to fall. Why should America be any different. I think we need to think in thousands of years at least instead of thinking only in terms of maybe a few years. I mean we have to go back at least to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and consider what that must mean to people who are not from Western Culture. Here we could see a country whose leaders try to act as if their shit doesn't stink and never has. But America is the only country to have actually ever used, and I will use the trendy title Weapons of Mass destruction along side with the old name of nukes. Now I am not suggesting Japan's leaders were in the right to have attacked Pearl Harbor, but does nobody think that America's decision to basically commit genocide killing all the people in those cities whether they be possible evil people, people just working day to day, soldiers, politicians, moms, grannies, or babies. If we take off our "Western culture filter glasses" for just a second (I as a Canadian include myself here, I don't want to lay blame and try to say I am not part of a problem too) how can we expect people from Iraq, whether they are honorable or not, to not want America out, to not think of America as the only people to actually use nukes on a city as a solution. Do we westerners ever call ourselves terrorists for doing that? Look I am not saying that Iraqi's fighting America are right or America is necessarily wrong. What I am saying is that everything a country does or has done in history is going to shape how other nations and cultures view them, and consequently how they treat them and react to them. Once a country has done something that big to cause the world to lose its trust in them, and cause them to fear them, just as a small kid would fear a school yard bully, it is unrealistic due to human nature to expect them to easily forget all that they have done in the past and not view them in terms of all of thier history. Well anyway, these are just some thoughts I had that were stirred up by the references to Rome and stuff. Incidentally I think it is also the problem that is causing people to foolishly buy into intelligent design. They have a hard time getting their mind around evolution and seeing it is not random because they can't, or won't think in terms of geological time.

And btw. I agree with those who say Dave didn't need to play by the same rules, being an entertainer as Bill, who tries to pass himself off as being a journalist. To create another analogy consider this hypothetical scenario. An elementary school student brings in his professional mom or dad lawyer for some learning about career day. You are not going to expect the kid to have a deep understanding of the law and to say things that make sense if they have a question period. However, I think the lawyer, in simplifying things for the kindergartener should at least be considered to make simple statements that are actually don't contradict what he or she understands about the law outright. Shit, that is a bad analogy, but you probably get the picture. I am sure I could think of a better one if I took some time.

btw, I love OGM. I live in Korea and just love easy access to Daily Show clips and the interesting articles and essays and other stuff the shows up here. Keep it up!

"Not the case at all. One can certainly find examples of 'freedom fighters' and terrorists. Generally there are distinguishing characteristics in both the motives and practices. Terrorists just want to bring about terror, and to find power for themselves. They will do anything to bring it about (blowing up children, innocent civilians, etc). 'Freedom fighters' are generally concerned with liberating people from an oppressive regime ... and while they may kill people, their true motive generally keeps them from committing inhumane acts against the innocent."

are you serious joe? do you really think we have James Bond-esqie villian who just want to blow people up for no reason? are you really buying into that 'evil doers' bullshit that Bush feeds people. that is pure comedy. people like these have motives, and dont amass large sums of money or get financial backing just to do evil's bidding. we seem to fund freedom fighters, such as OBL when they were fighting the Russians, yet when they arent on our side (or flying planes into our building) they become terrorists. like i said, its all perspective...just as George Washington would have been a lead insurgent circa revolutionary times.

its all about who is gonna go to bat for you. its all good when they are doing your wetwork. all it takes is a little critical thought to understand this. its never been about good and bad, but who stands on your side of the line drawn in the sand at any given moment.

I had a good winter solstice too, but it's still going on to this day... RAGE!!! lol

I quote Letterman: "HOW STUPID AND CRAZY IS THIS!?"

Hey Brennan, you commie, what was wrong with McCarthism?

Of course, the discussion always seems to turn to America-hate with you liberal socialist schills.

What the hell does the "fall of America" have to do with the Letterman show??? Do you se enow why we call you traitors? Do you see now why you can't be trusted?? No wonder why you retards cant win any elections.

Now that I can see things from the other side I see that the conservative movement has gone totally overboard. The pundits like BOR are riling up fringe extremists like "LIBERALSARETHEDISEASEOFAMERICA" who can't even come up with a decent username, and blame those who disagree with their radical views as traitors. I was going to say more but I can't remember why I started this entry...

Bill O'Reilly is a smug asshole and David Letterman is a bit of a pinhead. Why the hell did he invite O'Reilly onto his show? He obviously did not like the guy - it's not a stretch to say he may have hated him. O'Reilly did his thing, but Letterman really ground the show to a halt. Since when did he become a hard-hitting journalist? Give me a break. Dave should stick to the witty banter between he and Paul Shaffer and avoid adult topics.

As for most of you, I get the feeling that you are full of crap (100% of the time). Get a job, get a life and get a clue. For all of you that get your information from The Factor or the Daily Show, you're never going to be smart enough. SO, either keep your trap shut or try a little harder; use a little reason and logic. There are two kinds of people in this world - doers and complainers. What category do you fit into?

O'Reilly and Fox love to fabriate this crap about the liberal assualt on Christmas. It's just a straw man they use to get the right-wing dittohead types in a lather.

Also, I've never understood the logic behind the argument that questioning our involvement in Iraq or if the war is just, will serve to undermine the moral of the troops. O'Reilly (and other posters here) say that this is a kick in the balls to our troops and we should just keep quiet. In order for the troops to carry on, in order for the troops to believe what they are doing is right, we need to only report the positive. Let me ask a "hypothetical" question. What if you were a soldier, who made the commitment to protect your country, to lay your life on the line to do "what needs to be done". You see your friends and compartiots killed. You kill enemy soldiers, witness all kinds of unspeakable horrors. You come close to getting killed yourself. Then suppose after months or years of this, you find out that the all the reasons given for the war were a lie. You weren't there to defend America or our allies. Your friends weren't killed to liberate the local citizenry. You weren't fighting for your life to defend some noble and just cause. You were really there to fight as fodder for some regime that doesn't really care about any of these noble principles or the locals or the soldiers. Just advancing their corrupt agenda. Remember this is just a hypothetical. If you were this soldier would you feel better about those circumstances, comforted by the fact that at least you weren't being tormented by naysayers who had the terminity to question our involvment in the war? Would you come home after your tour was over and think to yourself: "Who cares if the cause was right or wrong? It doesn't matter that thousands died on each side. All of the horrors inflicted upon the innocents don't matter. Sure, the was could have been ended sooner, or maybe not fought at all. None of that matters. At least I wasn't overcome by doubt and indecision brought on by the liberal USA-haters. Yeah, they may have been right, but that doesn't matter". Give me a break. Give the people in the military some credit. They aren't dumb. They know that this whole thing smells like shit, even without us telling them. Of course it's much easier for the troops to fight for a cause they believe in. Sure they don't want to hear that the war is unjust. But, the answer to that is we shouldn't fight unjust wars.

I'll agree with O'Reilly in his appraisal that the pre-war intelligence was wrong and that the whole thing is a mess. And we are going to be there for a long while. So the focus should be on winning and finding a way to end this thing with everybody coming out better off (fewer casualties, a stable Iraqi democracy). But, how that requires that all opposing views be stifled, I don't know. Sure the left spends too much time crying about the the wrongs of the Bush administration. It's not enough to lie about and whine. We need our reps in Congress to get some balls and fight back against the Patriot Act and against Bush's subversion of the Constitution, etc.. Find and promote better candidates than wishy-washy John Kerry.

Oh, and by the way.... Dave did kick O'Reilly's ass.

1. Why do BOR's fans have such a hard time speaking our language (still English, I presume)?

2. Nothing invalidates an argument like a hypocrite. BOR does a great disservice to thoughtful conservatives. We can only blame ourselves for educating people without teaching them how to think; otherwise, educated audiences would recognize "the factor" to be as ludicrous as "the affair."

People: His arguments are not rational. They are illogical. Throw up your American flag up if you wish, but this country was founded by intellectual freedom fighters. If you refuse to be educated, at least don't be led around by a man who can't practice what he preaches.

I love how Dave closes by calling him , "Ben."

Liberty's son...two comments on your post.

On your comment: <>

Of course you don't understand. You aren't over there seeing what is really going on and then hearing a completely different story being told back here in America. With your point of view and the crap you are being fed by the media, you never will understand. Until you have been there in the boots of our soldiers, you can't begin to understand (I suggest you join the Armed Forces if you really want to understand).

On your comment: <>

You admit your question is hypothetical, but fail to realize your hypothetical is based on a false premise. Again, you only know what the pinheads on this blog and your friends at the NYT print, not what is really going on on in Iraq. The irony is your point of view makes most soldiers, marines and sailors fighting in Iraq want to puke, but they would be willing to die for your right to express that point of view. Again, this is a concept far above your ability to comprehend.

In a fight, sometimes the best offense isn't to attack your opponent, but to simply deflect their blows until you gain the upper hand.

The quote about watching a prize-fight and watching a chess match is sensational, and my kudos to whoever thought of it. This interview is a chess match between two people who obviously can't stand each other. (Both start off with deliberate attempts to goad the other, with Letterman's pencil-dipping and O'Reilly's "winter solstice", which jumps into Letterman's topic.) O'Rielly does his normal thing of providing instances that support his side, then cleverly dodges/inflames comments concerning the instances he brings up. (Where did he, in the entire clip, justify any of his positions? Take the "poll" comment, where he says "98%" of soldiers will approve of Bush/The War. The latest poll in that area shows an approval rating of 61% plus/minus 3. No justification there.) That initiates O'Rielly's "chess attack", if you follow the analogy. Letterman's counter, however, isn't to engage him in forethought debate because, honestly, neither one possesses a way to unequivocally back up their argument. Instead, he brings up another topic or idea to undermine the stability of O'Rielly's argument. (The response "...Why're we there in the first place?" is a good example. While it may not have answered O'Rielly's question exactly, it DID, however, throw a monkeywrench into his guest's argument. You can't build up a moral pyramid on a foundation of deceit.) Letterman keeps his piece on the table, not with an attack on another one of O'Rielly's, but with a clever dismantling of O'Rielly's supposed defense. And that's the gist of this interview. It's diffused at the end by Letterman's usual, and inexplicable, inability to close out a solid argument.

I like neither man, but the definite advantage goes to Letterman. He took a broader stance to most of O'Rielly's more specific points, and ultimately, it's the broad topics that matter.

Can't "win" a violent war Bill.

Victory via violence is only measured by comparing collective loss.

"Freedom fighters" are words that should be taken in its own context.

Bush has made it clear that only 10% of the insurgents are foreign with the majority as the local Sunnites.

They all have the common goal of freeing Iraq from US presence in Iraqi soil, government and oil industry, as well as freedom from the loss of close to a hundred thousand deaths of Iraqis and the disruption of normal life in Iraq for the past 4 years.

All the Islamic militants and fanatics all want 1 thing. A Middle East free of US presence. US supported Saddam against Iran and provided materials in his chemical WMD regime. US helped propped up totalitarian regimes in the Middle East that were pro-US. US also supplied military arms to aid the rise of religious Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan which included the Taliban.

As for those who condemn public bombings as a terrorist tactic, weren't the Israelis the first ones to use this tactic to force the British to give up their control over Palestine in the 1940s, so that they can use it to form Israel? Is this tactic is not alright if the Arabs pick it up?

This is just my opinion.

wow, lots of great comments here. i can't read them all, so excuse me if i'm being redundant.. indeed, letterman missed such an easy point to turn around and question why when our soldiers kill women and children they're still considered freedom fighters and not vice versa. but then that gets prickly with the cultural dominance of the american superiority complex.
nonetheless, letterman did what america needs him for - not to match lava-mouth tit for tat, which is playing his game. rather, letterman did something every joe can feel, he invoked his intuition. like bad art, you can just smell it when someone's full of shit, and if ever there was manure for mind, heart and soul, it's pat robertson and his mccarthyist spawn! ps - love the 'how's yer buddies in the bush administration' line!

David Letterman certainly made a Leno fan out of me, and now I've gained new respect for Mr. O'Reilly

You liberals get nasty when you have no control :)

I am a United States Marine and every one of you whiny undermining liberals is a COWARD.

You are a US marine. Does that mean that you sign up to die for your leader's mistakes? Or does that mean you want the other people who sign up to die for the same mistakes?

Bush has admitted that the war is a mistake, although he stopped short admitting it was his administration made the mistake when they acted on information that Cheney and his people collected which was designed to prove Iraq had WMD.

But Bush blamed this mistake on CIA when CIA has kept telling Bush and his administration that a lot of their justications on wars are based on proof that isn't proven? And his administration were the one who erased their doubts and qualifications on the proof of Iraq's WMD when they presented it to Congress and UN?

Who is the real coward here, marine? it is none other than your Commander in Chief who is thankful that there are marines like you who just do as they told.

haha Bill showed Letterman up. that guy is a twisted liberal...its a shame he has a show, but it was fun watching Bill make a fool of david...great stuff.

haha Bill showed Letterman up. that guy is a twisted liberal...its a shame he has a show, but it was fun watching Bill make a fool of david...great stuff.

the last two comments were written by two different people yet said the same thing...lol...i think this is actually how republicans won the last two elections.

also to the marine, congrats on serving your country. too bad the people who you support dont give two shits if you die, as long as they can cash in their haliburton stocks at the end of the day.

there is a reason the military recruits at the high school level...no one with a proper education would be dumb enough to sign up to become cannon fodder.

Bill O'Reilly never served in the military nor will his children ever go to an invasion by Bushie so I guess he doesn't really know what Cindy is talking about. All the loyalist of Bush and company talk war but don't allow their kids to join. Cheney is a great one to lead the military after his 5 deferments great leader. O'Reilly is only doing his job like other journalist who are on the Bush payroll. Look if Nixon had a Fox station and all these paid journalist fronting his lies Nixon would never have been impeached. Americans follow the President even when he lies to their face over and over again thats the American way.

Bill O'Reilly never served in the military nor will his children ever go to an invasion by Bushie so I guess he doesn't really know what Cindy is talking about. All the loyalist of Bush and company talk war but don't allow their kids to join. Cheney is a great one to lead the military after his 5 deferments great leader. O'Reilly is only doing his job like other journalist who are on the Bush payroll. Look if Nixon had a Fox station and all these paid journalist fronting his lies Nixon would never have been impeached. Americans follow the President even when he lies to their face over and over again thats the American way.

Bill O'Reilly never served in the military nor will his children ever go to an invasion by Bushie so I guess he doesn't really know what Cindy is talking about. All the loyalist of Bush and company talk war but don't allow their kids to join. Cheney is a great one to lead the military after his 5 deferments great leader. O'Reilly is only doing his job like other journalist who are on the Bush payroll. Look if Nixon had a Fox station and all these paid journalist fronting his lies Nixon would never have been impeached. Americans follow the President even when he lies to their face over and over again thats the American way.

Bill O'Reilly never served in the military nor will his children ever go to an invasion by Bushie so I guess he doesn't really know what Cindy is talking about. All the loyalist of Bush and company talk war but don't allow their kids to join. Cheney is a great one to lead the military after his 5 deferments great leader. O'Reilly is only doing his job like other journalist who are on the Bush payroll. Look if Nixon had a Fox station and all these paid journalist fronting his lies Nixon would never have been impeached. Americans follow the President even when he lies to their face over and over again thats the American way.

I really think this video is an endorsement for O'Reilly's ideas. I don't understand how a liberal could get behind this and support Letterman's rebuttals as well thought out or salient. I'm a liberal and I thought Dave was pretty much floundering for the entire interview. He got some guts at a couple parts of the dialog, but never backed anything up with a decent counterpoint. Confessing his inadequacy as a debater was probably the best disclaimer he could have given before his sharp but pointless "60%" comment. If this was an open venue and not Letterman's set, I would be willing to bet that the applause for the points made on either side would be severely weighted to O'Reilly.

I really think this video is an endorsement for O'Reilly's ideas. I don't understand how a liberal could get behind this and support Letterman's rebuttals as well thought out or salient. I'm a liberal and I thought Dave was pretty much floundering for the entire interview. He got some guts at a couple parts of the dialog, but never backed anything up with a decent counterpoint. Confessing his inadequacy as a debater was probably the best disclaimer he could have given before his sharp but pointless "60%" comment. If this was an open venue and not Letterman's set, I would be willing to bet that the applause for the points made on either side would be severely weighted to O'Reilly.

I'm betting that (much like what happened with Rush Limbaugh) this will be O'Reilly's last appearance on the Late Show. See you later, Bill. Don't let the door hit ya.

As a former service member for the great USA, Dave is with the dumb hollywood stars that as always have no damn clue about the real world, they are clueless about anything because it doesnt effect them at all! I am not a big fan of Mr Bill but he makes some good points.

What a dishonest slimebag this O'Reilly is.

Just as with the dog-whistling tongue-splitting golden-butting Australian Right, most conservatives in the present environment seem to fear putting their views clearly and honestly, out of risk that with their repugnancy held up to the light of day only the flotsam would still support them.

What a dishonest slimebag this O'Reilly is.

Just as with the dog-whistling tongue-splitting golden-butting Australian Right, most conservatives in the present environment seem to fear putting their views clearly and honestly, out of risk that with their repugnancy held up to the light of day only the flotsam would still support them.

I think we saw typical news sensationalism coming out of O'Reilly's mouth. It was refreshing to see someone like Letterman actually tell O'Reilly he was full of it on television. At least one of the stories O'Reilly was talking about was taken out of context. He was wrong. How can anyone defend what O'Reilly said, that we shouldn't call Bush a liar, etc. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been disrupted because of this "mistake" and O'Reilly can defend the president? Definately biased news and O'Reilly is a very arrogant and ignorant man.

I think we saw typical news sensationalism coming out of O'Reilly's mouth. It was refreshing to see someone like Letterman actually tell O'Reilly he was full of it on television. At least one of the stories O'Reilly was talking about was taken out of context. He was wrong. How can anyone defend what O'Reilly said, that we shouldn't call Bush a liar, etc. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been disrupted because of this "mistake" and O'Reilly can defend the president? Definately biased news and O'Reilly is a very arrogant and ignorant man.

1. Why do BOR's fans have such a hard time speaking our language (still English, I presume)?

2. Nothing invalidates an argument like a hypocrite. BOR does a great disservice to thoughtful conservatives. We can only blame ourselves for educating people without teaching them how to think; otherwise, educated audiences would recognize "the factor" to be as ludicrous as "the affair."

People: His arguments are not rational. They are illogical. Throw up your American flag up if you wish, but this country was founded by intellectual freedom fighters. If you refuse to be educated, at least don't be led around by a man who can't practice what he preaches.

1. Why do BOR's fans have such a hard time speaking our language (still English, I presume)?

2. Nothing invalidates an argument like a hypocrite. BOR does a great disservice to thoughtful conservatives. We can only blame ourselves for educating people without teaching them how to think; otherwise, educated audiences would recognize "the factor" to be as ludicrous as "the affair."

People: His arguments are not rational. They are illogical. Throw up your American flag up if you wish, but this country was founded by intellectual freedom fighters. If you refuse to be educated, at least don't be led around by a man who can't practice what he preaches.

1. Why do BOR's fans have such a hard time speaking our language (still English, I presume)?

2. Nothing invalidates an argument like a hypocrite. BOR does a great disservice to thoughtful conservatives. We can only blame ourselves for educating people without teaching them how to think; otherwise, educated audiences would recognize "the factor" to be as ludicrous as "the affair."

People: His arguments are not rational. They are illogical. Throw up your American flag up if you wish, but this country was founded by intellectual freedom fighters. If you refuse to be educated, at least don't be led around by a man who can't practice what he preaches.

The U.S. needs to invade Vietnam in order to setup a free democratic government. We need to finish the job we started so that the country will not fall into authoritarian hands and the thousands of soldiers killed will not be for nothing. By establishing a democracy in the region, people in neighboring nations will want to be free and we will have a better world for it.

Meanwhile, our rich competitors will surpass us economically. But what do we care about trade deficits and federal debt? The companies supporting the war will profit and the average American will walk proudly by simply having their egos stroked. It's something about a lighthouse on top of a hill or fighting for freedom, etc..

Simply put, Bill O'Reilly represents the very America the Chineese and others laugh at. As my Chineese friend put it, "The American ego is what will help secure China as the next super power."

The U.S. needs to invade Vietnam in order to setup a free democratic government. We need to finish the job we started so that the country will not fall into authoritarian hands and the thousands of soldiers killed will not be for nothing. By establishing a democracy in the region, people in neighboring nations will want to be free and we will have a better world for it.

Meanwhile, our rich competitors will surpass us economically. But what do we care about trade deficits and federal debt? The companies supporting the war will profit and the average American will walk proudly by simply having their egos stroked. It's something about a lighthouse on top of a hill or fighting for freedom, etc..

Simply put, Bill O'Reilly represents the very America the Chineese and others laugh at. As my Chineese friend put it, "The American ego is what will help secure China as the next super power."

Bill Oreilly was absolutely right, and David Letterman was completly flabergasted. You have to be pretty ignorant to see it any other way. That is what you expect from CBS.

You liberals are so stupid sometimes. I'm not a conservative or republican but most of you people on here think O'Reilly got one handed to him? Are you kidding? Letterman certainly did not come out on top on the topic of Iraq. Any smart person could understand this (though he definately defeated the Christmas bullshit). O'Reilly is a jackass, of course, but people are going to town on this one even though really Letterman didn't prove anything, hell he even got caught up in his own mess a few times. And I completely agree with the fact that Letterman simply is another Hollywood bullshiter, making all this money when soldiers are struggling to pay their damn rent. They feel because they are so much better than everybody else that they need to get themselves involved in political sides (cough cough Kanye West).

kanye west and david letterman are stupid = continue iraq mistake... makes sense

Maybe we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. But we took the war on terrorism to a country that seemed to support it. Right or wrong. So called "Freedom Fighters" are coming to Iraq to fight our professional soldiers. We do our best to not take out their civilians while our enemy has no regard for the innocents of Iraq. Does Cindy Sheehan impose her political belief at the expense of her son's memory? Would her son agree with ther stance? I'm not slamming either, it's just a question I ask myself. I'm proud of our military and ashamed of our partisan or ideological bickering. I do believe we can and must win this war. I did lose respect for David Letterman.

Maybe we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. But we took the war on terrorism to a country that seemed to support it. Right or wrong. So called "Freedom Fighters" are coming to Iraq to fight our professional soldiers. We do our best to not take out their civilians while our enemy has no regard for the innocents of Iraq. Does Cindy Sheehan impose her political belief at the expense of her son's memory? Would her son agree with ther stance? I'm not slamming either, it's just a question I ask myself. I'm proud of our military and ashamed of our partisan or ideological bickering. I do believe we can and must win this war. I did lose respect for David Letterman.

Maybe we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. But we took the war on terrorism to a country that seemed to support it. Right or wrong. So called "Freedom Fighters" are coming to Iraq to fight our professional soldiers. We do our best to not take out their civilians while our enemy has no regard for the innocents of Iraq. Does Cindy Sheehan impose her political belief at the expense of her son's memory? Would her son agree with ther stance? I'm not slamming either, it's just a question I ask myself. I'm proud of our military and ashamed of our partisan or ideological bickering. I do believe we can and must win this war. I did lose respect for David Letterman.

What the hell is:

M-ONE-SIX,

Bill?

Maybe we are in Iraq for the wrong reasons. But we took the war on terrorism to a country that seemed to support it. Right or wrong. So called "Freedom Fighters" are coming to Iraq to fight our professional soldiers. We do our best to not take out their civilians while our enemy has no regard for the innocents of Iraq. Does Cindy Sheehan impose her political belief at the expense of her son's memory? Would her son agree with ther stance? I'm not slamming either, it's just a question I ask myself. I'm proud of our military and ashamed of our partisan or ideological bickering. I do believe we can and must win this war. I did lose respect for David Letterman.

Pretty crappy what Letterman did to his water. You should respect all people, even if you disagree with their opinion.

Pretty crappy what Letterman did to his water. You should respect all people, even if you disagree with their opinion.

Letterman owned O'Reilly??? I must have watched another video. You are praising Letterman for admitting he knows nothing about Politics and then saying that 60% of what Bill O'Reilly says is crap. That is just great. Now the great thinkers of the land are the ones that don't know anything. I don't know squat but I think you might be full of crap because that is the way this town swings. Popular opinion states that you might be full of crap. We are the generation that doesn't have time to look up facts so we get our news from Letterman and Jon Stewart. Politics has to be fun or we aren't interested. What a sad world. Sorry I don't know anything about the recent mine explosion and the dead miners. Jon Stewart hasn't found a way to make it funny yet.

Does any of it matter? Its funny when we live in a land where alot of citizens gets it political opinions from a comedian on late night and a comedian on comedy central. No one knows whats going on in the world. Most people in America havent been around the world to know what its like anywhere but here, but they form a line to throw their closed minded opinions about Bush and their view of Iraq. Who cares? You arent going to change anything anyway. Thanks for voting Hippies.

Pretty crappy what Letterman did to his water. You should respect all people, even if you disagree with their opinion.

I love Letterman - have for years. But this was embarrassing! I'm really disappointed in him. The water thing really ruined any credibility in his words. If you really think Letterman scored on this you're nuts!

It's rare to see Letterman take sides, and go after a guest. Nice to see....

Orielly 2 Dave 0. If youre scoring points for substance, that is. If your scoring points based on audience applause, well then thats your problem !

(1) Point - Orielly Gets letterman to admit having no basis whatsoever for his conclusion that "60% of what" Orielly says is "crap". Bill promptly asked for a single example, where Dave simply could not provide one. Dave ultimately had to admit that he came to this conclusion through media gossip, because he has never watched The Factor. Right there - Letterman lost all credibility.

(2) Point Oreilly Dave tried to make Bill appear insensitive to Cindy Sheehan. Bill explained how Ms. Sheehan has decided to grieve publicly, and as a result - the attacks she makes on our miliary and the president are not beyond examinition. The line which shut Dave up --> "Terrorists who kill women and children will not be called freedom fighters on my program". To which Dave could say nothing, but plead ignorance.

The rest was all tit for tat nonsense, where neither scored points.

Orielly 2 Dave 0. If youre scoring points for substance, that is. If your scoring points based on audience applause, well then thats your problem !

(1) Point - Orielly Gets letterman to admit having no basis whatsoever for his conclusion that "60% of what" Orielly says is "crap". Bill promptly asked for a single example, where Dave simply could not provide one. Dave ultimately had to admit that he came to this conclusion through media gossip, because he has never watched The Factor. Right there - Letterman lost all credibility.

(2) Point Oreilly Dave tried to make Bill appear insensitive to Cindy Sheehan. Bill explained how Ms. Sheehan has decided to grieve publicly, and as a result - the attacks she makes on our miliary and the president are not beyond examinition. The line which shut Dave up --> "Terrorists who kill women and children will not be called freedom fighters on my program". To which Dave could say nothing, but plead ignorance.

The rest was all tit for tat nonsense, where neither scored points.

After reading these comments about Dave and Bill, I must conclude that liberalism is a pathological disorder; reality just cannot penetrate it. Bill took Dave's pants off on his own show. I can't stand Bill, he is a lightweight, but he made a fool out of Dave. Dave had no facts and could only do what liberals do, call names, insult, and spew a hateful intolerance. I am convinced that liberals are miserable, tortured with self-loathing and self-hate. It is a wonder we can find any soldiers to willingly fight to defend them.

Facts:

1) Why are we in Iraq? oil=money (the only ministry in Iraq we defended once the invasion took place was not the Ministry of Information (to gather intel on terrorists and criminals), Not the the ministry of National Defense (weapons of mass destruction intel could have been gathered) ....but we defended the ministy of oil!

2) Why is Bill O' Show #1? Its a show based on fear.The highest ratings for news shows are the ones that target everyday people who can relate to the story and are "shocked or awed" by the fear that story manufactures in their personal lives.

3) Lets assume for arguments sake, that Iraq invaded the US. Would we not label ourselves as freedom fighters?

4) I have much more respect for Letterman for being a human first and an entertainer second.

5) Bill O's argument was based on minor issues around the country as David pointed out. According to many on this post, some of the stories are not factual. Why would he not concern himself with bigger issues such as the fact that over ten thousand americans died from firearms last year,or the fact that the economy or Katrina is being mismanaged since we now face record defecits instead of complaining about a song's lyrics?

6) Cindy Sheehan lost her son...at least fake some compassion for her Bill. After all she was just a normal mother before the war.

Facts:

1) Why are we in Iraq? oil=money (the only ministry in Iraq we defended once the invasion took place was not the Ministry of Information (to gather intel on terrorists and criminals), Not the the ministry of National Defense (weapons of mass destruction intel could have been gathered) ....but we defended the ministy of oil!

2) Why is Bill O' Show #1? Its a show based on fear.The highest ratings for news shows are the ones that target everyday people who can relate to the story and are "shocked or awed" by the fear that story manufactures in their personal lives.

3) Lets assume for arguments sake, that Iraq invaded the US. Would we not label ourselves as freedom fighters?

4) I have much more respect for Letterman for being a human first and an entertainer second.

5) Bill O's argument was based on minor issues around the country as David pointed out. According to many on this post, some of the stories are not factual. Why would he not concern himself with bigger issues such as the fact that over ten thousand americans died from firearms last year,or the fact that the economy or Katrina is being mismanaged since we now face record defecits instead of complaining about a song's lyrics?

6) Cindy Sheehan lost her son...at least fake some compassion for her Bill. After all she was just a normal mother before the war.

This is the best Comedian vs. Pundent tv moment since Jon Stewert on Crossfire!

Freedom fighters.. well the quote from Cindy S. was actually "....freedom fighters coming in from other countries" Sounds alot like she actually meant to say "foreign fighters", but still they do view themselves as freedom fighters i guess..

None of that matters to O'reilly it seems, who will use this one out-of-context misquote to smear cindy until she looks like a real badass terror-sympathizer, and expose her innocent looking cover of just being a frustrated mom who lost her son in the wrong war.

Kinda interesting tactics from a guy that actively supports and enourages terrorists to attack specific towers in specific cities.

Freedom fighters.. well the quote from Cindy S. was actually "....freedom fighters coming in from other countries" Sounds alot like she actually meant to say "foreign fighters", but still they do view themselves as freedom fighters i guess..

None of that matters to O'reilly it seems, who will use this one out-of-context misquote to smear cindy until she looks like a real badass terror-sympathizer, and expose her innocent looking cover of just being a frustrated mom who lost her son in the wrong war.

Kinda interesting tactics from a guy that actively supports and enourages terrorists to attack specific towers in specific cities.

MediaMatters (an awesome resource) pretty much tears apart O'Reilly with the facts (of which O'Reilly has NONE) on their site.

Click here for the details.

I've watched O'Reilly's show. It is entertaining, but should NEVER be considered serious news journalism. The guy is an opinionated blowhard who does not let his guests talk after he asks them questions. This is classic 'if you are controversial you can make money' style entertainment.

He was interviewed a while back by Terry Gross at NPR, one of the most well-respected interviewers in the business, and he walked out because she wouldn't let him walk all over her. Unbelievable.

Sorry if this offends anyone, but this guy twists facts and spouts errors at an unbelievable rate. Watch the show, check the facts, you'll see. If you don't see it, then you are one of those who believe regardless of factual information, and nothing will ever change your mind.

Frankly, I think Letterman's '60% of what you say is crap', was way too low. Entertainment? Yes. News journalism? Not even close.

Just my opinion, here in my own personal 'no spin zone'.

Mr/Ms Anon - I think you have overdosed on your cool-aide. You have to stop getting your "facts" from moveon.org. Not a serious news journalist? That must be why he beats his nearest news journalism competitor ratings by more than a 3 to 1 margin (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/2005ranker.pdf). I'll keep coming here and updating you libs with the facts...I'm having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.

urStuckOnStupid,

Entertainment generally gets better ratings than real news. Jerry Springer was at one time a top rated show -- was it 'news'? Also, I did not see any 'facts' in your post, but if you do what I suggested, please verify your facts. Now, you do this by checking them across multiple, unrelated sources, eliminate the stuff that does not agree, etc. If you only use BO as your source of information, you will be more misinformed than you appear now, and that would be bad. If you actually try to check the facts, and do so with integrity, you will find BO is delusional about his 'facts'.

urStuckOnStupid,

My apologies, you did quote one 'fact', that is "...he beats his nearest news journalism competitor ratings by more than a 3 to 1 margin."

Um, you are wrong. Not even close. Using the source you quoted, the next competitor (another entertainment / opinion show, not real nesw) is within a range of 75% to 90% of BO's ratings. See what I mean about checking facts? This is just simple math, but you didn't bother to verify what you said. That's called 'spin'. BO does it all the time...

urStuckOnStupid,

My apologies, you did quote one 'fact', that is "...he beats his nearest news journalism competitor ratings by more than a 3 to 1 margin."

Um, you are wrong. Not even close. Using the source you quoted, the next competitor (another entertainment / opinion show, not real nesw) is within a range of 75% to 90% of BO's ratings. See what I mean about checking facts? This is just simple math, but you didn't bother to verify what you said. That's called 'spin'. BO does it all the time...

Many of you seem to be missing the point about freedom fighters. If they are indeed freedom fighters, seeking their freedom, then why are they blowing up innocent people? True FF would be aiming their attacks at the Americans. The FF (insurgents) are killing innocent people hoping to scare the Americans away. That is not a wartime tactic, that is a cowardly and despicable act. Cindy Sheehan calling them freedom fighters is nothing but a phrase to get her name back into the mainstream media.

Reading these comments from liberals on the Dave vs. Bill interview is scientific proof that liberalism is a pathological disorder that makes its victim incapable of processing reality. The result is a bitter, self-loathing. Rush is right, liberals are miserably unhappy, hate-filled and intolerant. O'Reilly took Letterman's pants off on his own show. Letterman played the factless "don't know nuthi'n bout reality" liberal. It is simple: No connection with reality, no connection with political power. The democrats are out to stay until they grow up, a hard thing for a lazy, self-indulgent wastrel to do.

Hey Anon,

Look at the ratings again. I'm not comparing him to any of his fellow Fox News people (of which his show has the highest rating)...he doesn't compete against them. 75% of his 2.2 share would be a 1.65 share. Only Greta and Hannity & Colmes fall within that range. The next non-Fox rating is Larry King at 54% of BOR's rating...and I don't consider Larry King a true competitor, but ok, a 2 to 1 margin for old Larry. The next closest rating is a 0.8, 36% of BOR's rating. I'd say I pretty much got the facts right.

You libs need to face the music...11 out of the top 12 rated news programs are on Fox News for all of 2005. Read 'em and weap.

urStuckOnStupid,

I see. So, when you said, "... his nearest news journalism competitor", what you meant was the one you wanted to pick from the list. Interesting interpretation of reality you have there. That list, by way, contains very few 'news' programs. See, I think of news reporting as where a reporter actually tells us what happened, without embellishing the story, or hyping a particular political or religious point of view. That's all. No opinions, no made up culture wars, no attempts to be controversial (so you can sell your books and coffee cups). You know, just the facts, without picking conveniently to try to justify your position (like you did).

Faux News is generally derided as polticially slanted (biased) by most of the journalstic world. Top ratings? You bet. That proves only that a lot of people watch -- just like they did Jerry Springer. Great entertainment!

Anon...You live in your own reality universe don't you. Nearest news competitor....emphasis on competitor. BOR doesn't compete with other shows on Fox News because...newsflash...THEY CAN'T BE ON THE TV AT THE SAME TIME AS HE IS!! You can have your own definition of news if you want to, but the list was...again another newsflash....a list of cable news programs. If you have some other concept of news competitors, Nielsen isn't tracking it. Sorry.

So, Einstein, I'll make it real simple for you. Let's look at the programs that are on at the same time as BOR.

CNN - Paula Zahn Now - 0.7 share. This is 31% of BOR, or a 3 to 1 ratio. This is his next nearest competitor, dufus!

MSNBC - K. Olbermann - 0.4 share. 18% of BOR, a 5 to 1 ratio.

CNBC - The Apprentice (definitely not a news show but it is a cable news channel) - 0.2 share. 9% of BOR's rating...10 to 1 ratio.

Even though Chris Matthews and Softball aren't on at the same time, I'd consider him a rival of BOR...same kind of in your face approach. Ready for this...0.4 share. Again BOR has him 5 to 1.

So how are you going to spin your psychosis now? Go down another gallon of cool-aide, genius.

Just reading through a few of these comments and you guys should really head over to democracynow.org (i think its org?, or google it) and look at an interview they did with Chavez the president of Venezela (thats not spelt correctly) its unreal the amount of sense he is talking about america and its problems.

However he is seen as a threat to america. (i.e. they have oil there. sorry couldnt resist)

Paul: what kind of crack are you smoking?? because it is obviously you that has a pathological disorder! the comments that you made about liberals are exactly what breeds hate and intolerance. Ridiculous!

Letterman is a funny man, but thank goodness that he's not a politician. Way to go Bill for coming on the show and being civil throughout the interview. Bill doesn't always get it right, but more often he does.

how ignorant can letterman be? where was he on 9/11? how quickly he forgets..typical new york democratic hogwash..i am proud to say that i am from the red state of ohio! p.s. NEVER will i watch "Late Night with Dumbass" again!!!!

urStuckOnStupid,

Ah, now you are down to name calling. Why am I not surprised? You have shown your true colors... I'll have to trust that the shows you listed are on at the same time as BORE, so I will concede this; many people do watch BORE. I never argued that. What I said was it is NOT news reporting. You clearly think it is, but it is really his OPINION, bolstered by lies and distortions. If a newspaper did what he does, you would pick it up at the checkout line, and it would have doctored photos of movie stars, and headlines like "The Aliens are Here Now", or "There's a conspiracy against Christmas".

You clearly don't get the difference between factual information and opinion, and it is obvious you are not interested in knowing.

here's to all the melvins out there - bill o'reiley is nothing more than a morton downey jr. tabloid t.v. journalist - he's out there to entertain all you submoronic individuals that feel your christmas is in jeapordy and calls that news. "the liberals are coming after your bible"... story at ten. come on. i'm quite sure he doesn't believe half the crap he tries to peddle. but he gets paid in incite those of you with i.q. under 80. and merry christmas. there i said it.

here's to all the melvins out there - bill o'reiley is nothing more than a morton downey jr. tabloid t.v. journalist - he's out there to entertain all you submoronic individuals that feel your christmas is in jeapordy and calls that news. "the liberals are coming after your bible"... story at ten. come on. i'm quite sure he doesn't believe half the crap he tries to peddle. but he gets paid to incite those of you with i.q. under 80. and merry christmas. there i said it.

On CBS' Late Show with David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly resurrected his false claim that a Wisconsin elementary school banned the singing of the Christmas hymn "Silent Night," erroneously attributing the school's changed lyrics to political correctness. In fact, the new lyrics were merely part of a 1988 Christmas play called The Little Tree's Christmas Gift.

groundbreaking!

Later, on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly showed the Macy's ad during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of the show. He said: "Christmas is here again at Macy's. Predictably, the opponents of public displays of Christmas continue to put forth counter-arguments on 'Secular Central'. I -- I mean, Comedy Central."

He then played the Daily Show clip, this time without Bee's first two sentences. Though he did not repeat the claim that the clip had aired the previous day, by playing the clip immediately after the ad, O'Reilly implied that it had aired concurrently with the Macy's ad.

A Media Matters for America review of Daily Show broadcasts for the week leading up to O'Reilly's December 2 claim shows that the clip was not replayed on the Daily Show during that time. As The Brad Blog weblog noted, the clip appears to be from an episode of the Daily Show that aired during last year's holiday season, not the current one. In the clip, Bee is standing in front of a calendar that clearly shows the month of December 2004.

This is your assult on christmas. LoL. billy is not about news; he's about hot buttons.

O'reily said this of letterman in 2001.

The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down.

Billy is still falling.

I love my man Dave, but Billy came out the winner in these exchanges.

You idiots need to wake up and know when your beat. We never going to win the battle of public opinion if stupid as shit like this.

[quote]Faux News is generally derided as polticially slanted (biased) by most of the journalstic world.[/quote] That is the same thing all of the people who now watch Fox were saying of CNN, MSNBC, CBC and every other major news organization before Fox. News shows dominated by Democrats and liberals who pushed their agenda. I find it funny how now that the Republicans get a little air time politically slanted shows are a no-no.

Fact: Most of your facts are opinions, most of mine are opinions. They seem right to us so please spare us all the self rightoues grand standing. I know it is hard for Dems and liberals to not come across as nose in the air, better than you snobs, but give it a try. Maybe you might get a dem elected next election cycle.

What a bunch of imbecilic nonsense. Letterman wins a debate because he sets O'Reilly up, gets him on his show and, unprovoked, tells him he is full of crap? If this delusional rhetoric wasn't so disturbing it would be funny. I don't much care for O'Reilly, and I used to like Letterman. Sincerely! But Letterman came across as a punk too lazy to do any research and unable to see past his own nose. He ended up hanging himself with his own rope. (Uh...duh...I read things about you, not fair and balanced...duh...never actually watched the show....) There was some applause because Letterman was in his house and his crew was backing his play. Letterman's fans should be embarrassed for him. O'Reilly came across as relatively cool and collected in spite of the serious unprofessional conduct of his host. And O'Reilly looked like the bigger person; he showed some professional dignity where Letterman looked like an old whore tripping over her panties. If unnecessary sarcasm, vitriol, and bitterness make a winner, then score one up for Letterman. Personally I think he came across as duplicitous and glib. Pathetic! An analogous circumstance would be for O'Reilly to ask Letterman on his show and tell him, without prior provocation, that he is a gap-toothed twerp pandering to a mob, without any real comic sophistication. Then the blogger running this site would be crying "foul," the ineloquent putz. (Insults mean points, right? SlowTalkinJones 1 -- onegoodmove 0.)

Awesome display of oppinions. Dave appealed to the crowds emotions for Cindy Sheehan, but I think Bill knew after saying Cindy Sheehan that he was gonna be in for a little ride, hence the pause.

Also, I agree wil Bill that Cindy Sheehan has the right to say that our soldiers are terroists to IRAQ, just as much as I have the right to say 2 + 2 = 5...It doesn't make it smart.

Dave represents exactly how the majority of America feels, because the majoirty of America watchs and listens to the media, and Letterman IS the media.

Letterman is also a great example of a famous line in Shakespear's play, Casear. If you control the mob, you control the country. And the only way to split up a mob is have them think for themselves, which Bill did very well by posing alot of questions to Dave that weren't black or white, therefore, giving people the ability to have a different oppinion, and seperate them as a mob.

Why is it that when Bill said that our soldiers are the nobleish of the noble, noone applauded. But then when Dave say's our soldiers are the best, everyone applauds? Ehhh... just a little bias.

Found this funny: Dave: "..disagree with Cindy Sheehan..." Bill: "blowing the hell out of them, how do you think they feel?..." And Dave's response "How about...what are we there in the first place...?"

How non-sequitor can you get?

Awesome display of oppinions. Dave appealed to the crowds emotions for Cindy Sheehan, but I think Bill knew after saying Cindy Sheehan that he was gonna be in for a little ride, hence the pause.

Also, I agree wil Bill that Cindy Sheehan has the right to say that our soldiers are terroists to IRAQ, just as much as I have the right to say 2 + 2 = 5...It doesn't make it smart.

Dave represents exactly how the majority of America feels, because the majoirty of America watchs and listens to the media, and Letterman IS the media.

Letterman is also a great example of a famous line in Shakespear's play, Casear. If you control the mob, you control the country. And the only way to split up a mob is have them think for themselves, which Bill did very well by posing alot of questions to Dave that weren't black or white, therefore, giving people the ability to have a different oppinion, and seperate them as a mob.

Why is it that when Bill said that our soldiers are the nobleish of the noble, noone applauded. But then when Dave say's our soldiers are the best, everyone applauds? Ehhh... just a little bias.

Found this funny: Dave: "..disagree with Cindy Sheehan..." Bill: "blowing the hell out of them, how do you think they feel?..." And Dave's response "How about...what are we there in the first place...?"

How non-sequitor can you get?

What a bunch of imbecilic nonsense. Letterman wins a debate because he sets O'Reilly up, gets him on his show and, unprovoked, tells him he is full of crap? If this delusional rhetoric wasn't so disturbing it would be funny. I don't much care for O'Reilly, and I used to like Letterman. Sincerely! But Letterman came across as a punk too lazy to do any research and unable to see past his own nose. He ended up hanging himself with his own rope. (Uh...duh...I read things about you, not fair and balanced...duh...never actually watched the show....) There was some applause because Letterman was in his house and his crew was backing his play. Letterman's fans should be embarrassed for him. O'Reilly came across as relatively cool and collected in spite of the serious unprofessional conduct of his host. And O'Reilly looked like the bigger person; he showed some professional dignity where Letterman looked like an old whore tripping over her panties. If unnecessary sarcasm, vitriol, and bitterness make a winner, then score one up for Letterman. Personally I think he came across as duplicitous and glib. Pathetic! An analogous circumstance would be for O'Reilly to ask Letterman on his show and tell him, without prior provocation, that he is a gap-toothed twerp pandering to a mob, without any real comic sophistication. Then the blogger running this site would be crying "foul," the ineloquent putz. (Insults mean points, right? SlowTalkinJones 1 -- onegoodmove 0.)

Awesome display of oppinions. Dave appealed to the crowds emotions for Cindy Sheehan, but I think Bill knew after saying Cindy Sheehan that he was gonna be in for a little ride, hence the pause.

Also, I agree wil Bill that Cindy Sheehan has the right to say that our soldiers are terroists to IRAQ, just as much as I have the right to say 2 + 2 = 5...It doesn't make it smart.

Dave represents exactly how the majority of America feels, because the majoirty of America watchs and listens to the media, and Letterman IS the media.

Letterman is also a great example of a famous line in Shakespear's play, Casear. If you control the mob, you control the country. And the only way to split up a mob is have them think for themselves, which Bill did very well by posing alot of questions to Dave that weren't black or white, therefore, giving people the ability to have a different oppinion, and seperate them as a mob.

Why is it that when Bill said that our soldiers are the nobleish of the noble, noone applauded. But then when Dave say's our soldiers are the best, everyone applauds? Ehhh... just a little bias.

Found this funny: Dave: "..disagree with Cindy Sheehan..." Bill: "blowing the hell out of them, how do you think they feel?..." And Dave's response "How about...what are we there in the first place...?"

How non-sequitor can you get?

What a bunch of imbecilic nonsense. Letterman wins a debate because he sets O'Reilly up, gets him on his show and, unprovoked, tells him he is full of crap? If this sort of delusional, politically motivated rhetoric wasn't so disturbing it would be funny.

I don't much care for O'Reilly (haughty and self-aggrandizing as he as), and I used to like Letterman. Sincerely! -- I have been watching Letterman since '83 or '84, when I used to stay up way past my bedtime and go to school with dark circles under my eyes. They used to run things over with a steamroller and Chris Elliot was "The Guy Under the Stairs" and "The Fugitive Guy" among others. That was cool! But this here was a lame scene, man. Letterman came across as a punk too lazy to do any research and unable to see past his own nose. He ended up hanging himself with his own rope. Basically, he ends with: Uh...duh...I read things about you, not fair and balanced...uh...never actually watched the show....

There was some applause because Letterman was in his house and his crew was backing his play. Letterman's fans should be embarrassed for him. O'Reilly came across as relatively cool and collected in spite of the serious unprofessional conduct of his host. And O'Reilly looked like the bigger person; he showed some professional dignity where Letterman was like an old whore tripping over her panties to grab her $25 payment (in his case, the payoff was the cheaply garnered applause). If unnecessary sarcasm, vitriol, and bitterness make a winner, then score one up for Letterman. Personally I think he came across as duplicitous and glib. Pathetic! The reverse analogy would be if O'Reilly asked Letterman on his show and told him, without prior provocation, that he is a gap-toothed twerp pandering to a mob, without any real comic sophistication. Then the blogger running this site would probably be crying "foul."

I love David Letterman. I love him so much it's obscene.

I love David Letterman. I love him so much it's obscene.

What a bunch of imbecilic nonsense. Letterman wins a debate because he sets O'Reilly up, gets him on his show and, unprovoked, tells him he is full of crap? If this sort of delusional, politically motivated rhetoric wasn't so disturbing, it would be funny.

I don't much care for O'Reilly (haughty and self-aggrandizing as he as), and I used to like Letterman. Sincerely! -- I have been watching Letterman since '83 or '84, when I used to stay up way past my bedtime and go to school with dark circles under my eyes. (They used to run things over with a steamroller and Chris Elliot was "The Guy Under the Stairs" and "The Fugitive Guy" among others.That was cool stuff! Ahh, the nostalgia....)

But this here was a lame scene, man. Letterman came across as a punk too lazy to do any research and unable to see past his own nose. He ended up hanging himself with his own rope. Basically, he ends with: Uh...duh...I read things about you, not fair and balanced...uh...never actually watched the show....

There was some applause because Letterman was in his house and his crew was backing his play. But any thinking Letterman fan should be embarrassed for him. O'Reilly came across as relatively cool and collected in spite of the serious unprofessional conduct of his host. And O'Reilly looked like the bigger person; he showed some professional dignity where Letterman was like an old whore tripping over her panties to grab her $25 payment (in Letterman's case, the payoff was the cheaply garnered applause). If unnecessary sarcasm, vitriol, and bitterness make a winner, then score one up for Letterman. Personally I think he came across as duplicitous and glib. Pathetic! The reverse analogy would be if O'Reilly asked Letterman on his show and told him, with no prior provocation, that he is a gap-toothed twerp without comedic sophistication, pandering to a mind-numbed mob. Then the blogger running this site would probably be crying "foul."

eh i'm going to have to side with bill on this one.

i think that cindy is probably a nutcase, and while i can't imagine losing someone close to me (especially if it seems they didn't need to die) i think she is doing more harm than good. i don't think you have to be a bush lover to thing she is a psycho.

p.s. baba o'reilly, classic..

Sorry for the multiple posts. I kept getting an Internal Server Error and thought the posts weren't going through. This gave me occasion to re-edit my comments several times. Later posts show more specificity, restraint, and refinement.

letterman turned oreillys political rant into sheer entertainment. the joke was on billy the gas bag

As far as I'm concerned O'Reilly (although i'm not a fan) came across as the better person in this interview. I'm neither defending or apposing either opinion expressed throughout the interview I simply believe Letterman was rude, disrespectful, and ridiculously ignorant. I have been a huge Letterman fan for years but I do not agree with the way he handled himself. If anything i give O'Reilly credit for making the statement "i respect your opinion you should respect mine." He came out looking like the bigger person.

As far as I'm concerned O'Reilly (although i'm not a fan) came across as the better person in this interview. I'm neither defending or apposing either opinion expressed throughout the interview I simply believe Letterman was rude, disrespectful, and ridiculously ignorant. I have been a huge Letterman fan for years but I do not agree with the way he handled himself. If anything i give O'Reilly credit for making the statement "i respect your opinion you should respect mine." He came out looking like the bigger person.

As far as I'm concerned O'Reilly (although i'm not a fan) came across as the better person in this interview. I'm neither defending or apposing either opinion expressed throughout the interview I simply believe Letterman was rude, disrespectful, and ridiculously ignorant. I have been a huge Letterman fan for years but I do not agree with the way he handled himself. If anything i give O'Reilly credit for making the statement "i respect your opinion you should respect mine." He came out looking like the bigger person.

letterman didnt have any facts & couldnt debate him - leterman sucks no wonder he is always looking up lenos ass. that was losers do. oreilly rules

letterman didnt have any facts & couldnt debate him - leterman sucks no wonder he is always looking up lenos ass. that was losers do. oreilly rules

letterman didnt have any facts & couldnt debate him - leterman sucks no wonder he is always looking up lenos ass. that was losers do. oreilly rules

letterman didnt have any facts & couldnt debate him - leterman sucks no wonder he is always looking up lenos ass. that was losers do. oreilly rules

That was truely funny. Bill o'Racist is an idiot.

Errr... Classroom Knowhow? Did you see the part where Bill started asking about "how does that make the troops feel?" He was talking about feelings just as much as Dave was. Bill is a weasle who will change his tact at the slightest shift of the breeze. When the emotional argument came up, bill cut and run (look it up if you don't know what it means) and went right along with it.

Yes, I am a coward because I don't think it's right to kill tens of thousands of people for no reason whatsoever. You win.

My favorite part: O'reilly says "above all, we need to support our troops," (dead silence from audience)...a few minutes later Letterman says "I agree with you that we need to support our troops." (audience applauds wildly) Were some of you tools on this message board in the audience? Or did they just bring in the same audience from Bill Mahrs show?

You are all fucking idiots...bush=kerry oreilly=rather miller=mccain franken=corn in my shit

democrat dates? are you fucking shitting me???????????????????????

"Letterman is not about the debate. his show is entertainment. But I still think he schooled O'Reilly on some major issues, albeit very generalized. Why Bill is so anti-Cindy baffles me. Freedom fighters? What's wrong with that? They are freedom fighters. The insurgency is made up mostly of IRAQIS that want the US out of Iraq. We did the same thing in the 1770s. I feel bad for the Iraqis, but that doesn't mean that I support their violent means. They are between a rock and a hard place, and have no other way to further their own cause for freedom from the US. It's too bad that GWB took us down this road in the first place."

Wow horeshack, you really know how to twist shit to fit the typical political corruptness.

POINT: the "freedom fighters" are NOT Iraqi.. never have been. they are from outside iraq even your liberal pansy news media points this out. they are nothing but terrorists.... period.

POINT: NEVER in any time in history has the US taken and KEPT any land during or after a war, even military bases set up in most contries were done so with prior permission from the leaders of the countries in question.

POINT: Letterman can't rip a fart, and he's sure as hell not smart enough to debate politics. As with every other "entertainer" he's just as hypocritical as the rest. here's a hint: if you think all these other actors and actresses really give a crap, ask yourselves why they don't actually do something, why they only pay lip service to their "causes" I.E. Sean Penn and his trip to NOLA after katrina ripped through, odd that for all his noise of "helping the poor people of New Orleans" he had ONE boat, and THAT was filled with his personal photogs and video crews. wouldn't it have made more sense to have a huge flotilla of boats ?

POINT: Bill O'Reilly is a blithering idiot, even the conservatives don't take him seriously... so why do you ?

Folks...... instead of accepting what the media tells you as fact...... why don't you go out and try to find the truth yourselves ?

In all of these rants, whinges and bitching, I have yet to read one comment about what the Iraqi people want. If we, as Americans - no matter our political persuasion - cannot see that these men, women and children all seek to have peace and stability in their lives and it may, just may not be the way we feel we need to dictate to them how that is supposed to look.

Islam is a way of life - how many of you, who are not Muslim, pray five times a day - before sunrise, midday, afternoon, evening and then before you go to bed? How many of you faithfully attend your house of worship and honour the teachings of your spiritual leader? How many of you are willing to fight with anything and everything you got against an oppressor who is willing to use phosphorus bombs on you, your family and children and not even look back. How many of you would make bombs out of anything you had to fight back - to gain back your homeland? Wooudl you not be a freedom fighter? Oh, yeah, the freedom fighter are not from Iraq. Right - like the French who helped the Colonials defeat the British despots. Hmmm. Those phuquing outsiders. How dare they.

I sense that because the people of Iraq are different from us - as Americans - there are many who feel they are less than - inferior to us.

What would America look like 30 years from now if a despot took power (not that it is possible) and used all resources for his own benefit? How would we as a nation cope with watching our family and friends disappear and not return? Some thrown for sport into tree shredding machines?

Oh, yes, but democracy is different - tell that to the men and women who were incarcerated in Abugrabe. Boy, howdy! Now that is an example of democracy in action. Yesirreebob!

The new sole power upon the planet - the USofA is up for getting its ass kicked. What so ever you sow...

I have brought this up before and no one has commented on it - why prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq did the United States Government approach the World Court and ask for relief for any possibilities of charges for war crimes? What was being planned - even before the event. That is an indication of complicity.

Now, I have read - Joe Marines and the Republican responses to many of the comments in this thread and I have but one thing to say - if you are so damned sure that the invasion of Iraq is a right and just thing - why the fuck aren't you there? And Yo, Marine - I know you can request to rotate back into the mix - I did in Viet Nam - so don't tell me ANY excuse.

Cindy Sheehan lost her son. Period. How compassionless a people have we become if we cannot embrace her in her pain - no matter the politics and weep with her. Is she being used? I don't think so - unless you want to say thay O'Reilly and Limbaugh are using her.

Obviously, Dubya is using her to prove how much of a heartless man he really is.

Abraham Lincoln taught all successive Presidents how to address the loss of a son to the ravages of war:

"My dear Sir and Madam, In the untimely loss of your noble son, our affliction here, is scarcely less than your own. So much of promised usefulness to one's country, and of bright hopes for one's self and friends, have rarely been so suddenly dashed, as in his fall. In size, in years, and in youthful appearance, a boy only, his power to command men, was surpassingly great. This power, combined with a fine intellect, an indomitable energy, and a taste altogether military, constituted in him, as seemed to me, the best natural talent, in that department, I ever knew. And yet he was singularly modest and deferential in social intercourse. My acquaintance with him began less than two years ago; yet through the latter half of the intervening period, it was as intimate as the disparity of our ages, and my engrossing engagements, would permit. To me, he appeared to have no indulgences or pastimes; and I never heard him utter a profane, or intemperate word. What was conclusive of his good heart, he never forgot his parents. The honors he labored for so laudably, and, in the sad end, so gallantly gave his life, he meant for them, no less than for himself.

In the hope that it may be no intrusion upon the sacredness of your sorrow, I have ventured to address you this tribute to the memory of my young friend, and your brave and early fallen child.

May God give you that consolation which is beyond all earthly power. Sincerely your friend in a common affliction" --

A. Lincoln

And from his Inagural address in 1865: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan..."

Mr. Bush, you may be President but you are no Abraham Lincoln.

When charity is passed off as an annual thing to give to - like the March of Dimes or United Way or we honour two men and a woman who are really doing what all of us, in our own way, need to be doing - caring for those who have less and are in need of more. When that is the extent of a nation's compassion, then we are in trouble.

Katrina proved that there are many who are willing to give more. The Boxing Day Tsunami illustrated that the compassion is present - now let us turn it toward a people who have been slaughtered, raped and pillaged by a despot for over 30 years and show them what truly makes America great.

It is not our place to tell these people how to live - it is our place to honour, support and assit them in finding their choice that works best for them.

America has not been a countyr that promotes democratic development in countries, unless it served some hidden global agenda - most commercial and corporate.

maybe it is time for a change - let the people decide - that is what a democracy is. By the way.

my 20p

Love that Dave! Peace.............

I've not seen the show but have read something on N-TV. Dave is one of the 'good' americans. I hope that arseh.... like Billy will die out...

M. from Germany

I've not seen the show but have read something on N-TV. Dave is one of the 'good' americans. I hope that arseh.... like Billy will die out...

M. from Germany

Hey, ummmm I live in the Memphis area and the story about the nativity scene in the library in true. 100% true. Bill had that one right at least.

Nonsense. Letterman is an ignoramous who had no command of the facts and was forced to amit that when even his own audience applauded Bill O'Reilly's comments which exposed Cindy Sheehan as an America hating shill who is shamlessely expoiting her son's death to exploit her own leftist agenda. Letterman was spanked, but good.

Jeez. This thread degenerated quickly.

Letterman "won" from some of our viewpoints because a lot of us, frankly, feel like O'Reilly is, well, a shithead. It's poor form to say so, and so we (or at least I) try to restrain myself. But someone can be an asshole, right or wrong, and basically it was nice to see Letterman TREAT him as an ASS rather than the normal assumption on the news that everyone comes to the table as balanced and honestly as anyone else (which O'Reilly does not -- see mediamatters.org, which I know, I know, you'll say it's a liberal rag, but don't just say so -- categorically disprove the RAFT of BS they've caught BO'R on).

This was about a visceral win, pure and simple. Those who like BO'R will see it, in general, as a win cuz he kept his calm and didn't have any of his "facts" (even the non-factual ones) refuted, and those who realy, really dislike BO'R see it was a win because someone treated him like shit, like he treated, for example, Jeremy Glick.

n.b. Last I checked, Letterman wasn't much of a "liberal." I know voicing any dissent in this day & age immediately marks you as the enemy aka liberal (you're either with Bush or you're against him, apaprently), but he's always struck me as largely apolitical/cynical, with some humanist leanings. But I think he's as much a libertarian as a liberal.

And of course, it's fun to note all the libertarians hatin' Bush right now for his encroachment of civil liberties; libertarians can hardly be construed as liberals in their "survival of the fittest" shit, but for some reason they're not with this expansionist, imperialist, expensive program the Bushies are running for "democracy" in a country we helped make into a dictatorship (abutting a country we DID DIRECTLY make into a dictatorship), and killing thousands (90% likely it's upwards of 60,000) of Iraqis to do it.

Our "Just War" doesn't make those Iraqis any less dead. I assume "we mean good" ends as a justification somewhere before 15 or 20 million (i.e. most of the population of Iraq), so how many more than almost 1% of their population has to die before fighting for a nominally just cause doesn't cut it any more as an excuse for accidentally wiping out so many of those to be "saved"?

Or is this a case of having to destroy the village to save the village?

Letterman won? All I saw is O'Reilly used more facts than Letterman, and Letterman just assumed it was bullshit because he didn't like him from the start. I also saw a liberal audience applauding at every glimmering statement that both Letterman and Bill said.

O'Reilly is an ass with an opinion. I personally don't like him, but he's smart as hell. He won that argument.

The left-wing partisanship surrounding this is astounding.

Whether anyone agrees with him or not, O'Reilly did have examples to support his arguments while Letterman had nothing but non sequitors and ad hominem remarks, yet the consensus is that Letterman "won"? Only partisanship would make that leap.

And the kicker of all is that Letterman gives a non sequitor-that O'Reilly shouldn't speak for Sheehan. But Sheehan, for a fact, has called U.S. soldiers terrorists. O'Reilly never claimed to speak for Sheehan but criticized her as they BOTH have freedom of speech. Letterman did not even address this fact and instead made an evasive comment with in impicent claim against O'Reilly that was a complete lie to begin with.

I ask: What is wrong about condemning Sheehan for calling U.S. troops terrorists if one believes her wrong? There is absolutely nothing wrong. Her freedom of speech is not at issue, but the message and Sheehan cannot escape the consequences of her actions.

In actuallity, Letterman brought nothing but left-wing partisanship to the debate, completely lacking examples to back him up. O'Reilly has his own beliefs, we all know that, but he actually came prepared and took it seriously.

The left-wing partisanship surrounding this is astounding.

Whether anyone agrees with him or not, O'Reilly did have examples to support his arguments while Letterman had nothing but non sequitors and ad hominem remarks, yet the consensus is that Letterman "won"? Only partisanship would make that leap.

And the kicker of all is that Letterman gives a non sequitor-that O'Reilly shouldn't speak for Sheehan. But Sheehan, for a fact, has called U.S. soldiers terrorists. O'Reilly never claimed to speak for Sheehan but criticized her as they BOTH have freedom of speech. Letterman did not even address this fact and instead made an evasive comment with in impicent claim against O'Reilly that was a complete lie to begin with.

I ask: What is wrong about condemning Sheehan for calling U.S. troops terrorists if one believes her wrong? There is absolutely nothing wrong. Her freedom of speech is not at issue, but the message and Sheehan cannot escape the consequences of her actions.

In actuallity, Letterman brought nothing but left-wing partisanship to the debate, completely lacking examples to back him up. O'Reilly has his own beliefs, we all know that, but he actually came prepared and took it seriously.

The problem with O'Reilly's examples is they are either out of context, outright lies, or don't support the point he is trying to make. Just so much bullshit, and Letterman's common sense led him to the conclusion that O'Reilly was talking shit, and he was right.

Letterman sucks Leno kicks his ass!

Hi all, this furor over the term "freedom fighters" is getting out of hand. Let me try to clear the air about this topic, which has become so divisive.

When Cindy Sheehan said that such fighters were fighting the US in Iraq, she was correct in that all the Iraqi parties at that time only agreed on one thing for the last 2 years i.e. that the US Occupation forces must go.

For such Iraqis be it Kurds, Sunnis or Shiites, the US presence in Iraq was seen as an occupation and for 4 out of the last 5 years, the country was ruled by the US military there. This is a fact. There was no democracy to speak off in Iraq during this period of time. Bush's view then was that the US forces must stay the course in Iraq.

Only last month, did the Bush administration started to consider troop withdrawals. So Cindy was not wrong in using the term freedom fighters, especially when 70-80% of the insurgents in Iraq are local Iraqis, who are fighting the US to get them to leave.

They may not have noble intentions, as they may seemly want to form a pro-Sunni government.

But as the citizens of Iraq, they do have the choice of either accepting the US presence peacefully or rejecting it with force, especially when the US invasion was one that was illegal and killed and injured more than a hundred thousand Iraqis, while destroying Iraq's civil infrastructure.

Such Iraqis can choose NOT to welcome the Iraqi forces with flowers as the Bush administration claimed before the invasion.

And true democracy in Iraq will not take place if it is conducted with oppressing the rights of the minorities, which is happening in a Shiite dominated regime in Iraq.

These are just my observations. No offense intended.

Can you say 99% of the people who pasted are Liberals? YESS

Can you say 99% of the people who posted are Liberals? YESS

i live in memphis, and i don't remember anything about his "big controversy" about a manger and a library. i'd like to think i follow the news pretty carefully, but i guess that story slipped past me...

Why can't all of you stop being so hypocritical and LISTEN to what the other side has to say. I'm a liberal AND I agree with O'Reilly on some of what he has to say. I hate when people who claim to be open-minded don’t even listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Give the man a break and stop jumping on the bandwagon. Don’t you realize this right-left divide is separating the country more and more every day??? We’re two sides of the same coin! Our similarities are so much greater then our differences!!

Bill O'Reilly fact-checked (scroll down)

Bill O'Reilly fact-checked (scroll down)

Hi Mike, I voted for the Singapore version of the Republican party, thankfully without its excesses. Kindly do not stereotype me.

wow it is so funny how you liberals are blinded by you own idiocracy and think that mr letterman came out ahead in his interview the truth is he didnt know what he was talking about the whole time, and he doesnt ever know what he's talking about, i prefer leno

Your forgetting that theese people want to kill you, me, Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman. And they wanted to do it before the war. Thats why they are not freedom fighters. You cant compare them to us in 1776. We didn't want everyone who wasn't us dead and if there is not an assault on cristianity why do they want to take the word God out of the pledge of allegence. Why do we have to recognize the religion of foreigners but can't respect our own. Remember we are guarenteed freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. There is no such thing as seperation of church and state. It dosent exist. It was never written in the bill of rights or any of the ammendments. Teachers are still filling heads with garbage and your kids are next so wake up before they cover your wife or girlfriend with cloth and force you attend their church.

"Diapers on Horses" you gotta love that line Dave said.

What these BOR fans don't seem to get is that Dave was not debating. He's a guy that is sick of BOR and his horse shit and is gonna speak his mind. Dave does have that right to do so in this country - celebrity or not.

"Diapers on Horses" you gotta love that line Dave said.

What these BOR fans don't seem to get is that Dave was not debating. He's a guy that is sick of BOR and his horse shit and is gonna speak his mind. Dave does have that right to do so in this country - celebrity or not.

As a Master Sergeant in the US Army let me just say, thank you Mr. Lettermen. No journalists are telling our stories of how this war is affecting us. Of how our units are now splintered apart. Moral is as low as you can go. Disorder amongst the soldiers due to returning Iraqi vets feeling they don't need to acknowledge rank from another soldier who is not an Iraqi vet. The list goes on...

When David Lettermen stood up to one of these bought and paid for so-called "journalists" it filled my heart with joy. Maybe we're going to be okay... someday.

Comments closed it has all been said.