I watched this video several times. Letterman exposed this fascist for the miserable parasite that he is. Thank GOD.

What's next? "That's right, folks. Don't touch that dial!"

Yeah i watched that when it came on tv, Ive never seen letterman pissed before but his face was all turning red and he was acting mad as hell. pretty funny stuff.

Wow, way to go letterman. That's the second whopping B.S. O'Reilly has gotten. It's very interesting how O'Reilly frames his questions to try to corner his opponent. Good work Letterman.

I was hoping you'd post this. Of course, how could you not?

On to the material covered (and I'll mostly critique O'Reilly. Critiquing Letterman as well would take too much effort.):

People are "depressed?" That's all? They don't want to hear about the "evil world we live in?" He takes so much time in choosing his words, as if the reason is so specific! Sure, we're tired of Iraq, but saying that "people are... depressed" implies that the ONLY justification for American dissent is that we're just tired of fighting and losing American lives. It's true, that's part of it. But what about the fact that the war in itself is not justified? The fact that we've made fools of ourselves in the national community? At least O'Reilly attempts to acknowledge and justify the unpopularity of the war, but he hardly hits the issues in the beginning.

O'Reilly starts out seeming to imply that even though "[people] feel we need a change" it's more the fact that they're tired of, to quote the current administration, "staying the course," than the real matter which is that a desire for change is something democracy feeds off of. Change is great! How could we be more American than fighting for changes that the majority of the people want?

Letterman counters O'Reilly well on those issues. Letterman also did a good job of summing up the thoughts and motives of a lot of Americans since 9/11.

Back to O'Reilly: Violence between then and now is "pretty much a tie?!"

"Knock it off?!"

As if the U.S. hasn't had ANY influence on the escalating violence... You "Knock it off," O'Reilly.

Intriguing perspective -- "The world we live in is incredibly complicated" -- perhaps somebody should post more exploring the implications of that justification.

"The world isn't black and white, Dave" -- if only he could preach to himself. All these years it's been a fight of good and evil. A fight of either staying the course or cutting and running. A fight of those who are with us and those who are un-American. I hate to put those specific phrases in his mouth, but he's done it to himself. He's in good form in this, but it's as if he's taking everything that's been argued against him and the current administration and crudely wrapping it around Letterman's arguments. And he is placing words in Letterman's mouth. The oversimplification is arguably in his perception of Letterman's viewpoints.

O'Reilly really doesn't counter Letterman's points on N.Korea very well. "Go there and do what?" -- it's the same justifications for Iraq! I really don't understand how O'Reilly can ignore N.Korea and be so intent on arguing a point about Iraq. It applies here, but not there. Meh... poor logic.

I admit, it's good that he acknowledges the mistake in Iraq. And, like I said, he's in good form. They both are. Surprisingly good chemistry.

Good post.

Bill continues to bagger people about how his opinion is right and you have no idea what you are taking about. He has no answers himself only questions and faith in GW. Then he adds that it is complicated and you are ignorant. Laughs at your facts and pays you the same respect as the person who takes you identification at the DMV. Why he wears a suit and tie to look professional is beyond me.

Looks like I regressed in my knowledge of the English language while watching this programming. I meant to say your instead of you in my DMV statement. I blame the terrorists who have infiltrated our school systems and created the no child left behind program which is a crock of sh*t.

The Canadian military really needs some back-up from the Americans in Afghanistan.

I can't believe this Bill O'Reilly is more famous as an analyst than Noam Chomsky...

I thought Bill's rationalization of why Americans are sick of the war was interesting. The flaw was not the war itself, but rather that the American people are "depressed." His ego has him in denial.

Dave was very funny though.

I thought Bill's rationalization of why Americans are sick of the war was interesting. That the problem was not the war itself, but rather that the American people are "depressed." His ego has him in denial.

Dave was very funny though.

Notice he said "depressed" and not "in a malaise".

Is this going to be the new talking point?

Why is the election going to go badly?

"It's the people's fault for being too tired of hearing bad news all the time."

Maybe it will have the same effect it had on the democrats under Carter anyway.

To quote Homer Simpson:

"But Marge...If you are going to yell at me every time I do something stupid, then I'll just have to stop doing stupid things"

C.

I gotta say that looks like a pretty one-sided friendship. Great clip though.

i love how OReilly tries to frame the debate in terms of "Do you want America to lose?". He must stay up all night thinking -- how can I guilt the US public into supporting this shit?... But the very idea of a 'US victory in Iraq' a) betrays his own ignorance of what he calls a complex situation and b) is NOT an issue to anyone except comfortable assholes tucked away in fuckhole, usa. Im sorry, but jesus that guy....

As for Letterman, his reduction of the debate to "I dont know anything and neither do you" has a folksy charm i guess and that seems to be valued (over, say, reasoned argument) in you country, and I do like the guy, hes a legend. But it is a hurdle to mounting a credible argument.

Barney Frank. now that was impressive. Based on those recent posts of him on Bill Maher, he would eviscerate OReilly.

Can't believe Billy Boy is still pushing the narrative that "everyone though Saddam had WMD's".

Put pressure on the Iranians, Bill? If there's one thing America did by invading Irak and Afghanistan, it's that they made Iran stronger. Two of Iran's bordering countries are weak and mixed up in a civil war! Iran wasn't that strong before 2001...

Bill O'Reilly schooled Lettermen. Lettermen had to settle for insults and anger because he couldn't answer one easy question from Bill. Do you want Americans to win the war? So fucky easy to answer Lettermen but you fumble like Kurt Warner. Probably don't want your viewers to know you are cut-and-run chicken shit. Bill O'Reilly has class to come on the show even though he knows he will be riduculed by the audience. You notice that Bill never insulted Dave. That's because Dumbocrats stand for nothing so their logic is based in nothing, so insulting and getting pissed off is all they can do. So it was Bill vs everybody and he still won. Sit down Lettermen! - The King of Cable is here to stay you fucking retard! If you liberal idiots want to talk geo politics I will kick your ass. I am after all a state senator in Idaho Tim Flaherty 17th district senator 208-331-3784

go orielly. letterman never once answered a question you posed to him, showing that he's an uninformed person

You guys sure are bitter. Saddam kills hundreds of thousands of people, we intervene, and you whine. Hundreds of thousands of Africans are killed in the same type of genocide that occured in Iraq, and we don't go in, and you complain. You cannot have it both ways.

Talk to someone that has been over there. Ask them how happy the people are. Ask them how glad the people are to have voices. How excited the children are at the prospects of a future. Instead of blasting the war and crying about the troops in Iraq, maybe you should direct your anger at the terrorists that are there killing civilians in the streets. Poisoning policemen's food. Cowardly exploding roadside bombs in areas with children.

You cannot understand O'Reilly. People who think for themselves cannot understand you.

8765309, You need to watch it again.

This was not ENTIRLEY an act insomuch as Dave didn't fulfill his end of the deal: entertaining, yes, O'Reilly delivered get stuff. But on shedding some light on reality, Dave's still in the dark. O'Reilly is in full push for his book (Latenight, Oprah) and knows the value of face time with these folks. Indeed the impact. His confidence only exceeds his preparedness for getting it done. Letterman, Oprah, and anyone else of their ilk, who equally understand the value of face time with HIM, should by now understand his tactics and be able to see how he plays the crowd, indeed the viewer. Letterman is a professional comedian on home turf who - yeah, probably DOES bowl with this guy - agrees to have him on the show because the ratings will be strong, and, yes, it will be entertaining because Letterman is a funny man with a funny show that makes people laugh and play; and Bill "Bowlin' Ball" O'Reilly is a man many Americans listen to and watch, not with any of the same interests they would Latenight, but rather for insight and clarity. These two are a terrible combination to begin with, (as well, Oprah as mediator in her "Town Hall"????)but, strangely, they're still ill-equipped to deal with O'Reilly's swagger. There was a moment when Dave said he was "thoughtful" in refusing to answer "yes or no" to a "simple question", where O'Reilly knew that Dave found an opening and modified his behavior (for the sake that it IS Dave's show afterall, and they DO bowl together)and he shut up. But Dave felt compelled, first to mock himself, then supply O'Reilly with his "thoughtful" answer. An answer O'Reilly's so used to hearing that he resorts to being funny for the crowd nuturing Dave on his home turff, at his own game. From that moment on it seems as though O'Reilly is just watching his book sales soar.

Ok, many of the bloggers on 1gm know where I stand, but I've gotta say that O'Reilly won this round. Letterman seemed to have a hold when O'Reilly pulled that bullshit "do you want America to win in Iraq?" l--> "it's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful", but he lost it shortly after O'Reilly's comparing of the death tolls. (which he got wrong)

Normally, O'Reilly does nothing but spew sensationalist air. However, any right-slanted blogger is going to get away with Letterman's "kill as many Americans as we can" and expecting O'Reilly to understand all of the motivations behind the US army ... honestly, wtf was that? Also, Letterman didn't list an 'artificial fact'; the right partisans will snatch that and milk it hard.

btw, what's up with "this is a big act"?

Bill, it is safer to turn and run, with all the back peddling your bound to get caught on something.

I can believe that an exchange like this could be a bit of an act, but not with O'Reilly. The guy takes himself way too seriously for that. I also don't think that Letterman does that kind of thing either. He's very soft and nice with people he likes.

I love it that O'Reilly wants to set himself up as the voice of moderation and complexity. This from a guy who thinks that CBS News had meetings to figure out how best to get Kerry elected.

In reality O'Reilly's position is like a lot of people in America--they don't want to do the tough job of having to defend Bush and become a partisan. So they take their bearings from their conviction that liberals hate America. It's really no different from the Coulter stuff--the way to get people to be completely immunized from any news of conservative failure is not to push a positive story about Bush on them, but rather a negative story about 'liberals'. However bad Bush may be, the real threat is apparently for O'Reilly the fact that the left blows it out of proportion.

"If you liberal idiots want to talk geo politics I will kick your ass. I am after all a state senator in Idaho"--Tim Flaherty

This probably is a joke, but if it really were a Republican state senator from Idaho, I can imagine that he just may think that he's some kind of expert on geopolitics. I'm sure that just like the president of the United States has Condolezza Rice to put global events in words he understands, state senators from Idaho must have something similar.

Bill O'Reilly is in a bowling league!

Those are the only balls he has ever had.

please help me and answer this one question. How do you declare victory in Iraq?

Wow, Is this the latest technique from rightwingers, when every one of their justifications for the war has been exposed, to pretend being in the army?

FYI, in the latest polls, a majority of Iraquis wanted the US to bugger off. The dead rates of Iraquis under US occupation are approaching the bloddiest Saddam periods, even when taking into account the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. So it is understandable why Iraquis don't particularly care much for the Americans and the so-called liberation.

But by all means, if some of you think that parroting the latest talking point from the GOP is somewhat similar to "independent thining." I have a bridge to sell you.

"You guys sure are bitter. Saddam kills hundreds of thousands of people, we intervene, and you whine. Hundreds of thousands of Africans are killed in the same type of genocide that occured in Iraq, and we don't go in, and you complain. You cannot have it both ways."

Except that wasn't WHY we went in the first place. I feel like it's beating a dead horse to even ask about WMD's. The prospect of WMD's was the only reason I would have even considered such a long-term money-and-resources hole. Why didn't Bush wait? Why was he so jumpy? The dissent should have been what it is at now way back when we found there WERE NO WMD's. I'm sorry. Any other justification is not WHY we went to war. It may be a slapped on justification for why we are STILL at war, but going was a mistake. Your personal attacks, saying that all we do is "whine" and "cry" while the people over there are "happy," are just as false as the prospect of WMD's.

We are at WAR. We have not been diplomatic. We have NEVER been patient. We jumped the gun and found out we were in over our heads, and the world ceased to back us up. Why? We are fools in the international community.

THE PRINCIPLE IS: It's an after-the-fact justification that does not reflect the disorganized plan the U.S. continues to pound on Iraq!!!!

Right now, the death toll would be MUCH lower if Saddam were still in power. Why are we causing all of this destruction? If we just let ourselves be assured by Bush that it's a war of good and evil, a war of freedom versus terrorism, black and white, we'll never get anything done. O'Reilly was right when he said "the world we live in is incredibly complicated." It is! What I can't understand is why we water it down into a world of false ideals. The current administration has only complicated it further.

While I don't agree with O'Reilly I must say that Letterman is a bad dialog partner. He keeps interrupting O'Reilly and kind of resorts to insulting him. Agreed, Letterman has the better punchlines, while O'Reilly's repeated "We're friends!" comments were annoying.

"If you liberal idiots want to talk geo politics I will kick your ass. I am after all a state senator in Idaho Tim Flaherty"

That is quite literally the funniest thing I have ever read on a message board. I laughed so hard, I actually pooped in my shorts.

Comedy gold!!!

Bill doesn't seem to realize that America may have been responsible for an estimated 600,000-650,000 deaths in Iraq total. There will never be stability there because that region has warring tribes. And if they don't have a dictator killing them, then they'll be killing eachother, or trying to destroy Israel. None of those seem to be peaceful alternatives to what we are going to end up with, so we might as well leave and let it run its course.

In short, there is nothing we can do, but watch.

Also, those audience members are real idiots. They seem to clap for anything.

"Do you want us to win?"

Given the facts on the ground, that's a little like asking, "Do you want Santa to bring you a pony this year?" Sure I do--but I'd be a lunatic to propose a policy whose "success" depended on that sort of outcome.

Ha, if Letterman was doing so badly, why did Bill O' keep saying "we're friends, we bowl, this is all an act"? Three times, O'Reilly wanted out.

Both parties had points they wanted to make. Letterman refused to go down every trail O'Reilly tried to take, and made his point. That he doesn't believe Bill, that Bill makes stuff up (common knowledge) that Bill is a shill for Bush and big money interests, not a credible reporter.

This wasn't a debate, it was a live interview that became a live discussion between two "friends". One of whom can't stand what the other one is doing.

My opinion of Letterman goes up again. My opinion of Bill can't get any lower, his buttons are in the way.

How can O'Reilly call his show "no spin"? O'Reilly is as narrow-minded as Steve Colbert when it comes to analyzing and arguing issues except the whole Colbert act is pure satire.

I was an avid fan until I saw you make a fool out of yourself with O'Reilly.

Dave, you should stick to comedy and leave politics alone!

Best Wishes, Marcella Janovich

When asked the question, "Do you want us to win?" I would have answered, "No, we don't deserve to win. We went there to satisfy a personal grudge of Bush's rather than to defend a national interest and brought death and destruction in our wake. We sowed the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

"stay the course" doesnt sound like the complex answer a complex situation usually needs. In a tough situation there are no easy answers, Im as liberal as they come, i do think after turning iraq into a bed of hot fuck explosions we do have some duty to the people of iraq to make their life livable, but at what cost? I cant answer that. and would their life be more peaceful if we all just left now? two questions i cant answer. And on a side note, of the 7 iraq veterans running in november, i think 5 are democrat, if that says anything.

Not that I mind seeing anyone chop down O'Riley but Letterman is such an amature at this sport. Jon Stewart, Bill Mahers, or Craig Colbert could have so much more expertly destroyed this buffoon that it was only Letterman's honest display of anger against him that made this enjoyable. I guess even Bill O is smart enough not to try and hawk his book on those shows. They'd eat him for breakfast. The guy's just too easy. Stewart, Mahers and Colbert would have let him talk more because the words from his lips surely would have provided ample extra ammunition. Letterman had to step on his guest's comments too much and even to me that looks like bullying.

Dennis, I was in Iraq working as a food service contract manager for the previous 2 years. That's longer than military personnel spend in-country. Iraq was in terrible shepe when I arrived there in late 2003. When I left in late 2005 it was in far worse shape. Worse than I could even believe from when I arrived. It is not getting better over there it is going to hell in a hand basket. People get blown up by car bombs on the street, if you work for the coallition in any way every day might be your last day. I had several local nationals killed execution style while I was there. If you were there in a military capacity, youmust have been information filtered or utterly brainwashed to think that things are improving. That place is a quagmire and shows absolutely no signs of improving. Remember, as a soldier, you were probably subjected to very filtered information. I might re-assess my appraisal if you could give me one concrete example of how things have improved one iota. From my point of view, no matter how much worse I could imagine Iraq becoming, it had a unique ability to get even worse than that. I was in Basrah, Baqubah, Tikrit, Babylon and Baghdad, along with many other places. It got worse and it's getting worse still. I was there.

I don't watch Letterman but did because O'Reilly was on.

As usual, Letterman was ill-informed which he fessed up to. He doesn't watch the Factor (apparently he doesn't have cable), didn't read the book 'Culture Warrior' (wasn't this supposed to be the reason O'Reilly was invited?) and couldn't debate the points well.

I don't understand why Letterman had a hard time responding to the question 'Do you want us to win the war?'.

Yes, it sucks that we're in a war because we got bad intelligence. If 4 intelligence agencies state that there are WMD's in Iraq you pretty much believe it. It seemed to be verified and the verification was wrong. So what do we do now? We're screwed. You can't just go in, realize that a mistake was made and then say 'whoops, sorry we screwed up...you can have Saddam back and carry on' and throw a bunch of money at them. We have to win...period. What we are angry with is that the Bush Admin isn't doing enough to stem the violence in Iraq. And we are sick, tired and upset of hearing the morning news about more of our troops killed. Personally, I'm glad. I would be more worried if we didn't care.

O'Reilley states 'this is all a big act'. Sheesh man...he knows he's going on an entertainment show. Lighten up! He got some great laughs from it and was keeping the show lively.

What alot of people didn't see in this video is the part after O'Reilley was on. Letterman did admit defeat and was going to 'rip the next guy apart'.

As a onlooker in another country, (ask if you must, but why should you care?), watching all of you witness the curdle of your wonderful democracy, I find shades of the America I grew up loving. And I'm inspired by you all once again. I was born in the late sixties. By the time i was 6yrs. I had the American Dream. I barely recall the time of recovery the US took after the toll of the sixties struck your culture, I was just a kid privileged enough to thrive under the same democratic traditions your culture celebrates, as much, so could I've never comprehended the immense pressure applied to every moral citizen in the wake of that decade. All I knew I wanted: as a kid, a teenager, as a patriot in my own country, was to live up to the example set by democratic Americans. To live my own American Dream. That's never gone away and I'm doing just fine. Today, I watch the good people of America acerbated with each other all in the hope of making democracy work forever. It's inspiring all over again.

Regardless of how badly Bill is disproven on this show his book and show are still selling incredibly well so what the hell does this all prove?

ya know, I used to have a very high regard for Dave, thought he was sharp, classy, and the best at what he does. It's so disappointing to see these interviews he has with Bill OReilly. Everyone cheers Dave on when he says Bills full of crap, etc. but he loses complete integrity when he makes these blanket accusations with no evidence or support to back himself up. that's fine how he feels about different subjects and has every right to say so, especially because it's his show, but I really find it pretty disconcerting to see Letterman so viciously and pointedly abrasive, humorless, and attackful at a guest on his show, one who he admittedly has no knowledge or real understanding of.

I don't get Dave… How do you dislike someone so much you know nothing about?

By his own admission he states he's never even seen OReilly's show, read his books, etc. how can anyone support Dave in this way??? How can anyone feel that Dave continually "beats" OReilly when Letterman has no foundation for anything he says to him, nothing is backed up, except for what he reads in the paper about OReilly. Can anyone help me understand, or does this really have nothing to do with Dave, is this really just about jumping on the "i hate Bill OReilly" bandwagon?

Jeez, even if you dont like OReilly, you have to admit that he's professional enough to do his homework. hmmmm I've lost armfuls of respect for the man....

Jerry: "I don't understand why Letterman had a hard time responding to the question 'Do you want us to win the war?...We have to win...period.'.

I understand why Letterman couldn't answer O'Reilly's stock question - it is because, by his own admission, Letterman was unprepared for O'Reilly's 'talking points'. The proper response to Bill-o's question goes something like this:

Bill, that is a dumb question. Bush and his neoconservative advisors sent American troops to Iraq to play a middle-eastern version of Russian Roulette – you don't win that game – the object of the game is, don't play it.

Early this year (Jan. 31, World Public Opinion Poll), Iraqi's were asked whether they wanted their government to set a timetable for Americans' departure. 87% said YES - including a solid majority of EVERY ethnic group - even the Kurds. At that time, 47% of the Iraqis APPROVED of attacks on US-led forces. By September, 60% of Iraqis said that they APPROVED OF ATTACKS ON US-LED FORCES.

There is simply no way to "win" in Iraq, even if "winning" is merely defined as restoring stability. US-led forces are one of the sources of instability and when 60% of the populace approves of killing Americans, then it is certain that a large fraction of the Iraqi "security forces" do too. It is absolutely no surprise that Senator Warner's recent findings show that many weapons supplied to the Iraqi "security forces" are "unaccounted for". The reason that Iraqis won't "stand up" so we can "stand down" is that American military leaders are afraid to entrust the Iraqis with much firepower and autonomy for fear that the firepower will be used on Americans - and their fears are well-founded.

It is time to grow up and face facts – some problems don't have an American solution. Saddam Hussein was an evil, murderous SOB, but Bush's ignorance, arrogance, hubris, and lies have been even more efficient catalysts for Iraqi death and destruction. Iraqi sectarian violence and civil war are problems that we can't solve – even if our idiot president is responsible for setting the unraveling of Iraq in motion. It is time to leave in as orderly a manner as is possible from the mess that Bush made. The damage to American prestige, credibility, and reputation is already done. To the people of Iraq, this is one American who is deeply sorry for what Bush hath wrought.

I must say I find it funny when right-wingers say Dave hasn't done his homework with no sense of irony about the very notion that this is in contrast to a man whose very job description, is not doing his homework. The more he lies, the more many of his core viewers (who are, incidentally over 70, many of them-I hope it's just that they can't reach the remote control and are watching it against their will).

Falafel O'Reilly is trying hard to carry water but he doesn't want to concede the most basic point-that we need to leave Iraq. He wants to say, oh, we were misled, oh, the world is complicated, oh, you don't understand the terrible forces that will be unleashed if we leave; oh, those evil Shias in Iran. But this is EXACTLY what many of us libs were screaming about four (can it be that long?) years ago when we were called traitors, haters of democracy, and dictator enablers. Now Bill attempts to resurrect these arguments and at the same time decline responsibility for a war that he pushed for as hard as anyone. He's a sad sad man.

If you liberal idiots want to talk geo politics I will kick your ass. I am after all a state senator in Idaho

Tim Flaherty 17th district senator 208-331-3784

http://www.ktrv.com/Global/story.asp?s=5648349

Idaho State Senate District 17 * x-Elliot Werk, Dem (i) 7,677 - 67 percent * Tim Flaherty, GOP 3,771- 33 percent

kelly and carmen...excellent points.

i think that o'reilly did a good job of going on the show and not getting into a pissing contest w/ dave. it's dave's show, dave's crowd, dave's network. of course the crowd is going to clap at everything he does...

but did any of you catch that the audience was clapping for o'reilly too? that was the part of the brain saying, "hey, that makes sense...b/n all of the jokes and nonsense that dave is saying, bill's point actually has credit."

the fact that dave admits he doesn't know what he's talking about and you dumbasses agreeing w/ him but still thinking he won, proves you're all morons.