>I would be interested to know why Greg and/or Daniel B thought Moore won though, if either of you would like to debate it further.
It certainly wasn't a great debate, true. But it reads to me like O'Reilly lost control of the situation early on, and got lamer and lamer as it went. O'Reilly's basic rationale kept shifting: the threat of WMD was "a mistake", but then it was the right thing to do anyway because of the brutal dictator - and don't forget world terrorism! Clearly only the middle rationale ever made any sense at all about Iraq, so you can really sense he's fumbling - he's not confident of his own arguments. At the end as Moore mocks O' Reilly's insincere offer to sacrifice himself to secure Fallujah, O'Reilly can only splutter, even more absurdly, "You'd love to get rid of me" - and that's when he loses for sure. All he needed to do was say in reply "So we'll sign you up for Afghanistan, at the same time, shall we?"
I think that explains his self-justifying column the next day. If he felt he'd won decisively on the night, nothing more would have needed to be said.
That's my take anyhow.
- Daniel B