You stated on your TV show that you're not "smart enough" to debate Oreilly point to point. I respectfully disagree. It isn't that you aren't "smart enough" to debate him; you're just not well versed in the tactics of verbally manipulative douche-bags.
The secret to the smoke and mirrors of Bill Oreilly (and his ilk) is how they frame their arguments. Nearly everything they say is a manipulation, or as you put it: "60 percent is crap." Words are carefully strung together to imply things that (upon closer examination) turn out to be untrue.
As an example, we'll use this statement from your TV show where Oreilly defends his attack on Cindy Sheehan:
Oreilly: "No Way a terrorist who blows up woman and children is going to be called a freedom fighter on my program." (Video Clip Here)
This should be called: "Lying by extension."
First, it makes Oreilly seem reasonable for refusing (on his show) to allow "terrorists" who "blow up woman and children" to be called "freedom fighters." Who can argue with that? -Nobody.
The problem is, the vast majority of those fighting in Iraq against the occupation ARE NOT "terrorists" who are "blowing up woman and children." Even Bush has finally made this distinction. Additionally, I have never read any reports that Sheehan explicitly supports the killing of woman and children by terrorists. I've read that she believes the occupation is increasing the terrorist presence in Iraq. (Does anyone disagree with that?) I've read that she feels those pouring into Iraq to fight are "freedom fighters." (Interestingly enough that is what our government called the Mujahideen when they waged "Jihad" against the Soviet Union.) But nowhere have I read that Sheehan said: "Terrorists who blow up woman and children are freedom fighters." However, by implying this is her position, Oreilly can further imply that anyone who supports Sheehan must also hold the same non-existent position. Pretty neat trick, huh?
Intellectually honest people understand the following:
Many Iraqis are fighting (JUST AS AMERICANS WOULD FIGHT) against an armed occupation of their country. They are not the "Al-Qaeda terrorists" who've been blamed for the 9/11 attacks. The majority are not blowing up woman and children, they are firing on (and blowing up) the armed forces they believe they are at war with.
Why do they think they are at war with our armed forces? Maybe one of our bombs blew the arms and legs off their child. Maybe their wife or mother, brother or father was killed as a result of the invasion. -Estimates put civiliandeaths at 50,000. Those maimed for life, well over 100,000. That could be a factor, no?
Maybe they've read the PNAC document (written before 9/11) which explains why we are REALLY in Iraq: To secure a resource, install a puppet government, and gain strategic military leverage in the region. Maybe they don't buy the whole "liberation" thing since it was last on a long list of reasons why we attacked. Maybe they fear Iraq is just a "stepping stone" or "launching point" for other conquests in the Middle East. There are many potential explanations why Iraqis and others are fighting, but few have anything to do with an inherent affiliation with "terrorist ideology." To suggest otherwise is a lie and those who make the suggestion are liars.
So give yourself some credit; you've got a good nose for "crap" when you smell it. And I'd be willing to wager, the majority of those who saw your interview back your assessment of Oreilly 100%.