O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

reply to post by Sublime620

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Speech amendment? No, I think free speech is fine. Opinions do not violate free speech.

However, this man has a responsibility to the country to provide facts and honest opinion. Most people have 40-60 hours per week that they work, and they do no have time to go out and do the work that Bill O'Relly gets paid for.

You saying it does not make it so. He has absolutely no obligation to do your thinking for you. No journalist does, O'Reilly even less than most. His program is nothing more than op-ed pieces - that's why he takes "news breaks" at the half hour, which are deliverd by someone else.

I could just as easily call Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and others liars, using your "logic".

O'Reilly can sit there and spout BS all night long. If you believe him, that's your problem.

reply to post by jackinthebox

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky

 

O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.

Or as Lincoln did to Virginia?

Kuwait was a part of Iraq, until further meddling by western powers.

Ah, now we have people defending Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Incredible:shk:

reply to post by centurion1211

Please pay better attention. I was basing that on the viewer ratings numbers. Again, the vote with your remote premise. Fox practically - if not actually - beats the other networks combined.

Maybe that's because it's the FOX viewers who are the only ones left that actually still believe that we get real news from the MSM.

Also keep in mind that there are more malls in this country than high schools, and that more people voted in American Idol in 2005 than they did in the 2004 Presidential election. By a nearly five to one ratio!

reply to post by BlackOps719

I didn't know Baghdad Bob was such a comedian or if he really believed his own propaganda. Thanks for sharing those quotes with me and others, here.

When you have John McCain admit we invaded Iraq cause of oil I mean that should answer it right there...case closed....

reply to post by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Yeah yeah it's true we had a war with him in desert storm but to ignore the UN weapons inspectors who WE went and lied to in the form of colin powel using manufactured evidence to do what?

Thats right JUSTIFY our illegal invasion into Iraq. If all we needed was the current infractions at the time than why was their such a build up of bull about wmd's ? Ill remind you.

Because Bush and his cronies in crime knew we wouldn't have approved so rather than do what WE wanted. HE LIED.

and lied and lied and lied and lied again.

Let me ask you one question.

Did the "Saddam has WMD's" mantra start with the Bush administration?

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Yeah yeah it's true we had a war with him in desert storm but to ignore the UN weapons inspectors who WE went and lied to in the form of colin powel using manufactured evidence to do what?

Thats right JUSTIFY our illegal invasion into Iraq. If all we needed was the current infractions at the time than why was their such a build up of bull about wmd's ? Ill remind you.

Because Bush and his cronies in crime knew we wouldn't have approved so rather than do what WE wanted. HE LIED.

and lied and lied and lied and lied again.

Let me ask you one question.

Did the "Saddam has WMD's" mantra start with the Bush administration?

Becky case is closed McCain admitted we are in Iraq cause of oil ....

reply to post by jsobecky


I'm not trying to justify it, in fact I don't think it should have been allowed in the first place. If Bush Daddy had told Saddam, just once, not to invade Kuwait, then none of this would have ever happened.

And for that matter, I don't think that Lincoln should have invaded Virginia either.

Originally posted by Gregarious

If anyone is going to say something stupid, could they at least, please, get their facts straight? We found WMDs in Iraq, and we documented their ties to terrorists. Read on sites linked here. You and I are not privy to that kind of info. As if they could trust us with the truth! ;D

(Shaken head like a cartoon)

HUH! What! Where! When! Who!


Man the only wmd's WE found were old cache of some chemical weapons and ya know where they got those from??



US! Yeah WE sold them to em

jeeez talk about putting a whole shoe store in your mouth

- Con







[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Did the "Saddam has WMD's" mantra start with the Bush administration?

No but whats your point? I'm merely stating WHY the said mantra was started.


- Con

reply to post by jsobecky

Did the "Saddam has WMD's" mantra start with the Bush administration?

If you had asked me, I would answer yes. It most certainly did. With the same Bush administration that was still selling sensitive technology to Saddam up until the day before the invasion of Kuwait.

reply to post by Conspiriology


Not to mention the fact that most conventional weapons can be easily modified to become WMD's using household chemicals.

O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

Wow that sertinly is using wording to twist the truth of the world..
Lets see.. So he is to say we are just over there not as an invasion, but to clear up things that S.H did in the past.
Hmmm why such a play on words Bill? The no spin zone is making my head spin here folks.

So what is he going to say next?
"That US warriors are throwing candy, and teddy bears at the people of Iraq?"
"Those are not REAL guns, because we can't say what is real in the first place? You think thats air you are breathing? Hmm."

While we are at it, the candy arse fairies from never never land are over there spreading peace and joy threwout the lands! And everyone has power, and running water!

I thought I heard about those chocolate unicorns that they had to ride in on when they went to bagdad, sending cheer and hope to all the wonderful folks of Iraq..
Yeah thats the ticket!

My point is this is just another way to play on words to confuse the people who cant think for themselfs.
If Faux news reports it, then it must be 100% truth!
After being spoon fead lie after lie, you start to lose the taste for truth.
I see it happening all over the place.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by zysin5]

reply to post by Johnmike

Apparently, you don't know me and politics very well. That's your fault, not mine. If you actually did some good research on the people, who own FOX News (including Bill O'Reilly), you wouldn't be so ignorant. The reason you're so ignorant is because you like being that way. That's your problem, not mine.

For those of you, who haven't read about the Bush Family's connection to Nazis/Zionists, and the number of fiat-government officials, who have dual-citizenship in both America & the state of Israel (but only allegiance to Israel), please be quick to read declassified documents & watch at least 1 of these documentaries:

911 Was a Zionist Job 01 of 02


911 Was a Zionist Job 02 of 02


The Transfer Agreement between Zionism and Nazism


Jim Condit - The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler (Adolph Hitler)

"The Zionists brought us to the Holocaust. It is well known that it was possible to redeem Jews from the Nazis with money, and save many hundreds of thousands of Jews in Hungary...THE ZIONIST LEADERS WHO NOW SIT IN GOVERNMENT PREVENTED IT!" -- Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich (circa 1954) To the billions of people around the world who know only the standard Establishment version of 20th Century history, the above quotation is incomprehensible, its implications impossible to fathom. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were the sworn enemies of all Jews, they will say, and to suggest there could be any collusion between Zionists and Hitler's Third Reich is both beyond belief and a slap at the memory of those who died at the hands of Nazi persecutors. Incomprehensible, perhaps, but by no means impossible. The Zionist-Nazi collaboration, however suppressed it has been to the general public, is a little-known, but crucial, part of European history, one that continues to profoundly shape and affect world events in the 21st Century. This mind-boggling voyage is but one of many facts which have been compiled and collated, and which is presented in this DVD by Jim Condit Jr. in this fascinating new DVD entitled The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler. This thorough analysis examines Hitler's career and influence, from his humble beginning in Austria to his appointment as German Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg, from his ascent to absolute dictator of the Third Reich to his role in bringing about the modern state of Israel and the emerging world government.]Jim Condit - The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler (Adolph Hitler)

Google Video Link

[edit on 2-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

reply to post by Conspiriology

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by jsobecky
Did the "Saddam has WMD's" mantra start with the Bush administration?

No but whats your point? I'm merely stating WHY the said mantra was started.


- Con

The point is you are trying to make it sound like everything started with Bush2. Why didn't you say that Clinton lied and lied and lied and lied also? Or Blair, or the rest of the world leaders, or members of the US Senate and House, etc?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Did the "Saddam has WMD's" mantra start with the Bush administration?

If you had asked me, I would answer yes.

And you would be historically and factually wrong...

DRAFT ASSESSMENT
White House dismisses CIA report on Iran's nuclear weapons program

11/20/2006

The United States has accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program.
The White House dismissed a classified CIA draft assessment that found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, The New Yorker magazine reported.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the CIA's analysis was based on technical intelligence collected by satellites and on other evidence like measurements of the radioactivity of water samples.
"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," according to the article.

"A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it," it said.
The United States has accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not respond directly to Hersh's assertions, but said the article was another "error-filled piece" in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush administration."
"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods to justify his own radical views," she said on Monday.
The article, in the current issue of the magazine, discussed how Vice President Dick Cheney believed the Bush administration would deal with Iran if the Republicans lost control of Congress -- as they did in the Nov. 7 election.

"If the Democrats won on November 7th, the vice president said, that victory would not stop the administration from pursuing a military option with Iran," Hersh wrote, citing an unidentified source familiar with the discussion.

ultramedia.freehostia.com...

Then we blame iran for having nuclear ambitions but that didn't stop US from doing business with them in that same regard did it.

ultramedia.freehostia.com...




[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by jsobecky
The point is you are trying to make it sound like everything started with Bush2. Why didn't you say that Clinton lied and lied and lied and lied also? Or Blair, or the rest of the world leaders, or members of the US Senate and House, etc?

ha ha well that's easy,, no one brought them up.

Blair was tricked into it and later found out he was lied to. I admit he should have said something as soon as he knew but as the whatever name of the street that document was named after, proved he knew what was up and is just as guilty after that.

Look, I trust politicians as far as I can throw em and if I had my way I would have us flush every single one of them out and purge the entire system clean of every single solitary encumbent and start new.

That isn't likely to happen but this thread is about what Orielly said and Oreilly is a clown, I only like him when he talks smack to Dawkins and Hitchens lol

- Con
PS: Downing Street, that was it *whew*

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by jsobecky

Why didn't you say that Clinton lied and lied and lied and lied also?

No one died when Clinton lied.

And you would be historically and factually wrong...

Are you saying then the Clinton started the WMD rhetoric against Iraq?

reply to post by Conspiriology



Rather simplistic view of the relationship between bliar and shrub.

You know how people talk to their plants?

Yup, you got it...

Apart from the fecal matter question which is still unresolved...

You know - you remember the thread, surely...

:shk:

Long time lurker, First time Poster!

Didn't read whole thread so I apologise if someone (hopefully) brought this up but the Desert Storm (91) had NOTHING to do with what were mired in now!

Remember Colin Powell in front of the UN with his little vial of whatever? Remember UMD's that Iraq was hording by the tons? Remember how AL-Qaeda(SP?) was operating Hand-in-hand with the Baath Party?

That little bit of Comedy is WHY WE INVADED IRAQ!

Not so funny now.