Michael Moore shamed O'reilly last night.

Did you see how Orielly could not answer a simple question that Michael More ask of him?

Simple enough question.

Would you send other people's kids or your own to secure Falluja, Iraq. Orielly would not answer only that he would go himself. He was in a corner and you could see it.

I am not defending M. Moore but Orielly lost the debate last night on nearly every issue.

M. Moore lost a little face when he would not admit Bush may not have intentionally lied yet rushed to judgement and war with bad facts.

I have not watched F911 yet.

www.foxnews.com...


"O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information � not a lie"

This right here is why George W Bush should not be reelected. Never should a president send troops to war on bad information. In fact he should step down in shame and resign.

The Buck stops were?

People get fired from high level jobs for less imporatant mistakes.
This mistake killed over 1000 allied soldeirs and god knows how many Iraqi's

X





[edit on 29-7-2004 by Xeven]

What were you watching? No parent you say they would send their child instead of themself. O'Reilly made a good decision to say he would send himself instead of his kid. Thats what a good parent would do.

Its a war, of course people are going to die and fight in it. If you president then you are going to have to send people to fight and some of them will die.

Xeven, that is where you are wrong. Bush did not know it was bad intell then. 3 differnt sources all telling him the same exact thing. What are you going to do? Wait, or stop him? It was only until after we got there, when we found out it was bad intell.

Moore did poorly, he would revert to an older topic while they were discussing a differnt one. He was getting very nervous, you could see it in his expressions and mannerisms.

Man what interview were you wacthing. Moore keep pushing the same question even though O'Reilly anwsered it the first time he asked it. He said he would give up his life for that cause and that was a good answer in my opnion as no parent made that choice for their kids the are all adults the made that choice to serve by themselves. Moore wasted time with that when he could have made better use of his time making more valid points.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 28-7-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Bush had time to find out for sure what threat Iraq posed. There was no imminant danger. Bush could have saved the Allied lives by waiting and having the UN put more preassure, again there was no threat there was not threat.. hello no threat we had time. Presidents need to be dam sure of themselves before commiting American soldiers lives to battle,, no threat none... see? He is president he is responsible forhis actions. He was wrong and should not continue to be president. NO THREAT to the US.

Saddam had been suspected of having WMD for years and years but all the sudden Bush became president ad we went to war over it. Why? What was the rush? Iraq possed no real threat to the United States. None yet we have many more dead americans now.

If we did not attack how would the world be different today? Well for one many people who are dead now would be alive and for two the UN would probably still be trying to get inspectors in there. So what? No threat, its ok to wait and be sure before a threat exisits before sending people to die without some form of proof that WMD existed.

Did Bush not ask to analyze the CIA information himself before plunging us into war? I sure as hell would have my facts straight before commiting peoples lives to a cause or war.

I guess you people think its ok to just send 19 years olds to there deaths on aa whim?

Originally posted by JediMaster
What were you watching? No parent you say they would send their child instead of themself. O'Reilly made a good decision to say he would send himself instead of his kid. Thats what a good parent would do.

It doesn't work like that. So, his answer was BS. But what else can be expected from a fascist, ignorant, self-righteous puke who started out pushing crap on "Inside Edition." He's not a newsman or a political analyst. He's nothing more than a self-important entertainer who should really go back to Tabloid Journalism, where he belongs (if at all).

With the increasing tension of Middle Eastern hatred against the US, it would only be too soon until Saddam attacked us or an ally. That is why we went to war. In a world like today you cannot wait you must act now, before they get to you.

Three differnt sourcse, not one, three. Russia, Brtiain and our own guys. Now tell me if you were in his position would you not act?

Originally posted by Xeven
I guess you people think its ok to just send 19 years olds to there deaths on aa whim?

Besides the obvious fact that Saddam DID have WMD's (he used them on the Kurds AND the Iranians) that he has either hidden in the sand like he buried his Air Force, (we found the planes...they were much easier to find!), or trucked off to Syria you are missing a HUGE point when you say that Moore-on "schooled" O'Reilly...Nobody "sends" their children off to fight for the USA...we are an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE. It is our decision to fight for our country, and every single one of us knows when we sign on the dotted line to serve that it may mean paying the ultimate price. Some aren't prepared for that, or may think it will never come to that, but sometimes it does, and when that happens, we who serve are there to do what it takes. Anytime...anywhere...

Moore-on continued his usual spin tactics, simply ignoring common sense, of which he has none. He always has been, and will most likely continue to be, a leech that profits off the misery of others....disgusting....

These videos were posted by a member on another board by the name of Gabriel (I don't want to take credit for his work).

THey are interesting indeed and show a less lopsided view of the war than Moore's video. If anything, they are an interesting watch.

911: the Road to Tyranny
www.archive.org...

Masters of Terror
www.archive.org...

Entire interview @:

drudgereport.com...

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
. But what else can be expected from a fascist, ignorant, self-righteous puke who started out pushing crap on "Inside Edition." He's not a newsman or a political analyst. He's nothing more than a self-important entertainer who should really go back to Tabloid Journalism, where he belongs (if at all).

He graduated with a degree in history from Marist College, with a Master's Degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University, and attained another Master's in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Bill O'Reilly has won two Emmy Awards for Excellence in reporting. He was awarded two National Headliner Awards while working as a national correspondent for ABC News, and was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his reporting and analysis on and after September 11th, 2001.

I think he is alittle more qualified then you would have people believe

Originally posted by JediMaster
With the increasing tension of Middle Eastern hatred against the US, it would only be too soon until Saddam attacked us or an ally.

Please explain how he could've possibly done this.

That is why we went to war. In a world like today you cannot wait you must act now, before they get to you.

This is nothing but Republican rhetoric that you heard. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense. And don't think for a second I would shy away from a true threat. I've already been there and done that.

Three differnt sourcse, not one, three. Russia, Brtiain and our own guys.

Sorry, I'd be looking for some more reliable sources, if I were you.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by Xeven
I guess you people think its ok to just send 19 years olds to there deaths on aa whim?

Besides the obvious fact that Saddam DID have WMD's (he used them on the Kurds AND the Iranians)

a- weapons the US largely supplied him.
b- The Iranians also gassed the Iraqis. It's funny how the media and political hacks always seem to leave that little detail out.
c- Why did the Reagan administration keep supplying Saddam when they knew full well he was using gas?

you are missing a HUGE point when you say that Moore-on "schooled" O'Reilly...Nobody "sends" their children off to fight for the USA...we are an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE.

Go ahead and vote for Bush. You will be on your way to BASIC shortly thereafter, unless you fall outside the age range. Glad I already did my time.

It is our decision to fight for our country, and every single one of us knows when we sign on the dotted line to serve that it may mean paying the ultimate price.

Lofty rhetoric. Have you served or are you planning to?

1. With the supposed WMDs, an attack on Isreal could've happend which would caused a massive war in the Mid. East. Selling weapons to al-Qadida and other terrorist groups, using more against his own people.

2. Ok, lets ignore everything that we get that says us or an ally is going to get attacked and let it bite us back on the arse.

3. Three sources one from ourselves, a close ally, and Russia. What would you rather? France, Libya and Easter Island?

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
. But what else can be expected from a fascist, ignorant, self-righteous puke who started out pushing crap on "Inside Edition." He's not a newsman or a political analyst. He's nothing more than a self-important entertainer who should really go back to Tabloid Journalism, where he belongs (if at all).

He graduated with a degree in history from Marist College, with a Master's Degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University, and attained another Master's in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Bill O'Reilly has won two Emmy Awards for Excellence in reporting. He was awarded two National Headliner Awards while working as a national correspondent for ABC News, and was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his reporting and analysis on and after September 11th, 2001.

I think he is alittle more qualified then you would have people believe

Guess what? Anyone with money can earn a degree. He has no real experience in foreign policy and it clearly shows. That's the bottom line. He's way out of his league. That is my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions... their like you know what and everyone's got one.

Originally posted by JediMaster

3. Three sources one from ourselves, a close ally, and Russia. What would you rather? France, Libya and Easter Island?

Man I wish we got Easter Island intel that would have been rock solid Come on though CIA, MI-6 , KGB(Or whatever russia calls it now) are the best intel agencies in the world

Originally posted by JediMaster
1. With the supposed WMDs,

We knew by '96 that Saddam's weapons program was toast. Bush lied. It just shows how frighteningly ignorant and apathetic this nation is. I hate to say it, but its the truth.

an attack on Isreal could've happend

NO, it couldn't. He did not have the capability. He was quarentined by us. Do you not know that? He couldn't do anything from the no-fly zones outward.

Selling weapons to al-Qadida and other terrorist groups, using more against his own people.

He had no connections to al-CIAda. They were enemies. Cling to your illusions all you want, but it won't change the fact. As far as him gassing his own people WITH THE CHEMICALS THE U.S. SUPPLIED HIM, it didn't bother our administration one bit back then. And by the way, it was Iran's gas who killed the folks at Halajba, if that's to the incident you're referring to. The disinformation surrounding that event is despicable.

Three sources one from ourselves, a close ally, and Russia. What would you rather? France, Libya and Easter Island?

So pony up your sources. Naming countries tells us nothing.

Now we're gettin to the good stuff.

That interview was a joke. Moore and O'Riley both were over their head.

O'Riley started by asking for an apology and it went down hill from there.

Moore kept saying "If he did not say the truth then it must be a lie."

I hoped for a better show.

But in the end they are both good showmen with very hard agendas.

Moore is still a big socialist poopie head but he is just as entertaining as O'Riley.

1. Weapons programs, nothing about him storing them.

2. Who said he was going to abide to the rules? He woud've broken every international law to do what he wanted.

3.Other words, "other terrorist orginizations", he could've sent themt o any othe America hate group. al-Qaida is not the only terrorist org ESK.

4. You saying that those 3 sourcses are "unreliable", so I'm asking you what nations would you rather see them come from?

Originally posted by Xeven
Did you see how Orielly could not answer a simple question that Michael More ask of him?

Simple enough question.

Michael Moore's childish (pun intended) use of the question "would you send your son (or daughter, must be equal) to die for liberating Iraq" demonstrates his inability to debate on a level, unedited playing field. No one would knowingly send their son or daughter to certain death in modern Western culture (good thing he wasn't speaking to a Radical Muslim Fundamentalist, who would have sent his offspring to Allah right there on camera); this incredulous query cheapened the lives of those who did make the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country. How many parents of those brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines were left sitting there thinking "how could I have let this happen to my son or daughter"? No one knows what will happen in a military deployment of any nature, much less one into hostile territory; personnel are not "sacrificed" to achieve an outcome, nor are they "chips" in an international game of chance. By applying the "loaded" question to Mr. O'Reilly, Michael Moore proved his unpatriotic ways yet again, and also demonstrated a lack of compassion for those who have lost a family member in service to our great country.

Anatomy of a "loaded" question.

Unless more American's open their eyes and take a look around, We're doomed.

The boys and girls in the WH were itching to take out Saddam and the Taliban even before 9/11. They wanted a base of operations right smack in the middle of the middle east so that access to Iran, Syria, and other "evil" states would be ensured. And they wanted a big ass pipeline to be run through Afganistan. After 9/11, Afganistan and the Taliban were opened up to them. Remember that we still don't have the guy we blame for 9/11.

Iraq wasn't so easy because there was no evidence connecting Saddam with the attack. There still is no evidence. So now every speech they give, they mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same context. They associate Iraq and Saddam with imminent mushroom clouds. Every chance they get, they attempt to scare the s**t out of the American people.

I'd like to know how much the individuals running the show are profiting from this scam.

Open your eyes America. I don't think America as we know it can survive another four years of this.