← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · xmetalhead
Thread ID: 14586 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2004-07-28
2004-07-28 19:20 | User Profile
[I]O'Reilly is purely an actor, no qualifications as an historian or political analyst. He is a bought and paid shill for the GOP and enforces blind support from his listeners for whatever the Republicans belch out of their fat mouths.
If you go back to pre-Iraq War broadcasts, what O'Reilly shouted out over the airwaves was absolutely frightening. People forget how hard and coarse these people pushed the issue of WMD's and other half-truths about Saddam and Iraq, just like our President and Administration pushed, and pushed and pushed the issue until it became "truth".
So, in light of that, seeing Michael Moore, as repugnant as he is, getting more or less the best of Sycophant O'Reilly was awesome! O'Reilly couldn't shout his uncontested sewage to an informed guy like Moore, and O'Reilly couldn't tell him to "shut-up" either, like Bill always does when he's losing an argument.[/I]
[SIZE=3][B]Moore: Bush 'Didn't Tell the Truth' [/B] [/SIZE]
Moore: Thatââ¬â¢s fair, weââ¬â¢ll just stick to the issues
Oââ¬â¢Reilly: The issuesââ¬Â¦ alright good, now, one of the issues is you because youââ¬â¢ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butlerââ¬â¢s investigation in Britain, and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
M: He didnââ¬â¢t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O: Yeah, but he didnââ¬â¢t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, thatââ¬â¢s not a lie.
M: uh huh, so in other words if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stageââ¬Â¦
O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasnââ¬â¢t the truth
M: Well, Iââ¬â¢d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasnââ¬â¢t trueââ¬Â¦ actually itââ¬â¢s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a ââ¬â
O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president ââ¬â
M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie
The rest here:[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html[/url]
2004-07-28 23:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead][I] Oââ¬â¢Reilly: ... and now the 911 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Gladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. M: He didnââ¬â¢t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction. The rest here:[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Plus (in addition to the points already made) ... the 911 Commission had nothing whatever to say about WMD and Iraq...Wasn't on their menu. O'Reilley lies about lies, and expects Moore to answer.
None of them can be talked to as human beings without compromising oneself -- as in assuming the position they have assumed to earn money.
2004-07-28 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]Plus (in addition to the points already made) ... the 911 Commission had nothing whatever to say about WMD and Iraq...Wasn't on their menu. O'Reilley lies about lies, and expects Moore to answer.
None of them can be talked to as human beings without compromising oneself -- as in assuming the position they have assumed to earn money.[/QUOTE]
And the "commission" had nothing to say about the Israelis in this matter, oh well,,,,,,,,, let's wait and see what happens in the future.
2004-07-29 01:43 | User Profile
That's your choice folks, the fat slob Moore or O'Really. :twisted:
2004-07-29 16:00 | User Profile
I'd say Moore won this argument here. Bush regularly claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11. He also said there was conclusive evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons. O'Neil reports that ten days after being sworn in they were plotting to take Saddam out. Blair was caught sexing up the reports.
Bottom line: Saddam might have had weapons, and there might have been an invisible pink unicorn drinking from the reflecting pool.
As for O'Reilly, have you ever noticed how many times he cuts his guest's mic? You might want to check out what FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has to say about O'Reilly. It's funny, the "fair and balanced" Fox News is more right-wing than alt.conspiracy.black.helicopter (Yes, that's an actual newsgroup; it's full of militia lunatics who think Clinton was behind Ruby Ridge, even though that was in 1992.)
2004-08-07 18:57 | User Profile
This will still be debated 50yrs from now. Moore is a baztard, multi-cultural, socialist peice of dung. Senor Boosh might be a limp, wet bisquit when it comes to being a leader, but ill be damned if i side with the likes of moore. Thats the strange place i find myself sometimes these days, wishing i had never voted for Boosh, but maybe thats because i fall to the right of what is considered "right-wing"
2004-08-12 16:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]That's your choice folks, the fat slob Moore or O'Really. :twisted:[/QUOTE] Ask Rep. Dennis Hassert.
2004-08-13 01:27 | User Profile
"This Bush-hatred thing is truly a sight to behold! Can you imagine hating someone so much that you abandon your normal judgment on whatââ¬â¢s right and whatââ¬â¢s wrong. And if you are an editor of a major newspaper, you simply fabricate your version of the facts. Amazing!"
" As usual we have to go elsewhere to get the version that doesnââ¬â¢t flow from intense Bush-hatred. The Wall Street Journal sees it in a totally different light in its lead editorial:
''The Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.''
So reads Conclusion 83 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda. So it appears that some of the claims about WMD used by the Bush administration and others to argue for war in Iraq were mistaken because they were based on erroneous information provided by the CIA.
A few apologies would seem to be in order. Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a president. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.
Or to put it more directly, if President Bush was ''lying'' about WMD, then so was Mr. Rockefeller when he relied on CIA evidence to claim in October 2002 that Saddam Hussein's weapons ''pose a very real threat to America.'' Also lying at the time were John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and so on. Yet Mr. Rockefeller is still suggesting on the talk shows, based on nothing but inference and innuendo, that there was undue political Bush ''pressure'' on CIA analysts."
[url]http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8406[/url]