Moore finally interviews with O'Reilly

For starters, that quote isnt even from this thread, which thus has nothing to do with the topic in question and is cited by you purely to deride and antagonise as is your long demonstrated penchant. A troll you are!

 

Woooo, Point and Lick I have respect for both of you but sometimes like now you both need to find a bridge to sit under and cool down.

I read the transcript and thought neither came out well. Moore is a great polemicist but has not always been good in the off the cuff discussion and O’Reilly from what I’ve read of his is just a right wing apologist.

 

If you think Moore is to the far left, you are insane. Also, I was very upset at this debate, all moore did was say "would you sacrifice your child for the liberation of Fallujah?" i hate to say this, because i hate O'Reilly, but O'Reilly won hands down. Even know his argument that Bush received bad intelligence and not lying deliberatly was bullshit, Moore couldn't defend himself for shit, and couldn't give any defence to Bill O'Reilly's Statements, it upset me to watch. He never once mentioned that Al Queda and the Taliban were creations of America's government. He didn't once mention that Osama and Saddam were given large amounts of weapons and Money by The US government which, undoubtably, led to their rise of power. He didn't once mention that, although Vladimir Puntin, and others said Iraq possessed WMD, that many many others said they did not, and Bush went on the stand and said he KNEW they had them, and KNEW where they were. Moore is only good at making books and documentaries where he can have large amounts of time to think about his arguments and not have anybody argue them when he presents them, but debate is not something he should participate in.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Right on Max, I still like Moore better than O'Reilly, but after watching that debate, i lost SOO much respect for him.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

Who were the many many other countries that said Iraq didn't have WMD?

How does one explain the intercepted communications between Iraqi officers where they were telling each other not to use words related to WMD on the airwaves. Remember these communication were the ones we intercepted of them talking about moving them? I don't want to put words in your mouth but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you will say they were fabricated by the U.S. Or how does one explain the cargo vehicles that were seen by sattellites moving in and out of "suspected" weapons production facilities? Then when the trucks finished moving whatever they were moving, steam cleaning trucks moved in a sanitized the facilities.

I'm not implying anything, but the evidence then and now just doesn't add up. Bush can be pretty fucking dumb, but I don't think he would be dumb enough to bring us to war KNOWING there were no WMD. If it was all fabricated then why didn't we just plant some evidence??

 

First of All, i was talking about PEOPLE that told Bush that Iraq Possessed WMD, not countries. Secondly, there were people who told Bush that there was No WMD, or atleast not enough Evidence to invade Iraq on that statement.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0317-03.htm

-Ex-Marine Maj. Scott Ritter, the former lead inspector for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) Concealment and Investigations team in Iraq. "There simply is no evidence of a factual nature that sustains the allegation by the Bush administration or British government that Iraq today possesses weapons of mass destruction," Ritter told The Chronicle in late March 2003.

http://www.counterpunch.org/giebel05082004.html

-Before coalition troops invaded Iraq, many experts both inside and outside of government repeatedly stated the supposed weapons no longer existed

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/07-07-04/discussion.cgi.49.html

-Before the war, the CIA was told by relatives of Iraqi scientists that Baghdad's programs to develop unconventional weapons had been abandoned.
However, the CIA failed to pass on that nugget of information to U.S. President Bush.

Is that enough for you? if not, just say the word because there is a lot more where that came from.

Intercepted Communications between Iraqi Officers? Give me your sources for these, because I have never heard of such things. Also, if they do exist, what says they weren't fabricated? The US government has the ability to fabricate videos of Osama Bin Laden, they should be able to fabricate recorded conversations. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, and these communications are real, of course they aren't going to mention WMD or anything about them when they communicate with eachother, if they have them or not that is not something you want to say over a communication that can easily be intercepted by enemy forces. Also, It is my belief that Saddam may have been trying to act like he had WMD when he really didn't, that is why he was turning away UN inspectors. Also, with the cargo vehicles seen by sattelites...Cite your sources as i did above. Also, what says they were weapons facilities, they were SUSPECTED, remember when clinton bombed that SUSPECTED weapons facility which turned out to be making aspirin? As me and you Obviously know, Intelligence within our government isn't always the best.

You make a point, but what says the CIA DIDN'T try to put them there...
http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Head_Lines/cia_and_dod_attempted_to_plant_w.htm

-In a world exclusive, Al Martin Raw.com has published a news story about a Department of Defense whistleblower who has revealed that a US covert operations team had planted “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) in Iraq – then “lost” them when the team was killed by so-called “friendly fire.”

-The Pentagon whistleblower, Nelda Rogers, is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the Defense Department. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq.

I know you Silky, and you will dismiss this as one of my, or LickHERish's conspiracy theories, but i believe a Pentagon Whistleblower is about the best evidence you can find for things like this.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

I would like to hear more about these whistle-blowers. I honestly would like to know what the truth is behind the WMD issue, but I refuse to believe information given by people that also are convinced that the US government controls the weather by dropping microscopic particles form commerical jet liners. If you could please provide more links and info to these whistle-blowers. I'm not so narrowminded to refuse any scandal, as long as the evidence is there to back it up.

The only thing I have to question about these whistle-blowers (and honestly I haven't heard about any of them) is that why haven't they been heard? Something as big as this you would think the Bush-haters would be exploiting it. Look at how much press the Bush Admin. got for the accusations on the prison scandal. I just find it hard to believe that if these accusations were relevant that there would be some kind of investigation.

Like I said, I'm not that narrow-minded, so provide some info.

 

The reason the Abu Ghraib scandal got into the media was because a foreign, non profit, media organization found out about it and reported it. But, in America, when someone American finds out about something like this (Daniel Ellsberg and the pentagon papers for example) the rich elite who control the media will not let it be shown, but with the abu ghraib scandal, they HAD to show it because people were finding out from other media sources from around the world. Heres some links about the whistle blower.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/triedtoplantwmds21mar04.shtml
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg03171.html

Thank you for the open mind...

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

That's hilarious, seeing as O'Reilly came armed with the FACTS, and Moore couldn't debate worth a damn. All he could whine about is "would you send your kid to war?" "would you send your kid to war?" "would you send your kid to war?" and avoid the fact that multiple agencies on multiple governments had information on WMD.

Oh, yeah, about that "WYSYKTW" question above... every person who joins the military signs up. THEY sign up. They don't have to. But when they do, they know that there is a chance to go to war. You don't sign up and expect nothing to happen, that's not how it works.

 

Your the kind of kid that i would usually have an argument against, but in this case i have to agree with you, although i disagree with most of the facts O'reilly presented, but he did say them and backed them up from his sources, while moore just ranted and whined unthoughtful bullshit.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

This kid is 29, but thanks

 

Dude, you're 16, not one to be talking.

Unless of course you're a 45 year old guy trolling for cybersex, in which case I take back my statement.

 

hahaha, oh shit, sorry dude, i didn't look at your age, for some reason i just put kid, i wasn't thinking...sorry again

peace and Love,
Dan

 

Well I read a little bit of it. It was nothing short of retarded. I read their argument over the definition of "lie" until I got sick of it and closed the window.

 

hahahaha

M: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

M: No, not intentional, it was a mistake

Is there such a thing as an unintentional mistake?

 

obviously. like the one angel-headed hipster just made.