Are you sure Bill O'Reilly is not fair and balenced?

[Nolan-Vinny-Sam]

Quote from Babak:

Well, I don't want to comment per se on BO'R but I was among those that felt that finding the WMD's would be nothin' but net. And was very gung ho about the whole war thing.

Now, I am also very disillusioned that it could be indeed a fabrication. There are some whispers here and there that Iraq may have spirited them out to Syria (no, no just from Debka -- a US govt source also mentioned it briefly as a distinct possibility they are looking into). But that doesn't detract from what seems to be a wholesale failure in the intelligence and political department.

As well as presenting a whole new hornets nest. I mean, what if they are in Syria, hidden underground? What are we supposed to do? march over there and over throw yet another government?

Just figure out who benefits from the whole fiasco.:eek: AND THE answers are clear.

dollars & cents never lie... as a trader you and everyone else should know that by now. How much loot is/was at stake? who got it still getting it AND who is paying for it???

is it becoming clear yet?

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from Babak:

Well, I don't want to comment per se on BO'R but I was among those that felt that finding the WMD's would be nothing' but net. And was very gung ho about the whole war thing.

Now, I am also very disillusioned that it could be indeed a fabrication. There are some whispers here and there that Iraq may have spirited them out to Syria (no, no just from Debka -- a US govt source also mentioned it briefly as a distinct possibility they are looking into). But that doesn't detract from what seems to be a wholesale failure in the intelligence and political department.

As well as presenting a whole new hornets nest. I mean, what if they are in Syria, hidden underground? What are we supposed to do? march over there and over throw yet another government?

you are not alone....although I was against this WAR ( only because i felt we could have contained this problem and because of the ongoing soldier casualty ).....Not finding the WMD feels like we've been led astray....we have been told about 1000's of reasons we went in; but this was the only reason that justified this WAR ( going in without the rest of the wolrd warrants some serious reasons ) ....and we still have zilch...

 

[Magna]

Quote from Maverick74:

Pundit O'Reilly Now Skeptical About Bush
Tue Feb 10, 9:25 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) ....While critical of President Bush (news - web sites), O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied. Rather, O'Reilly blamed CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites).

"I don't know why Tenet still has his job."

There we go again, another right-winger casually dropping the fact that Clinton appointed Tenet as if that makes him somehow responsible for Tenet's actions THREE YEARS into Bush's administration!!! I'm now going to answer O'Reilly's question about why Tenet still has his job. This is tricky so bear with me.... it's because the Man At The Top hasn't replaced him. Not rocket science. If Bush leaves Tenet running the CIA, and Tenet is indeed at fault for various serious problems (which I doubt, but that's another discussion), then it's Bush's fault. Sorry guys, how much longer are you going to keep blaming Clinton for all the problems of the world???

 

[Maverick74]

Listen man, I really wish you would seek some help for this hate you have inside of you. Look, I simply don't wish to argue with you anymore ok. You are so blinded by your ideology that nothing I say can or will matter. So what's the point. I would rather debate people on this board who are more moderate then you. Is that fair enough?

I never said I don't read the New York Times. I said I didn't want to sign up for it? Why? Because everytime I have signed up for an online newspaper I get 50 junk e-mails a day. I read the NY times all the time. How do you know this? Because half the shit I post from the Drudge Report comes from the NY Times.

I was going to post a response about the liberal judges. In fact, I had a nice link that gave a list of violent sex offenders that got off light by liberal judges. But then I thought, wait a minute, last time I went through the trouble to post some links on why Jewish people vote for democrats you didn't read it on the basis that it would only support my argument. So then why bother. Why should I go through the trouble. The answer is I'm not going to go through the trouble. It's just not worth it.

And if you want to know the reason why I get most of my news from the left, well, it's just more interesting to be quite honest with you. I don't like to read stuff from the right because I already know how I feel on the issues. I don't need some pundit to confirm that I'm right or wrong, or to agree with me. I rather read the stuff on the left because it challenges my ideas.

I would be curious to see if you did the same. My guess is you do not. Most people who are insecure in their beliefs need constant affirmation or they begin to doubt themselves.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

First of all, unless Mave restricts himself soley to Fox he can hardly avoid getting most of his news from the left. All major networks and major newspapers except the Wash Times fit this category. Even the WSJ, while it has a conservative editorial board, has typical lefties working the Washington Bureau. Unlike conservatives, who are constantly forced to "prove" their objectivity, the left just ignores criticism, including that from within from ex-newsmen like Bernard Kalb. He wrote a book detailing how biased CBS is and no network would have him on an interview show.

Now about those elusive WMD, somehow administration critics have started a big lie that Saddam never had WMD and President Bush just made up the whole thing. The facts are exactly the opposite. The UN detailed massive quantities of WMD after the first Gulf war. They detailed a nuclear program that was much closer to producing a bomb than the CIA had anticipated, not that that should surprise anyone too much. The UN also confirmed that Saddam had not followed through on commitments to destroy WMD. That was the whole point of the cat and mouse game with the inspectors. If you have WMD and you want to destroy them, it is not overly difficult to prove that you did so.

Virtually every current critic of Bush, including Kerry, Clark, Gore and in particular Clinton, gave speeches in which they acknowledged that Saddam had WMD. For some weasel like Kerry to say that he voted for the war because Bush lied to them is preposterous.

Clearly there were differences over details, over how far along some projects were, over whether or not the inspectors and sanctions were adequate, but not over the fundamental question of whether or not Saddam had WMD. He had them and he used them.

 

[Nolan-Vinny-Sam]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

That was the whole point of the cat and mouse game with the inspectors. If you have WMD and you want to destroy them, it is not overly difficult to prove that you did so.

AAA, com on!!! Even you know better than that!
Didn't Iraq sent back 12000 pages report in Dec 2002 about all their compliance and destruction of WMD's?

And it was scumya and cabal that removed 7800 pages from tha report before presenting it. So put a shock on it. Go read up on it before you post.

Late 80's he had them, the rest of the "civilized world" sold them to him USA was number one. He did our bidding with Iran, nice pawn of ours.

Tryin to justify this fraud for war is pure crap. Enough already.
Oil cos enjoying them nice prices, HAL, Rand corp, Betchel licking their chops, our people died. MIC happy as ever Shhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeshhhhhhh
the only hijacking done was wthin our gov't by cabal that pulls the stings and screws both us and the world for their personal gains. Take yer pill man.

 

[ARogueTrader]

It is a fact that Saddam had WMD at one point.

It is also a fact that weapons inspectors were in Iraq looking for them (unsuccessfully) at the time that Bush forced out the inspectors and told the American people and the world that there was no doubt that those weapons were there, that they constituted an immediate threat sufficient to justify pre-emptive actions.

The issue is did Bush trump up the danger in order to act in a unilateral manner when it was not necessary to do so.

AAA, even Colin Powell now admits that knowing what we know now, the need to attack Iraq was not really there.

Do you doubt him?

Can't you see how we made an error? Can't you see that the buck stops at Bush's door for such an error? Where is the reasonable sense of skepticism?

Why don't you congratulate those who told you before the war that there were no WMD there that they were exactly right?

Who has Bush fired due to this error? Why do you think it won't happen again?

How do you know Bush and company did not purposely create a danger that was not there?

To blindly trust political leaders as telling the truth is un-American and stupid.

"I am not a crook."
Richard M. Nixon

"I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
William Jefferson Clinton

"I don't recall."
Ronald Reagan

We have a history folks, a history of presidential lies and deceptions.

So again, why should we blindly trust that Bush did not deceive the American people for his own agenda, his own vision of how the world should be, what the world should be, his own sense of a right wing Christian based world...a New World Order?

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

First of all, unless Mave restricts himself soley to Fox he can hardly avoid getting most of his news from the left. All major networks and major newspapers except the Wash Times fit this category. Even the WSJ, while it has a conservative editorial board, has typical lefties working the Washington Bureau. Unlike conservatives, who are constantly forced to "prove" their objectivity, the left just ignores criticism, including that from within from ex-newsmen like Bernard Kalb. He wrote a book detailing how biased CBS is and no network would have him on an interview show.

Now about those elusive WMD, somehow administration critics have started a big lie that Saddam never had WMD and President Bush just made up the whole thing. The facts are exactly the opposite. The UN detailed massive quantities of WMD after the first Gulf war. They detailed a nuclear program that was much closer to producing a bomb than the CIA had anticipated, not that that should surprise anyone too much. The UN also confirmed that Saddam had not followed through on commitments to destroy WMD. That was the whole point of the cat and mouse game with the inspectors. If you have WMD and you want to destroy them, it is not overly difficult to prove that you did so.

Virtually every current critic of Bush, including Kerry, Clark, Gore and in particular Clinton, gave speeches in which they acknowledged that Saddam had WMD. For some weasel like Kerry to say that he voted for the war because Bush lied to them is preposterous.

Clearly there were differences over details, over how far along some projects were, over whether or not the inspectors and sanctions were adequate, but not over the fundamental question of whether or not Saddam had WMD. He had them and he used them.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from Maverick74:

Listen man, I really wish you would seek some help for this hate you have inside of you.

Gee, when did I ever even use the word "hate"? I pointed out that you use it often, so now I should "seek some help for the hate (I) have inside (me)"?

Quote from Maverick74:

I would rather debate people on this board who are more moderate then you. Is that fair enough?

It would be "fair enough" if it made sense. But while you carry on about how "blinded by my ideology" I am, no, it's not "fair enough". I claimed that I have always believed in some issues on both the "liberal" and "conservative" sides of the fence. So you posted a "quiz" for me. And I obliged. You of course never responded.

Quote from Maverick74:

But then I thought, wait a minute, last time I went through the trouble to post some links on why Jewish people vote for democrats you didn't read it on the basis that it would only support my argument.

That's right. There was no reason for me to read what I already believed to be true. My question to you was not IF more Jewish voters voted Democrat, but WHY???? And THAT you never even attempted to address. You never even appeared to give it any thought. Your ONLY comment was that South Florida was "flooded with Jews" or some such dismissive and quite closed-minded response. Bottom line, is you make claims. If they are untrue (like "liberals" supporting Nambla, or "liberal" judges letting low life criminals off with a "slap on the wrist"), you just make your statements, and don't back them up.

If you make a statement like "The majority of Jews vote Democrat", again, you use that as an "excuse", never thinking through what the REASON may be IF IT'S TRUE!.

I tried to respect your positions. I put in some time and effort to satisfy your curiosity as to how I could vote a split ticket (something you essentially claimed to be impossible). And you did not respond.

I take it that you just are too closed minded to think for yourself. Listen to Rush. He's always right (although now he, as well as O'Reilly. not so gung ho for Bush....what will you do????). Well, you still have Anne, and Kathleen Harris. And Old Dad. And others.

If you have your own opinions, let's hear them. If you are just parroting opinons of others, OK, fair enough. Just say "No need to respond: Read/Watch/Listen to "Pundit X"...and then you will know what Maverick believes".

OR....Give your OWN answers. NOT LINKS. NOT Paste and Cuts. YOUR OWN ANSWERS!..

Or not. But when you don't express your own beliefs, you are in no position to be critical of those that do.

Peace,
RS

 

[waggie945]

Wow.

I have always enjoyed listening to Bill O'Reilly.

Looks like people are finally figuring out that Bush is indeed vulnerable in this election . . . What with amnesty for illegal immigrants, big government, huge $470 billion dollar deficits, terrible environmental policy, no job creation, and severely "twisted" and "cleansed" intelligence on Iraq, there is no doubt that his Presidency is in jeapardy, to liberals AND conservatives alike.

 

[waggie945]

The 911 Commission, lead by Republican Tom Keane, former two-term governor of New Jersey is still being "stonewalled" by the Bush Administration regarding obtaining the daily intelligence briefs that President Bush would receive each morning at the White House.

The 911 Commission has been asking for the daily reports that go all the way back to the Clinton Administration, but have been rebuffed. The Bush Administration will only allow 4 of the 12 commission members to see the reports, behind closed doors, and only 350 of the reports - - - a mere part of the total.

The Bush Administration says that it does not wish to set a precedent regarding revealing intelligence to a panel or commission for public viewing. My guess is what they are really afraid of is having some rather damaging documents released to the Public via this commission, in an election year!

Nice to see the Administration getting to the bottom of 911.