Did not know it was going to happen, but my two least favorite blowhards had it out last night on tv, and man I would love a copy of it. If anybody taped it please encode it and put it out there!
-SJ™
Printable View
Did not know it was going to happen, but my two least favorite blowhards had it out last night on tv, and man I would love a copy of it. If anybody taped it please encode it and put it out there!
-SJ™
I didn’t know that it was going to happen either because I’m not watching TV until the democratic convention is over. You can read the transcript of the interview here though.
stayed up just to watch the replay
noone got anywhere, pretty even
To say no one got anywhere is quite accurate.Quote:
Originally posted by muchspl2@28 July 2004 - 14:16
noone got anywhere, pretty even
To call it "pretty even", though, is to assign it coherence-there was certainly none of that.
Bill Buckley used to host a program called Firing Line, where various issues and subjects were debated, vigorously and well.
No one even knows how anymore, not least of all Mr. O'Reilly, and certainly not Michael Moore.
Save your bandwidth, SJ; it was a total non-event, I assure you. ;)
Transcript
http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc4.htm
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE JULY 27, 2004 16:02:35 ET XXXXX
MICHAEL MOORE/O'REILLY SHOWDOWN AT CONVENTION
Tue Jul 27 2004 16:51:50 ET
FOX NEWS is planning to air a redhot interview between Bill O'Reilly and boxoffice sensation Michael Moore on Tuesday.
The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an embargoed transcript of the session:
Moore: That’s fair, we’ll just stick to the issues
O’Reilly: The issues… alright good, now, one of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the senate intelligence committee, Lord Butler’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 didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O: Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed by - all of those investigations come to the same conclusion, that’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 stage…
O: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn’t the truth
M: Well, I’d have to turn around to see it, and then I would realize, oh, Bill, I just told you something that wasn’t true… actually it’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 –
O: Ok, He never said that, but back to the other thing, if you, if Michael Moore is president –
M: I thought you said you saw the movie, I show all that in the movie
O: Which may happen if Hollywood, yeah, OK, fine –
M: But that was your question –
O: Just the issues. You’ve got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, US intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction, you say, “he lied.” This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious –
M: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –
O: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –
M: No I’m not, there’s no dancing
O: He didn’t lie
M: He said something that wasn’t true
O: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources
M: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn’t listen to anybody
O: They wouldn’t go by Russian intelligence and Blair’s intelligence too
M: His own people told him, I mean he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said “What you got on Iraq?” and Richard Clarke’s going “Oh well this wasn’t Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”
O: You’re diverting the issue…did you read Woodward’s book?
M: No, I haven’t read his book.
O: Woodward’s a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?
M: I know who he is.
O: Ok, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, “slam dunk” if you’re the president, you ignore all that?
M: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
M: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn’t communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn’t have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th
O: Nobody disputes that
M: Ok, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.
O: You’ve got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they’re all saying the same thing that’s why. You’re not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
M: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can’t think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war, I mean, I don’t know a worse –
O: It wasn’t a lie
M: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O: I call that bad information, acting on bad information – not a lie
M: A seven year old can get away with that –
O: Alright, your turn to ask me a question—
M: ‘Mom and Dad it was just bad information’—
O: I’m not going to get you to admit it wasn’t a lie, go ahead
M: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question
O: OK
M: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?
O: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.
M: And, but what were they killed for?
O: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people
M: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator
O: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction
M: But that was the reason
O: The weapons of mass destruction
M: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat
O: That’s right
M: And there was no threat, was there?
O: It was a mistake
M: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.” I don’t think that is good enough.
O: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents
M: So we agree on that
O: but that is the historical nature of what happened
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
O: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that
M: Really, I’m driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead
O: If it were unintentional and you weren’t impaired or anything like that
M: So that’s all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake – how would you feel towards me
O: Ok, now we are wandering
M: No, but my point is –
O: I saw what your point is and I answered your question
M: But why? What did they die for?
O: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people –
M: No, that was not the reason –
O: That’s what they died for
M: -they were given –
O: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake
M: Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world –
O: Alright, I’ve got anther question—
M: Would you sacrifice—just finish on this. Would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?
O: Depends what the circumstances were.
M: You would sacrifice your child?
O: I would sacrifice myself—I’m not talking for any children—to remove the Taliban. Would you?
M: Uh huh.
O: Would you? That’s my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
M: I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O: Al Qeada was given refuge by the Taliban.
M: But we didn’t go after them—did we?
O: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qeada.
M: That’s why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan—you wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan, would you?
M: No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
O: How?
M: As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Osama was—
O: Why was that?
M: That’s my question.
O: Because Pakistan didn’t want its territory of sovereignty violated.
M: Not his was in Afghanistan, on the border, we didn’t go there. He got a two month head start.
O: Alright, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
M: No, unless it is a threat to us.
O: Any government? Hitler, in Germany, not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long—you would have let him go?
M: That’s not true. Hitler with Japan, attacked the United States.
O: Before—from 33-until 41 he wasn’t an imminent threat to the United States.
M: There’s a lot of things we should have done.
O: You wouldn’t have removed him.
M: I wouldn’t have even allowed him to come to power.
O: That was a preemption from Michael Moore—you would have invaded.
M: If we’d done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, woah, I’m trying to stop this war right now.
O: I know you are but—
M: Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O: No we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to—
M: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O: I would sacrifice myself—
M: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—
O: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
M: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’
O: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous
M: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism—I know that escapes you—
M: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?
O: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.
M: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O: Iraq aided terrorist—don’t you know anything about any of that?
M: So you’re saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O: I’m saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
M: You’re not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O: I’m not? You’re his biggest defender in the media.
M: Now come on.
O: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: If you were running the country, he’d still be sitting there.
M: How do you know that?
O: You wouldn’t have removed him.
M: Look let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done, you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe, the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted---
O: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
M: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.
O: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
M: The people rose up.
O: why? Because they went bankrupt.
M: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up—
O: Alright alright.
M:--that’s how you, let me ask you this question.
O: One more.
M: How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don’t do it down the barrel of a gun. That’s not how you deliver it.
O: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam—
M: Why didn’t they rise up?
O: Because they couldn’t, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off—
M: well that’s true in many countries throughout the world__
O: It is, it’s a shame—
M:--and you know what people have done, they’ve risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa, they overthrew the dictator there. There’s many ways—
O: I’m glad we’ve had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright—and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that’s the fair way to do it. Right?
M: Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O: I would sacrifice myself.
M: You wouldn’t send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O: I would.
M: Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O: That’s right.
M: Where’s the recruiter?
O: You’d love to get rid of me.
M: No I don’t want—I want you to live. I want you to live.
O: I appreciate that. Michael Moore everybody. There he is…
END
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
©DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
Moore is a fucking moron. I agree with a lot of his views, but I haven't seen him make a single good point in an interview. He just talks in circles, just like nearly all conservatives do.
O'reilly, even though I disagree with a lot of his views, I like. Unlike most conservatives, he usually makes valid points. But he taught me how to debate. Simply make your point and change the subject as fast as possible. Offer the last word to the guest, and then still get the last word before going on to the next story. <_<
torrent on suprnova has the interview
Yup, keeping an open mind is what democracy is all about :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 19:48
I didn’t know that it was going to happen either because I’m not watching TV until the democratic convention is over. You can read the transcript of the interview here though.
Never having seen Bill O'Reilly in live action, I'd love to get my hands on that interview. That's if he lives up to his reputation
You can watch them talk about nothing and talk in circles all you want, it’s just not for me. My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.Quote:
Originally posted by Barky@28 July 2004 - 16:53
Yup, keeping an open mind is what democracy is all about :rolleyes:
Boy, I sure hope you get that fixed before the Republican convention, Hank.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 16:33
My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.
Could be your last chance to see Bush in action before he sinks into obscurity.
yea unless he does a 180 he'll be out on his ass
just hope Karry is better ;)
Kerry is a Red Sox fan, I do not know if the term better really applies.
Just for humor of course.
I must say I found that Mr. Moore's hammering away at the "what about your child" point is tatamount to rhetoric. He assures he only hears answers that fit what he wants to hear. You agree with his point or you disagree and are thoughtless.
Listen- nobody would wish death upon their children. Period amen. We can all agree I am sure that WWII was perhaps the most important war fought (at least in the industrial age), that our boys fought and dies bravely, that evil incarnate truly was defeated. Yet how many parents back then would have said "yes I would sacrifice my child for this".
None cause that is a crap line of questioning, and it furthers my view about Mr. Moore being a filmmaker, nothing more. Also, the people who are in Iraq were not recruited. I am not debating how much Iraq sucks, because I do have friends over there I would like to see again. What I mean is they volunteered, so it isn't like Bush declared the draft and sent our children to war against their will. This is not vietnam, we are a stronger generation than our parents were. What I would say is that IF my child decided to enlist, I would NOT encourage them to be infantry, but IF they wanted to, it would be their choice, as it was the choice of the people serving now to enlist.
It amazes me how a choice of words can put a spin on something, because the WAY Mr. Moore asks the questions you sound like a monster to do anything but agree with him, which of course is just crap.
The whole thing is worth the read of course, though I highly doubt I will be looking to download it, less anybody sends it to me via irc.
-SJ™
Boy, I sure hope you get that fixed before the Republican convention, Hank.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+28 July 2004 - 17:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 July 2004 - 17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@28 July 2004 - 16:33
My TV went into shock the other night when a Clinton was on almost every station.
Could be your last chance to see Bush in action before he sinks into obscurity. [/b][/quote]
I know that it would thrill you to death but don’t count your chickens before they hatch. We’re a long way from November and a lot can and will happen in the meantime.
Reminds me oddly of 2000 actually. Lot of chickens counted that never hatched, or am I wrong?
-SJ™
Perfect SJ, you said what's in my head better then I could ;)Quote:
Originally posted by SuperJude™@28 July 2004 - 23:03
Kerry is a Red Sox fan, I do not know if the term better really applies.
Just for humor of course.
I must say I found that Mr. Moore's hammering away at the "what about your child" point is tatamount to rhetoric. He assures he only hears answers that fit what he wants to hear. You agree with his point or you disagree and are thoughtless.
Listen- nobody would wish death upon their children. Period amen. We can all agree I am sure that WWII was perhaps the most important war fought (at least in the industrial age), that our boys fought and dies bravely, that evil incarnate truly was defeated. Yet how many parents back then would have said "yes I would sacrifice my child for this".
None cause that is a crap line of questioning, and it furthers my view about Mr. Moore being a filmmaker, nothing more. Also, the people who are in Iraq were not recruited. I am not debating how much Iraq sucks, because I do have friends over there I would like to see again. What I mean is they volunteered, so it isn't like Bush declared the draft and sent our children to war against their will. This is not vietnam, we are a stronger generation than our parents were. What I would say is that IF my child decided to enlist, I would NOT encourage them to be infantry, but IF they wanted to, it would be their choice, as it was the choice of the people serving now to enlist.
It amazes me how a choice of words can put a spin on something, because the WAY Mr. Moore asks the questions you sound like a monster to do anything but agree with him, which of course is just crap.
The whole thing is worth the read of course, though I highly doubt I will be looking to download it, less anybody sends it to me via irc.
-SJ™
Saying something that is not true is NOT a lie. A lie is an intentional act to deceive.
It is called a dictionary, check it out Mikey.
A declaration of the state of affairs, given the best information available, which turns out to be wrong, is an "inaccurate" statement, not a lie, not even close to a lie.
Just as people lambaste Bush for not acting on the nebulous information before 9/11, they roast him for his actions based on information, from 3 different sources that did not pan out.
Oh, we all know that Clinton warned him about "terrorism", that is about as helpful as telling him that the problem with the ocean is the fish. Lots of them out there, care to specify?
Talk about a lose/lose situation. Those retrospective historians are a surly lot.
So again, even if with you agree with Moore's philosphies, the honest mind must recognize his attempt to misconstrue what Bush stated as not an inaccurate comment but a lie.
So in an attempt to discredit Bush, he becomes the one who attempts to deceive, he is the liar.
How many times have I told people, if they want to appear better than those they criticise, they cannot resort to the same tactics because they feel "that their cause is just" and the means justify the ends.
It really just is another political ploy to cause his sheep to "baaaa!" and for open minded thinkers to turn away from his cause as it is riddled with lies.
Sometimes, I want to vote Republican, just to piss Moore off.
Not I.
Bottom line:
American lives have been lost over bullshit.
As President, Bush either makes a choice to act on certain intel or not.
Bush pushed for the wrong choice. Period.
There were other ways for America to go about this but war was chosen.
If I am a politician and I make decision that are fucked up, I probably won't remain in office for long.
That's the nature of leadership in relation to good decision making.
It's that I necessarily think Bush is evil or anything.
It's just that as a supposed leader he shitdirtpoor at good decision-making and pisspoor at speaking on just anything.
What makes him so redeemable?
Nothing.
Make a checklist. You'll get it.
B-
What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?
Remember:
You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.
There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.
As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.
Well, President Busyman?
agreed. i may not have liked William F. Buckley's views and --as with most news & political media over the years-- may have thought the range of opinions allowed into the show was a bit vanilla, but at least he and his colleagues had a handle on the art of discourse. and even good old fashioned wit. i'd go so far as to say Buckley's the wittiest conservative i've ever listened to.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 12:30
Bill Buckley used to host a program called Firing Line, where various issues and subjects were debated, vigorously and well.
No one even knows how anymore, not least of all Mr. O'Reilly, and certainly not Michael Moore.
Bill O'Reilly's style descends from the shock radio trend, imho, of screened calls, going ad hominem only 30 seconds into the interview, shouting people down, and cutting them off if they venture too far off from the host's presumptions about the topic. it may represent the way "real people" talk, but it's also endlessly vulgar and hostile. as opposed to Buckley's comparatively rigid formality, though i'd describe it more as a devotion to polite debate since his chronic slouch was as casual as anything. following that link, i see that O'Reilly kept his cool during the Moore interview, though it shouldn't be too hard to find tape or transcripts of him berating guests and sending 'em packing.
as for Moore... i still think he's a satirist that people have unfortunately bestowed greater relevance to, than is really deserved. he's done some funny stuff, but i wouldn't vote for the guy.
Hi j2, President Clocker speaking.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 21:52
B-
What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?
Remember:
You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.
There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.
As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.
Well, President Busyman?
Why presume that we had to do anything about Iraq?
Even granting the assumption of WMD ( despite UN inspectors inability to confirm), where was the "imminent threat" to the US?
The known protagonists of 9/11 weren't in Iraq, and other countries ( like Iran, for instance) didn't have presumed WMD, they had confirmed stockpiles and were bragging about it.
So why slog into Iraq at all?
BM,
Some people will vote Rep, some Dem, no matter what.
My point was that people like Michael Moore tend to drive the thinking man away from his side rather than toward it as they instinctively withdraw in disgust at his dishonest tactics (and apparent poor higiene).
I am not going to vote for Bush, but my comment was to point out my disgust at Moore and how he is driving me to the "dark side".
Hmmm...anything I say would be shot down if it doesn't go along with what Bush did.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@28 July 2004 - 23:52
B-
What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?
Remember:
You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.
There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.
As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.
Well, President Busyman?
I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.
I wouldn't relied on, "See Mr. President, this box shown on this satellite photo is normally used for chemical weapons". :lol: :lol:
Interesting that Iran and North Korea look a little more promising as "targets for Bush's wrath".
....but nothing's happening is it? Or maybe he's waiting for more intel to state the obvious.
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
About Iraq?Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 09:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
Much was already being done about Iraq, and the country ( despicable as it was) posed no danger to us.
So no, I would not have done anything about Iraq that we weren't already doing.
Concentrating efforts on hunting down those directly responsible for the 9/11 attack would have had the twinfold benefits of, 1). a plan with a definite beginning and end and, 2). not pissing off the entire rest of the world.
That's what I would have done.
If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that is danger enough. He did attempt to assassinate George Senior, remember. Although people here will tell you that was a hoax, whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@29 July 2004 - 10:28
Hi j2, President Clocker speaking.
Why presume that we had to do anything about Iraq?
Even granting the assumption of WMD ( despite UN inspectors inability to confirm), where was the "imminent threat" to the US?
The known protagonists of 9/11 weren't in Iraq, and other countries ( like Iran, for instance) didn't have presumed WMD, they had confirmed stockpiles and were bragging about it.
So why slog into Iraq at all?
Perhaps 9/11 is the lesson in which we learned that a stitch in time saved nine.
Why are you people so fixated on some link between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does it need to exist?
If Iraq is perceived as a threat, we take action before they do. That was what we learned at 9/11. That's not really a hard concept.
As far as why Iraq?
The answer is so simple that I know you people are being coy when you ask that question.
It had a leader who was letting his people suffer while he built gold toilets, a leader who was in hot water with the UN, a leader suspected of having WMD, and a leader sitting on a crap load of oil.
He was the #1 target in that his down fall would be a humanitarian victory, it would be a PR victory (Iraqi's praising the US for saving them from a madman), and an easy military victory. Additionally, his country would be of potential benefit in the future, if a friendly relationship with the new regime could be obtained.
It was basically the easiest way to make an example of someone.
Although 900 soldiers have been lost in the year and a half in Iraq, that is a quarter of the number of lives lost during 10 minutes on 9/11. And certainly a strong message has been sent to the other countries.
BTW, does anybody really think that Saddam and his son's would have not attempted to get WMD after the inspectors left Iraq? Of course you don't.
Let's stop pretending that we are so baffled that Iraq was chosen as an example to send a strong message to the world.
Very well put.
Hobbes I think that you aren’t liberal but just afraid to come out of the closet so to speak.
I have my own theories about life, and I think most people are wholly unaware of many things, so I play it closer to the vest than my comments may indicate, but I will comment on a couple things.
Before anything else I will say what I have said for a while, that there were no Afghani's or Iraqi's on those planes. That said:
Why Iraq? This is conjecture of course, opinion.
1) Setting an example. All this "we are creating new terrorists every day" concept is fine, but seeing as how those bastards hit the US before we even went to war over there, I now think that the "Arab Street" respects only strength. I mean seriously, why do you think every country there 'cept Israel is run like a Mob Family? Think what you will but do you think any states over there are itching to be found supporting terrorism? Seems like Syria has made strives to change a bit, and Libya, well, didn't think I would see that in my lifetime.
2) Proximity. What countries does Iran border? Afghanistan? Iraq? Afghanistan of course does not apply because there is no disputing that Bin Laden had set up camp there, but Iraq is on the other side of Iran, and I just wonder to myself "How does the flag burning, hostage taking, extremist government of Iran feel NOW exactly?" I bet they don't feel as safe as they did 3 years ago doing what they were doing. Show power, gain geographical advantage, let possible future enemy take stock of whom the wish to support.
3) Terrorists. Nobody has said this so far as I have read, so maybe I am cold hearted? I don't think so, but it goes like this: Let's just give all those people a place to come and fight us so we can kill them. I wonder how many terrorists of other than Iraqi origin have been killed in Iraq. Think spies would have found them? I don't.
4) Protection. WMD's have not been found but as late as the later 90's Saddam was manufacturing agents up to and including Anthrax (does anybody even REMEMBER the anthrax events?). I would rather wear a condom and be safe than not and find out I should have. There were reports of them, Hussein did nothing to dissuage opinion to the contrary less you listen to Hans "Ignorance is" Blixx. Remove the threat remove the worry.
5) America the Great Liberator. You euro's seem to resent this, but believe it or not many of us Yanks do believe our country to be the bastion of free thought, free trade, freeDOM. So many of you peple come off small minded about the future. Has nobody considered that maybe some GOOD will come from the US being in the middle east? Having people who care about freedom knocking off despots may send a wide message to the area about rights, freedoms, and the fact that their lives suck NOT cause of the US but because their own leaders sell them out. Well we all get sold out in some way by our governments, but then again I do not live on a dirt floor and I have running water so at least hygenically I am better off than a vast amount of people in the middle east.
I also wholly believe that Bush really believed what he was doing. I DO NOT think he said "we need more oil, let's invade Iraq!" Matter of fact it was the Blood for Oil crowd in their SUV's that first made me see I was not the liberal I had thought I was.
I know this all diverged from the title of the thread, my apologies for that. However this seems to be one discussion spread about a few threads so I hope the liberties I have taken are okay.
These are just some thoughts, based on some things I have read haerd and seen.
One last thought about this: When 9-11 happened I was 100 miles north of NYC and immediatly set off to Manhattan. Here is the thing- there was never ANY goddamn doubt in my mind that the people who did that to us were from the Middle East. None. And it was true. Therefore America coming to the Middle East was bound to happen, and if those people wanted better for themselves maybe they should have used our education system the way so many immigrants have and do for a better life. For a place that is the Great Satan sure seems a lot of people want to live here.
-SJ™
No, I wont say it was a hoax, as i know nothing about it... except that the people that said it was Saddam did have a vested interest and a grudge, so they are hardly going to pass up an opportunity...
It does occur to me to ask:
"How many times did the UK/USA try and take out Saddam?"
He went through an awful lot of actors.. and there is a reason he couldnt sleep in the same place more than one or two nights.
Is this another case of:
"We can do wtf we like, but you can't"?
Its OK for us to kill him, but oh my god...if he goes after a guy that was responsible for almost totally destroying his country (in his opinion)... shock, horror :ph34r:
All world, and ex world leaders are at risk all the time...thats why you spend so much on their security, its par for the course ffs. They knew that before they ran for office, its a risk they take.
As to WMD... how was it common knowledge for the entire bloody world, except the intelligence agencies he didnt have WMD?
I mean, we all watched on the news every week for 10 years as we bombed the crap out of anything that looked as if it could conceivably be used for military purposes.
The "British Intelligence" has been shown to be what was asked for. They didnt "Lie" to the Government, they supplied what was requested. If Hobbes definition of a lie is used, then it can be said the British Government lied... ie intentionally misinformed.
If its not, you can claim they didnt...they made decisions the intelligence provided..which is that which was asked for.
I assume the US Intelligence was the same, considering the weight they put on some very dubious sources which have now admitted providing false information (although that didnt stop them getting put in charge of the new "Sovereign" Iraq)
Im quite sure that the Intelligence Agencies had just as much info "Against" WMD, but thats not what they were asked for..... Powel was apparently very dubious by all accounts :rolleyes: (well who would like to stand in front of the UN knowing untold millions are laughing at you?)
I think this is basically one of those things where no one is ever going to agree, and no one is going to find out all the ins & outs.
The whole argument is on shaky and hypocritical ground however, as i said in another thread.....
The only 2 countries ever to spread the technology for Nukes for example...nothing is said about them, despite one of them having loads of outstanding UN resolutions that they are ignoring, and refusing to even sign the non-proliferation agreement, or letting the International Authorities inspect their facilities.... Hypocrits.
BTW SJ:
Prior to the Iran/Iraq war, while saddam was in charge BTW... Iraq had one of the best education systems in the world.
They also had a Free Universal Health system comparable to the best in Europe.
Its not the country of backward peasants that you seem to imply.
And by what right do you think you should enforce your way of life on others?
Im sure that your hearts in the right place, and i'd like to see them adopt democracy etc myself... but it has to come from them. To enforce your way of life on someone else makes you know better than every other country thats tried that against any other country.
Terrorists will never "Come out to fight", that would make them militia. They will always skulk in the shadows. Im sure there are terrorists in Iraq, just as im sure they are in the UK and USA. There are also Iraqi's fighting an invader...and i refuse to put them in the same category.
If it was the USA that was invaded to enforce a "Better" way of life on you, i KNOW that you would be fighting the invader, no matter what the cost... so would I, if it was the UK. The fact that the last lot were bastards would be immaterial...they'd be invaders in my country.
Edit:
Just to clarify.
Yes i was against going in, however you cannot just desert them now that we have gone in, that would be rediculous.
However the coalition forces are "Invaders", so as long as they are there, there will be bombings and deaths etc...
I'd suggest that the whole security thing be taken over by the UN.... using nations that were NOT involved in the coalition. These troops may not be seen as invaders, but as the security they are until Iraq has its own elections.
No one that has half a mind thinks Iraq is "Sovereign" now. All you need to is look at what the coalition countries still control to know thats hogwash. Its a caretaker government in name only...and the Iraqi's and all the other Arab nations know this too. Until elections and a legitimate Government is installed, Iraqi's have every right to fight an invader.
QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 July 2004 - 23:52)
B-
What would you have done about Iraq at the outset?
Remember:
You know nothing contrary to the standard line on WMD-you think they are there, just like everyone else.
There are umpteen U.N. resolutions pending and being ignored; deadlines for Iraqi cooperation have passed.
As a kicker, try also to forget what you have since become aware of regarding the Oil-for-Food fiasco and the attendent U.N. corruption, and also forget the subsequent revelations about French, German, and Russian efforts to keep Saddam afloat.
Well, President Busyman?
Hmmm...anything I say would be shot down if it doesn't go along with what Bush did.
Why do you say that?
Because that is what happened to Bush?
I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.
You can't.
Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee.
I wouldn't relied on, "See Mr. President, this box shown on this satellite photo is normally used for chemical weapons".
What would you rely on, then?
Interesting that Iran and North Korea look a little more promising as "targets for Bush's wrath".
Iraq, by virtue of it's geographic location, made a much better target from which to fight terrorism (as SJ says) than Iran, and even more so than North Korea, which isn't in the Mid-East.
....but nothing's happening is it? Or maybe he's waiting for more intel to state the obvious.
I think I'll start a thread about "Poor George"
Hank R.I.F.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
Quote:
I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.
What was the lesson again?Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 11:49
Perhaps 9/11 is the lesson in which we learned that a stitch in time saved nine.
Why are you people so fixated on some link between Afghanistan and Iraq. Why does it need to exist?
According to you, the next time we suffer a terrorist attack we are likely to retaliate against Britian.
Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attack.
That's an awful lot of time stitches to take, hobbes.
"We people" are fixated on the "connections" between Iraq and Afghanistan because they were used as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeild harped incessantly on the Al-Qaeda-Iraq links ( Cheney still does).
They set up the presumptive importance of those "links", not "we people".
The US routinely ignores other despots who exhibit all those characteristics.Quote:
It had a leader who was letting his people suffer while he built gold toilets, a leader who was in hot water with the UN, a leader suspected of having WMD, and a leader sitting on a crap load of oil.
Still do, to this very day.
Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?Quote:
Although 900 soldiers have been lost in the year and a half in Iraq, that is a quarter of the number of lives lost during 10 minutes on 9/11. And certainly a strong message has been sent to the other countries.
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?
Quote: Clocker-
Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?
Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".
To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.
We are, however, coveted.
Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?
Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".
Hank R.I.F.Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+29 July 2004 - 15:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 29 July 2004 - 15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:08
So you would have done nothing? :blink:
[/b][/quote]Quote:
I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.
Busy did you not read J2’s post right before yours?
Quote:
I would have stepped up the intel, using spies whenever possible.
You can't.
Your abilities to spy were gutted in the 70s by the Church Committee
The only thing the Church Committee did was take away the ability of the CIA to spy on Americans by putting the Department of Justice in charge of this area.
The CIA was never mandated to spy on Americans, and was doing so illegally until this happened, especially during the Vietnam War...which sparked off the scandal.
The CIA was supposed to be after Foreign Intelligence, not Domestic. This was not altered by the Church Committee.
The CIA can now once again spy on Americans due to the Patriot Act, so we've come full circle.
None of all of this altered their ability to put Agents on the ground anywhere else in the world, and they are one of the most respected Intelligence Agencies in the world in their ability to get Agents almost anywhere they want to.
As far as im aware, pror to the Invasion of Iraq.... there werent many Americans there :rolleyes:
Bush declared the war "over" monhts ago.Quote:
Quote: Clocker-
Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?
Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".
How would you describe what we are currently doing.
"Fiasco" is not available...that would be my first choice.
That's funny.Quote:
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.
I hear ALOT more about murdered civilians and dead US soldiers than I do about dead ( or even captured) terrorists.
Must be the "liberal media", eh?
We were certainly beloved after WWII, j2.Quote:
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".
To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.
We are, however, coveted.
Up until the Bush administration we may not have been loved, but were at least respected.
He's squandered that pool of goodwill.
And for every dead terrorist we have created such a level of animus that there are 10 to replace him/her.Quote:
Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?
Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".
Good job.
Actually my best friend in high school was Iraqi/Sicilian, and I happen to know that Iraq is not a country of backwards peasants. I should have clarified that point, which was that some countries in the middle east have incredible poverty and their rulers literally shit on golden toilets.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 19:59
BTW SJ:
Prior to the Iran/Iraq war, while saddam was in charge BTW... Iraq had one of the best education systems in the world.
They also had a Free Universal Health system comparable to the best in Europe.
Its not the country of backward peasants that you seem to imply.
I hear Nazi Germany had a wonderful infrastructure too, does that mean it was all good?
This too- by some logic, nobody should be the cop to the world. To correlate think about our countries. We have police because somebody has to uphold the law. We do not think about how these paramilitary groups attained power, why they have the power they do, etc. We just accept there are cops.
Should America be the worlds cop?
Now, I suppose so. I say this reluctantly because I would LOVE to one day see China or Russia, you know, do the right thing, fight a battle for a higher cause and not to steal land. Imagine that? If Russia or China decided to take on terrorists? And I do not mean Chechnya in the least (obviously). I simply wish that some other countries would take responsibility for the world and not just send delegates to the UN meetings to sign useless resolutions.
Also, not like I need to say it, but RF I have always respectfully opposed some of your opinions, but I still respect them.
:)
-SJ™
Rat-Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:17
The only thing the Church Committee did was take away the ability of the CIA to spy on Americans by putting the Department of Justice in charge of this area.
:
Church and his committee outsmarted themselves, though, and were hoist upon the petard of their own short-sighted arrogance, as explained below by Mr. Walter E. Williams, noted smart guy.
Emasculation of Intelligence Services
Aren't you a bit perplexed at how rapidly our FBI and CIA identified, arrested or detained so many people involved in the terrorist attack? The answer's easy. The FBI and CIA had a lot of information about terrorists and their organizations before the attack, but they were hamstrung. According to a Human Events (9/24/01) interview of Mr. Herbert Romerstein, former staffer on House Committees on Internal Security and Intelligence, we've emasculated our intelligence services.
Emasculation of our intelligence services began during the Senator Frank Church (D.Idaho) and Representative Otis Pike (D.N.Y) committee hearings in the 1970s. As a result of those hearings Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1979. Liberal Democrats in control of the Congress wanted to protect Americans against domestic spying; what they ended up doing was to protect terrorists and others who might do us harm. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" For example, suppose there's a person who hasn't engaged in spying or terrorism, but is a member of an organization that does. Herbert Romerstein says FISA provides that only leaders of the organization can be wiretapped, not the rank and file. Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
According to Matthew Robinson, in his article, "FBI Forbidden To Tape Hijack Suspect," Human Events (10/1/01), on August 17th, the FBI detained Zacarias Moussaoui for immigration violation. He was the man who paid $8,000 in cash to a flight school for lessons on flying a Boeing 747 and he was uninterested in learning takeoff and landing. On September 1st, the FBI received French intelligence that Moussaoui had spent two months in Pakistan just prior to coming to the U.S. and among his possessions when arrested was a manual on crop-dusting. The FBI went to their Justice Department superiors for a warrant to allow them to collect intelligence on what appeared to be a criminal conspiracy or terrorist planning. They were denied. The Justice Department Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR) refused to take the case to a judge who could consider a warrant request.
According to a just-released General Accounting Office report, OIPR makes it difficult for the FBI to coordinate investigations within the Justice Department: "Criminal Division officials believe these [OIPR] concerns, while well-intentioned, are overly cautious." The Moussaoui case is the rule rather than the exception where a National Commission on Terrorism said, "OIPR does not generally consider the past activities of the surveillance target in determining whether the FISA probable cause test is met."
Protecting civil liberties against government abuse is laudable but hamstringing our intelligence agencies so that terrorists can roam free in America is stupid. I think Congress should grant U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft some of the investigatory tools that he's requested to protect Americans against future acts of terrorism. But there should be two important stipulations: first, none of the intelligence gathered under the new provisions may be used to prosecute any American engaged in criminal activity, unless that activity is terrorism or espionage. Second, any changes in the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1979 and other legal measures enacted to prosecute terrorists should contain a sunset provision whereby all changes become null and void two or three years after their enactment. At that time Congress can decide reauthorization.
We Americans had better get used to the idea that a large portion of the world Islamic community hates our guts and we're going to have to become less naive about what's necessary to protect ourselves.
Walter E. Williams
Same back at ya SJ :)
I didnt think you meant that, however i thought i better clear it up before some "Liberal" pounced... although i still have trouble believing some of the people you lot call Liberal :lol:
@ J2K4
Quote:
Therefore, had bin Laden been in the U.S., the FBI could have wiretapped him, but not the rank and file men who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
As I said... Iraq is not in the USA...
The CIA were free to do whatever they want there, as they were in Afganistan before that.
Clocker,Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@29 July 2004 - 19:16
What was the lesson again?
According to you, the next time we suffer a terrorist attack we are likely to retaliate against Britian.
Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO with the September 11th attack.
That's an awful lot of time stitches to take, hobbes.
"We people" are fixated on the "connections" between Iraq and Afghanistan because they were used as an excuse to invade Iraq.
The US routinely ignores other despots who exhibit all those characteristics.
Still do, to this very day.
Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?
For the final time (meaning I used this analogy before- with pictures!) If a rattlesnake bites you and you see a cobra. Do you ignore the cobra because it is not a rattlesnake. A threat is a threat.
The rattlesnake taught you to be wary. Best to kill the snake in his hole.
If Saddam had WMD, he was a threat, a threat you might want to eliminate before he bites you like the rattlesnake did.
Iraq and Afghanistan may be 100% mutually exclusive or 100% related and it bears no relevance to me. A threat is a threat.
I recall posting a year and a half ago (and reposting the link several times) that George stated that there were WMD and I demanded that he bring them forth. To prove to the world that he was in the right. He hasn't and we look pretty bad.
The question we all are privately mulling over is, what did George really believe, did it keep him up at night, did he lose his appetite in apprehension.
Most of are kinda believing he knew nothing was there, but saw a damn sweet opportunity to legitimize taking out a royal pain in the ass.
I was explaining why Iraq was chosen. It had a unique profile of characteristics that made it the most "productive" target. Iran has oil, too, but that war would have been infinitely harder to win. North Korea is militarily unwinnable.
Anyway I think why Iraq was chosen is pretty obvious. This is not a justification, but an explanation for all you coy headscratchers. Or those who called us cowards because we did not attack North Korea. At least we were smart enough not to go there.
The message we sent was quite obvious. If you support terrorism against the US or are perceived a legitimate threat (If Saddam did have nuclear weapons, he would fit this bill), we will not just attack your terrorists (Al Queda) but we will topple the government which harboured it.
Terrorist will always exist, the point was to scare governments into not supporting them, lest they be held as accomplices for anything those terrorists do.
Poor Kim Jong-Il was crapping in a cave for quite a while. Kadafi also got the message.
America is a country, just like all others, that is attempting to secure it's future and the future of it's people. It is not a charity, it is not your buddy, it a self centered entity.
Doing the right thing and doing the popular thing are not one in the same. You can piss alot of people off because your selfish goal conflicts with their selfish goal.
The real matter for debate is what is the best way to act in the global community for long term viability and stablity. Opinions vary.
Sprocket-Quote:
Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 17:22
Bush declared the war "over" monhts ago.Quote:
Quote: Clocker-
Oh yeah, and it sure is going swimmingly, isn't it, hobbes?
Bush never promised "swimmingly"; in fact, I think he commented the water would indeed be quite "cold".
How would you describe what we are currently doing.
"Fiasco" is not available...that would be my first choice.
That's funny.Quote:
What message exactly do you think we are sending?
The message is as follows: "If you are a terrorist, you die"; or some derivative of same.
I hear ALOT more about murdered civilians and dead US soldiers than I do about dead ( or even captured) terrorists.
Must be the "liberal media", eh?
We were certainly beloved after WWII, j2.Quote:
Do you think America is now more beloved than before?
We have never been, are not now, nor will we ever be "beloved".
To consider being "beloved" a necessity is utter foolishness.
We are, however, coveted.
Up until the Bush administration we may not have been loved, but were at least respected.
He's squandered that pool of goodwill.
And for every dead terrorist we have created such a level of animus that there are 10 to replace him/her.Quote:
Do you think we've dissuaded even one terrorist from dedicating his life to our destruction?
Dead terrorists can certainly be considered to have been "dissuaded".
Good job.
I do not desire to argue semantics, nor do I wish to re-hash the subject of the liberal media, so I'll concentrate on the "beloved" issue.
There have been many transient (extremely so) periods when individual countries have evinced fond feelings for the U.S., but such phenomena never last.
WWII provided feelings of relief in Europe, and a few American soldiers no doubt were favored by a few momentarily smitten damsels in Paris, but to say even that we are respected barely attains credit.
We are feared militarily, but, nonetheless coveted, if only for our fat wallet.
We have cordial relations with the Canadians and U.K., but that's about as far as it goes; give the Brits another election cycle, and they'll likely hate us, too.
What few true alliances survive are owing to proximity, cultural kinships or monetary ties, and the truth is that we were well down the current path (as it applies to international relations) shortly after the WWI/League of Nations/WWII/United Nations cycle began.
Bush has nothing to do with it, in the long run.