It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by centurion1211

Ill settle for conservitarian or true constitutionalist

But I agree I watch Fix News and I cant stand Bush...I watch MSNBC also but once again I like to here both angles of the story so I can make an educated true conservitarian opinion....

With that being said Oreillys interview with Hillary was actually a pretty good interview.

One minute I am reading Frederick Nitchze and an hour later I am listening to Michael Savage

What do you call that?

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:43 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Sublime620

Please pay better attention. I was basing that on the viewer ratings numbers. Again, the vote with your remote premise. Fox practically - if not actually - beats the other networks combined.

That doesn't make them right.

That just makes them a more efficient propaganda machine.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:43 PM
I hate O'Reilly, he's a sell out and a trater to his country.
I hate Bush too, he's a liar and a sell out as well, he may even be a descendant of the nephilim. He is an evil man, he is the real terroist and he is helping to destroy this country. Bush needs to leave that evil cult (Bohemian Club) and find the real God, Adonai, YHWH, Yeshua.
Absolute power corrupts, corruption comes from peoples lust of self gratification and that is at the root of the Shining Ones, they want to gratify themselves and now look at the world, look at our country, we are ran by these evil monsters and all we are in a CORPORATION and not a Nation.
I don't hate my country, I just hate what it has become and I hate the evil ones who reign over it with terror and bloodshed.


posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by mybigunit

Yeah, I was only able to see part of the interview, but it reminded me of two boxers circling each other looking for an opening to strike.

I actually applaud Hillary, Obama, and Howrd Dean for doing something many of their supporters can't seem to understand - which is to go where the people are to try and get your message out.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

Now I must question you as to why O'Rielly should be hated when you stated that the problem isn't him...

Well, I would hate him either way. The guy's a jerk, plain and simple. But that does not mean that he does not have the right to air his opinion. But it should be billed as just that, opinion, and not news. He should not be treated as a credible news source. But then again, I view FOX as the National Enquirer of the MSM anyway.

...but an admitted failure from the left to mount a viable opposition.

The "failure of the left" is not really the problem. The failure is in objective journalism, which became apparent in the run-up to the invasion. To be honest, everyone likes to bill FOX as a "right" network, when in reality, the network and their pundit are nothing more than instruments of propaganda for the same mega-corps that tell the Bush administration what to do.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the farthest left you can really go these days is in the MSM, is to the center, and that "pesky radical" Lou Dobbs?

I don't think that Bill O'Reilly or FOX speak for true right-wing values. They are pushing a corporate agenda, and that of people who have set out to run this nation into the ground. I bet FOX will support Hillary just as much as Bush if she gets in and continues the war.

The reason is simply economics. Marketing people buy ads on stations that a lot of people listen to or watch. Pure and simple.

If that were truly the case, Donahue would not have been fired. He had the top slot at MSNBC.

That means more people agree with that point of view than agree with yours.

This is a blatantly false analogy. Most Americans have turned against the war that FOX still props up as having some measure of legitimacy.

So, is your response now that the only way Fox having a clear majority in viewers can be explained is that they are all crazy like our friend sublime keeps saying?

Brainwashed would probably be more accurate. Most people I know who watch FOX don't like what is happening, but still tow the line out of some loyalty or distorted sense of patriotic duty. One person I know who watches FOX religiously, has told me that he will not vote Republican for the first time in his life. I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that he is a Vietnam veteran.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

Hillary Clinton really doesnt have much choice these days but to go and appear on Fox, seeing that her beloved CNN has turned on her so viciously and is now what I would classify as officially the Obama Network.

Funny how things change, no?

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:49 PM

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Originally posted by mybigunit
reply to post by centurion1211

Ill settle for conservitarian or true constitutionalist

But I agree I watch Fix News and I cant stand Bush...I watch MSNBC also but once again I like to here both angles of the story so I can make an educated true conservitarian opinion....

With that being said Oreillys interview with Hillary was actually a pretty good interview.

One minute I am reading Frederick Nitchze and an hour later I am listening to Michael Savage

What do you call that?

I applaud that approach as well, and do something similar myself, but online. No one gets the inside track on telling me what I have to believe. To me, the metaphor could be like panning for gold. You're looking for the little glints of truth in all that black sand.

[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by ChadAndrewATS
Bill O'Reilly & his masters (the leading Zionists/Nazis) seem to own all of the major news-networks, so we are surely going to hear their lies on television, for a long time.

Yeah, prove that he's a Nazi. Come on, now. Go on about the Zionist comment.

Or you know what? Don't, because the more you write the stupider you sound. Get your bull# slander out of here, there are plenty of real political reasons to disagree with someone but it's time to get your head out of your ass. Until then, you're just a propaganda monkey.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:11 PM
Shameless plug here:

Outfoxed is a documentary about FOX, including a large segment on Bill O'Reilly.

It was shown to us early on (I'm training to be a journalist) as an example of the worst journalism and journalist ethics in the word, being FOX and the Murdoch empire.

Worth the watch.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:13 PM
Upon further review, it seems obvious to me that the most passionate advocates of banning "propoganda/lies" are those who probably most need the protection...
Can't we give the masses the benefit of the doubt when it comes to separating wheat from chaff as opposed to deciding for them?

There has been a very good point brought up about the declining number of outlets for media. I fully agree that it is unhealthy.

And for the record, Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox News) is supporting Hillary in this election for what it's worth.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by _Del_]

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:17 PM

It doesn't matter if you call it an "invasion" or a "war".

There is a huge difference between the two.I do agree with you that needless lives are lost..............on both sides.

If Iraq had attacked America,then America has a right to declare war.America attacked Iraq on baseless pretenses,therefore it is an invasion and Iraqis have a RIGHT to defend themselves.
Put the hand on the other foot.What would you do?
If a foreign country invaded Canada I'd do everything I could to repel the invaders.
I look at right or wrong,not left or right.Both sides have their issues.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Must be a slow news day, lol. I can't believe there is so much in depth discussion about something that a hotheaded falaphile who gets paid to piss people off said. Okay, so we didn't invade Iraq. We simply delivered democracy, like a trillion dollar pizza. Only when we got there, nobody seemed to want the pizza or the bill. Oh yeah, and they kill the drivers instead of tipping.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:31 PM
reply to post by 27jd

That was very good.


And if I could applaud it I would.

Nice one

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:31 PM
I live in NE Florida and folks around here get all their news from Oreilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh. Go in any store or restaurant and Fox news is on and folks still think Bush is a genius around here! Beam me up Scotty.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by Blaine91555

We did invade Iraq, will you refute this as well?

Yes, we invaded Iraq when we liberated the country Saddam invaded. We had to, to drive him out. Then we stopped the fighting when a peace treaty was agreed to by Saddam. He then violated it over and over and over again until we went back in this time. There is no new war. That was an invention of the Democratic Party and liars in the media.

The only thing I might be wrong about is the number of U.N. Mandates Saddam violated. It's interesting to me how people condemn the Media and the Political Parties until their propaganda happens to serve their needs.

Oh get off it blaine, that dog won't hunt.

Yeah yeah it's true we had a war with him in desert storm but to ignore the UN weapons inspectors who WE went and lied to in the form of colin powel using manufactured evidence to do what?

Thats right JUSTIFY our illegal invasion into Iraq. If all we needed was the current infractions at the time than why was their such a build up of bull about wmd's ? Ill remind you.

Because Bush and his cronies in crime knew we wouldn't have approved so rather than do what WE wanted. HE LIED.

and lied and lied and lied and lied again.

What about studying your own history when Iraq asked us upfront if we would interfere with their going into kuwait and what did the decider dad say back then?

He said NO and we renegged. If he'd said yes in the first place and not lied conventional wisdom dictates their might not have been a desert storm in the first place else why would saddam ask.

So like father like son, the apple of the liar doesn't fall too far from the tree.

No matter how ya slice it, we have been messing with the middle east longer than you know and I bet I am older than you are so I doubt I'm too young to remember a damn thing you can come up with and I spent too much time in and around the middle east so I have seen it myself.

All one has to do is watch the way he treated Fetzer in that interview to know he has all the grace, poise and professionalism of a pig headed bimbosapienne. He might have been good at one time but all he is now is a loud mouth jerk.

I agree with this much of your post in as much as their seems to be a mis understanding on the word invasion but clearly there was an invasion

Justified or not

- Con

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:45 PM
Then you have McCain going out and saying we went to Iraq cause of oil

Yea we invaded..and there were reasons..

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:50 PM
reply to post by Souljah

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by jsobecky
O'Reilly was trying to make the point that we did not arbitrarily invade Iraq for no reason, as Iraq did to Kuwait.

Actually Kuwait used to be a part of Iraq, and some Iraqis still consider it a part of Iraq.

Yes, and there are people who think California is still part of Mexico.

It was actually 17 UN resolutions that Saddam violated, over a period of 12 years. But your intention was solid.

Let us count the U.N. resolutions violated by, for example - Isreal.

I think there were 429 resolutions against Israel passed - and guess what? United States used VETO on them ALL. Talking about equal rights and justice for all huh?

Souljah, regardless of our differences in opinion, I expect honesty from you.

From 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of the 131 resolutions passed, 43 could be considered neutral while the remaining 88 either criticized and opposed the actions of Israel or judged against its interests. Nearly half of the 88 resolutions against Israel "condemned", "censured" or "deplored" the member state or its actions.[3] During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.[4] The United States has used its veto power to prevent resolutions concerning Israel from passing through the Security Council on 42 occasions since 1970.

I'll state it another way: when was the last time a UN resolution in favor of Israel passed?

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Sublime620

See that's simply ignoring the obvious to express the agenda you want to agree with.

None of that would have happened. Bill Clinton lied, not the MSM, and that truth came out.

Before the truth came out, it was all speculation... not lies. There is a difference between speculation and lies.

Lies are very finite. I don't understand why people are having trouble understanding this.

Not exactly my point. The obvious part is that the administration with editing power of the media via the FCC will be sure that the news only broadcasts their agenda. Thus I gave the Clinton example of how the Monica story would have played out under such a system.

As for lies being finite, I disagree. Take the Carter example from the Playboy interview in which he said that he had commited the sin of adultry because he had lust in his heart over another woman that was not his wife. Now suppose that Carter had been the one in between Linda Tripp and Monica and they had lied about everything and Carter took the fall for admiting he had lust in his heart. It may not have been even Monica but the fallout would still have been there and the court of public opinion would have convicted Carter over his statement.

Personally I feel that Monica dropped a few lies here and there herself as she wasn't exactly innocent to begin with but that part seems to be rather glossed over then and today.

But to dish it out on Bush, as I am an equal opportunity critic. The media all ramped up the rhetoric leading into the Iraq war far far more than Afghanistan. Especially the sticking point of WMD, that have yet to be found (having Geraldo in country immediately brought to mind Al Cappone's Vault--heh). But looking back, would not the MSM be guilty of perpetuation of a lie or would they get a free pass by claiming they were only repeating the President?

Overall it is the responsibilty of the individual to learn the difference between # and shinola. Apathy and outright laziness is where the problems come into play. The endless spoonfeeding of opinion as fact is good enough for far too many people, thus we are in the situation we are in now with the economy...Just need old E. F. Hutton to say "you people are screwed" to bring on the collapse (to borrow from an old advertisement). Oddly enough, if enough people did listen to Bush's "Buy. Spend." song and dance it would help long enough to stave off the downward spiral until his term was up.

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:08 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

If anyone is going to say something stupid, could they at least, please, get their facts straight? We found WMDs in Iraq, and we documented their ties to terrorists. Peak Oil is a lame, stupid lie; we have enough oil in US territory to last us 1,000 years, without buying a DROP of foreign oil. That is well known to the President. That was NOT the reason he sent us in. Now, the reason is probably what we don't even suspect. Read on sites linked here. You and I are not privy to that kind of info. As if they could trust us with the truth! ;D

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by _Del_

I haven't seen much in the way of anything that substantiates his claims. Other than a good conspiracy theory. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it seems to me unlikely.

I don't mean to be beating a dead horse here, but what about the lucrative business deals involving sensitive technologies that continued right up to the point that the US finally turned on Iraq?

From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW development.

The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invades Kuwait.


And most importantly of all, why didn't we hear a peep from the administration warning Saddam of the consequences if he were to invade. It seems that, given all the saber rattling and threats that come out of the White House, this might have been a good time to apply pressure and the threat of military force to induce a political settlement.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in