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

My, my! No spin zone? How about "no fact zone" instead?

This guy is amazing. And to think I actually liked listening to him at one point.

reply to post by bornagainagnostic


LMFAO @ "Shill O'LIEly"...That's a keeper....

Maybe O'LIEly, Scum Hannity and that fat tub of Goo Rush Limbaugh can all start their own professional liars association.



[edit on 2-5-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by jsobecky


Again, and for the last time:

There is a difference between opinion and lies.

Opinion:

Liberals are ruining this country. [Though the statement may be false, it is not a bold-faced lie, just an ignorant opinion]

Lie:

Today we have former military official Joe Dirt on. He will be discussing why Iraq is a threat. [Joe Dirt still works for the pentagon. This is a bold-faced lie]

Any questions?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by jackintheboxI 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?

Appeasement? Did it work?

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.

Because it was fait accompli. And he could've left Kuwait anytime in the almost full year it took to build up forces in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. There was plenty of time for a political settlement. It was clear Iraq doubted the ability or will of the Coalition to remove it from Kuwait. Were there reasons to doubt the will -- YES. But that doesn't mean we set a trap. Then we took almost a year to build up forces and in this entire time, Iraq couldn't get out of Kuwait? Seems highly unlikely.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

Rather simplistic view of the relationship between bliar and shrub.

You know how people talk to their plants?

Yup, you got it...

Apart from the fecal matter question which is still unresolved...

You know - you remember the thread, surely...

:shk:

HA HA HA You are a snot budski! ha ha

That was pretty good though

Warm Regards

- Con

Originally posted by mybigunit
Becky case is closed McCain admitted we are in Iraq cause of oil ....

We're in Iraq because of oil in the sense that if there wasn't oil the region we wouldn't be interested. No oil in Darfur, so we don't care. It's not right, but it's true. But don't think that we went to get free or even cheap oil. Is the oil price so much lower now than it was before? Not last time I went to the pump...
They removed Sadaam b/c Iraq was causing instability in a region that has enough instability already. Now if you want to criticize what we did afterward, I'll be happy to add to your list of complaints.

Bill O'Reilly's statements seem to be pretty far from reality. He was saying in one of the youtube videos that people who supported Bill Clinton are now opposed to Bush as if it were some type of baseless concept. This is the truth.. Polls conducted recently show that Bush is the most unpopular president in MODERN HISTORY! This was in a news article in the Washington Post and you can find my thread on it here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

The disapproval rating of our current president is now over 70 percent and the trend is rising. His approval rating has never been above 39 percent since the fall of 2006 according to the sources posted in my thread. Bill O'reilly seems to not really like doing his homework nor does he care. After all, that's not what the show is about.

O'reilly's statements about the 9/11 attacks were also remarkably ignorant. He is convinced that conspiracy believers are nutjobs. When given the website to the scholars for 9/11 truth website during an interview on his show he assumed that it was baseless information (just like the other non-believers) and resulted to namecalling (as if that is a basis for a valid opinion). The truth is that he hadn't ever been there nor had he seen the evidence brought forth by these scholars with PhD's and doctorates. Suddenly he is the authority on what is real and what isn't? Please.. Again..He didn't do his homework.

This O'reilly factor show is simply an insane opinion frenzy of namecalling and downplaying his opponents whether they have valid points to make or not. Nor does he take the time to listen or do the research so that any opinion he might have is objective and unbiased.

O'reilly saying that we didn't invade Iraq is a testament to his ignorant machismotic ego with which he uses to downplay any valid argument based on real facts and historical truth. Suddenly it isn't aloud to make the host look ridiculous? I think he did that himself here.

-ChriS

Originally posted by Mojo Rysen
Long time lurker, First time Poster!

Didn't read whole thread so I apologise if someone (hopefully) brought this up but the Desert Storm (91) had NOTHING to do with what were mired in now!

Remember Colin Powell in front of the UN with his little vial of whatever? Remember UMD's that Iraq was hording by the tons? Remember how AL-Qaeda(SP?) was operating Hand-in-hand with the Baath Party

?

That little bit of Comedy is WHY WE INVADED IRAQ!

Not so funny now.

Yeah thats is how we Americans like to eat are jingoistic yellow cake! We make heroic stories about rescuing Jessica Lynch and showboating bushman landing on aircraft carriers saying "mission accomplice"

ooops I mean accomplished

yikes

- Con

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by jsobecky

 

I'm not trying to justify it, in fact I don't think it should have been allowed in the first place. If Bush Daddy had told Saddam, just once, not to invade Kuwait, then none of this would have ever happened.

And for that matter, I don't think that Lincoln should have invaded Virginia either.

Revisionist history -- Iraq had almost a full year to leave Kuwait after the buildup began. There is no reason to believe a Coalition force would invade Iraq if he had left any time between when the UN told him to leave and the months later when the war began.
In fact, if it was all about removing Saddam they could have done it the first time instead of more than a decade later...

Originally posted by Ramb0
I've met this guy face to face, big time racist.

He can burn.

So i am guessing that he said something to you in person to make you say that, because if not then that is a very bad assumption to make when just seeing someone face to face, maybe you could enlighten us as to why you would make a statement like that upon a physical first impression?

reply to post by _Del_


No... because he still would have had those WMD's and been harboring those terrorists.

Why are we trying to act is if we invaded due to UN resolutions?

Originally posted by Sublime620

No... because he still would have had those WMD's and been harboring those terrorists.

Why are we trying to act is if we invaded due to UN resolutions?

You're apparently not aware that there was a war with Iraq before the latest one. We were discussing it. Try reading up on it.
As for the second war, it would've been nice if he had let inspectors in to verify the absence of said weapons when nearly the whole international community said he had them.

reply to post by _Del_

Appeasement? Did it work?

Are you seriously trying to argue that we were "appeasing" Saddam Hussein? We were paying him to fight the Iranians. Do you really believe that appeasement would have lasted right up until the day he invaded Kuwait, without a word of warning from the US?

Because it was fait accompli.

And I hope you really know better than that too. If we didn't know he was going to do it, then how did the US give him the green light. At the very least, he would have made some sort of overtures to see how we would feel about it, considering all the aid we had been giving him. Just from that we should have been able to glean an intelligence asessment that he was preparing an invasion. But it was far more bold than that. The Ambassador and the Secretary of State were in on it, and most likely others as well.

And he could've left Kuwait anytime in the almost full year it took to build up forces in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

Sure. That makes sense. And then he can laugh about it with Iran, about how he got punk'd by the US.

Not to mention the fact that there are some reports that he really only had a token force in place in Kuwait. Which might explain why most of his forces who got wiped out on the "Highway of Death" were in civilian vehicles.

reply to post by _Del_


Oh, my bad, I thought we were still discussing the second one.

reply to post by Mojo Rysen

I see what you mean, Thanks for joining this website & this discussion. I appreciate you & others, who love the truth & share it, on a daily basis.

Here's the speech & person, to which you were referring:
Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 1/8


- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 2/8
- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 3/8
- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 4/8
- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 5/8
- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 6/8
- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 7/8
- Colin Powell: The Speech that led to WAR 8/8

**** Powell Says US Should Not Have Invaded Iraq ****

In a Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert, Colin Powell says in retrospect the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq.

Colin Powell Saying He Was Misled Before UN Speech on WMDs

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing on the June 10, 2007, edition of "Meet The Press," reiterated and expanded on his claim that he was misled by unknown forces in the intelligence community who failed to reveal vital information to him before his infamous February 5, 2003, speech before the United Nations proclaiming proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.

You can see the entire June 10, 2007, edition of "Meet The Press" at: www.msnbc.msn.com...

The November 20, 2005, LA Times article quoting Colin Powell on this issue that I mention in my video is reprinted at: www.commondreams.org...]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

Saddam kicked the inspectors out and Clinton didn't make an effort to get them back in there or hold Saddam accountable.

Instead Clinton, knowing himself how corrupt he is, let it be, so he had an excuse later to attack Iraq.

Clinton issued orders for 'Desert Fox' to begin airstrikes on Iraq the day after the Monica Lewinsky scandal was all over the media. It was a pathetic attempt at a diversionary tactic aimed to get the American peoples' minds off the sex scandal.

When Bush took office, Saddam knew he would be coming after him. The clean-up process began almost right away. Russia and China helped in performing the exit strategy.

Saddam was also told by Chinese officials to let the US come and not to put up much of a defense. Once inside, Mao's famous Guerrilla warfare tactics could be conducted.

Saddam panicked though, sent everything he had at the US during a Sandstorm thinking the US aircraft and guided missles wouldn't find them. He was wrong.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by jetxnet]

[edit on 3-5-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by ChadAndrewATS


Without watching those videos, I believe that is the time Colon Powell went ahead and agreed that Iraq was a threat that probably had WMDs?

I recall this because a few years earlier he gave a speech that said Iraq would not be able to produce WMDs for at least a decade (or something along those lines). That Iraq would not be able to pose a threat any time in the near future.

reply to post by _Del_

As for the second war, it would've been nice if he had let inspectors in to verify the absence of said weapons when nearly the whole international community said he had them.

Either you are deliberately lieing, or you have a terrible memory. The international community was not swallowing the lie that was fed to the American people. That is why we were unable to form a real coalition this time around. Even Hans Blix said there were no WMD's.

Here, catch this Curveball...

reply to post by Sublime620


Yes, I remember that speech, when he said that Iraq could not even project force against his own neighbors, much less pose threat elsewhere.

Hans Blix You got to be kidding. You should watch Team America sometime, they got Hans Blix down pretty-good.

You are obviously a Liberal who feels no one can do wrong, especially if you sit down and have Hamburger with them. You're the Apologist type that waits for something to happend before coming to a conclusion, and then it is too late, damage done.

Like I said before, we should all knit a big Quilt and display in the streets of DC. Maybe then all this nonsense of men and power trips would stop!