Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Moore & O'Reilly (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Moore & O'Reilly
Mr Xin Ku
Member
Member # 1472

 - posted      Profile for Mr Xin Ku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just watched the clip on www.foxnews.com (on the right there are menus of videos) of Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly's discussion. I won't pretend I am objective about Moore, I don't have any respect for him. I thought, though, that he was pathetic in the interview. Am I wrong? Is Michael Moore usually better, and he was just not on top of his game here?

[ July 28, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Mr Xin Ku ]

Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bill O'Reilly doesn't have discussions. [Smile]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw it last night, and Moore demonstrated one fundamental problem with his position - his definition of "lie." By his definition, anyone who states anything that proves in the future to be untrue is a liar, whatever that person may have believed. He makes no allowances for mistaken beliefs.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I couldn't get any audio.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Xin Ku
Member
Member # 1472

 - posted      Profile for Mr Xin Ku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like O'Reilly sometimes, but I'm not his biggest fan in the world. But lets look at this interview as an example. O'Reilly was very appropriate I think. Can you give me an example of where he used poor logic here, or what points he wouldn't let Moore make? He gave him opportunies to back up his points, and did interrupt when Moore was obfuscating.
Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thegreatgrundle
Member
Member # 1921

 - posted      Profile for thegreatgrundle   Email thegreatgrundle   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I definitely think Bill came out on top in that little exchange. Moore seemed unwilling to concede anything, and kept wanting O'Reilly to say that he would sacrifice his children for Iraq. O'Reilly sounded very reasonable *gasp*, in admitting that Bush made a mistake (WMDs), but did what he thought was best given the information he had (which is, after all, the most anyone can expect, although I'm sure a lot of people will be up in arms arguing about this little aside of mine [Smile] ) Moore sounded like a stubborn child.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
meworkingman
Member
Member # 1473

 - posted      Profile for meworkingman   Email meworkingman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Moore sounded like a stubborn child.

That's because Moore is a stubborn child. Anyone who is willing to spew endless lies in order to paint his opponent as a liar is not to be taken seriously.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Moore sounded like an idiot, wonder why that was? That was probably the most resonable I've ever heard O'Reilly be.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny, I saw it the other way around.
transcript at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html

Moore said the President did not tell the truth. O'Reilly never countered that.
quote:
MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

Moore said that the justification for the war was based on a mistake.
O'Reilly never countered that.
quote:

MOORE: That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat…

O'REILLY: That’s right.

MOORE: And there was no threat, was there?

O'REILLY: It was a mistake.

MOORE: 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'REILLY: I don’t think its good enough either for those parents.

O'Reilly can not defend sending anyone's children, including his own (does he have kids?) to defeat the Taliban, never mind Iraq.
quote:
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I’m not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you?
Then O'Reilly justifies Bush sending other's children to die in Iraq because Iraq supports terrorism.
quote:
MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you —

MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don’t you know anything about any of that?

The 9/11 commission has said there was no collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Contact, yes. Collaboration, no.

My own $.02. Bush did not lie. He made decisions based on information that was incorrect. In the process, he severely damaged important international relationships, created a huge deficit, and caused the deaths of nearly 1000 Americans and several thousand Iraqis.

Say my best friend calls and says "Your next door neighbor is crazy and is going to blow up your house tonight. I'll bring over the proof". I look at it, believe him, and go knock my neighbor unconscious with a softball bat. It ends up he was crazy, but was not going to blow up my house. Am I to blame in any way?

Has Bush apologized in any way for going to war on bad information?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honestly, the thing that has bothered me about Moore's posision the most has GOT to be his insistance that parents some how have a choice over their children's decision to enlist in the military. Bill O'Reily and members of the US Congress cannot chose to "sacrafice" their children! It is not, nor should it be, their decision!!

It is an individual's choice to put him or herself in the line of fire. Naturally, the parents are the survivors, but it is still not their decision. The great tragedy of this is that many of these men and women decided they were ready to sacrafice themselves for their country because Iraq posed an imminent threat. Since it turned out that this intelligence was patently wrong, I believe there should be people fired up and down the intelligence heirarchy for this failure, since it lead to such monumental consequences.

And on another note, why on EARTH didn't Moore use the simple arguement that Bush claimed (and he did) that we were "100%" sure about the WMDs and all that jazz, when in fact the intel reports were at least peppered with caviats.

Either way, I'd like to hear Bush apologize and admit that mistakes were made.

-Ivan

EDIT: capitalized my name

[ July 28, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Ivan ]

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron
Member
Member # 1698

 - posted      Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 9/11 commission has said there was no collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Contact, yes. Collaboration, no.


They aided terrorists, there was no collaboration with the 9-11 attacks. Saying there was no collaboration is incorrect. It would be better to say there was no collaboration on that particular attack.

Moore refused to see erroneous information as anything other than a lie. Of course what does that say about Moores views on his own projects and how he "knowingly" distorted views?

Posts: 1683 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Moore said that the justification for the war was based on a mistake.
O'Reilly never countered that.

No, Moore said that the justification for the war was based on a lie. O'Reilly said it was based on a mistake.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stormghost
Member
Member # 853

 - posted      Profile for stormghost   Email stormghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Ivan. I saw the preview of the interview with the "would you sacrifice your children" exchange, and that was enough for me. I thought O'Reilly's answer that he would sacrifice himself for Fallujah was quite good, but he missed the chance to follow up with a simple question: "Mr. Moore, what would you sacrifice your life for?"

Regards,
G

Posts: 237 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah storm, he said that earlier and of course Moore said yes (sacrifice youself for Osama I believe).

I thought Moore had the edge until the children sacrificing bit, and then fell off the map after that. this one in particular:

quote:
OORE: 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'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.

MOORE: And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe.

O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.

MOORE: The people rose up.

O'REILLY: Why? Because they went bankrupt.

MOORE: the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up…

Moore's an idiot if he thinks the "people rising up" is all it takes. I guess he conveniently forgets how many times they rose up and the tanks rolled before the USSR finally let go. Nevermind how successfully the people rose up in china. He sounds like he's living in some leftist wet dream.

[ July 28, 2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Serotonin'sGone ]

Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He's living in some leftist wet dream.
Fixed for you.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't get to see the interview but I listen to O'Reilly on the radio every day when I can. I think the guy is a bit pompous sometimes, but lately I've found him to be my favorite guy to listen to on the radio. I like him because he seems to be more independant then Hannity or Limbaugh. Hannity and Limbaugh are too much party men for me, it lowers their credibility in my eyes. I don't expect James Carville to tell the truth about problems with Clinton, I expect him to spin it, use reverse logic, make false assumptions, use innuendo. I expect him to do that because he's a die hard democrat and party man, same as Hannity or Limbaugh are die hard republicans. I like objectivity, and I think O'Reilly is the most objective I've heard.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that O'Reilly was as effective against Moore as he could have been. There are plently of areas where Moore has already been proven dead wrong in the claims he made in his docuganda movie, such as the claim Bush allowed the Saudis to fly home after 9/11 without being checked. Maybe O'Reilly was struggling too hard to keep his anger in check, and that kept him from really laying into Moore. Chris Matthews would have torn Moore apart, because he's use to hot exchanges, and better at keeping his anger in check while still letting small-minded fanatics like Moore have it. He would have pounced immediately and unmercifully on Moore's attempt to redefine "lying."
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
O'Reilly said today on his radio program that while he believes Moore to be a fantic, he doesn't hold that he is truely evil and so worthy of his wrath. O'Reilly sees Moore as the same as any other individual who holds to their beliefs and assumptions regardless of factual information, and would do anything to further their agenda.

At worst Moore is a bad Documentarist and propagandist. At best he is the 13th apostle, it depends on your political view. In the end, does truth need to be yelled out? The boy who told the emperor he had no clothes didn't need to.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
are plently of areas where Moore has already been proven dead wrong in the claims he made in his docuganda movie, such as the claim Bush allowed the Saudis to fly home after 9/11 without being checked.
RonL-
Well, mostly. The FBI said they "talked to" 22 of the 24 Saudis. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like they at least got their names and it didn't set off any red flags. Either way, a few were ignored, and I expect these guys got some sort of preferential treatment.

-Ivan

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy Mole!

Moore had the balls to appear on Fox News?

[raises Moore several knotches in esteem]

Moore is brilliant when he sticks to micro-politics. Corporations against the little guy. He's out of his intellectual league when he tries to take on national, let alone international issues.


Velcro:
quote:
Moore said the President did not tell the truth. O'Reilly never countered that.

quote:
-------------------------------
MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

That refutes Moore's implied claim that Bush was lying.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that lieing can be defined here as "the intentional misleading of an individual or group." Intentional being the key phrase. By this defintion, if Bush acted on bad information and passed along bad information, then he wasn't lying. But by this defintion, Bush did mislead, since he passed along unfactual information.

Arn't words and ideas wonderful?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But if the reader thinks that "misleading" means lying, then for someone to say "Bush misled us" is itself misleading.

And if the speaker KNOWS that the reader thinks that misleading means lying, then when they say "Bush misled us," then the speaker is, arguably, lying.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it's rather difficult to prove that one individual completely understands what another individual thinks, or their definitions. This creates the opportunity for anyone to mislead another through lack of clarification, especially through media.

I agree that if a speaker knows his or hers audiences definition of a word, and takes advantage of that, they are lying, since they are intentionally misleading.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't agree with much of what Derrida has to say, but one thing I do: we need a new word specifically for when politicians lie. Clearly the traditional modes of honesty and integrity do not apply to politics, so a new vocabularly must be forged to meet the task of describing their actions.
Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Lassek
Member
Member # 1514

 - posted      Profile for Adam Lassek   Email Adam Lassek   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we need a new word specifically for when politicians lie. Clearly the traditional modes of honesty and integrity do not apply to politics, so a new vocabularly must be forged to meet the task of describing their actions.
Here's a thought. Let's hold them to the standards of integrity and honesty instead! Politicians lie and mislead people because they get away with it.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing that can be amusing in a disgusting sort of way is watching interviewers try to get Democrats to admit that Bush didn't lie. While they generally refuse to say he lied point-blank (preferring "mislead"), they will use every circumlocution in the book to avoid saying that he didn't.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Xin Ku
Member
Member # 1472

 - posted      Profile for Mr Xin Ku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So tell us what Bush LIED about, Doug. We can forward your comments to Moore so he can make a good argument for it and avoid looking like an idiot.

It is interesting that the initial point and one of the main points of the interview with Moore was about whether Bush lied, and Moore wasn't able to explain how he did lie. Yet still a bunch of posts here still assume or imply he lied.

I am a poor, misguided Bush supporter. Someone please rescue me from my own ignorance and give me a convincing argument that Bush lied so I can repent and change my ways. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of Michael Moore, does anyone else find it a little misleading that in Fahrenheit 9/11, he directly blamed Bush for letting Bin Laden family members out of the country, while it was actually Richard Clarke who directly approved the action? I thought that was slightly lame.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug, the problem is that Democrats believe -- but have no evidence -- that Bush KNEW the evidence was flimsy and used it as a pretext for war with Iraq anyway. Since PNAC actually suggested doing exactly this -- coming up with a pretext for war in order to finish off Saddam's regime -- more skeptical people (i.e. people disinclined to take the president at his word) do not, in fact, take the president at his word.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Since PNAC actually suggested doing exactly this -- coming up with a pretext for war in order to finish off Saddam's regime -- more skeptical people (i.e. people disinclined to take the president at his word) do not, in fact, take the president at his word."
Do you remember which Memorandum or actual Publication this was?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gods, no. There was a thread ages ago which provided a link, but I'm not inclined to go read through their whole site again. *laugh* In fairness, of course, it was listed as just one of many ways for us to increase our military presence in the region; I'm sure they were just brainstorming. But the fact that it was a mentioned possibility also indicates that the people now making our foreign policy at least considered the idea.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stormghost
Member
Member # 853

 - posted      Profile for stormghost   Email stormghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Serotonin'sGone:

Thanks for clarifying; as I said, I only watched the preview and thought that would be the natural follow-up.

Although, I suppose the discussion about sacrificing one's life for something should also include Patton's observation that "no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." So the question turns not on the act of (or desire for) sacrifice but the willingness to risk that ultimate sacrifice; i.e., on what Mr. Moore or Mr. O'Reilly or any of us are willing to risk our lives for. But that may be a topic for another thread....

At your service,
G

Posts: 237 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to know why I am asking you the question, it is because I have never heard such a claim before. The fact is Tom, that the folks at PNAC have never made such a statement. If you are really in any way familar with PNAC, you would know that that since the Clinton Administration, they have openly advocated a development of US foreign policy that would eventually remove Hussein and his entire regime from power.

The idea that PNAC was actively coming up with a deceptive "pretext" for war is ridiculous. By the time they began advocating the importance of a regime change in Iraq, the reason for a removal of Hussein was already clear--he was already a war criminal and ought to have been charged as such on an international level. In other words, PNAC didn't need to go fishing around for a good reason as to why it Hussein shouldn't be in power; Hussein made the justification quite clear when he gassed thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq. There is no elaborate conspiracy here.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FIJC-
Their claims as to why Hussein shouldn't be in power, and their ideas as to how to convince the american public, are different things.

Tom is right, he provided the link a year or so ago, to the memorandum which stated that the US should go into Iraq "on false pretexts if necessary."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Xin Ku, I am, with great reluctance, a Bush supporter and I don't think he lied. I'm not convinced he was entirely mistaken (kind of hard to prove that, of course - proving a negative always is).
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Legally, Bush needed no further justification, because the state of war had never ended, Iraq kept firing at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and numerous U.N. resolutions were blithely ignored by Hussein, all in addition to the obvious atrocities and crimes against humanity Hussein's regime was guilty of on an on-going basis. What Bush really needed was a cause celebre that would appeal to the average John and Suzie Q. Public so they would support the war. Lumping it in with the general War on Terror worked. And in fact Iraq had provided funding and other support for several terrorist groups, and had sent out agents who attempted to assassinate President George H. Bush, and there were many reports that Saddam Hussein was planning future terrorist attacks of his own inside the United States.

There has never been any good evidence that linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11, but Bush never claimed that he was linked. That is why Afghanistan was dealt with first, since the Taliban clearly did have a link, nurturing and supporting Al Qaeda and all their training camps. But we all know that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization out there waging Jihad against the West and the U.S. in particular. Few Americans felt it was anything less than a righteous cause for U.S. forces to invade Iraq. The mixed feelings have all arisen because of the continuing problems with terrorist jihadists interfering with the attempt to establish a stable government in Iraq. When the body count started to rise, then the peaceniks came out of the woodwork, just as the anti-West jihadists hoped would happen.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom, I did a search on your posts and could not find the link you are referring to. I did find this quote:

quote:
The most influential and martial members of the Bush Administration belonged to an organization which, five years ago, advocated an invasion of Iraq -- even under false pretenses -- as part of a series of small wars intended to bring the world more firmly under American control. But Vince Foster did NOT die to bring us this information.
But I didn't see any direct link to the PNAC Memorandum with such a statement. I scrolled down the page and noticed that you stated:

quote:
"The Project for a New American Century has a webpage. All the quotes and names in my post come from that site, which is available here:"
But I also noticed that you didn't put quotes around the false pretext statement you made earlier on that thread, so was that perhaps not a direct quote afterall?

It's just that I follow the site regularily, but haven't seen such a quote anywhere before.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Legally, Bush needed no further justification, because the state of war had never ended, Iraq kept firing at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones, and numerous U.N. resolutions were blithely ignored by Hussein, all in addition to the obvious atrocities and crimes against humanity Hussein's regime was guilty of on an on-going basis.
This would have been a good justification. I would have supported action based on this rationale if I didn't think that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups were of such pressing concern.

quote:
What Bush really needed was a cause celebre that would appeal to the average John and Suzie Q. Public so they would support the war. Lumping it in with the general War on Terror worked. And in fact Iraq had provided funding and other support for several terrorist groups, and had sent out agents who attempted to assassinate President George H. Bush, and there were many reports that Saddam Hussein was planning future terrorist attacks of his own inside the United States.

This may have "worked," but was also flimsy. Thus, the resulting support was flimsy. Nothing so far indicates that Saddam should have been piority #1 (or #2, I guess) relative to other threats to the U.S. In fact, he worked as a bulwark against certain threats.

quote:
There has never been any good evidence that linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11, but Bush never claimed that he was linked.
No, but it was heavily implied for a bit.

quote:
That is why Afghanistan was dealt with first, since the Taliban clearly did have a link, nurturing and supporting Al Qaeda and all their training camps.
I am of the opinion that Afghanistan hasn't been "dealt with" largely because of the rush to get into Iraq. We've simply declared it done, and forgotten about it. For some reason, we can't do the same with Iraq.

quote:
But we all know that Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization out there waging Jihad against the West and the U.S. in particular.
Which is why I thought it was a bad idea to get bogged down in Iraq. Now we have increased recruitment for terrorist groups and our best resources are stuck in Iraq.

quote:
Few Americans felt it was anything less than a righteous cause for U.S. forces to invade Iraq.
I don't think it was wrong, I think it was a mistake in strategy.


quote:
The mixed feelings have all arisen because of the continuing problems with terrorist jihadists interfering with the attempt to establish a stable government in Iraq.
I would bet that most of the volence in Iraq right now is not the result of jihadists, but of domestic groups that have no interest in a stable government that isn't run by themselves. The mixed feelings have arisen because people are starting to realize that we're stuck with Iraq for far longer than we imagined.

quote:
When the body count started to rise, then the peaceniks came out of the woodwork, just as the anti-West jihadists hoped would happen.
The "peaceniks" were out of the woodwork before we went to war. It's the go-along-to-get-along folks who have change their minds in droves. Again, that is why the reasons laid out for war need to be pretty obvious and ironclad in a democracy. Also, I bet more than a few jihadists wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. It would be like if you tricked your worst enemy into killing your second-worst enemy.
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe the reason I didn't provide an internal link is that it's not, AFAIK, possible to link to a specific word in an internal document. You're welcome to look for it; it's in there.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Xin Ku
Member
Member # 1472

 - posted      Profile for Mr Xin Ku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oops, I jumped to conclustions about your meaning, Doug.
Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1