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 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Moore & O'Reilly
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."
But I thought that Everard just stated that you had posted a link directly to the Memorandum. I have searched Ornery with various member id and word combinations to no avail. So did you never actually post a direct link?

Not to mention that I have gone through several different search engines, also using various word combinations in and out of quotes, and have found no mention of what you stated, either by publications found directly on PNAC's website, or in mentions from other websites and newspapers. Granted, I have only conducted surface research, but I do not believe that the direct quote a couple Ornery posters have attributed to PNAC is based on any fact.

[ July 29, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

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 
Will someone address my analogy please? Bush didn't lie, necessarily, but he has significant responsibility for a bad and preventable situation, i.e. Iraq. He has not admitted responsibility, and has had no consequences for his bad decisions.

Regarding PNAC,
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

quote:

In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."



Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Velcro, if you have seen my first post, I already addressed the fact that PNAC members have been advocating regime change in Iraq since the Clinton Administration.

That assertion is not new and well-known to many folks following trends in foreign policy and international relations. The point that I am contesting is that PNAC analysts openly advocated going to war, even under false pretenses if necessary. I haven't found any documentation to support that claim. There is a significant difference between advocating regime change under the auspices of removing a violent war criminal and advocating a regime change "just because" and lying to the American people in order to foster national support.

As for the Pearl Harbor quote, this link may clarify that statement a little more appropriately:

http://www.fact-index.com/p/pr/project_for_the_new_american_century.html

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
PNAC advocates the installation of permanent military bases around the world for the establishment of a United States Global Constabulary. This global police force would have the power to keep law and order around the world in accordance with rules that the United States would establish as being proper and just.
To the Void:

Are there conservatives who are actually comforted by this philosophy? If our enemies find out that men in the Whitehouse had authored this approach, do you think that will make us any safer from terrorism?

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  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:
Are there conservatives who are actually comforted by this philosophy?
It gave me the willies. [Frown]
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 
Ditto.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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."
Actually Tom, I just looked through every single pertinent document on the site, using the search and find feature, in an attempt to find that phrase ("on false pretexts if necessary") and I just cannot seem to find it. I have tried various words, different word combinations, words in quotes, full quotes, and absolutely nothing has turned up. Are you sure that the PNAC analysts actually made such a statement? I checked dozens of documents from the year 1997 to the year 2004 and just cannot find it.

From the surface research I have done so far, it seems that this is the document that so many have made a big hullabaloo over. From what I have read, the analysts believe that military force should be used against Iraq if necessary, but it doesn't say anything, anywhere in the document concerning lying about a pretext/pretense for war, if necessary.

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 
FIJC,

I know the stuff about PNAC is "is not new and well-known to many folks following trends in foreign policy and international relations. " I put the link in to give background because I thought someone had asked for it. Looking back, it was you asking for specifics. My bad for not reading carefully.

I have searched and can not find any suggestion of using false pretexts for war on Iraq by the PNAC.

Maybe this belongs in another thread, but I am still waiting for a response to my analogy. Since it was on a previous page, I will reproduce it below.

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? Has he been held accountable in any way?

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
velcro said:
quote:
Has Bush apologized in any way for going to war on bad information? Has he been held accountable in any way?
Why should he? The "bad information" was used as rationale for the UN. Congress had already backed Bush on the war prior to the WMD informations was brought forward.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really should take more time to proofread my posts.

quote:
Why should he? The "bad information" was used as rationale for the UN. Congress had already backed Bush on the war prior to the WMD informations was brought forward.
It should read:

Why should he? The "bad information" was used as rationale for the UN. Congress had already backed Bush on the war prior to the WMD information being brought forward as an argument for the war.

I had to tend to something work related while in the middle of composing it and failed to read what I had befor clicking the "Add Reply" button.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 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 
quote:
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?
If the proof was very, very convincing, despite the fact that it turned out to be inaccurate, and if that kind of intervention was a last resort, then it may be justifiable. The scenario you described sounds like unnecessary drastic action based on the promise of very flimsy evidence, reminds me of the "The Burbs" with Tom Hanks.

What if the guy had a history of killing people by blowing up their houses with bombs--alot of people, and the police won't do anything effective to manage him (and in fact were making money off of him with some business deal) so you had very little confidence in their intervention. You go to them anyway, and they say, "You know, I've visited his house, even went in a few rooms, and I didn't see any bomb recently, but yeah he used to have a bunch. He won't let us verify that he has actually thrown them away, but you know, have a little faith."

Moreover, you talk to many people who have witnessed him blowing people up, for some people it was their wife, mother, or child exploded into pieces. You even talked to some who had a limb broken off or broken from him using a bomb on them.

You have tried repeatedly to get the police to do something, but the police force is peopled with people who kill people with bombs themselves, and they won't do anything.

What will make the police happy is beside the point, they are very compromised already. They will be angry at you if you intervene, saying you don't have the authority.

So what if you have overwhelming evidence that you, your children, and your neighbors are at high risk, there is no police enforcement, and you have exhausted other options over a decade, all the while he has been beating and killing people, sometimes with his bomb, sometimes with a knife or gun or plastic shreader or by throwing them off roofs(hundreds of thousands dead people is kind of convincing evidence -- whether by a WMD or another method, they are all just as dead in the end)? You might be able to argue that you were right to act. Even if you couldn't find a bomb after you went in his house.

Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 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 
I think it unlikely that even with the great stretches you made in your analogy that I would not at least be arrested and tried. I may be found not guilty, but no one would let me get away with it without a comment. Especially since none of my neighbors actions were ever against me.

And the proof was not very, very convincing to most of the world.

Dave,

Congress is to blame as well. But Bush had more access to the intelligence and Cheney had his own little spy ring bypassing normal channels. Shame on Congress for believing bad information provided by the President, but twice the shame on the President for giving it to them and pushing harder than anyone to act on it.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  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:
I think it unlikely that even with the great stretches you made in your analogy that I would not at least be arrested and tried. I may be found not guilty, but no one would let me get away with it without a comment.
By who? Part of the problem is that there is no reliable police force with either the strength or the will to enforce the law.
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 
Velcro, humor me and point out the "great stretches." I'm going on vaction for a week, so I don't know when I will be able to read this, but eventually I'll pull this up and be enlightened.

quote:
And the proof was not very, very convincing to most of the world.
absurd.
Posts: 233 | 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 
quote:
"I have reason to believe that George Tenet, the director of the CIA who resigned in June and left in July, got it right on both key issues. He correctly assessed the terrorist threat, and his basic approach to the Iraqi conundrum was similarly accurate. The fact that WMD have not yet been found in Iraq is no proof that there was nothing there; those who can conceal complete squadrons of aircraft in the sand could easily act similarly when it comes to WMD" -- Efraim Halevy, an ex-chief of Mossad, writing in The Economist.

Posts: 233 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dave,

Congress is to blame as well. But Bush had more access to the intelligence and Cheney had his own little spy ring bypassing normal channels. Shame on Congress for believing bad information provided by the President, but twice the shame on the President for giving it to them and pushing harder than anyone to act on it.

It has always been my understanding that the Senate Intelligence Oversite Commity sees everything that the President sees and then some. I could be wrong but if that is the case, and I believe that it is, then the members of the Senate Intelligence Oversite Commity should bear the largest share of the blame if they didn't speak out when they knew Bush was incorrect. Of course perhaps they didn't know he was incorrect because the intelligence provided to both them and the President was the same.
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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 
"on false pretexts if necessary"

*sigh* I'll see if I can find it for you. I wouldn't bother searching for that specific phrase, however, because it's not intended to be a literal quote and, from what I recall, they were considerably more diplomatic about it.

When I again have time to breathe, I'll start wading through the site once more; my Internet time has been sharply circumscribed lately.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
Where to start-

Mr. Xin's analogy stretches

"very very convincing"-
-In Woodward's book, when Tenet said it was a slam dunk, Bush did not believe him.
-Most of Europe and significant portions of the US (30%?) did not think the evidence was worth invading over.

"a history of ... blowing up their houses with bombs"
-the analogy here would be that Saddam had invaded other countries (plural) or had helped terrorists with major attacks using WMD in the past. Not a valid analogy.

"police won't do anything"
valid

"many people witnessed him blowing people up"
-the question is not whether Saddam killed his own people, but whether he was a threat to the United States. No one has evidence that he had done anything against the US.

"police force is peopled with people who kill people with bombs themselves"
-I assume the police here is the UN or the international community. As far as I know they have not killed people with bombs any more than the US has.

"you might be able to argue that you were right to act, even if you couldn't find a bomb"
-You are absolutely right. I might be able to argue that, and I might very well argue that successfully. But I would most certainly be arrested and go to trial first, not just given a free pass. And if the justification I originally had for going in had nothing to do with whether my neighbor had killed anyone, even though I knew he was doing it, how would that affect my case?

My point is not that Saddam was innocent. The world is much better without him. But that is not an excuse for war, and more importantly, it was not the reason that Bush gave.

My point is that Bush acted on bad information, and caused great damage because of it. In most jobs, that would be a reason for at least a letter of reprimand in my permanent record, if not dismissal. And no one at all has paid any price for this horrible error. (Tenet should have been publicly fired, not allowed to retire)

Doug,

When you said "by who?", I think you meant who would arrest me. In my analogy, my arrest corresponds to someone holding Bush accountable. That would be the House by impeachment, or at least censure, or the people by voting him out of office.

Dave,

The Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee does not see everything the President sees. The President saw intelligence through the back channels of Dick Cheney. But even if they did see everything, and should bear the largest share of the blame, Bush should bear SOME of the blame.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was chatting with several soldiers from Camp Pendleton while I was at a client's house the other day. It was a nice neighborhood, so neighbors would constantly drop by each other's houses unannounced for impromptu gatherings.

Ironically enough the soldiers started discussing the Moore vs O'Reilly standoff on the Factor. I was surprised to hear them praise Moore for asking O'Reilly whether O'Reilly would sacrifice his own kids in Iraq.

I will simply repeat what one 26 year old veteran of Gulf War I and Gulf War II told me:

quote:
"Michael Moore may be a radical leftist, but at least he is not asking other people to sacrifice their kids in Iraq while those same people refuse to sacrifice their own children in Iraq."
They also went on to discuss how Bush is slowly and steadily crippling the American military for no good reason. Meanwhile, I just shut my mouth up and listened to their ranting.

Just wanted to convey that particularly enlightening conservation I just had yesterday.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WHo cares what O'reilly would theoretically be willing to spend his childrens lives on. We know what he wasn't willing to spend his own life on 30 years ago.

Isn't Iraq essentialy just a reverse domino theory? The same theory that brought us into Vietnam?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 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