Bill O'Reilly Strikes Back At Motherjones

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why read excerpts when you can read the entire book? How is he obviously anything? Because you said so? He doesn't come down too hard on Obama. That is my complaint about Bill, he is so busy trying to look fair that he doesn't follow through on what has become obvious to many people. Go read the article why don't you. MJ wants to argue about what is a war zone and what is not. That is the basis of their argument and they lose. You, on the other hand, reveal yourself to be more of a demagogue than a thinker. Attack yes, read not so much. I have my own problems with Bill but him telling the truth is not one of them.

By the way, who at CBS is saying this stuff. Give us the names.

He said he was in the war zone. The war zone was 1200 miles away. That's not IN the war zone by anyone's definition of the word 'in'. It's about more than that. He also exaggerated the demonstrations he was present to witness. And the village that was 'burned to the ground' but only had a couple structures on fire.

Susan Zirinsky - long time cbs producer and Bob scheiffer are both quoted in the article.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...-falklands-war

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

He said he was in the war zone.

And the village that was 'burned to the ground' but only had a couple structures on fire.

I'm glad you have "set the bar" ....

... When Hillarious puts her head in the ring ... you will, I'm sure, apply the same level of scrutiny to her regarding her various claims .... beginning with...


....dodging sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm glad you have "set the bar" ....

... When Hillarious puts her head in the ring ... you will, I'm sure, apply the same level of scrutiny to her regarding her various claims .... beginning with...


....dodging sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe.

I'll apply the same level of scrutiny you apply to Bush. That sound fair? Politicians lie. That's not news. Are you surprised when you get out in the rain and get wet?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yep.

Bill isn't one to just let things go with a "Snick" is he.


Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

He said he was in the war zone. The war zone was 1200 miles away. That's not IN the war zone by anyone's definition of the word 'in'. It's about more than that. He also exaggerated the demonstrations he was present to witness. And the village that was 'burned to the ground' but only had a couple structures on fire.

Susan Zirinsky - long time cbs producer and Bob scheiffer are both quoted in the article.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/20...-falklands-war

You seem to be mixing two different events. To which are you referring when you say "war zone" El Salvador or the Falklands? Same with the village though I think you are talking about El Salvador in which the entire country was a war zone. You're wrong about what constitutes a "war zone" according to the US military.

As for definitions; you remember that little dust up about 24 years ago in the Persian Gulf. Well the US military said that anyone who went past the Suez Canal was in a war zone and was treated accordingly. Do you know that the Suez Canal is hundreds of miles from Kuwait City? I even dare say that it is a thousand miles away. The Belgrano was sunk miles from the Falkland Islands but I guess it wasn't in a war zone. The Argentine gets flew from the mainland but I guess they were not in a war zone. The government of Argentina fell and rioting ensued but I guess that was not a result of the war. People died in that rioting and people disappeared but I guess that is not considered remotely dangerous.

As for your quotes, you obviously can't trust MJ to tell the truth so when did Schiffer and Zirinsky make a public statement independent of MJ?

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I'll apply the same level of scrutiny you apply to Bush. That sound fair? Politicians lie. That's not news. Are you surprised when you get out in the rain and get wet?

What does Bush have to do with this? Right....Bush derangement syndrome, you have a raging case of BDS. Okay, since you brought it up, what did Bush do to you? Bush did serve in the National Guard, the intelligent services around the world said that Saddam had WMDs, go ask Bill Clinton and the New York Times (by the way they have found tons of the weapons)....I'm at a loss. What do you think Bush lied about then?

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You seem to be mixing two different events. To which are you referring when you say "war zone" El Salvador or the Falklands? Same with the village though I think you are talking about El Salvador in which the entire country was a war zone. You're wrong about what constitutes a "war zone" according to the US military.

As for definitions; you remember that little dust up about 24 years ago in the Persian Gulf. Well the US military said that anyone who went past the Suez Canal was in a war zone and was treated accordingly. Do you know that the Suez Canal is hundreds of miles from Kuwait City? I even dare say that it is a thousand miles away. The Belgrano was sunk miles from the Falkland Islands but I guess it wasn't in a war zone. The Argentine gets flew from the mainland but I guess they were not in a war zone. The government of Argentina fell and rioting ensued but I guess that was not a result of the war. People died in that rioting and people disappeared but I guess that is not considered remotely dangerous.

As for your quotes, you obviously can't trust MJ to tell the truth so when did Schiffer and Zirinsky make a public statement independent of MJ?

Jesus, you're grasping at straws now. Don't you think if they had been quoted out of context that we would have heard something by now? The Falkland Islands are 300 miles off the coast of Argentina and 1200 miles from Buenos Aires, where Bill was. I used to drink his kool-aid but one day I woke up. He's disingenuous about his experiences. He's one of those guys who went to college instead of Vietnam and now he waxes poetic about his time in a combat zone. Just like Bush, just like Cheney, just like a lot of them.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What does Bush have to do with this? Right....Bush derangement syndrome, you have a raging case of BDS. Okay, since you brought it up, what did Bush do to you? Bush did serve in the National Guard, the intelligent services around the world said that Saddam had WMDs, go ask Bill Clinton and the New York Times (by the way they have found tons of the weapons)....I'm at a loss. What do you think Bush lied about then?

I missed where Iraq had any involvement in 9/11, the supposed reason for invading them. Oh, the National Guard. Be still my beating heart. He did that to avoid Vietnam. As for the WMDs, what they found were discarded remnants of a long forgotten and dead weapon's program. Not an active WMD factory as we were led to believe. Your own NYT article that you cited even says that. Did you read it? Or just the parts that you agreed with. They had all been made before 1991. That's hardly an active program, considering this was 13 years later. Some were "filthy, rusty or corroded", the article says. Some were even empty or could not even be readily identified as chemical weapons. To say we had this clear cut idea of what was there is simply false. You've been hoisted by your own petard.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I'll apply the same level of scrutiny you apply to Bush. That sound fair? Politicians lie. That's not news. Are you surprised when you get out in the rain and get wet?

Do you know what "level of scrutiny" I "apply to Bush"?

I'll answer that ... No.

So in your mind it is ok for politicians to lie? But not news reporters?

Or is that just O'Reilly?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I missed where Iraq had any involvement in 9/11, the supposed reason for invading them.

Where did you get that little "tidbit" of special knowledge?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...107publ243.htm

"Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it ...."

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I missed where Iraq had any involvement in 9/11, the supposed reason for invading them. Oh, the National Guard. Be still my beating heart. He did that to avoid Vietnam. As for the WMDs, what they found were discarded remnants of a long forgotten and dead weapon's program. Not an active WMD factory as we were led to believe. Your own NYT article that you cited even says that. Did you read it? Or just the parts that you agreed with. They had all been made before 1991. That's hardly an active program, considering this was 13 years later. Some were "filthy, rusty or corroded", the article says. Some were even empty or could not even be readily identified as chemical weapons. To say we had this clear cut idea of what was there is simply false. You've been hoisted by your own petard.

Thats why it is hard to argue (or reason) with libtards, they keep shifting the goal posts. Were we talking about El Salvador or the Falklands, you neglected to say again. Like I said (do I have to repeat myself?) according to the US military a "war zone" can extend beyond a 1,000 miles from where you insist the war is at. Here's a clue, go ask an insurance company about coverage in a war zone. There usually isn't any. War planes flew from the mainland so that makes their base part of the war zone and a legitimate target even if the British did not attack them.

I have a rifle that is over 70 years old. I have another rifle that is over 100 years old. They are both still just as deadly as the day that they were built. Those WMDs (which you now have to admit existed but you want to argue their efficacy) were still deadly. I am on the nerve agent list because my ship, and I, were downrange of the weapons during the first Gulf War. Two years after leaving the navy I started losing my skin from my fingertips to my elbows. It started as a normal rash (if you call poison ivy normal) which spread upwards. About the time it got halfway up it started again on my finger tips. I lost about five layers total and needed treatment. You want to tell me that Iraq did not have WMDs....

You seem to be the only moron saying that Iraq had anthing to do with 9/11.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Jesus, you're grasping at straws now. Don't you think if they had been quoted out of context that we would have heard something by now? The Falkland Islands are 300 miles off the coast of Argentina and 1200 miles from Buenos Aires, where Bill was. I used to drink his kool-aid but one day I woke up. He's disingenuous about his experiences. He's one of those guys who went to college instead of Vietnam and now he waxes poetic about his time in a combat zone. Just like Bush, just like Cheney, just like a lot of them.

Funny you mention Bush (who was in the National Guard) but forgot Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, et. al.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Oh, the National Guard. Be still my beating heart. He did that to avoid Vietnam. As for the WMDs, what they found were discarded remnants of a long forgotten and dead weapon's program. Not an active WMD factory as we were led to believe. Your own NYT article that you cited even says that. Did you read it? Or just the parts that you agreed with. They had all been made before 1991. That's hardly an active program, considering this was 13 years later. Some were "filthy, rusty or corroded", the article says. Some were even empty or could not even be readily identified as chemical weapons. To say we had this clear cut idea of what was there is simply false. You've been hoisted by your own petard.

Do you skip around to different threads to repost your bullshit after it has been debunked in another thread? I suppose that is a tactic of the liberals.

If they repeat it enough in different places it will be believed .. aka Gruberized!

If you think the WMDs "dug up" by ISIS are "filthy, rusty or corroded," you might mention that to the Kurds in Iraq. They may have a different POV.

Oh, wait! I'm sorry!

You posted: "Some were "filthy, rusty or corroded," .... kinda like your "Apache" flick of "Obama killing" who? Horses too? .... I counted roughly 100 kills +/- .... that's about one good day of recruiting for ISIS! Obaminable has about 29,900 +/- more to kill off ... but the number is growing with each anemic day of response while he presides over his "love-in" in the Bunker White House.

[Yssup Rider]

Excellent post LLIdiot. It truly captures the essence of the RRWipes on this board.

name calling, misinformation and poor logic.

Thanks for reminding us all why you are the patriarch of the Idiot Klan, err, Clan.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

name calling, misinformation and poor logic.

You don't like YOUR MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE being called "Obaminable"?

As for the "misinformation and poor logic" .... you accusing anyone of posting "misinformation and poor logic" is a re-assuring compliment.

Not only do you not like official maps of government agencies, you don't like the quotes from the laws they pass! You'd rather cut and paste from a blog?

And you call me an "idiot"? .... Keep calling the Earth flat. Gruber will buy it.