Billo_Really

First of all, there was no operational link. Hussein and UBL were enemies. They wanted to kill each other. If by chance they did hook up, it would be the first time in history that a secular leader joined forces with an Islamic Fundamentalist. Secondly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Didn't you read the Commission's report. Thirdly, cutting a check to the surviving members of a suicide bomber does not constitute terror support. And fourthly, we knew all about Hussein 20 years ago when he was our ally and we did nothing then. He didn't change. We knew how evil he was when we were selling him the gas that he used on the Iranians during their border war.

And lastly, the only reason diplomacy failed is because we attacked. And it wasn't to liberate the Iraqi people. We don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. We are there to exploit their resources.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

aquapub

1) Correct.

2) Yes, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but the 9/11 Commission report thoroughly documents the relationship between Saddam and Al Queda.

3) I started a thread a while back to demonstrate how full of crap you are to say this. Results are in-you are on the utter fringe in thinking this doesn't constitute terror-sponsoring...because it IS terror-sponsoring.

Additionally, many poor arabs have found this to be the ONLY way to get their families taken care of, so Saddam's rewards for the families of suicide bombers DID create more terrorism.

4) He hadn't used WMD to commit genocide, hadn't attempted to assassinate one of our presidents, hadn't been through 15 years of failed diplomacy, etc.

5) Some people think 15 years of expelled weapons inspectors, defiance, and failed diplomacy was sufficient to indicate that diplomacy wouldn't solve this one.

6) Speak for yourself. Bringing democracy to the Middle East is the only way to end Islam's bloody psychosis. I care a great deal.

7) Based on? Your bitter, self-righteous hysteria? Gas prices have gone up since the war. If we were just stealing their oil, supply would be going up, prices would be going down. This is a basic economic concept.

Let me guess, that's a conspiracy too, right? yawn.


You can derail as many threads as you want repeating this easily debunked crap on Iraq. But repeating crap doesn't magically make it become true.

__________________
They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax ‘businesses!’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. -Fred Thompson

aquapub

Anyway, how about we get back to this proof of how full of crap the Left is on O'Reilly?

::Major_Baker::

This is perhaps the dumbest thread ever.

__________________
geography of education*
*geography of voting patterns*

aquapub

Because it proves liberals are full of crap about O'Reilly? If you have a dispute with the evidence, name it. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time with meaningless insults.

::Major_Baker::

Full of crap?
What the hell was your point? That O'Reiily only said "shut up" a few times?
Who cares? He has already lost all credibility as a 'journalist' to anyone with half a brain. He's a commentator, not a journalist, who the hell cares what he says?

Perhaps it is considered his 'trademark' because other 'reporters' have the commense decency not to snap out at their guests and order them around?


Hows about you stop wasting's everyone's time with incredibly pointless threads based on the search results you find in lexis nexus?

Deegan

Oh, now we created the whole Bill O'Reilly story, lol, that is rich!

I have been saying "drop it, this is ridiculous" for years!

aquapub

1) That he told people to shut up less than 1% of the time, while the Left portrays it as his trademark.

2) Based on?....liberal rhetoric against him, which in case you didn't notice, this thread has demonstrated they are full of crap about.

3) So your logic is: Other reporters don't boss their guests around (which, BTW, O'Reilly RARELY does-not that you'd know to hear the Left tell it) so that justifies them grossly mislabelling O'Reilly? Um...sure.

4) Funny how the only people who find them useless are liberals, who the thread proves are full of crap, and who routinely put smear threads on this same site against O'Reilly. Hmmm.

Billo_Really

Sorry, I have no intention of "derailing" your thread. I just feel obligated to respond to someone who offers a rebuttal to one of my posts.

If you look at my first post in this thread, it was on topic and to the point.

I'd like to respond to what you said above, but will abstain at this time so you won't have a cow! So I throw you an early birthday bone. Don't take it as a victory regarding the assertions you made. It's just a birthday bone!

::Major_Baker::

Have other journalists for, say CNN or something comparable, ever exhibited such outbursts to their guests?