Don't think there were a lot of softballs thrown--any opinions?
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,178909,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,178909,00.html
Oreilly/Rumsfeld interview
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
This exchange could be taken right off this forum. Rumsfeld not answering the question at all. O'Reilly asked him how Americans were threatened and Rumsfeld giving a Manson answer.
RUMSFELD: Well, here's a regime, a man and a regime that had had weapons of mass destruction, had used them on their own people, had used them on their neighbors, had invaded Kuwait and had ? was giving ? shooting at our airplanes in Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch, where we were enforcing the U.N. resolutions. They were giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers encouraging terrorism.
Now, as the president said recently, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction. But that was a mistake we couldn't make. You could not be mistaken on that.
O'REILLY: But we did make a mistake.
RUMSFELD: Well, the world is vastly better off because we did.
O'REILLY: OK, that's a debatable point. But without the weapons of mass destruction, did he threaten my family, Saddam?
RUMSFELD: Oh, my goodness, they were shooting at our airplanes every week. And he was giving the $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
O'REILLY: In Israel.
RUMSFELD: And he was ? wherever. It wasn't just in Israel.
O'REILLY: So you think that Saddam directly threatened you?
RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Iraq during that period.
RUMSFELD: Well, here's a regime, a man and a regime that had had weapons of mass destruction, had used them on their own people, had used them on their neighbors, had invaded Kuwait and had ? was giving ? shooting at our airplanes in Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch, where we were enforcing the U.N. resolutions. They were giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers encouraging terrorism.
Now, as the president said recently, we have not found the weapons of mass destruction. But that was a mistake we couldn't make. You could not be mistaken on that.
O'REILLY: But we did make a mistake.
RUMSFELD: Well, the world is vastly better off because we did.
O'REILLY: OK, that's a debatable point. But without the weapons of mass destruction, did he threaten my family, Saddam?
RUMSFELD: Oh, my goodness, they were shooting at our airplanes every week. And he was giving the $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
O'REILLY: In Israel.
RUMSFELD: And he was ? wherever. It wasn't just in Israel.
O'REILLY: So you think that Saddam directly threatened you?
RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Iraq during that period.
More typical Rumsfeld. Trying to say that Cheney ACTUALLY might have meant that the insurgency was particularly violent when Cheney said it was in it's last throes. He's fvcking pathetic.
O'Reilly: Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes. Was that a wise thing to say?
RUMSFELD: Well, you know, I suppose you could take that two ways. You could take it to mean that, therefore, it was ending, or you could say they were in a spurt of energy, the last throes, which would be particularly violent and dangerous and lethal.
O'REILLY: That sounds like spin to me. Last throes to me sounds...
O'Reilly: Vice President Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes. Was that a wise thing to say?
RUMSFELD: Well, you know, I suppose you could take that two ways. You could take it to mean that, therefore, it was ending, or you could say they were in a spurt of energy, the last throes, which would be particularly violent and dangerous and lethal.
O'REILLY: That sounds like spin to me. Last throes to me sounds...
But to answer your question, Wayne, no it wasn't really a softball interview. Most of it anyways.
I liked the part where he told Rummsey to quit spinning him and answer the question.
Don't know if you saw interview Matt--but was done in respectful way but didn't cut him any slack --was interesting to see Rummy maneuver question into diff subject at times--but Oreilly always got back to original question.
Don't know if you saw interview Matt--but was done in respectful way but didn't cut him any slack --was interesting to see Rummy maneuver question into diff subject at times--but Oreilly always got back to original question.
- Sep 13, 2005
- 2,895
- 24
- 38
Nosigar,
Saddam and what Terrorists? He had no affilation with Al Queda. If Saddam being a sick dictator is your reason for attacking then gear up for 20 more of these cause guys like that are in power all over the world. Weak response.
Saddam and what Terrorists? He had no affilation with Al Queda. If Saddam being a sick dictator is your reason for attacking then gear up for 20 more of these cause guys like that are in power all over the world. Weak response.
There all over the world-- not many shot at our planes--not many paying bounties to terrorist--not many using chemical weapons-not many failed to comply with mandated resolutions
--but more importantly-- not many in such close proximity to Syria and Iran-
--and speaking of Iran--How effective has the Kerry/Euro connection been with their diplomacy route--
--but more importantly-- not many in such close proximity to Syria and Iran-
--and speaking of Iran--How effective has the Kerry/Euro connection been with their diplomacy route--
Generally stay out of the political forum because people are not rational and feel the need to blame the other party at all cost. Back to the point of safety though: are we safer today? I hear this all the time and I have to ask myself what people are missing. Regardless if you agree with the war or not, you have to be ignorant to believe that getting rid of saddam and the vast numbers of terrorist does not make us safer. Now did I have to worry about a suicide bomber coming to my house in georgia I would say not. To me it is not even about right now from a safety standpoint. What justification could you give your grandchildren if forty years from now the bombings and terrorist were occurring at the same rate here as there. At what point are people going to realize that there are millions of people in that region that HATE America, Americans, Christianity, and everything America stands for. Their goal is the total destruction and devastation of yours and my country and ideals. If you can not see that ridding the world of these people makes America safer if not now then definitely later, then you are truly Blind. Can anyone give me a war that has been fought in the previous 150 years where America has fought for its safety?
Last edited:
Roger Baltrey said:
Saddam and the terrorists.
They don't have to come holding hands or on a tour.
And the weak response is the liberals, as always. And don't come back with the "I'm not a liberal, just want our troops back" learned response.
BTW, Al Qaeda ain't the only terrorists in the world. But Iraq was the clearest target in the Middle East. Honestly, you people have the most misguided tunnel vision.
Not quite sure how a totally contained country with no terrorists was the 'clearest target' after a terrorist attack on 9/11, but ok. Please don't come back with 'a terrorist was in an Iraqi hospital for a while.' If even true, that's not exactly proof that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorist activity.
Forget about the WMD thing. We knew for a fact that Saddam was as much an enemy to Al-Qaeda and the Islamfascists as we are.
We also know that by their own admission Iran and Syria have WMD. We know that those countries, along with Saudi Arabia are safe havens for terrorists.
But Iraq was the 'clearest target?' Apparently the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight agrees.
Wayne,
You sound like Manson with those weak reasons for the invasion of Iraq. You know damn well those weapons didn't even have the capability to hit our jets.
Bounties? Not exactly, but regardless, when do we invade countries because their leaders pays some families of Palestinian suicide bombers money for blowing shit up in Israel? Do you really think the remote possibility of their family getting 10-25k really prompted even 1 suicide bomber? Jeez.
Resolutions?
The only remotely valid point is the last one regarding the proximity to Iran and Syria.
The problem with that is that it assumes that we will have a presence there for all time, like Germany, Japan and Korea. In a couple of years we will be completely out of that region. Not because of the hippies, not because of those dastardly 'libs' and God help us, not because of the evil 'media.'
Simply because they (they meaning every country in the ME, including Iraq) do not want us there permanently, or even a day longer than the day that the Iraqi government decides that they can handle it. The rumblings have already started from the Iraqis and they will reach a fever pitch as time goes by. Their own government does not consider Iraqis blowing up our troops to be terrorism. 45% of the populace thinks that killing our troops is acceptable.
As the government takes hold, and gains confidence, it will only get worse.
So in the end, the 'proximity' will not have really mattered because we will be kicked out of Iraq the minute most of the dirty work is done in regard to installing the fundamentalist government. How will Bush be able to rebuff Iraqi government calls to leave after droning on and on about how he's going to make Iraq a sovereign democracy?
You blame Kerry and the Europeans for the Iran problem.
What exactly would you do? We have 160,000 troops right next door and that's no deterrent. They are thumbing their noses at us regarding nukes, their president is making ridiculously inflammatory comments towards Israel.
Iran is actually a real problem. I'd be interested in your thoughts on how the Europeans and John Kerry are screwing this up and i'd be interested in the ideas you have, if any.
Forget about the WMD thing. We knew for a fact that Saddam was as much an enemy to Al-Qaeda and the Islamfascists as we are.
We also know that by their own admission Iran and Syria have WMD. We know that those countries, along with Saudi Arabia are safe havens for terrorists.
But Iraq was the 'clearest target?' Apparently the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight agrees.
Wayne said:
Wayne,
You sound like Manson with those weak reasons for the invasion of Iraq. You know damn well those weapons didn't even have the capability to hit our jets.
Bounties? Not exactly, but regardless, when do we invade countries because their leaders pays some families of Palestinian suicide bombers money for blowing shit up in Israel? Do you really think the remote possibility of their family getting 10-25k really prompted even 1 suicide bomber? Jeez.
Resolutions?
The only remotely valid point is the last one regarding the proximity to Iran and Syria.
The problem with that is that it assumes that we will have a presence there for all time, like Germany, Japan and Korea. In a couple of years we will be completely out of that region. Not because of the hippies, not because of those dastardly 'libs' and God help us, not because of the evil 'media.'
Simply because they (they meaning every country in the ME, including Iraq) do not want us there permanently, or even a day longer than the day that the Iraqi government decides that they can handle it. The rumblings have already started from the Iraqis and they will reach a fever pitch as time goes by. Their own government does not consider Iraqis blowing up our troops to be terrorism. 45% of the populace thinks that killing our troops is acceptable.
As the government takes hold, and gains confidence, it will only get worse.
So in the end, the 'proximity' will not have really mattered because we will be kicked out of Iraq the minute most of the dirty work is done in regard to installing the fundamentalist government. How will Bush be able to rebuff Iraqi government calls to leave after droning on and on about how he's going to make Iraq a sovereign democracy?
You blame Kerry and the Europeans for the Iran problem.
What exactly would you do? We have 160,000 troops right next door and that's no deterrent. They are thumbing their noses at us regarding nukes, their president is making ridiculously inflammatory comments towards Israel.
Iran is actually a real problem. I'd be interested in your thoughts on how the Europeans and John Kerry are screwing this up and i'd be interested in the ideas you have, if any.
Really, Freeze? I'll adjust it for you, as my comment was probably a slight exaggeration.
Gimme your opinion on this one:
We knew that Saddam and the Islamfascists hated each other and were bitter enemies. We knew that Saddam and Iran hated each other. We knew that Saddam and Syria hated each other. We know that the new government that we installed by proxy will be very pro-iran, likely pro-syria and is currently a playground for terrorists.
How about that? Anything to add other than little guys rolling on the ground laughing? Or not so much?
Gimme your opinion on this one:
We knew that Saddam and the Islamfascists hated each other and were bitter enemies. We knew that Saddam and Iran hated each other. We knew that Saddam and Syria hated each other. We know that the new government that we installed by proxy will be very pro-iran, likely pro-syria and is currently a playground for terrorists.
How about that? Anything to add other than little guys rolling on the ground laughing? Or not so much?
lol- you sure got that quote in your sig in a hurry, although of course you mischaracterize it with your editorial.
But i'll take it that you don't have any issues with the rest of my post, so I have that going for me.
But i'll take it that you don't have any issues with the rest of my post, so I have that going for me.
kosar said:
just trying to give you a little dose of your own medicine :mj14: :mj14:
obviously i can comprehend the notion that he stabilized islamofasciism in his country
Matt:
Imagine invading or Syria or Iran or any other desert around there. We'd have a civil war on our hands with Pelossi, Dean et al. We take Iraq, which for almost a decade has broken all the surrender agreements, and it's like we pulled a Herodes and killed all the children! Imagine going to a couuntry we had no provable beef with at the moment.
We crash into Iraq who even Clinton, Gore, etc. at least spoke of as enemies of America and the administration gets blasted.
Don't you think that Bush and cronies tried to do a little more than catch the goat-herder Osama? That's what Afghanistan was for (failed, but eliminated Taliban). If we are going to make war just to get one guy, to hell with it, that would be BS. The purpose, as I always saw it, and many others, was to establish a western presence there and end the continuous appeasement. Put fear into other states sponsoring terrorism that we would not put our head in the sand every time an attack occured. It was putting action behind the words.
Almost every country you go to in the world there are at least one faction of people who use anti-americanism as a tool to attract rebels, especially young, dumb and poor kids. most are just your typical Mao Communist sects who have no life, others like in the Middle East believe their problems are direct responsabilityu of the US. They do this because the U.S. for decades has never responded to any threats or attacks in a way that was worthwhile. Much of the problem has been because we have made the Middle East so important when it actually is a piece of chit with some oil that we could find easier in other places. But it's what we have to deal with, and a continued strong presence around the peninsula is ini the worse case a message to all those who already hate imperialism or whatever the hell they choose to call it.
So like I said before, shoudl we wait for terrorists (non-iraquis and iraquis) to move to the Hamptons? Problem is, I think we've already allowed that starting with the false preacher Carter.
Now, with these points you can agree or disagree, but I'm tired of the "no WMD's", the "Bush lied" BS, the "faulty intelligence" crap and the "it was a mistake"... becasue all that is are excuses of finer points of a conflict and really represent no real meaning in the overall matter. :nooo:
Imagine invading or Syria or Iran or any other desert around there. We'd have a civil war on our hands with Pelossi, Dean et al. We take Iraq, which for almost a decade has broken all the surrender agreements, and it's like we pulled a Herodes and killed all the children! Imagine going to a couuntry we had no provable beef with at the moment.
We crash into Iraq who even Clinton, Gore, etc. at least spoke of as enemies of America and the administration gets blasted.
Don't you think that Bush and cronies tried to do a little more than catch the goat-herder Osama? That's what Afghanistan was for (failed, but eliminated Taliban). If we are going to make war just to get one guy, to hell with it, that would be BS. The purpose, as I always saw it, and many others, was to establish a western presence there and end the continuous appeasement. Put fear into other states sponsoring terrorism that we would not put our head in the sand every time an attack occured. It was putting action behind the words.
Almost every country you go to in the world there are at least one faction of people who use anti-americanism as a tool to attract rebels, especially young, dumb and poor kids. most are just your typical Mao Communist sects who have no life, others like in the Middle East believe their problems are direct responsabilityu of the US. They do this because the U.S. for decades has never responded to any threats or attacks in a way that was worthwhile. Much of the problem has been because we have made the Middle East so important when it actually is a piece of chit with some oil that we could find easier in other places. But it's what we have to deal with, and a continued strong presence around the peninsula is ini the worse case a message to all those who already hate imperialism or whatever the hell they choose to call it.
So like I said before, shoudl we wait for terrorists (non-iraquis and iraquis) to move to the Hamptons? Problem is, I think we've already allowed that starting with the false preacher Carter.
Now, with these points you can agree or disagree, but I'm tired of the "no WMD's", the "Bush lied" BS, the "faulty intelligence" crap and the "it was a mistake"... becasue all that is are excuses of finer points of a conflict and really represent no real meaning in the overall matter. :nooo:
We just have to agree to disagree Matt.If people can't see the changes in entire complexion of middle east in past 3 years because of our invasion there is not much I can do to convince them.Terrorist went from free lancing in no less then 6 countires to be hunted like dogs in same.
--and while I'm sure iraq'is will be glad when they can take over for themselves but when you have huge majority "walk" to polls despite threats I'd say its pretty important to them and even if some use liberal logic they would still (well most of em) have to acknowledge if not for "1/2" of the U.S. and our military they would not have had opportunty.
--and while I'm sure iraq'is will be glad when they can take over for themselves but when you have huge majority "walk" to polls despite threats I'd say its pretty important to them and even if some use liberal logic they would still (well most of em) have to acknowledge if not for "1/2" of the U.S. and our military they would not have had opportunty.
on Iran--Euro's will do nothing but talk unless the shit starts hitting the fan on their turf--Iran will go Saddams route and thumb their nose and why not--if sanctions are put on you'll see repeat of iraq oil for food--think this admin is smart to let Euro's do their thing and sit back as they are few years from nukes. Prove just how inept the kerry/france diplamatic approach is vs these madmen.
Don't have much fear they will reach nuclear ability--Isreal will do what needs to be done if need arises. They don't have the liberal element to contend with.
Don't have much fear they will reach nuclear ability--Isreal will do what needs to be done if need arises. They don't have the liberal element to contend with.
I have a simple question, one that I'm not sure I've seen commented on specifically by those supporting this war. I guess it's assumed, but I'd just like to see you guys say for sure.
Do you support the amount of money we have paid to undertake the war, engage in the war, and continue to fund it indefinitely until "the war is won, or the job is complete."
I am not asking if you think we should support the troops now. If they are going to be there, I guess I'd rather see them get more protection, but that's not the point of this question. I'm asking if you think this is worth the money we have spent and will have to spend to do whatever Bush wants to get done.
Is this the best way to have spent the hundreds of billions, or trillions of dollars we will have spent? Or at least, is this the way you guys would have preferred we spend it, all things considered?
Do you support the amount of money we have paid to undertake the war, engage in the war, and continue to fund it indefinitely until "the war is won, or the job is complete."
I am not asking if you think we should support the troops now. If they are going to be there, I guess I'd rather see them get more protection, but that's not the point of this question. I'm asking if you think this is worth the money we have spent and will have to spend to do whatever Bush wants to get done.
Is this the best way to have spent the hundreds of billions, or trillions of dollars we will have spent? Or at least, is this the way you guys would have preferred we spend it, all things considered?
That all depends on whether you support the war. If you do then you support all the money being spent. If you dont then I would not imagine you would agree with it at all. I would still like to hear and answer for my first question as well. Also would like to know from all those against the war if they believe in Isolationism.
