[moki]

Once again, comments on the substance, not whether you like O'Reilly or not.

from: http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/ge...jsp?pageID=316

.....

America was founded on dissent... loyal opposition. But now some Americans are confusing true dissent with dishonesty and dishonor. Conservatives especially were angered that [Bill] Clinton used the Oval Office in an unseemly way and then lied about it. The dissent over that was absolutely appropriate, but some right-wingers went overboard...

Just because you don't like a politician doesn't give you the right to lie about them. So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq...

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable. Other examples--Whoopi Goldberg made crude jokes about Mr. Bush's name. It is dishonorable for Ms. Goldberg crudely to mock him without purpose. There's no dissent in that, and it reflects poorly on her.

Meryl Streep said, 'If you're going to invite Jesus on the campaign bus and ask him to stump for you, you'd better listen carefully to what he has to say first. He did not say blessed is the preemptive strike.' In this case, Ms. Streep is dissenting. Streep is entitled to her opinion... Michael Moore's movie is dissent, but his dishonesty within the film is dishonorable

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by moki:
Once again, comments on the substance, not whether you like O'Reilly or not.

from: http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/ge...jsp?pageID=316

.....

America was founded on dissent... loyal opposition. But now some Americans are confusing true dissent with dishonesty and dishonor. Conservatives especially were angered that [Bill] Clinton used the Oval Office in an unseemly way and then lied about it. The dissent over that was absolutely appropriate, but some right-wingers went overboard...

Just because you don't like a politician doesn't give you the right to lie about them. So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq...

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable.

Unless, of course, one doesn't necessarily believe the senate's findings. People are allowed to form their own opinion of what went on, and their's nothing dishonorable about it.

Other examples--Whoopi Goldberg made crude jokes about Mr. Bush's name. It is dishonorable for Ms. Goldberg crudely to mock him without purpose. There's no dissent in that, and it reflects poorly on her.

Now he's wasting time on comedians? Tasteless? Yes. Crude? Yes. Funny? Absolutely. To quote an Eddie Murphy act (Eddie's quoting Richard Pryor), "'I don't give a fck. Whatever the fck make the people laugh, say dat $hit. Do the people laugh when they say what you say?' I said yes, 'Do you get paid?' I said yes, 'Well tell Bill I said, "Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fck up." ' "

BlackGriffen

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by moki:
For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq...

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable...

Whither or not the Bush administration coerced analysts is a moot point with regard to any accusations of the administration lying about WMD's.

While O'Reilly is correct that the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the administration pressured analysts, this has no bearing on the Committee's findings with regard to accusations of the administration lying to the public - a matter that will be addressed in the second part of the Committee's report, and not yet public.

At this point, the allegations of the President's truthfulness with respect to WMDs have not been proven to be true or false by an authoritative body. While O'Reilly is free to assert that those people "who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs" are dishonorable, I do not believe this is an assertion that may be inferred from the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings that have been made public thus far.

[xenu]

Bush wanted to blame Iraq, no matter what. That's dishonesty.
Bush went to war on a lie. That's dishonesty.

Bush claimed the world is safer from terrorists because of his actions. That's dishonesty.

The world will be far safer without him. That's a prediction. I look forward to seeing it come true.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by moki:
Once again, comments on the substance, not whether you like O'Reilly or not.

from: http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/ge...jsp?pageID=316

.....

America was founded on dissent... loyal opposition. But now some Americans are confusing true dissent with dishonesty and dishonor. Conservatives especially were angered that [Bill] Clinton used the Oval Office in an unseemly way and then lied about it. The dissent over that was absolutely appropriate, but some right-wingers went overboard...

Just because you don't like a politician doesn't give you the right to lie about them. So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq...

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable. Other examples--Whoopi Goldberg made crude jokes about Mr. Bush's name. It is dishonorable for Ms. Goldberg crudely to mock him without purpose. There's no dissent in that, and it reflects poorly on her.

Meryl Streep said, 'If you're going to invite Jesus on the campaign bus and ask him to stump for you, you'd better listen carefully to what he has to say first. He did not say blessed is the preemptive strike.' In this case, Ms. Streep is dissenting. Streep is entitled to her opinion... Michael Moore's movie is dissent, but his dishonesty within the film is dishonorable

<Sticking to the tone of the piece here and not the man in general>

He is correct in distinguishing between dissent and dishonesty--and he even gave props to Meryl Streep for a great quote I hadn't heard before. But my complaint is that we still get Bill O'Reilly deciding what is or is not dishonesty (i.e.: the truth) and expecting his readers/viewers to accept him as the arbiter of honesty. Anyone who tries to tell *me* what to think about something automatically loses my faith in his/her statements. Same reason why I don't like Michael Moore (even though we are more in alignment politically) or any other media blowhard who claims to know what the f*** is going on.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Once again, comments on the substance, not whether you like O'Reilly or not.

from: http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/ge...jsp?pageID=316

.....

America was founded on dissent... loyal opposition. But now some Americans are confusing true dissent with dishonesty and dishonor. Conservatives especially were angered that [Bill] Clinton used the Oval Office in an unseemly way and then lied about it. The dissent over that was absolutely appropriate, but some right-wingers went overboard...

Just because you don't like a politician doesn't give you the right to lie about them. So, flash forward to President Bush, who's being accused of many things, some of them flat-out untrue. For example, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not find any evidence that the Bush administration attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgment on WMDs in Iraq...

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable. Other examples--Whoopi Goldberg made crude jokes about Mr. Bush's name. It is dishonorable for Ms. Goldberg crudely to mock him without purpose. There's no dissent in that, and it reflects poorly on her.

Meryl Streep said, 'If you're going to invite Jesus on the campaign bus and ask him to stump for you, you'd better listen carefully to what he has to say first. He did not say blessed is the preemptive strike.' In this case, Ms. Streep is dissenting. Streep is entitled to her opinion... Michael Moore's movie is dissent, but his dishonesty within the film is dishonorable

the article overlooks the fact that the commission's report on how the administration analyzed and acted upon the intelligence has been embargoed for release AFTER the election. he is taking one half the report and making the assumption that the half that was released (the half investigating the intelligence community) exonerates Bush because he's not mentioned .....but see, he WOULDN"T be yet, because that's in the part of the report the republican congressmen succeeded in sealing.

so, that's a non-proof. the second half of the report may indeed exonerate Bush, but we don't know at this point. My guess would be it implicates him or else there'd be no reason to seal it, spearheaded by the republicans.

[zigzag]

Of course it's dishonorable to lie. What else is new? The problem is that O'Reilly, intentionally or not, employs his own distortions and misperceptions to characterize others as dishonest (just as Moore appears to do, and the "56 Deceptions of Moore" site appears to do). So we end up in a hall of mirrors. The lines between dissent, heated rhetoric, exaggeration, advocacy, spin, and outright lying are often difficult to discern.

I think the Bush administration deliberately exaggerated the urgency of the Iraq WMD threat, focusing on often thin evidence to the exclusion of contrary evidence, and making repeated rhetorical ties to al Qaeda. Whether one calls this cherry-picking, spin, exaggeration, disingenuousness, dishonesty, advocacy, misleading, lying, or what-have-you is pretty much up in the air. Can I point to any outright lies? Perhaps not, and I don't think I've used the term. Politicians and their handlers are experts at putting forth statements that are just slippery enough to avoid outright lying. But do I consider both specific statements and the general approach to be dishonest? Yes - in most circles, it's considered dishonest to present only half the story. Others would characterize it as an outright lie, and I don't necessarily blame them. Still others would say that the administration had an obligation to emphasize a worst-case scenario. So there's a lot of perspective involved. Myself, I'm prepared to accept a certain amount of exaggerated and misleading rhetoric in politics, but I think the administration went too far over the line in this case. Moore probably does a lot of the same thing (as does the political opposition in general), but he's not running the country.

I think it's good to try to keep people honest, even if it's usually a losing proposition. The only thing that upsets me is when one side claims that the other is doing all the spinning.

[Logic]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Now he's wasting time on comedians? Tasteless? Yes. Crude? Yes. Funny? Absolutely. To quote an Eddie Murphy act (Eddie's quoting Richard Pryor), "'I don't give a fck. Whatever the fck make the people laugh, say dat $hit. Do the people laugh when they say what you say?' I said yes, 'Do you get paid?' I said yes, 'Well tell Bill I said, "Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fck up." ' "

BlackGriffen

Absolute classic!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
[...] So we end up in a hall of mirrors. The lines between dissent, heated rhetoric, exaggeration, advocacy, spin, and outright lying are often difficult to discern.

Nice metaphor!

BG

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
Meryl Streep said, 'If you're going to invite Jesus on the campaign bus and ask him to stump for you, you'd better listen carefully to what he has to say first. He did not say blessed is the preemptive strike.'

rofl!

[pman68]

Conservatives are such hypocrites. Oh people are calling Bush names, boo hoo.

Remember when Jesse Helms couldn't gaurauntee Clinton's safety if he visited South Carolina?

What was that, Republican dissent? Now THAT was dishonrable.

[spauldingg]

Originally posted by pman68:
Conservatives are such hypocrites. Oh people are calling Bush names, boo hoo.

Remember when Jesse Helms couldn't gaurauntee Clinton's safety if he visited South Carolina?

What was that, Republican dissent? Now THAT was dishonrable.

[Krusty]

The thing I find most interesting about this article -- and this whole discussion is that the debate has finally shifted from "Saddam had/didn't have WMD" to "OK, he didn't have anything vaguely resembling what the administration claimed .. but were we deliberately misled or was it simply a mistake ?"

So was the Bush Administration deliberately misleading us or are they just a bunch of clueless, bumbling a$$-clowns whose intelligence gathering process was so incredibly flawed that we actually initiated a major conflict based on bad evidence? The answer to that question is largely irrelevant, IMHO.

[thunderous_funker]

Quotes
(All quotes are from O'Reilly's Fox News show unless otherwise indicated)

On poverty:

"It's hard to do it because you gotta look people in the eye and tell 'em they're irresponsible and lazy. And who's gonna wanna do that? Because that's what poverty is, ladies and gentlemen. In this country, you can succeed if you get educated and work hard. Period. Period." [6/16/04]

On Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11:

"So who turns out for the screening of this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] last night? You ready? Now, here are the celebrities that turn out. Here are the people who would turn out to see Josef Goebbels convince you that Poland invaded the Third Reich. It's the same thing, by the way. Propaganda is propaganda. OK?" [6/14/04]

On the ACLU:

"Finally, the ACLU -- we talked about this yesterday and I -- and, you know, I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al Qaeda." [6/2/04]

On Bill Moyers host of the PBS show "NOW":

"Bill Moyers on PBS, he's -- hides behind the label of objectivity. He's about as objective as Mao Zedong, all right. I mean he's a Far-Left bomb-thrower who actually runs a foundation that funds left-wing organizations. I mean the guy's a joke. Get out of the news business, Bill." [6/14/04]

On Eric Alterman The Nation's media columnist:

"...another Fidel Castro confidant." [5/3/04] (O'Reilly later apologized on 6/15/04 after Alterman threatened to sue O'Reilly for defamation)

On Mexicans and other immigrants:

"We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes--they're not going to do what they're doing now, all right, so people aren't going to die in the desert." [2/6/03]

On women from Muslim countries:

"..the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." - From a Stuff magazine interview in 11/02.

On Africa:

"I've been to Africa three times. All right? You can't bring Western reasoning into the culture. The same way you can't bring it into fundamental Islam" [5/6/02]

On African-Americans:

"Will African-Americans break away from the pack thinking and reject immorality-- because that's the reason the family's breaking apart--alcohol, drugs, infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem--and I'm broadly speaking here, but a lot of African-Americans won't reject it" [2/25/99]

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Quotes
(All quotes are from O'Reilly's Fox News show unless otherwise indicated)

<snip>

On Mexicans and other immigrants:

"We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call them, the coyotes--they're not going to do what they're doing now, all right, so people aren't going to die in the desert." [2/6/03]

On women from Muslim countries:

"..the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." - From a Stuff magazine interview in 11/02.

On Africa:

"I've been to Africa three times. All right? You can't bring Western reasoning into the culture. The same way you can't bring it into fundamental Islam" [5/6/02]

On African-Americans:

"Will African-Americans break away from the pack thinking and reject immorality-- because that's the reason the family's breaking apart--alcohol, drugs, infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem--and I'm broadly speaking here, but a lot of African-Americans won't reject it" [2/25/99]

[HemoAggelos]

Thunderous_funker, that was a great McNamara quote !!

[MacGorilla]

I don't believe anyone except the far left thinks Bush lied about WMDs. I believe two things: one he heard only what he wanted to hear from his intelligence folks and second, that intelligence was largely fed to the Admin by Ahmed Chalabi, who now looks like had his own agenda and vastly overstated the facts on the ground to get the US to attack.

And on a side note, O'Reilley didn't even stay for the entire Moore film; how can he talk about it? If you are going to characterize a film, at least watch the whole damn thing first.

[HemoAggelos]

Why is everyone pussyfooting around the issue???? This is not a right wing or liberal discussion. This is about leadership and all the goody traits that go with being a true leader- Intelligence, honesty, character; and above all, an open mind.

This man is UNFIT to command ARMIES and make decisions that will ripple arcoss nations and through time.

Is this really the man 'we' want in charge??

Huh??


When was the last time we had a president who sent troops into another soveriegn country to carry out a punitive police action because of a percieved threat U.S. foreign policy created ?!!?!?

Oh-- wait-- that was the other Bush.

Well, before that?

Oops, no----wait that was Reagan (the password is: 'Grenada')


1) Intentionally going to war with a clear mind for vengeance w/o having the experience or inclination to attempt any diplomatic solution,

2) Willingly and wholeheartedly sacrificing both the lives of U.S. and Iraqi citizens with no regard in an out of control heavily armed conflict (did you know we're running out of bullets? What army shoots so much they run out of BULLETS?!?),

3) Forcing 'democracy' by the barrel of a gun - Mr. Moore's words, not mine,

4) Questioning the loyalty or voracity of any citizen *or* government who doesn't jump headlong into a one-sided, illegal war,


5) All after stealing a f***ing election in the first place---

makes Bush is dishonest AND dishonorable. There you have it. Period. Punto. Fini.


End of discussion.

[Logic]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I don't believe anyone except the far left thinks Bush lied about WMDs. I believe two things: one he heard only what he wanted to hear from his intelligence folks and second, that intelligence was largely fed to the Admin by Ahmed Chalabi, who now looks like had his own agenda and vastly overstated the facts on the ground to get the US to attack.

And on a side note, O'Rielley didn't even stay for the entire Moore film; how can he talk about it?

Something that the US was warned off before the war. But then he was a great Iraqi patriot who only wanted to do good things for his country.

[Y3a]

You forgot FDR who went to war against Germany even though JAPAN had attacked us.

What about ole Slobidon(sp)?? Miloshovic(sp)??

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Y3a:
You forgot FDR who went to war against Germany even though JAPAN had attacked us.

What about ole Slobidon(sp)?? Miloshovic(sp)??

We went to war with Germany after Japan attacked us because Germany delcared war on us.

And what about ol Slobo? what does this have to do with the topic?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Y3a:
You forgot FDR who went to war against Germany even though JAPAN had attacked us.

What about ole Slobidon(sp)?? Miloshovic(sp)??

Actually, IIRC, Germany declared war on us soon after Perl Harbor (whether before or after we declared war on them and Japan, I don't know). See, Japan and Germany were allies, quite explicitly and openly.

Please be more wary of your own ignorance in the future.

BlackGriffen

[Krusty]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Actually, IIRC, Germany declared war on us soon after Perl Harbor (whether before or after we declared war on them and Japan, I don't know). See, Japan and Germany were allies, quite explicitly and openly.

Please be more wary of your own ignorance in the future.

BlackGriffen

Correct:
Dec 8th - US and UK declare war on Japan
Dec 11th - Germany Declares war on US
http://www.usd230.k12.ks.us/espictt/...e/timeline.htm

[Timo]

Originally posted by moki:
their judgment on WMDs in Iraq...

Thus, all the bomb-throwers who accuse Mr. Bush of lying about WMDs have been dishonorable.

So says O'Reilly. But he neglects to include the fact that the CIA and all intelligence agencies serve at the pleasure of the President. They are not independent agencies feeding objective information into a decision making process based on the merit of ideas; rather, they are ultimately instruments of policy. And it's duplicitous to compartmentalize an intelligence agency's failure; instead, one should point out the systemic problems, and show just how high up the failure of judgment goes.

[dialo]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I don't believe anyone except the far left thinks Bush lied about WMDs.

Um ... the administration obviously did use deception.

And, no, I'm not on the far left at all.