Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

O'Reilly talking point...

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight

Americans want Saddam out. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

A new Gallup-USA Today-CNN poll says this, 57 percent of Americans favor sending U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein, 38 percent oppose doing that. Those numbers have held steady since August. Number rises to 79 percent if the United Nations decides to support an invasion. Nineteen percent of Americans oppose invading Iraq unless it attacks us.

President Bush's approval rating is holding at 66 percent despite the weak economy. Good news for him. And finally, 68 percent of Americans think a war against Iraq will be a difficult fight.

I disagree with that opinion, with one exception. It is entirely possible that Saddam will use chemical weapons against American soldiers. He did that last time.

And unfortunately, our government will not admit that he did, denying for years that Gulf War syndrome even existed. The reason for that is that the first Bush administration failed to remove Saddam after defeating him, and to acknowledge that he poisoned thousands of our military people in that conflict would reflect badly on our war effort in the Gulf.

This is yet another example of how the powerful protect each other at the expense of the regular folks. Evidence indicates that thousands of American soldiers were poisoned by Sarin gas, and we let it go. Unbelievable.

That being said, we can't be afraid of Saddam, a villain that must be captured and killed and tried for war crimes. Saddam makes Milosevic look like Kermit the Frog. The entire debate surrounding the removal of Saddam is phony. The United States invaded Panama and captured Manuel Noriega because he had turned his government into a criminal enterprise. But again, Noriega, who's still sitting in a south Florida prison, was nothing compared to Saddam.

The United Nations' deal is another canard, because that body is not interested in justice or protecting the world. It is a jumble of self-interested nations, many of which hate the USA. Also foolish and dishonest are charges from the Arab world that somehow the USA is responsible for this hatred. The no spin truth is that much of the Arab world hates Jews, and America protects Israel.

As long as that situation exists, anti-Semitic people will hate the USA, and there's nothing any American administration can do about it. Are we supposed to let the Arabs drive the Jews into the Mediterranean? Because that's exactly what would happen if we didn't supply and support the Israelis.

Finally, there is the disgrace of Germany. It is because of the Germans that Israel is a fortress, and that debt has not been paid. For Gerard Schroeder to fail to support America against Saddam because of politics is as appalling as it gets.

Germany owes Israel complete support in security matters, and it owes America that as well. President Bush is currently not talking to Schroeder, and he should hold that policy. Schroeder is the lowest of the low.

Summing up, most Americans understand the danger that Saddam poses, and in this world full of spin, that is an excellent sign.

And that's The Memo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that sack of shit should be shot...

just because i don't like him, some of his points are really narrow minded and he doesn't elaborate..what the fuck

ok, now bring on the negative republican comments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can anyone hate O'reilly? the man tells it as it is. See the problem here isn't O'reilly. The problem is that Democrats have alot of flaws, But its ok I understand no one is perfect otherwise we would all be republicans. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o'reilly is just a populist loud mouth, who's arguments have been shown false.

i don't know anybody could take him seriously, when he is all spin.

neither arabs or the pa have any desire to drive the israelis to the sea, as he claims. if that was the case, then why would arafat sign the oslo peace accords and the camp david accords-both of which israel has violated. why then would prince abdullah of saudi arabia has expressed desire to have normal relations with israel, if they just keep the 1967 borders. what frustrates arabs, is the us is brutally punishing iraq for violating un resolutions, yet gives israel blank checks, despite violating 67 resolutions. it is the israelis who are the ones driving the palestineans into jordan, by building settlements and preventing palestineans from having the right to freely move. since 1993 israel has doubled the number of settlements in the west bank, despite promising not to build anymore in the oslo accords.

also, criticizing israel does NOT equate one as being "anti-semite". judaism is a religion that has been practice-through some of the worst of times-for the past 5000 years. zionism , is a political philosophy that came out of europe, at a time when european countries were colonizing africa and asia. the jews of europe wanted to colonize palestine.

mathatma gandhi is an example of how one can criticize israel and not hate jews. he had expressed his love and solidarity with the jewish people, but objected the idea of a jewish state. gandhi did not believe in the idea of the unireligious state, and that if jews wanted to live in palestine, then they should work it out between them and the arabs, and not bring us or uk in the picture.

"My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"

just because one supports israel, does not exclude them from anti-semitism. look at evangelical christians, who crying for a new crusade to bring all the jews to israel, so the second coming of christ would occur. of course, the jews who they "care for" so much would be sent to hell of course, unless they convert to christianity of course-thus commiting a spirtual genocide. a while back congressman tom delay spoke to American Israeli Public Affairs Commitee(AIPAC), where he called the west bank it's biblical name "judea and samaria". however earlier that month delay said that a christianity is “only viable, reasonable, definitive answer†to life’s key questions. basically telling the average jew, that the beliefs and values they've been raised on means sh!t.

so i don't care if o'reilly think anyone who criticizes israel or american middle east policy an "anti-semite". because i am not the one who wants to exploit jews to fulfill some sort of bibilical prophesy, where the end result is sending jews to hell.

truth about o'reilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched O'reilly last night, he received and email from one very smart woman and it read.

"The only time you were wrong was that time you tought you were wrong, but later came to find out you were right after all."

she was refering to Mr. O'reilly and she was right too. O'reilly should be running for president after Bush completes his 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If O'Reilly ever became President, that would be the point when I ask for a transfer to my agencies Toronto office, pack up my family and head North of the border. That man is way to fucking right wing for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by nabuc1

If O'Reilly ever became President, that would be the point when I ask for a transfer to my agencies Toronto office, pack up my family and head North of the border. That man is way to fucking right wing for me.

the second he becomes president, he's going to shut the border with canada. i know he has done one episode bad mouthing canada's immigration policies, just because one of the accused 9/11 hijackers came through the canadian border. o'reilly thinks it's canada's fault for the whole 9/11 attacks. it isn't canada's responsibility to know who comes into the us, that's OUR responsibility.

if he becomes president, i too may have to go to canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the second he becomes president, he's going to shut the border with canada. i know he has done one episode bad mouthing canada's immigration policies, just because one of the accused 9/11 hijackers came through the canadian border. o'reilly thinks it's canada's fault for the whole 9/11 attacks. it isn't canada's responsibility to know who comes into the us, that's OUR responsibility.

if he becomes president, i too may have to go to canada

Maybe we should consider closing the border. whats so wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×