Replies

When I read the transcript on drudge, I cringed when o'blowhard accepted the premise that no wmd had been found!

We just tested the Arrow with a scud from Irag!

There was mustard gas in the rivers on the way to bagdad. There were nerve gas antidotes. There have been around 30 shells with chemical agents found.

Also we had no way to know that saddam was bluffing the EXTENT of his stockpiles of wmd.

So the premise was wrong.. Also harobring of abu sayeff(sp) yasin from WTC I, abu nidal, abu abas, likely oklahoma city involvement.

There was every reason to beleive that sadam would CONTINUE to attack us.

But o'blowhard will not be happy with Rush. This will prolly not be the last word.

Moore's allegation is that President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. His proof of this is that before the invasion President Bush claimed that Iraq had WMD's but since then we have not found any therefore Bush lied. Pretty silly argument and I think O'reilly could have argued much more effectively against this sort nonsense:

1) One of Moore's main claims in F911 is that the Saudis control Bush - that Bush wakes up in the morning thinking of how he can serve his Saudis masters. If this is the case then one must wonder why on Earth Bush would make up lies about WMD's in Iraq in order to justify the invasion since the Saudis strongly opposed said invasion.

2) The UN, CIA and most other major intelligence agencies all agreed that Iraq possesed WMDs.

3) Recent reports, both stateside and from Europe, indicate that President Bush's statement about Iraq attempts to purchase yellowcake were indeed well founded.

4) Senate investigation report into Iraq intelligence concluded that there even though the intelligence was flawed there was no effort to distort that information. Similar conclusion were made concerning British intelligence.

5) Isaac Newton discovered and presented his theory of gravity/force/motion to the world. Of course Albert Einstien found that Newton overlooked a very important aspect of the theory. Yes, what Newton stated was untrue, but it was the best that he knew at that time. Can we conclude therefore that Isaac Newton was a liar?

In addition to O'Reilly's continuous onslaught of "No WMD's found", he has again promoted the lie about Bush claiming that Iraq was an imminent threat --- straight from the dems talking points.

Bush never claimed that. What he said was, "There are those who believe we should wait until the threat is imminent....."; And I'm about to write O'Reilly again and point this fallacy out to him again. (He made the same claim some time back and I wrote him, but he obviously either never saw it, or ignored it).