Do you agree with this message?

[Bodacious]

Look at the message, not the author.

The Iraq Litmus Test
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jan 06, 2005
With the Iraqi election looming, the predictable violence by anti-democratic forces inside that chaotic country is causing angst among many loyal Americans. On the one hand, most of us want the USA to prevail in Iraq; to succeed in seeding democracy there. On the other, it is tough to watch young Americans get killed on a daily basis.

Opposition to the war in Iraq should, of course, be respected. But that opposition has to be responsible in order to deserve respect. Let's look at two examples.

First, former Presidential candidate George McGovern, an ardent anti-Vietnam War opponent, is continuing his dovish philosophy. Writing in The New York Times, McGovern states, "Once we left Vietnam and quit bombing its people, they became friends and trading partners. Iraq has been nestled along the Tigris and Euphrates for 6,000 years. It will be there 6,000 more, whether we stay or leave..."

With all due respect, Senator McGovern's view is naive at best, dangerous at worst. He conveniently forgets that, according to an analysis by The Los Angeles Times, more than 900,000 South Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps after the North Vietnamese violated the U.S. negotiated peace treaty and overran the South in 1975. McGovern also fails to mention that communists in neighboring Cambodia slaughtered two million human beings after the USA withdrew its forces from Vietnam. Trading partners indeed.

From the very beginning, Senator McGovern and many other Americans played down the evil that is communist totalitarianism, just as many anti-Iraq war people are diminishing the evil of the Saddam loyalists and Zarqawi terrorists inside Iraq today.

It is true that fighting evil in Iraq may not be feasible. To be successful in any war, you must choose your battles wisely. But to actually think the North Vietnamese and Iraqi "insurgents" are some of kind of reasonable opposition is nuts.

Which brings us to the second example of war dissent, those Americans who actually want the USA to lose in Iraq. They are out there, and they are shameless.

On December 17th, I interviewed Professor Jeffrey Stone who teaches law at the University of Chicago on my television program. The topic was whether one could be a loyal American and want to see the USA defeated militarily in Iraq. Stone said yes:
O'Reilly: "I want to make sure you want to stand by your statement, that you can be a loyal American rooting for your country to lose militarily in Iraq. Do you stand by that?"

Stone: "I stand by that. One can be a loyal American and still root against the country."
Stone went on to say that wanting the USA to lose in Iraq could save lives in the long run. I said that any military loss would have to mean more causalities for the U.S. military, which is absolutely true. You don't lose militarily without taking casualities, so how could any loyal American want that to happen?

Subsequently, Professor Stone wrote an op-ed in The Chicago Tribune accusing me of, among other things, spewing "ugly invective" and "inflaming my audience."

Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.

Rationalizations walk. If you are rooting for the insurgents, you are one.

 

[Kommie]

I see stones point but I also see bill's point.
Yet, while I can see and understand both perspectives I simply dont agree with bill. "rooting" against the U.S. and taking violent action against the U.S. are two different animals. anyone can remain loyal-(Steadfast in allegiance to one's homeland, government, or sovereign. Faithful to a person, ideal, custom, cause, or duty.) To the u.s. if they are only simply rooting against them. loyal just not mindlessly nationalist

 

[Pericolos0]

If the guy thinks America losing the war is of better interest for the US itself, I seriously cant see why that doesnt make him a loyal american anymore

 

[No Limit]

Bill O'Reilly is an idiot and a liar. I read the article but keep in mind when it comes from O'Reilly the quotes are usually taken out of context. If you want to look in to actually read the entire source the quote came from, then form an opinion on that.

 

[burner69]

I think most people objecting to the war are objecting to two things

* The motive that we went into war
* Whether or not Bush really cares about Iraq's future, or just wants it as a convienent base for middle east operations - look at the state of Afghanistan, that's currently been left to rot for now, and with Iran seemingly on the cards it looks like both Iraq and Afghanistan will be on the back burner.

At least, that's my problem with the war.
Bush lied to get us in there, and I don't doubt for one minute that he'd hesistate to lie about its future to satisfy his critics.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I doubt very much that Stone means 'I hope lots of US soldiers die' as O'Reilley implies. It's much more reasonable to assume he's talking about a tactical retreat.

Personally, it would be best to clean up as quick as possible and pull out entirely and monitor the situation from afar. Set up temporarilly ultra-strict border control and deal with as many terrorists who are now inside as you can before turning the situation over to the iraqis themselves.

That would indeed be a 'loss' but it is one that could help maintain stability.
...and minimize US casualties. Duh, O'Reilley. If the troops pull out, less of them will be killed.

Most of what fuels terrorism these days is US military presence in the mideast, and percieved offences against middle-eastern culture. The US in Iraq is both those things.
Not to mention that a signifigant portion of insurgents are just fighting to get the US out.

So yeah, by pretty obviously taking what he said out of proportion, O'Reilley was "inflaming his audience". The way iraq is going, I don't see why anyone would object to the current plan being abandonned for another.

"I think the US shouldn't succeed in Iraq."
"So, you support a loss."
"Yes"
"You heard it here first folks. Professor Jeffery Stone wishes our troops overseas were dead."

And, of course, he then accuses the man of anti-americanism.
Why didn't he just get out with it and yell "Commie! Commmiiieee!"
O'Reilley's a stand-up guy.

 

[Bodacious]

I think most people objecting to the war are objecting to two things

* The motive that we went into war
* Whether or not Bush really cares about Iraq's future, or just wants it as a convienent base for middle east operations - look at the state of Afghanistan, that's currently been left to rot for now, and with Iran seemingly on the cards it looks like both Iraq and Afghanistan will be on the back burner.

At least, that's my problem with the war.
Bush lied to get us in there, and I don't doubt for one minute that he'd hesistate to lie about its future to satisfy his critics.

This isn't about if the war is right or not. If you want to discuss that go elsewhere. As far as this thread goes you can leave all that stuff out. No one here is challenging whether or not the war was justified.

The object is to find out if people think what O'Reilly says is true or not. If you didn't read it, it basically says that if you don't support democracy being installed in Iraq then you are no better than an insurgent.

If all you want to do is complain about us being there in the first place, move on, cause we aren't going anywhere for a while. At least not for another 4 years.


Oh and secondly, I want to see you proof that Afghanistan has been left to rot, seeing as how they had elections this past october and the troop levels there have never decreased.

 

[Midnight Cowboy]

Before I start, I just want to say I hate Bill O'f##king-Reilly. I hate his arrogant, self-serving 'either agree with me or your wrong' ego.

I truely believe that no human being can be evil. They may do things which we as a society claim are 'evil'. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and (unless we're talking psychopaths) everyone rationalizes their 'bad' actions with a just cause. The crusades weren't evil, we just meant well after all.

When I see a young boy's corpse being dragged out of rubble by his mother, crying to god. When I see children choking on tears at the site of their dead families. When I see Baghdad in sea of flames with columns of smoke rising into the night. When I see the radioactive carcasses of Iraqi tanks. When I see a boy sobbing, pleading with journalists to help him find his blown-off arms. I have no pity for bastards who did this. They are just as bad as the "Insurgents" the people who just want no more brightly coloured cluster mines exploding in the hand of their children. I change the channel and see Fox News thanking those people for 'defending our freedom'. Iraq was never a threat to our 'freedom' and they aren't defending a goddamn thing.

Call me Anti-American and I'll gladly agree.

 

[CptStern]

"Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.

Rationalizations walk. If you are rooting for the insurgents, you are one. "


this in itself proves O Reilly is an idiot. I cant think of even one american who would rejoice at the deaths of other americans ...not care, yes ...but I dont think any american would be happy

 

[Steve]

I'm just not seeing where believing the U.S. occupation is wrong and being against it becomes "rooting for the insurgents".

 

[Kommie]

I sure am glad that billy boy cant disable our internet connection so we can actually debate his ludicrous ideas. :naughty:

 

[No Limit]

Some quick spam http://www.oreillysucks.com

 

[Bodacious]

I'm just not seeing where believing the U.S. occupation is wrong and being against it becomes "rooting for the insurgents".

That is not wat Bill is saying at all.

He is saying that the people who don't want democracy to take hold are the ones who are in the wrong.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Both of these men should be shot for wasting the time of their viewers.

 

[Kommie]

That is not wat Bill is saying at all.

He is saying that the people who don't want democracy to take hold are the ones who are in the wrong.

Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.

Rationalizations walk. If you are rooting for the insurgents, you are one.

I have to disagree

 

[Steve]

That is not wat Bill is saying at all.

He is saying that the people who don't want democracy to take hold are the ones who are in the wrong.

Ah. Okay then.

 

[Bodacious]

this in itself proves O Reilly is an idiot. I cant think of even one american who would rejoice at the deaths of other americans ...not care, yes ...but I dont think any american would be happy

Stone, the person O'Reilly quted in that column thinks that. It can be said that anyone who wants us to pick up and leave Iraq today wants that.

Obvioulsly those people don't want americans to die, that is why they are complaining in the first place. But to sit there and say they want the US out of there today means that they want the US to lose. The only way for us to lose is to lose battles. The way we lose battles is for our troops to die. Therefore, wanting us to leave Iraq today = wanting our troops to die.

How can that correlation not be made?

 

[Bodacious]

I have to disagree

Not wanting democracy to take hold in Iraq is the same thing as wanting americans to die.

If you don't want democracy to take hold = you want America to lose = you want the US to lose battles = Battles are lost by American troops dying.

 

[Absinthe]

...Or by pulling out.

One could also argue that losing troops in battles, resulting in a US loss, would end the war more quickly as opposed to a drawn-out long-term occupation.

Not saying I agree with any of this.

 

[burner69]

This isn't about if the war is right or not. If you want to discuss that go elsewhere. As far as this thread goes you can leave all that stuff out. No one here is challenging whether or not the war was justified.

The object is to find out if people think what O'Reilly says is true or not. If you didn't read it, it basically says that if you don't support democracy being installed in Iraq then you are no better than an insurgent.

If all you want to do is complain about us being there in the first place, move on, cause we aren't going anywhere for a while. At least not for another 4 years.


Oh and secondly, I want to see you proof that Afghanistan has been left to rot, seeing as how they had elections this past october and the troop levels there have never decreased.

Sorry bud, I think I was going to make a point but..erm.. didn't. Sorry.

Afghanistan?
Not enough resources: http://www.stimson.org/?SN=FO20020702378
Poor state: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=584408

 

[burner69]

Stone, the person O'Reilly quted in that column thinks that. It can be said that anyone who wants us to pick up and leave Iraq today wants that.

Obvioulsly those people don't want americans to die, that is why they are complaining in the first place. But to sit there and say they want the US out of there today means that they want the US to lose. The only way for us to lose is to lose battles. The way we lose battles is for our troops to die. Therefore, wanting us to leave Iraq today = wanting our troops to die.

How can that correlation not be made?

What? Don't you get the idea of pulling out? I'm sure that guy was thinking "gee, I really want my countrymen to die".

Anyway, links to my first post - we shouldn't be there in the first place, at least not in the manner with which we got there.

 

[Kommie]

Not wanting democracy to take hold in Iraq is the same thing as wanting americans to die.

No it is not, and that is not what bill o'reilly means which is what i disagree with you about

If you don't want democracy to take hold = you want America to lose = you want the US to lose battles = Battles are lost by American troops dying.

Or
you want america to pull out=not losing battles=pulling out isnt a major cause of american soldiers dying

 

[Kommie]

Also, true democracy will never take hold as is evident in all the governments that the u.s. either
A)set up
b)supported
The U.S. NEVER fights for freedom and helping the downtrodden, It fights for the bottom line of it and it's allies'. Or if threatened
The U.S. Never supports governments (and in many times has actually funded and trained insurgents) that
wont help the bottom line or won't give in to certain US demands. Be they democratic or not.

Iraq's new government will always play puppet to the U.S. Or it WILL fail

 

[HadouKen24]

I can see what Professor Stone might have been saying. Heavy losses in the short term, leading to our quickly pulling out, would mean that in the long term, fewer people would die. O'Reilly's characterization of this is faulty. That is not wanting American troops to die. On the contrary, it is the desire that as many live as possible. If fewer people will die overall if many die in the short term, then that might be the best outcome, no matter how regrettable.

 

[KoreBolteR]

"Well, here's some more gas for the fire. Believing that the Iraq War is wrong is legitimate dissent, and you might even be right--this may be an unwinnable situation. But feeling any kind of joy or satisfaction when you hear of victories by the "insurgents" means you have crossed the line from dissent into disloyalty.

Rationalizations walk. If you are rooting for the insurgents, you are one. "


this in itself proves O Reilly is an idiot. I cant think of even one american who would rejoice at the deaths of other americans ...not care, yes ...but I dont think any american would be happy

you mean terrorists right? not insurgents ..? lol :cheese:

 

[Sprafa]

That's an extremely dumb opinion. Even the guy who said about Vietnam, and O'Reilly claiming there were millions of deaths afterwards, did he count the deaths there would be if the USA didn't retreat ? They would be vastly superior, for both sides.

 

[No Limit]

Not wanting democracy to take hold in Iraq is the same thing as wanting americans to die.

If you don't want democracy to take hold = you want America to lose = you want the US to lose battles = Battles are lost by American troops dying.

No, it's not the same thing. If troops pull out we still lose but many American lives are saved.

Here is a response from Stone to O'Reilly:

By Geoffrey R. Stone, author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime,"
is a law professor at the University of Chicago

Dissent in wartime can be the highest form of patriotism. If citizens believe that our military or political leaders have blundered or our reasons for fighting are unjust, they must voice these concerns if they are to meet their responsibilities in a self-governing
society. Dissent is not disloyal.
Like those who support a war, those who dissent in wartime want to protect our soldiers, further our national interests and ensure that the United States is a nation of which they can be proud. But war breeds powerful and often dangerous passions. No one wants to hear that his son or daughter, brother or sister, is putting life and limb at risk for an ignoble or futile
cause. In the throes of wartime, it is easy to lose sight of the essential difference between dissent and disloyalty.
Throughout our history, a succession of irresponsible and opportunistic journalists and politicians has intentionally blurred this line to incite fear and hatred. I recently encountered just such a "journalist" firsthand.
I was invited to appear on the TV show "The O'Reilly Factor" to debate the question: "Is dissent disloyal?" After the producer and I discussed the issue, host Bill O'Reilly (according to the producer) decided to redefine the question: "Can an American who wants the United States to lose the war in Iraq be patriotic?"
Of course, this is a loaded question. It not-so-subtly implies that those who oppose the war in Iraq want the United States to lose and, worse, want American soldiers to die (as O'Reilly later actually charged). Sadly, this tactic is all too familiar in U.S. history.In 1798, when the nation was on the verge of war with France, Federalist newspapers in defense of President John Adams characterized Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and
their followers as the "worst and basest of men" who were "preying on the vitals of the country." During the Civil War, defenders of the government attacked their critics as "artful men, disguising their latent treason under hollow pretensions of devotion to the Union."
In the 1919-1920 Red Scare, during which thousands of "radicals" were rounded up for deportation in the Palmer Raids, the Chicago Tribune screamed that "it is only a middling step from Petrograd to Seattle," and the New York Tribune fumed that strikers, "red-soaked in the doctrines of Bolshevism," were plotting "a general red revolution in America." After Pearl Harbor, Henry McLemore, syndicated columnist of the Hearst
newspapers, demanded "the immediate removal of every Japanese from the West Coast." He added, "Personally, I hate the Japanese. And that goes for all of them." The columnist Westbrook Pegler shrieked, "To hell with habeas corpus." In the 1950s, Joseph McCarthy and his minions charged that there was a plot against America and that no one could support the Democratic Party "and at the same time be against

communism." He decried "liberals" whose "pitiful squealing would hold sacrosanct those communists and queers" who had sold China into "atheistic slavery." And during the Vietnam War, Vice President Spiro Agnew charged that "the leaders of the anti-war movement" were "avowed anarchists and communists who detest everything about this country and want to destroy it."
This brings me back to Bill O'Reilly. In our "debate," O'Reilly protested that he did not mean to imply anything about the loyalty of those who "merely" oppose the war in Iraq, as long as they don't "root" for the enemy. Accepting his rather peculiar framing of the issue (it is, after all, his show), I argued that a patriotic citizen could in principle want his nation to lose a war--if the war is unjust and if "losing" means that fewer soldiers and civilians will die for no good reason. After all, patriotic Italians in World War II could well have hoped Italy would lose the war, the quicker the better.
O'Reilly insisted that losing the war in Iraq would necessarily mean that more Americans would die than if we did not lose (whatever "lose" means in this context), and that no patriotic American could therefore want the United States to lose. Of course, this isn't necessarily so. A patriotic American could reasonably believe (rightly or wrongly) that we have no business being in Iraq and that the sooner we get out the better. To cover the evident weakness of his position, O'Reilly resorted to the time-tested spewing of such ugly invective as "despicable," "traitor" and "disloyal" (not at me, but at those who might hold the hypothetical view he was determined to excoriate).
His purpose, of course, was to inflame his audience, without regard to the most fundamental values of the American system he claims to support.
What is the consequence of such demagoguery? As always in our history, it is to foster rage rather than reflection. After the show, I received a flood of e-mails capturing the anger I believe O'Reilly deliberately incited. A few examples:
- "You ought to be arrested, tried and convicted of wartime treason. And I don't have to tell you the penalty for that."
- "You are not only despicable, but should go ahead and move out of the U.S.A."
- "I must imagine that you will look over your shoulder a little bit, because maybe some soldier in a foxhole somewhere might be a tad angered with you. There may be a few GIs who would like to `speak' with you."
- "There is the tendency for citizens to take the law into their own hands in these cases; that is not outside the realm of possibility."
- "If anything happens to either of my loved ones serving overseas, I will hold you responsible."
- "Simply, you are un-American."
And so on.
Of course, these individuals have every right to their views, and the 1st Amendment certainly protects O'Reilly's vile incitement of such hatred.
But he dishonors the Constitution and his profession when he does so. This is not democratic deliberation. It is dividing Americans against Americans just for the sport of it.
In my book, for people like political commentators O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to exploit people's fears and anger in a time of war for nothing more than their own ratings is a pretty good definition of "unpatriotic."

 

[Bodacious]

A patriotic American could reasonably believe (rightly or wrongly) that we have no business being in Iraq and that the sooner we get out the better.

This is where stone and the people agree with him, I believe, are incorrect. The Bush administration isn't going to pull out, at least not in the forseeable future. With that in mind, the only way we are going to pull out is if we lose battles. So, to the people that acknowledge that fact, the people who want us to lose in Iraq want our soldiers to die.

Secondly, I am no longer, and niether is O'Reilly, challenging anyone that thinks we shouldn't be there in the first place; that is a valid argument.

In my book, for people like political commentators O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to exploit people's fears and anger in a time of war for nothing more than their own ratings is a pretty good definition of "unpatriotic."

This is the most absurd thing in his article. Maybe he should point the finger at his own party for the Draft lies, for Rathergate, for the social security lies, for healthcare and drug lies, and so on, before he accuses anyone of trying to scare the populace.

 

[No Limit]

This is where stone and the people agree with him, I believe, are incorrect. The Bush administration isn't going to pull out, at least not in the forseeable future. With that in mind, the only way we are going to pull out is if we lose battles. So, to the people that acknowledge that fact, the people who want us to lose in Iraq want our soldiers to die.

Dude, we are already losing battes. Nobody is talking about our soldiers dying; even if I disagree, they are talking about pulling troops out early. No shit, Bush won't pull them out because it would ruin the Republicans but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to suggest it without being called a traitor. What O'Reilly did was he implied that they want Americans to die as you are trying to do. This is not accurate.

his is the most absurd thing in his article. Maybe he should point the finger at his own party for the Draft lies, for Rathergate, for the social security lies, for healthcare and drug lies, and so on, before he accuses anyone of trying to scare the populace.

Please, point out the lies and I will address them. What you fail to mention is valid reasoning behind each one of these 'lies'.

Also, drug lies? Wasn't it the republicans that tired to scare people into not buying drugs from Canada because terrorists might use it against them without any evidance to back up that claim. Isn't it the republicans that are saying our social security will run out in 2019 (also a huge lie).

 

[Bodacious]

Dude, we are already losing battes.

Name one. The only americans I see dying are due to carbombs and suicide attacks. Those aren't battles.

..but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to suggest it without being called a traitor.

Whether they accept it or no that is what they are doing.

Please, point out the lies and I will address them. What you fail to mention is valid reasoning behind each one of these 'lies'.

Because this isn't the thread for that, for one. I don't have to comment on the draft lies. That whole fiasco is a democratic brain child to scare young voters. Prove me wrong.

Rathergate? Please. If you don't acknowledge those documents were false then I don't know why I am even talking to you. The fact that CBS tried to pass that off as a legitimate story shows their bias and attempt to swindle the american people into thinking Bush was given special treatment.

As for social security, this is what Ted Kennedy said yesterday, or the day before, I cna't remember:

Yet President Bush is talking not just about a cut, but an incredible 33 percent cut. We must oppose it - and we will defeat it.

That is a bold faced lie and he knows it.

This is Bush's Plan

No where is Bush's Vision for Social Security does it mentions a social security benefit cut.



Form the site:

President Bush will not change benefits for today's retirees or near-retirees.

 

[burner69]

This is Bush's Plan

No where is Bush's Vision for Social Security does it mentions a social security benefit cut:

Now why wouldn't it mention that on the governments website?

Try this:
“We've got to do more to protect worker pensions.” – Bush, 8/7/02
Just four months after touting pension security, Bush’s Treasury Department announced plans to propose new rules that “would allow employers to resume converting traditional pension plans to new ‘cash balance’ plans that can lower benefits to long-serving workers. Such conversions are highly controversial. Critics contend that they discriminate against older workers in violation of federal law” [Washington Post, 12/10/02]

There's more, regarding education cuts, taking away veterans benefits, cutting work training schemes... if you'd like to see them. And although you can argue against them - they're taken from published white house documentation so...

 

[Bodacious]

Give me the links then, I would like to see them

Also, I am not denying republicans use scare tactics to get votes, that would be foolish. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the democrats. No where in my previous posts have I said republicans are infallable.

I really want to see your data on education, Seeing as how Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years

 

[burner69]

Hmm, intersting that despite all this... Joe Public isn't getting it so good

Bush saying one thing, then doing another.

 

[Bodacious]

LOL, your first link was from 2000! HELLO, THERE WAS A RECESSION THEN!

As for your second link, that is a democrat sponsered site with no links to outside sources.

And like I said, I am not denying republicans are infallable.

 

[No Limit]

Whether they accept it or no that is what they are doing.

However O'reilly and your republican friends try to spin it this is not what they are doing. If I say I wanted Bush to pull out the troops am I a traitor?

Because this isn't the thread for that, for one. I don't have to comment on the draft lies. That whole fiasco is a democratic brain child to scare young voters. Prove me wrong.

Give me quotes from actual democrats. What democrats talked about was the possibility. If they had no right to suggest it where is Bush going to get more troops when he decides to attack Syria and Iran and why have draft boards opened up when they were closed just 2 years ago? I hardly agree that a draft will happen soon but the same goes for almost every democrat; again, prove me wrong by showing me quotes.

Rathergate? Please. If you don't acknowledge those documents were false then I don't know why I am even talking to you. The fact that CBS tried to pass that off as a legitimate story shows their bias and attempt to swindle the american people into thinking Bush was given special treatment.

Bitch about me not addressing a point while you ignore mine. Typical republican. If you want to get into the CBS thing make a new thread, I will be happy to point out the many lies of other media that supported Bush and we will see how they stack up; especially when nobody got fired for those other lies.

No where is Bush's Vision for Social Security does it mentions a social security benefit cut.

Oh yeah, if the White House makes it seem like that it must be absolutely true. Please, give me a break. I can name one cut off the top of my head. When someone I knew had their father die that family got his social security benefits; the ones he paid for. This money saved them from poverty. With Bush's plan this will not be the case as they won't see a penny of that money. I could go on and find many more examples of where he will cut things but I have better things to do; I think I made my point about how his propaganda site is one big lie and doesn't address a single problem with his plan (there are many).

 

[Kommie]

This is Bush's Plan

Oh and that site is totally unbiased and chock full of outside sources

Also on the topic of rathergate,
What other time has a major public figure insisted on going through with something based on faulty and contested evidence?

 

[Bodacious]

However O'reilly and your republican friends try to spin it this is not what they are doing. If I say I wanted Bush to pull out the troops am I a traitor?

Pretty much. In order for you to want the troops to pull out you have to acknowledge the circumstances in which it would be ncessary to pull out. But no, you look past those circumstances and stand your ground hoping that Bush will end the war and we pull the troops out.

My argument is that you aren't looking at those circumstances (troops dying) which are real if your demands were to be met.

Give me quotes from actual democrats. What democrats talked about was the possibility. If they had no right to suggest it where is Bush going to get more troops when he decides to attack Syria and Iran and why have draft boards opened up when they were closed just 2 years ago? I hardly agree that a draft will happen soon but the same goes for almost every democrat; again, prove me wrong by showing me quotes.

I don't have the quotes here, but I do at home, when I get a chance I will put them up here for you.

Bitch about me not addressing a point while you ignore mine. Typical republican. If you want to get into the CBS thing make a new thread, I will be happy to point out the many lies of other media that supported Bush and we will see how they stack up; especially when nobody got fired for those other lies.

What point did I not address, I continued your discussion about the scare tactics of democrats did I not?

Show me another news organizations that used forged documents for political gain. You can't.

Oh yeah, if the White House makes it seem like that it must be absolutely true. Please, give me a break. I can name one cut off the top of my head. When someone I knew had their father die that family got his social security benefits; the ones he paid for. This money saved them from poverty. With Bush's plan this will not be the case as they won't see a penny of that money. I could go on and find many more examples of where he will cut things but I have better things to do; I think I made my point about how his propaganda site is one big lie and doesn't address a single problem with his plan (there are many).

Thats the president's plan whether you like it or not. Show me your source for his cuts.

 

[Bodacious]

Oh and that site is totally unbiased and chock full of outside sources

Also on the topic of rathergate,
What other time has a major public figure insisted on going through with something based on faulty and contested evidence?

CBS isn't public figure, it is a corporation who's 60 minutes section function is to report news. I was under the impression that if news is being reported it is supposed to be true and unbiased.

 

[Bodacious]

Here is moveon.org promoting false draft lies

 

[Bodacious]

Here is John Kerry lying about the draft.