Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I was wrong on Iraq - Bill O'Reilly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I was wrong on Iraq - Bill O'Reilly

    Now this is a turn up for the books? I wonder if he will come back later and "clarify" his statement?

    It's time other American's faced upto the reality, and admit that they were very wrong as well?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3479703.stm

    I was wrong on Iraq - Fox pundit

    A right-wing American television presenter who outspokenly supported the Iraq war has backtracked on his views. The Fox News network's Bill O'Reilly told viewers he was now sceptical about the US president's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. "I was wrong," said Mr O'Reilly, adding "all Americans should be concerned" that no such weapons had been found. President George W Bush led the US to war in Iraq, claiming its arsenal of illegal weapons posed a threat. However, since the war, successive teams of investigators have been unable to find any evidence that Iraq possessed these weapons of mass destruction. David Kay, the US official appointed by President Bush to lead the search for Iraq's weapons, resigned last month, complaining that the intelligence that led to the war was mistaken. Under growing pressure from his critics, President Bush has announced an inquiry into apparent pre-war intelligence failures.

    Pre-war promise

    Mr O'Reilly did not criticise the president, but instead indicated the blame lay with American's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be," he said. "I don't know why [CIA director] Tenet still has his job." Mr O'Reilly made his statement on ABC television, the US rival to Fox News, keeping a promise he made before the war to publicly apologise if no banned weapons were found in Iraq.

    #2
    Gee, that is the nice thing about being Chomsky and changing your mind on sanctions, or some TV tlking head, is that you can change your mind, and it means nothing but more hot air.


    When we find out that Saddam really did not massacre the Kurds, Shia's, Marsh Arabs, start a war with Iran, another war with Kuwait, launch missles at Saudi and Israel, torture and murder political dissenters, then you can wake me.

    How many genocides does he get free?
    Boycott Venezuelas State owned Citgo.

    Buy Royal Dutch Shell gasoline!

    Comment


      #3
      well it took ya long enough.

      Comment


        #4
        Well maybe other American's will now start admitting they were wrong? Or maybe they are still busy celebrating the 'achievments' of the US military, who in "liberating" Iraq now seem to be outdoing Saddam in killing tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents.

        But Bill O'Reilly, the hero of the neo-cons has made a start...

        Comment


          #5
          Whoopee,

          I join the bandwagon, my country was wrong about WMD.

          ( I wonder when Clinton will admit he was wrong. Actually he admitted to the Prime Minister of Portugal that at the time of the war, that he too believed that Saddam had WMD. )

          We were not wrong about Saddam.
          Boycott Venezuelas State owned Citgo.

          Buy Royal Dutch Shell gasoline!

          Comment


            #6
            Iraq had weapons in 1998 when the UN left.

            There is no excuse for Bush's failure in Iraq post-war.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Ohioguy:
              Gee, that is the nice thing about being Chomsky and changing your mind on sanctions, or some TV tlking head, is that you can change your mind, and it means nothing but more hot air.


              When we find out that Saddam really did not massacre the Kurds, Shia's, Marsh Arabs, start a war with Iran, another war with Kuwait, launch missles at Saudi and Israel, torture and murder political dissenters, then you can wake me.

              How many genocides does he get free?
              OG it would have been nice if those were the reasosn put forth by the president. The case for war or occupation to be exact was made on WMDs and imminent threat to US security which is frankly bull crap.
              Weather forecast for tonight: dark.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by underthedome:
                Iraq had weapons in 1998 when the UN left.

                There is no excuse for Bush's failure in Iraq post-war.
                On the Contraire ...according to Scott Ritter there were no weapons of mass destruction when UN left in 1998. Please stop spreading lies and rumors for once in you life.
                Weather forecast for tonight: dark.

                Comment


                  #9
                  In 1998 Ritter said Saddam was not disarmed, he resigned because he claimed Clinton was too soft on Saddam. Keep the personal insults in check, you know better, and do your fact checking better.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Really Mr. check your facts...look at this

                    "While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.".

                    This is article is written by Scott Ritter himslef. Here is the link
                    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
                    Now read and weep. Did US go over to finsish off the rest of 5% that the brutal sanctions could not do from 1998 to 2003. Get your head checked or better yet take that dome off for a while and let a little fresh air help you regain senses.
                    Weather forecast for tonight: dark.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Scott Ritter 1998 after his resignation.

                      WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

                      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...tter_8-31.html

                      Testimony from Ritter to Congress after his resignation in 1998

                      "Iraq is not disarmed. Iraq still poses a real and meaningful threat to its neighbors."

                      "What is your time frame on a chem-bio operational capacity?" asked then-Rep. Paul McHale (D-Pa.).

                      "Under six months," Ritter said.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Kaleem:
                        Really Mr. check your facts...look at this

                        "While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.".

                        This is article is written by Scott Ritter himslef. Here is the link
                        http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
                        Now read and weep. Did US go over to finsish off the rest of 5% that the brutal sanctions could not do from 1998 to 2003. Get your head checked or better yet take that dome off for a while and let a little fresh air help you regain senses.
                        Good comeback Kaleem.

                        It's highly amusing to see some American's now use the testimony of Scott Ritter to justify their lost arguments, especially as they have been trying to discredit him for so so long. I need to PM a notable guppie who was castigated by the neo-con supprting yanks for using Mr Ritter as a source not that long.

                        Oh it is so sweet to see so many people spinning around.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Malik what do you think of his testimony to Congress in 1998?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            How does the threat to neighbors translate into threat to US? Chem-bio operations capacity to what? develop medicine or weapons? why are we so keen on Saddam's weapons (none of which have been found) when we cannot even capture the person who killed a few americans by using anthrax. Maybe we should destroy each and every factory in US that can or is producing chemical and biological material. How does that sound?
                            Weather forecast for tonight: dark.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I never said Iraq was a direct threat to the U.S.

                              Removing Saddam removed a thorn, a thorn that forced sanctions onto Iraq that in turn through Saddam's cruelty and manipulative ways put the suffering onto everyday Iraqis.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X