I can agree that those responsible should be held accountable. I'm bad with names but wasn't it the head CIA guy that used the term 'slam dunk' on his intelligence and wasn't he fired?

I can also agree that the President is ultimately to be held responsible for the actions of the US, but I really feel he acted appropriately given the situation. He asked for input, he and his staff gathered intelligence and I think he came to a reasonable decision based on what was presented to him. It's my understanding that Russia and England's intelligence was backing up our own intelligence which makes it pretty overwhelming to ignore or cast aside as 'not likely'.

I'm sure History played a role in his decision as well. When Pearl Harbor was attacked we later looked back and said, "We missed the signs". Since Sept 11th, we've looked back and said, "We missed the signs". If I were in his position and given all the "signs" upfront, I think I would lean toward the pre-emptive side as opposed to "Crap! We missed those signs again!” Of course now we're set up for a new set of 'signs' and the next guy's not going to want to do anything or is going to have one helluva time selling it because of the way this one turned out.


bone

 

"Would you sacrifice your child"

that question had no place in a serious conversation, unless you are a peice of crap pushing a movie that puts money in your pocket.

Does Moore have kids? if he dosent then he is even a bigger peice of crap than i thought because unless you have a child, there is now way to explain or understand the Love a parent has for a child. i belive this was a debate stratagy, ask a question that cuts to the bone of anyone with a kid "would you sacrifice them" hell no, i would not sacrifice my child for anything, but that is not my choice, last i checked a parent could not inlist their child

has moore annouced what he going to do with the money he is making off of 9/11?

 

Saadaam was just stupid...Time has showed that now...

But the real mistake was in what country to make a government change in over there...In time you will see you should have made a visit to Iran...That's one bad crewwwww and getting worst...And I don't think Kerry will do anything about them in time if you give him the vote he wants...Ah life on the Cape is good....

 

alot of folks support Micheal Moore including a half-brother of Osama bin Laden, quote: says he enjoyed most of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" film....thats great company

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040728/D843U4U00.html

 

Come on Raoul, how can you say anything bad about O'Reilly? He had been trying to talk to Moore for over 2 months. You and I obviously saw 2 different interviews. I was actually waiting for him to give some type of proof to back up his claim that Bush lied, having not seen Fahrenheit 9/11. All he gave was his hatred of Bush.

 

It would have been impossible for Moore to give any proof that President Bush lied. Moore has NO proof and never will have any proof. Moore’s fantasies can NEVER be backed up by any facts…

 

Yeah the "Would you sacrifice your child?" question made no sense to me either. Last time I checked our military was still voluntary and only "adults" were allowed to join.

So the real question should have been, "Have you raised your children to be un-selfish and caring enough to be willing to give up their own lives in the belief that it will result in a better life for future generations?"

Now I'm not saying that's how it has ended up and that it's been worth 900 of our guys so far just to remove Saddam, it's definitely not over. But I believe that it's the mindset that we (the people in our Armed Forces) went over there with. I also believe that that mindset comes from the examples our great-grandparents, grandparents and parents have set for us since WWI.

bone
(USMC in past life, still got friends over there)

 

I found the child question interesting. Thinking back to Gulf War I the left made a big deal out of calling the men on the front lines boys. How it was an insult to the grunts. It is common and still is behind public doors. Just as common as calling military kids brats. It is not a slam and is not intended to be an insult. Look who the leaders of the military are people in their 30's and 40's the majority of the military is very young, teens and 20's, so yes to the leadership they are kids.

Now the left is allowing one of their biggest mouth pieces to call the military men and women children. Now we know the Democrats are led by Kerry. And the flip-flopping continues.

 

Do you ever have it wrong. You must not have watched the same interview I did. O’Reilly just let him wallow in his misguided interpretations of facts. MM is entitled to his opinion, they just happen to be unsubstantiated by facts. FACTS being the KEY word

 

what did you find interesting about it?

the way he phrased your child, he was only talking about O'Reily child not a boy, not a girl, not a figure of speech. When someone says to me "your child" i am 100% sure it is inreference to my child.

Ir really want someone that has shown support for Moore to come and tell me that they are not the least offended by the reference and i also want to to now what cause they would "sacrifice" there child for. for those that like the spin, i would like to here a well thought out answer that would have satisfied fat b@stard and not made O'reily look like a heartless man or a non-patriot.

i will give moore credit for coming up with the perfect question to get o'reily to step back, kind of like the guys in the movie that hid behind women and children, what a hero he is. the only answer that O'reily could have come back with was, i havent thought about what i would sacrifice my kids for, what would sacrifice your kids for?

 

I agree the question ”Would you sacrifice your child” was absolutely stupid. I would NOT EVER sacrifice my child for ANYTHING or ANYONE. However if I had a son and he was in the military and someone asked was I willing to send him off to war I would say ”What do you think ********, he is in the MILITARY?”

Would it be hard? Your damn right it would be and anyone saying otherwise would be lying. Nobody wants to see their child (yes child even if they are 25, to a parent you will always be a child) killed in a military conflict however it is reality that we will ALWAYS need a military manned by individuals that have mothers and fathers and some of them will die from time to time and that is not necessarily the sacrifice of the parents but of an educated young adult that has “chosen” to sacrifice their life for their countries existence.

It is the bravest thing an individual could ever do and the reason that in my eyes and my mind those who have served and are serving will always be the MOST IMPORTANT and RESPECTED individuals.

For Moore to use such a cheap shot, to cheapen the real meaning of sacrifice is just beyond disgusting, I would have hit the moron right in the mouth and kicked his fat butt out of my studio…

 

(Boston) Well, I finally tracked down Michael Moore. I saw him walking in the street outside the Democratic Convention Center and pounced on him like the paparazzi on J-Lo. Moore had been dodging me because his movie was becoming increasingly indefensible by something called "facts." But, to his credit, Moore took up my street challenge and agreed to appear on "The Factor".
We debated for ten minutes and Moore put forth the following:

That President Bush "lied" about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation and Lord Butler's British Investigation all say Bush did not lie.


Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.


Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.


Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms build up had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.


The filmmaker then went on to say that pre-emptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time ask him how he would have done that but I assume commandos would have been involved.
So, hey, Michael Moore this bud's for you. Thanks for showing up and debating. Now we know the under-pinnings of your world outlook.
What is still astounding to me is how many people continue to embrace the fantasies and deceptions of Michael Moore. Some people actually applauded him at the Democratic Convention, but the heavyweights stayed away.

In one bizarre scene, Moore was seated next to Rosalyn and Jimmy Carter. The couple stared straight ahead, looking like contestants about to eat bugs on the "Fear Factor," and the Kerry campaign has made it quite clear that Moore and other left-wing bomb throwers are not to be seen around the candidate.

In fact, the Kerry people actually censored some of the speechmakers from using inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric. That is almost unheard of at a political convention.

But old reliable Howard Dean came through. He continues to be Michael Moore's best pal, appearing with him at a Bush bash in a Cambridge hotel. It is absolutely frightening how close Governor Dean came to being the Democratic presidential nominee.

This may surprise you, but I do not dislike Michael Moore. He is a true believer. He wants a completely different kind of country, and he'll do anything to make that happen.

The problem with Moore is that the ends justify the means. He knows his statements and movies are not based on facts, but he continues to say they are. Even in Moore's world where truth doesn't exist, there should be some kind of ethical standard, but there isn't. And the fact that Howard Dean and other powerful Americans accept that situation is more troubling than anything Michael Moore could ever say.

 

BROTHERDAVE--I used interesting in an apparently failed attempt to interject a little irony.

The left was outraged about calling anybody in the military boys, a reference that would be parallel to a child comment. But a mouthpiece for the left was asking if it would be ok to sacrifice you child to secure Fallujah and other places. If taken literally, would you sent you 6, 7, 10, 15, or 16 year old child to war. No, that was tried in the Crusades and failed miserably(warped humor here). So I would jave to say MM was using it as a figure of speech to incite an emotional response, if not from O'Reily then the audience. So it is alright for the left to allude to the military members as children, as long as they are not called boys/girls?

As I stated in my original post many of the leadership for the military have children old enough to be in the military, yet they are chastised by the left for calling the young men and women boys or girls. Typically a military member can serve no longer than 30 years if the person enlisted when they were 17 that would make them well old enough to have children in the military. You stated that it does not matter how old ones child is they will still be seen as children by their parents. I agree to a point. Where I think we disagree is it's my opinion that if they are responsible enough to take a majority of decisions correctly without much assistance then the child has grown up and could/should be looked at as a man/woman. This opinion might chage as my own child grows up and reaches adulthood.

 

I have three children 25, 23 and 18 years old. They will always be MY babies.