Saturday, July 24, 2004

Militants Force Palestinian Family Into an Agonizing Choice

Militants Force Palestinian Family Into an Agonizing Choice


Published: July 24, 2004

JERUSALEM, July 23 - The Zanin family of the Gaza Strip faced a familiar, and agonizing, choice: whether to let Palestinian militants use their land to fire mortar shells at Israel , and risk having their home razed in retaliation by Israeli troops. They balked, and ended up losing one of their own, a 15-year-old boy.
For days, militants used the family's orange and olive groves in the Gaza village of Beit Hanun to set up launchers. On Friday, four members of Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, an armed branch of Yasir Arafat's Fatah movement, returned to try to set up a launcher in front of the family's house.
The family protested, said Amna al-Zanin, a member of the family. The militants drew weapons. Three shot into the air, but a fourth fired directly at the family, wounding Ms. Zanin and hitting her 15-year-old nephew, Hassan al-Zanin. He died later at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City ; doctors said the bullet had penetrated his heart.
"Even if we ask them not to fire from our land, that doesn't give them permission to shoot at us," Ms. Zanin said in a telephone interview from her bed at Alawdah Hospital in Jabaliya. "It's very painful that a Palestinian bullet was directed toward a Palestinian chest."
Her 18-year-old nephew was hit in an ear, and her 20-year-old nephew was struck in the hand.
Ms. Zanin is no friend of the Israelis. She was interviewed 10 days ago about conditions in Beit Hanun during an Israeli incursion, and she angrily described how children in her clan could not sleep at night and were frightened much of the day.
"I wish I could be a fighter to shoot at Israelis," she said then. "I am willing to explode myself out of anger."
Militants have launched rockets and other missiles from Beit Hanun at nearby villages in Israel like Sederot. Last month a rocket killed a 3-year-old Israeli boy on his way to kindergarten and a 50-year-old Bukharan immigrant from the former Soviet Union .
Israeli forces responded by blocking off roads, bulldozing fruit trees used as cover and sending patrols into Beit Hanun. Militants responded by seeking new vantage points.
Ms. Zanin described Hassan as the best student in his grade and said he was supposed to attend a party on Saturday and receive an award for academic excellence.
She said Friday that none of the militants who had used the family's land had ever been as reckless as the four this morning.
A Palestinian Authority security official confirmed that Israelis had not been involved in the killing of Hassan al-Zanin.
"The Palestinians have no power to stop such a phenomenon," he said. "The authority has its own internal problems." He speculated that the clan was particularly angry at the militants because members had lost a house, a car and part of an orchard in a previous Israeli retaliation.
"The people have started to have the courage the face the militants," the official said.
Israeli military officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the broad outlines of the Beit Hanun killing and emphasized that their soldiers had no involvement.
"This is part of a growing trend, where residents are exasperated with gunmen," one official said. "We saw it in Rafah, where people were angry at the militants building tunnels under their houses. And in Nablus , where the residents weren't sorry that we were arresting the bad guys in their neighborhood."
Hundreds of residents in Beit Hanun demonstrated last year to protest the launching of rockets from their town by militants, though the militants who bore the brunt of the anger then were from Hamas, which is frequently at odds with Fatah.
According to news reports at the time, 600 demonstrators marched down the main street, burning tires and chanting slogans against Hamas, saying that because of its activity, the Israeli Army was destroying their orchards and their homes.
One of those quoted at the time was Omar Zanin, who said: "We've had enough, because the people here have paid a very heavy price. The Israelis have turned our lives into hell because of the rockets."
The latest death, according to Agence France-Presse, brings to 4,189 the number of people killed since the start of the current Palestinian uprising, or intifada, in September 2000. The toll includes 3,192 Palestinians and 926 Israelis.
Early Friday morning, Israeli forces and intelligence agents raided Yatta, a village south of Hebron in the West Bank , and arrested Mahmud Mahmed Abu Hutza, a militant they had been seeking for more than two years in the killing of five people.
The army official said that in July 2002 in the Mount Hebron region, he had fired shots at two Israeli cars, killing three settlers and an army escort. The following October, the army official said, Mr. Abu Hutza staged an attack at the Zif junction, south of Hebron, killing one Israeli and wounding two other people.

Abu Ghraib, Whitewashed

Abu Ghraib, Whitewashed

Published: July 24, 2004

A week ago, John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was satisfied that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was keeping his promise to leave no stone unturned to investigate the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison. A newly released report by the Army's inspector general shows that Mr. Rumsfeld's team may be turning over stones, but it's not looking under them.
The authors of this 300-page whitewash say they found no "systemic" problem - even though there were 94 documented cases of prisoner abuse, including some 40 deaths, 20 of them homicides; even though only four prisons of the 16 they visited had copies of the Geneva Conventions; even though Abu Ghraib was a cesspool with one shower for every 50 inmates; even though the military police were improperly involved in interrogations; even though young people plucked from civilian life were sent to guard prisoners - 50,000 of them in all - with no training.
Never mind any of that. The report pins most of the blame on those depressingly familiar culprits, a few soldiers who behaved badly. It does grudgingly concede that "in some cases, abuse was accompanied by leadership failure at the tactical level," but the report absolves anyone of rank, in keeping with the investigation's spirit. The inspector general's staff did not dig into the abuse cases, but merely listed them. It based its findings on the comical observation that "commanders, leaders and soldiers treated detainees humanely" while investigators from the Pentagon were watching. And it made no attempt to find out who had authorized threatening prisoners with dogs and sexually humiliating hooded men, to name two American practices the Red Cross found to be common. The inspector general's see-no-evil team simply said it couldn't find those "approach techniques" in the Army field manual.
Even the report's release on Thursday was an exercise in misdirection, timed to be overshadowed by the 9/11 commission's report. Senators on the armed services panel were outraged at the report's shoddiness and timing, but should not have been surprised. The Defense Department has consistently tried to stymie Mr. Warner's investigation. It "misplaced" thousands of pages from Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report on Abu Ghraib, the only credible military account so far. It stalled the completion of a pivotal look at Army intelligence by two other Army generals until lawmakers went off to the political conventions and summer vacations. And it ignored Senate demands for the Red Cross reports on American military prisons for months.
The Pentagon finally brought those documents to the Senate in the last two weeks, in a way that ensured they would be of minimal use. The voluminous reports were shown briefly to senators and a few members of the Armed Services Committee staff after the senators' personal aides were ushered out. Then the reports were hauled back to the Pentagon.
Mr. Warner has admirably resisted pressure from the White House and Republican leaders in Congress to stop his investigation. But he is showing signs of losing appetite for the fight. Mr. Warner held only one hearing in the last month - on the new report - and agreed to the ground rules on the Red Cross reports. We've always been skeptical that the Defense Department can investigate itself credibly, and now it's obvious that it plans to stick to the "few bad apples" excuse. The only way to learn why innocent Iraqis were tortured by American soldiers is a formal Congressional inquiry, with subpoena power.

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Hostages and beheading
Susan Brannon July 22
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 21 -" Insurgents said Wednesday that they had kidnapped six more foreign hostages and threatened to behead one every 72 hours unless their employer shut down operations in Iraq." Reports The New York Times by Ian Fisher.

This is a new kind of war we have here Kidnappings, beheading, target bombing by suicide. Reporters are risking their lives by going into the area to report to you what is going on over there. I won't go. I've been there, but I won't go now.
There is good money to be made for Amerian businessmen in Iraq, developing a country and its infastructure is costly but profitable. Is it really worth ones life? Every foreign worker that I met in Baghdad was earning in the three digit bracket. Good income for a years work.
Ian further reports, " Foreigners working for companies employed by the American military have been a frequent target among the dozens of kidnappings in Iraq since April, when violence in Iraq spiked to its highest level."
"We have warned all the countries, companies, businessmen and truck drivers that those who deal with American cowboy occupiers will be targeted by the fires of the mujahedeen," The Associated Press reported. Funny I have a photograph of an Iraqi holding a tabloid cover of Bush, referring to him as a cowboy.
This photo was taken in October of last year. Thus the Americans are now labeled as "cowboys".
The Iraqis, are happy to be free from the dictatorship under Sadam, but they want to earn their own money and build their own country. At least that is what most of the population told me. Now, the civil war has begun, as predicted. Different fractions are now wanting to be in charge, to rule and create thier own Iraq.
Boy have we started a mess. "Here you are once again transporting, goods, weapons and military equipment that backs the United States Army." now the other countries are involved, their soldiers and lives. What is the cost? more on cost..later.... reference article: (

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

interview with Sakher Habash

Corruption should never be replaced with corruption”
an interview with Sakher Habash
This week Palestine Report Online interviews Sakher Habash, member of Fateh's executive committee and coordinator for the Palestinian national forces, on the security situation in Gaza .

PR: What are the most recent developments with regards to the political crisis within the Palestinian leadership and the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in particular? 

Habash: The crisis is not between the Palestinian Authority and the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades because there is no one body bearing the Brigades' name. There are several different statements being released by various groups under the name of the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and there are contradictions in the content of these statements – some parties adhere to the party line of the Aqsa Martyrs while others do not. Therefore, we must distinguish between those who are self-proclaimed Aqsa Martyrs members and the true Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
I think the most recent statement, issued under the name of the Aqsa Martyrs about the attack on Palestinian Authority positions and the abduction of [police chief] Ghazi Jabali, is not really from the Brigades. The reason is that the true Aqsa Brigades adhere to the political line of Fateh. The Brigades have their own philosophy when it comes to resisting and striking at the occupation, which varies slightly from that of Fateh's, but on the issue of fighting corruption, the Aqsa Martyrs adhere to Fateh's line.

I think the events we have seen recently are an attempt to spark a civil war and that those behind it are at the root of the corruption, claiming to be the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The current crisis, therefore, is not with the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades but with suspicious groups trying to shake the stability and security of the region in order to deliver a blow to the Palestinian Authority.

PR: What can we do about the lack of security and rule of law in the Palestinian street? 

Habash: The state of security chaos is a result of the failure to deal with problems from their inception. The popular saying goes, “treat your wound and it won't fester.” Corruption leads to more corruption and the state that we are in has occurred because of a few corrupt people who strive for material and financial goals that benefit only them.

This situation in Palestinian society in which there is no rule of law, necessitates a strong and solid stance. We need more competent and trustworthy officials to be appointed in order to get matters under control. The honest and powerful should be running things not the deceitful and powerful, such as Jabali. His shamelessness has ultimately led to his weakness. In the end he was delivered a blow in his own workplace. One corrupt person should never be replaced with another. And any replacement should not be on the grounds of personal loyalties but rather loyalty towards the Palestinian cause. I should not appoint someone just because of his loyalty to me in disregard of his faults.

The focus of the meeting today [July 20] with President Arafat was that the crisis calls for national unity on a sound and stable basis. We need honest people with integrity.

PR: What is Fateh's role in reversing this state of chaos? 

Habash: Fateh is calling for national unity and a unified stance in the Palestinian street. [Prime Minister] Abu Ala ' [Ahmad Qrei'] has said that he is convinced this state of chaos is the result of accumulation of going easy on vigilante groups and undisciplined militias.

The groups that carry out corrupt actions must have their covers blown and Abu Ammar must be at the helm of this action, followed by the joint national forces. They must stand hand in hand and talk with the same tongue. They must also specify the exact nature of the corruption in order to get a real hold over the security situation.

PR: What decisions were take when the Fateh Central Committee met with the national security council? 

Habash: Our first decision was that Ghazi Jabali's resignation should never have been accepted. Rather, he should have been expelled from his position and a clean and honest person put in his place as the head of the police service. Saeb Al Ajez was chosen and he is a competent and clean man. As for Musa Arafat, there was a campaign against him because of some of his actions, namely land-taking, which indicates corruption. In my opinion, the choice of Musa Arafat was not a sound one. But, President Arafat is using his authority and he will have to bear the consequences of this decision.

I think the people who rose up against the appointment of Musa Arafat are mostly people more clearly involved in corruption. Some are even involved with the Israeli occupation.

When Abu Ammar wants to carry out reforms, he must choose the right people and put them in the appropriate positions at the right time.

PR: Do you think that this wave of kidnappings signifies a new approach for some factions? 

Habash: The people who carried out these abductions were gangs and their actions were criminal, especially when they attacked former police chief Jabali. How could his position as head of the police service be belittled in this way? This has opened the door to chaos in the Palestinian street.

Now, we must reverse the mistake these groups have committed - a mistake which has actually given credence to the recent statements of [ UNenvoy] Terje Larson's about the Palestinians. His statements are in fact correct - we must fight the corrupt elements, which are allowing the world to say that the Palestinians should be put behind a security wall.

PR: Is the Authority going to remove Musa Arafat because of the people's rejection of his appointment? 

Habash: That is up to Abu Ammar.

PR: Do you feel that the latest reforms were basically a reaction to what happened? 

Habash: These changes were already on the table before all these events occurred. Unfortunately, however, the decisions were made at an inappropriate time. We hope that decisions will always be taken within the PA as actions and not just reactions because this is how things should operate. -Published July 21, 2004©Palestine Report

Poverty Fuels Anger

Poverty Fuels Anger
Wednesday July 21, 2004   The Guardian As gunfire crackled nearby between between groups of Palestinian gunmen disputing who should head the police in Gaza , Ahmed Kaskin could only wonder at the cost of the ammunition and what the money could do for his family.   If one of his six sons was drawing a policeman's wage, he might have been more partisan.   "If I was employed or one of my sons was employed, I might think differently. But I can only look from the outside and all I can see is angry people around me cut off from that money," he said.
Mr Kaskin, 57, has six adult sons and he has tried repeatedly to get one of them a job with the Palestinian Authority's dozen security agencies.   After the last failed attempt, last month, a neighbour told him to stop complaining. "You know how it works. You have $500 or $1,000 and you pay the right person. You don't have the money so forget about it," he recalled.   The spate of kidnappings and gun battles that have occurred in the last week come against the backdrop of a power struggle precipitated by the Israeli plan to withdraw its settlements from the territory.   They are, in part, about political discontent with the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Yasser Arafat, and the struggle between armed groups associated with the authority and its dominant faction, Fatah, for control of the authority's resources.
These resources in turn come from the European Union and the Gulf states.   It is these resources that Mr Kaskin and the majority of Gazans who live in extreme poverty can only access, he says, with bribes they cannot afford. As a result they have little interest in the outcome.   "Look at who is firing the guns. They are not supporting the people, they are just trying to protect their jobs. The better they support their chief the more likely they are to keep their jobs and get advantages in the future," Mr Kaskin said.   He sits at the head of a family of 44 who live in a roughly built, concrete and asbestos house in the middle of the Shati refugee camp, known as Beach Camp, which stands next to Gaza City 's small hotel strip and its upmarket Rimal district.   "We sleep together packed like rats," said his wife, Majdia.   He was once a fisherman but is now an invalid and must attempt to raise funds to pay for a back operation in Egypt . In Gaza 's third world economy, a job as a police officer means a guaranteed income of $200 (=A3108) per month. Even for such a large family, a single wage would mean the difference between surviving and living.   While Mr Kaskin rails against the corruption of the authority, it is clear that he would rail less if he received more.   "I have six sons. Would Ghazi Jabali [the police chief who was kidnapped and fired by Yasser Arafat] give one a job? No. One was selected for training but he was not picked. We were devastated.   "If you want a job you pay. If you want to breathe you pay. We feel so out of the circle. We are just forced to watch. I am so angry about it but if I expressed my anger, it would do no good and I might land in jail," he said.   The family are divided about who could improve the situation. Mr Kaskin and his 29-year-old son, Muhammad, think that Muhammad Dahlan, a former head of one of the security agencies and an independent power in Gaza , backed by Israel and the United States , would be fairer. "Dahlan would be the best because he is a refugee and would represent us better," said Mr Kaskin.  (Conal Urquhart in Gaza City: The Guardian Wed. 21 July)

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Bush 'Didn't Tell the Truth'

The O'Reilly Factor
Fox News
Moore : Bush 'Didn't Tell the Truth'
Wednesday, July 28, 2004

BOSTON — This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," July 27, 2004 that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
It was a match-up the media and political observers have longed for. No, not George W. Bush against John Kerry. It's Michael Moore (search) against Bill O'Reilly.
Moore, the director who made "Fahrenheit 9/11" (search) and created one of the election season's biggest uproars, said he wouldn't go on "The O'Reilly Factor" until O'Reilly saw the entire movie. And he said any conversation would have to be aired without any editing and with the opportunity for Moore to ask O'Reilly questions.
All of the demands were met and Moore sat down with O'Reilly in the FOX News skybox high about the floor of the Democratic National Convention. Following is the full transcript of their meeting:
MICHAEL MOORE, FILMMAKER: That's fair. We'll just stick to the issues.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: The issues… all right good. Now, one of the issues is you because you've been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain and now the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush. Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction. Wanna apologize to the president now or later?
MOORE : He didn't tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but he didn't lie, he was misinformed by — all of those investigations come to the same conclusion. That's not a lie.
MOORE : Uh huh. So, in other words, if I told you right now that nothing was going on down here on the stage…
O'REILLY: That would be a lie because we could see that wasn't the truth.
MOORE: Well, I'd have to turn around to see it and then I would realize, oh Bill, I just told you something that wasn't true… actually it's President Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th, and he used that as a…
O'REILLY: OK, He never said that, but back to the other thing: If you, if Michael Moore is president…
MOORE : I thought you said you saw the movie? I show all that in the movie.
O'REILLY: Which may happen if Hollywood , yeah, OK, fine…
MOORE : But that was your question…
O'REILLY: Just the issues. You've got three separate investigations plus the president of Russia all saying… British intelligence, U.S. intelligence, Russian intelligence, told the president there were weapons of mass destruction; you say he lied. This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious…
MOORE : Well, that's almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test…
O'REILLY: All right, now you're dancing around a question…
MOORE : No, I'm not. There's no dancing.
O'REILLY: He didn't lie.
MOORE : He said something that wasn't true.
O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources.
MOORE : Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn't listen to anybody.
O'REILLY: They wouldn't go by Russian intelligence and Blair's intelligence too.
MOORE : His own people told him. I mean, he went to Richard Clarke the day after September 11th and said, “What you got on Iraq ?” and Richard Clarke's going “Oh well this wasn't Iraq that did this sir, this was Al Qaeda.”
O'REILLY: You're diverting the issue… did you read Woodward's book?
MOORE : No, I haven't read his book.
O'REILLY: Woodward's a good reporter, right? Good guy, you know who he is right?
MOORE : I know who he is.
O'REILLY: OK, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said, “President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, ‘slam dunk.'” If you're the president, you ignore all that?
MOORE : Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.
O'REILLY: I agree. The lieutenant was fired.
MOORE : Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn't communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn't have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th.
O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...
MOORE : OK, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a “slam dunk” and your going to go to war.
O'REILLY: You've got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they're all saying the same thing that's why. You're not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.
MOORE : Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don't know a worse…
O'REILLY: It wasn't a lie.
MOORE : He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?
O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.
MOORE : A seven year old can get away with that…
O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question…
MOORE : “Mom and Dad it was just bad information…”
O'REILLY: I'm not going to get you to admit it wasn't a lie. Go ahead.
MOORE : It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question.
MOORE : Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?
O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say: “We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.”
MOORE : But what were they killed for?
O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people.
MOORE : Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war: to remove a brutal dictator.
O'REILLY: Well, we're back to the weapons of mass destruction.
MOORE : But that was the reason…
O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction…
MOORE : That we were told we were under some sort of imminent threat…
O'REILLY: That's right.
MOORE : And there was no threat, was there?
O'REILLY: It was a mistake.
MOORE : Oh, just a mistake, and that's what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We're sorry.” I don't think that is good enough.
O'REILLY: I don't think its good enough either for those parents.
MOORE : So we agree on that.
O'REILLY: But that is the historical nature of what happened.
MOORE : Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?
O'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional.
MOORE : No, not intentional, it was a mistake.
O'REILLY: Then if it was an unintentional mistake I cannot hold you morally responsible for that.
MOORE : Really, I'm driving down the road and I hit your child and your child is dead.
O'REILLY: If it were unintentional and you weren't impaired or anything like that.
MOORE : So, that's all it is, if it was alcohol, even though it was a mistake — how would you feel towards me
O'REILLY: OK, now we are wandering.
MOORE : No, but my point is…
O'REILLY: I saw what your point is and I answered your question.
MOORE : But why? What did they die for?
O'REILLY: They died to remove a brutal dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of people…
MOORE : No, that was not the reason…
O'REILLY: That's what they died for…
MOORE : …they were given…
O'REILLY: The weapons of mass destruction was a mistake.
MOORE : Well there were 30 other brutal dictators in this world…
O'REILLY: Alright, I've got anther question…
MOORE : Would you sacrifice — just finish on this — would you sacrifice your child to remove one of the other 30 brutal dictators on this planet?
O'REILLY: Depends what the circumstances were.
MOORE : You would sacrifice your child?
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself — I'm not talking for any children —to remove the Taliban. Would you?
MOORE : Uh huh.
O'REILLY: Would you? That's my next question. Would you sacrifice yourself to remove the Taliban?
MOORE : I would be willing to sacrifice my life to track down the people that killed 3,000 people on our soil.
O'REILLY: Al Qaeda was given refuge by the Taliban.
MOORE : But we didn't go after them, did we?
O'REILLY: We removed the Taliban and killed three quarters of Al Qaeda.
MOORE : That's why the Taliban are still killing our soldiers there.
O'REILLY: OK, well look you can't kill everybody. You wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan — you wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan , would you?
MOORE : No, I would have gone after the man that killed 3,000 people.
MOORE : As Richard Clarke says, our special forces were prohibited for two months from going to the area that we believed Usama was…
O'REILLY: Why was that?
MOORE : That's my question.
O'REILLY: Because Pakistan didn't want its territory of sovereignty violated.
MOORE : Not his was in Afghanistan , on the border, we didn't go there. He got a two-month head start.
O'REILLY: All right, you would not have removed the Taliban. You would not have removed that government?
MOORE : No, unless it is a threat to us.
O'REILLY: Any government? Hitler, in Germany , not a threat to us the beginning but over there executing people all day long — you would have let him go?
MOORE : That's not true. Hitler with Japan , attacked the United States .
O'REILLY: From '33 until '41, he wasn't an imminent threat to the United States .
MOORE : There's a lot of things we should have done.
O'REILLY: You wouldn't have removed him.
MOORE : I wouldn't have even allowed him to come to power.
O'REILLY: That was a preemption from Michael Moore. You would have invaded.
MOORE : If we'd done our job, you want to get into to talking about what happened before WWI, whoa, I'm trying to stop this war right now.
O'REILLY: I know you are but…
MOORE : Are you against that? Stopping this war?
O'REILLY: No, we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to…
MOORE : So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself..
MOORE : Your child? It's Bush sending the children there.
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE : You and I don't go to war, because we're too old…
O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
MOORE : Say, “I, Bill O'Reilly, would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah.”
O'REILLY: I'm not going to say what you say, you're a, that's ridiculous…
MOORE : You don't believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?
O'REILLY: Look it's a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you —
MOORE : Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq ?
O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq .
MOORE : Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?
O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don't you know anything about any of that?
MOORE : So, you're saying Iraq is responsible for what?
O'REILLY: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein aided all day long.
MOORE : You're not going to get me to defend Saddam Hussein.
O'REILLY: I'm not? You're his biggest defender in the media.
MOORE : Now come on.
O'REILLY: Look, if you were running he would still be sitting there.
MOORE : How do you know that?
O'REILLY: If you were running the country, he'd still be sitting there.
MOORE : How do you know that?
O'REILLY: You wouldn't have removed him.
MOORE : Look, let me tell you something in the 1990s look at all the brutal dictators that were removed. Things were done; you take any of a number of countries whether its Eastern Europe , the people rose up. South Africa the whole world boycotted…
O'REILLY: When Reagan was building up the arms, you were against that.
MOORE : And the dictators were gone. Building up the arms did not cause the fall of Eastern Europe .
O'REILLY: Of course it did, it bankrupted the Soviet Union and then it collapsed.
MOORE : The people rose up.
O'REILLY: Why? Because they went bankrupt.
MOORE : the same way we did in our country, the way we had our revolution. People rose up…
O'REILLY: All right, all right.
MOORE : …that's how you, let me ask you this question.
O'REILLY: One more.
MOORE : How do you deliver democracy to a country? You don't do it down the barrel of a gun. That's not how you deliver it.
O'REILLY: You give the people some kind of self-determination, which they never would have had under Saddam…
MOORE : Why didn't they rise up?
O'REILLY: Because they couldn't, it was a Gestapo-led place where they got their heads cut off…
MOORE : Well that's true in many countries throughout the world…
O'REILLY: It is, it's a shame…
MOORE : …and you know what people have done, they've risen up. You can do it in a number of ways . You can do it our way through a violent revolution, which we won, the French did it that way. You can do it by boycotting South Africa , they overthrew the dictator there. There's many ways…
O'REILLY: I'm glad we've had this discussion because it just shows you that I see the world my way, you see the world your way, alright and the audience is watching us here and they can decide who is right and who is wrong and that's the fair way to do it. Right?
MOORE : Right, I would not sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah and you would?
O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.
MOORE : You wouldn't send another child, another parents child to Fallujah, would you? You would sacrifice your life to secure Fallujah?
O'REILLY: I would.
MOORE : Can we sign him up? Can we sign him up right now?
O'REILLY: That's right.
MOORE : Where's the recruiter?
O'REILLY: You'd love to get rid of me.
MOORE : No, I want you to live. I want you to live.
O'REILLY: I appreciate that Michael Moore everybody. There he is.