Bill O'Reilly goes nuclear

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id3119/pg1/

 

The following day, Bill O’Reilly continued his attacks on Mr. Glick by falsely claiming that Mr. Glick “was out of control and spewing hatred.” The transcript from “The O’Reilly Factor” itself shows that these statements are wrong. What Mr. Glick said was “Why would I want to further brutalize and punish the people of Afghanistan…” “The people of Afghanistan … didn’t kill my father,” and the CIA “…that trained a hundred thousand Mujahedeen” bore some responsibility. Mr. Glick remained calm, focused and dignified throughout the entire show. The video shows it was Bill O’Reilly that lost his composure. After the interview he told Mr. Glick to “Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f**king pieces!”

[Guest iamsherm]

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

 

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

 

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

 

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

 

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

I just want to know where O'Reilly gets off telling this kid how his father would feel. Did he know his father?

[Guest EricMM]

He specifically said that George Bush was not responsable for two planes flying into the World Trade center. Thats what he said and it's totally true. It's true history repeats itself, and we should be careful when we oust Hussein. But does that mean that we're wrong to do it?

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

The U.S. supported the Mujahdeens because they where fighting against the Soviets. Who had invaded Afghanistan.

And then from the Mujahdeens indirectly spawned the Taliban. We also supported Saddam Hussein at one point too. Doesn't this show a bit of a problem?

That's like saying we shouldn't bring down the USSR because we supported them against Nazi Germany.

Read ^

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But does that mean that we're wrong to do it?

I don't know. You simply wanted some proof that we had a hand, and so I gave it to you.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Read ^

I'm not taking an anti-war position here (since this was really a "Bill O'Reilly is a cockhat" thread more than a "Should we go to war?" thread), but I don't remember us leaving the Soviet Union in power of a nation and then having to come back after them, which is what we're doing here.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

1. We didn't put Saddam in power.

 

2. What about bin Laden?

[Guest B-X]

The entire interview, plus some misc bits

 

And before anyone starts to bitch me out because there is Anti-O'Reilly sentiment here, just consider that the transcript is whats important.

 

No one is grabbing you by the hair, forcing your face down so your nose hovers two inches from the screen, and shouting, "READ IT BITCH, READ IT AND ACCEPT THAT O'REILLY = BAD".

[Guest JMA]

How is Tony Snow a jerk. Because he's a Republican?

My favorite President was a Republican. I simply find Snow to be annoying.

[Guest JMA]

Y'know, this has got me thinking. It's clear that O'Reilly portrays a character. His character seems to be in support of the so-called "common man" (read: white, middle class, family, conservative). A clever smokescreen that enshrouds who he truly is. He's kind of similar to a typical wrestling heel. The true personality of William O'Reilly is that of a media whore.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

1. We didn't put Saddam in power.

 

http://hnn.us/articles/1066.html

 

 

At this time, Iraq, under the leadership of King Faisal, was a reliable U.S. ally, but the specter of Arab nationalism, represented by Egypt’s President Gamel Abdel Nasser, would cause dramatic changes in Baghdad. In July 1958, a nationalist coup led by General Abdel Karim Kassim ousted Faisal and the new government maintained friendly relations with Nasser. Later that year, however, President Dwight Eisenhower sent 14,000 troops into Lebanon to “restore order” and Kassim got the message, assuring the U.S. that its interests in Iraq were safe and distancing his regime from Egypt, but also removing Iraq from, and thus ending, the Baghdad Pact.

 

Kassim began a repression of the Iraqi Left and many officers, including Saddam Hussein, fled to Egypt and elsewhere in the late 1950s and early 1960s. But Kassim himself was ousted and assassinated in a 1963 coup led by officers of the Ba’ath Party [The Arab Socialist Renaissance Party], who, however, lost their upper hand to more radical officers and could not hold on to power. Reportedly, American intelligence operatives began to cooperate with Ba’ath officers, providing them with names of alleged communists and other radicals, who were murdered en masse. Then, five years later, Ba’athists successfully took control of government with Saddam Hussein as a minor figure in the government. Through political maneuvering, imprisonment, and murder of his rivals, however, Saddam soon led the regime.

 

We've had over 40 years to make a "regime change" in Iraq, and we've decided not to do it every time.

 

The U.S., though initially supportive of Ba’athist Iraq, turned quickly and began to support separatist Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq in the early 1970s. In 1975, however, the U.S. reached an agreement to seal the border between Iraq and Turkey, the site of Kurdish resistance, and Saddam immediately slaughtered thousands of Kurds, prompting Henry Kissinger’s famous explanation that “covert operations should not be confused with missionary work.”

 

Just a few years later, Iraqi-American relations reached their high point. As Ayotallah Khomenei’s Islamic Revolution took hold in Iran, the United States saw Teheran as its main adversary in the Middle East, as did Iraq. Consequently, with huge levels of American support–over $40 billion in weapons and technology through the 1980s, with many transactions “off book”–Iraq fought against Iran for nearly a decade. In the latter stages of battle, eventually won by Iraq, U.S. officers provided intelligence and tactical advice to the Iraqis, all the while Baghdad was using chemical and biological weapons on the battlefield to suppress the Iranians. Once the war ended, Saddam killed many thousands of his own Kurdish population with chemical weapons. Meanwhile, U.S. economic aid to Iraq increased.

 

Check that out:

 

We gave Saddam billions. We gave him weapons.

 

We watched them use chemical and biological weapons on our shared enemy.

 

We watched them kill his own villages, as Bush Jr keeps going on about.

 

And we continued to support them and give them money. So what's happened in the past few years is we've made an about-face, and G.W in particular now sees what was formerly considered acceptable to be unacceptable.

 

I'd speculate if there is an ulterior motive to attacking Iraq, but I don't want to turn this into a pro/anti war thread.

 

2. What about bin Laden?

 

Bin Laden is bolded because it shows he was a key organizer in the CIA and ISI's effort to train them. Whether or not we like the connections, they're there.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The U.S. thought during the Iran-Iraq War, that Iran was more of a threat.

 

JotW what would your solution of been in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The U.S. was trying to stop the spread of communism, and these are the men who where fighting the Soviets.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

It's obvious that even after the war with Iran was over, that Saddam was doing the stuff Bush drags him over the coals for right now (chemical weapons, killing his own people, etc.)

 

Appearantly, we haven't found it worthy of full-scale war for decades. Why now?

 

Saddam is obviously a bad guy, but look: You don't need to be a way-out-there conspiracy theorist babbling on about black helicopters and mind control waves to conclude that there's a reason for this war beyond the "he's a heartless dictator who blows away his own villages" reason that's been trotted out again and again. He's been doing that for ages now and nobody cared enough for this strong a reaction.

 

Then there's the WMD arguement, but that doesn't make sense when you consider that they continue to tell the military to ignore North Korea and that they'll deal with it through other means.

 

It might be for one of the reasons the Liberals like to spout off: such as controlling the oil fields or avenging his Dad or what have you. It may not. But the offered reasons don't add up to a lot of logic.

 

That's my last post on my own conclusions to these events, since I really have nothing more to contribute and we're pretty close to completely hijacking this thread. It was originally on the Oreilly topic but moved to my own opinions. Basically, my own opinion is it's not bad for us to fix our own mistakes, but we must make sure we don't make a whole new round of mistakes in the process.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

9-11 happened. President Bush feels that Hussein could be working with groups like Al Qaeda, or developing WMD to use against the U.S. and it's allies. He feels like if he doesn't act know to get Hussein out of power, something like 9-11 will happen again but only worse.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Boy, this thread got interesting while I was gone.

 

Sort of off-topic, but are there any liberal newstalk show hosts? Hell, I'll take a moderate at this point. Just seems that folk like Buchanan and O'Reilly are the only types out there. Honest question, because I don't watch enough of the channels to know, since I prefer to just get my information and form my own stance on it, so I stop watching as soon as a certain host is mentioned or is in the title of a program, because that means you're hearing their opinion on it. The only real examples would be Lou Dobbs' Moneyhour or Wolf Blitzer Reports that I can think of.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

For the time being Phil Donahue is the only hardcore left-winger with a show. Chris Mathews is a Democrat, but more middle of the road. If I had to guess Greta Van Sustren, and Aaron Brown are both Democrats. I haven't seen enough of either show to know if they really push a certain political agenda.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I watched a bit of Donahue the other night, but it was only because Desmond Tutu was on there. Chris Matthews can be pretty entertaining. Thanks for the suggestions.

[Guest JMA]

I think the liberals are right in this situation. By that I mean Bush is doing this for oil and revenge. I have no problem with taking down Iraq (just without nukes) but I think we need to hit al Queda and not people who have alleged connections. And I'm really very pissed the Bush administration is not paying enough attention to N. Korea. But back on topic. Bill's action were immature any way you look at it. There is no justification for what he did.

 

He demanded Glick "shut up," and even cut off his mic. Not to mention threatening him with physical violence. What a piece of work. I hope some news-channel (other than FOX) brings this up.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Bill didn't threaten him with physical violence.

[Guest bob_barron]

Nevermind

[Guest LooseCannon]

Bill didn't threaten him with physical violence.

allegedly,

 

After the interview he told Mr. Glick to “Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to f**king pieces!”

[Guest Crazy Dan]

I saw that interview, and O'Rielly just lost it. I was taught that when you you lose control of your emotions, you lose the debate. What was he thinking by bringing Glick on his show? I honestly can't believe he wouldn't at least get some back ground info on Glick. Not that I agreed with what Glick said, entirely, but that was the first time I really thought O'Rielly was being a complete tool.

 

On the topic of regime change in Iraq. Saddam is a complete ass hole, who we should have removed 12 years ago when we had the chance. But, I don't get why are really eager to go to war. I really believe that we should give the weapons inspectors more time to do their job. War never solves any problems. In this day and age, violence oftens brings on more violence. Also, with many generals who have reservations about fighting war in Iraq, I tend to believe them, more than many of the hawks who have never set foot in a military uniform, nor have any kids who might be going to battle.

 

In the end, if the UN calls for war and the US has many allies to help us, then so be it. But, to do it alone, could hurt us economically, with the lost of our soldiers lives, lost of Iraqi innocents, and potential environental damage (do you really think Saddam will really let us take the oil fields, with out first torching them all?).

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I think the liberals are right in this situation. By that I mean Bush is doing this for oil and revenge.

I don't use this reason for arguing against it, in fact it's my least favorite argument against it. Prices will skyrocket the moment hostilities begin, so what'd be the point if it was just for Oil?

[Guest DrTom]

Just a few things:

 

We had the perfect chance to topple Saddam a dozen years ago, and both Schwarzkopf and Powell wanted to do this. Bush Sr. decided not to, though, since our purpose in being there was to liberate Kuwait, which we had already accomplished. Sacking Baghdad and toppling its dictator wasn't part of the plan. At the time, I was hoping we would do it, and in retrospect, maybe that would have been the wiser decision.

 

"We helped train Bin Laden!"

"We helped put Saddam in power!"

"We gave Saddam money and weapons!"

Moral relativism, all of it. We were operating under the principle of, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Saddam was the enemy of Iran at a time when Iran ranked right behind the USSR on the list of countries we didn't like. Supporting the mujahadeens helped Afghanistan hold off the Soviet Union for years; even though their country was left a ruin, the Soviets were never able to gain control of it. In hindsight, were these mistakes? Yes, but they looked like good calls at the time. We make mistakes like any other country, and we have blood on our hands like any other country. It just doesn't matter two pins to what we're looking at doing now.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

By that I mean Bush is doing this for oil...

This argument is both tired and wrong. Iraq contributes 3% of the world's oil. If the US took over tomorrow and ran an excellent oil refinery program for 10 years, production would rise to 3.5% of the world's oil.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

O'Reilly is nothing but a shock jock whose subject matter is allegedly politics instead of sexual fetishes.

 

As far as talk show hosts go, Donahue is definitely the most liberal on. As for Matthews, I can't really get a feel for what he thinks. Of course, his show to me is more about entertainment:

 

"HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS! I'M SO LOUD, YOU CAN HEAR ME WITH THE MUTE BUTTON ON!"

[Guest JMA]

By that I mean Bush is doing this for oil...

This argument is both tired and wrong. Iraq contributes 3% of the world's oil. If the US took over tomorrow and ran an excellent oil refinery program for 10 years, production would rise to 3.5% of the world's oil.

Notice I said oil AND revenge. Please quote my entire sentence next time.

[Guest bob_barron]

Well he disagreed with youe view on oil- maybe he didnt disagree with you on your view of revenge

[Guest JMA]

Well he disagreed with youe view on oil- maybe he didnt disagree with you on your view of revenge

Hm. Perhaps. But let's get back to O'Reilly...

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Well, I got you. No response to my point.