Bill O'Reilly looks more than usually pleased with himself lately because he thinks he's found the best question since "What did the President know and when did he know it?" (Howard Baker's classic was better. Stay tuned. It will soon be making a big comeback.) O'Reilly's question, on the surface, is similarly clear and direct: a simple question.
Underneath, of course, it is not simple at all: it is murky, complicated, and dangerous. When O'Reilly, grinning like a falafel satyr, springs it, his victim is trapped. "Yes or no?" If that victim pauses, even for an instant, to consider what the question means and what its ramifications are, he (most recently David Letterman) or she (Rosie O'Donnell) is revealed as just the sort of traitor the President said all the Democrats were in that shrill, painful week before he got his thumping.
"Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? Yes or no."
Letterman said he couldn't answer yes or no because he is "thoughtful." Oh, sure. That's not a good response, just because it's sensible and true. Not to O'Reilly, the Oh, Spin! Zone of the Fox News Channel, not in America in the 21st Century. "Thoughtful," nuanced, reflective--that's what doomed John Kerry. (Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?) America reelected a man who doesn't spend more time on an effete pursuit like being "thoughtful" than he does on, say, thinking about Osama bin Laden. "Yes or no? Come on. You're either for us or against us. We've got to fight them there so we don't have to fight them over here. Stay the Coors." (That's how I always heard it. I was sad when they made him stop saying it.)
"Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? Yes or no."
It's a trick question, of course. How could any decent person even blink before shouting out a yes? But those conversing with O'Reilly have to pause. They are all too familiar with his cartoon-subtle, hectoring assaults. They're wary of answering anything before pausing to think about it, about what he will say their answer means and what he will do with it as he grunts and grins and snorts and spins and counterattacks. They can't help but hesitate, but if they do--"Gotcha!"--they're traitors! Exposed! Once and for all! For all the world to see! With a question like this in his loofah, O'Reilly probably thinks he can keep any Democrat from winning any future election for anything. Yes or no? (Pause.) See! See! Liberals! Traitors!
O'Reilly is very, very good at this unsavory old blood sport, snuffling after the truffles of treason. Well, it's in his blood, isn't it? It's a right-wing specialty. "Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?" If you say yes--fine, you want to stay the Coors, just like the President. You're saying you support him, except for the partisan whining and sniping and Monday-morning quarterbacking you just can't help. Right? And if you dare to pause or-Allah forbid!-if you say no-but who would say no? who would even hesitate?--you're a traitor! Liberal! Traitor! (We're getting to be a pretty big group, if it includes all those who want "terrists" to win (I hate "terrists" more than "nookyuhler") and America to lose, anyone who voted for Democrats, anyone who isn't scampering toward the cliff edge behind Bill and his increasingly humiliated, shell-shocked leader, the poor old hapless, near-friendless Decider.
Here's a possible answer to O'Reilly's clever little question.
"Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? Yes or no?"
"Oh, Bill, I fervently hope and believe, just like you, that the United States will continue its uniquely generous, near-perfect domination of the planet, the cosmos, and the universe--always in close consultation, of course, with the God of Christmas--to the end of recorded time."
That should stop him for a beat or two, long enough for me to go on: "That said, however, I can't answer your Iraq question until I understand it. Tell me what you mean by "win" and I'll answer immediately, yes or no."
He'll flash that gruesome, haughty, supercilious grin and launch into his typical bloviating counterattack, but I'll go on, and I don't think he'll have them shut my microphone off. He'll sense that his crowd doesn't yet know whether it's thumbs up or thumbs down with me, since he hasn't really scored his knockout yet. They liked what I said about the United States. He'll let me continue. After all, I'm a liberal--all I need is enough rope.
"For example," I'll say, "if by 'win' you mean establish a stable democracy in which every Iraqi will have a prosperous and happy life, I'll say, 'No.' Sorry, Bill. No. I don't want 3,000 U.S. soldiers to die for that. I don't even want one American soldier to die for that. Sorry. But since I wouldn't want to die for that myself, or have anyone I love die for that, either, I can't cheer from the sidelines as other people and other people's children are sent off to risk their lives for such a mission. No. I want any American soldiers who haven't been killed yet, who haven't had any arms or legs blown off yet, to come home. No. I'm sorry they were ever sent there. I'm sorry that a vain, foolish, insecure, stubborn, deceitful little man who never studied or read or traveled and doesn't know very much, a thoughtless, irresponsible cypher, betrayed our soldiers and sent them over there (too few to accomplish this mission, and scavenging for armor, to our everlasting shame, as we shopped away our tax cuts in the War-on-Christmas malls). I'm sorry that my country, because of such appalling leadership, has made things so much worse for the Iraqis, and for all our friends in the region, and so much better for all our enemies. I'm sorry, I really am, but no. My answer is no. If that is how you and your Commander-in-Chief are now defining 'win,' I don't want the U. S. to win. Sorry. Your kind of win is what I call losing."
I'm not finished. "Wait, Bill. I answered you, so now you have to answer me. Okay? I have a yes or no question for you. I assume you voted for George W. Bush in 2000. If you could do that vote over again, would you do the same thing? Would you vote for Bush again in 2000? Instead of Al Gore? Yes or no?"
That's a trick question, too, and we should ask it every time a right-wing pundit barks or sneers or yammers or drips venom or spins spins spins at us. Ed Rogers mocked Barack Obama's middle name the other day, as if his name alone--Hussein--was enough to disqualify him from higher office. I suppose it is, in FoxWorld. Rogers also sneered at Al Gore. How I wanted to ask him my question. "Knowing what you know now, would you vote again for Bush in 2000? Yes or no?" If he or any of them answer no, they won't get to be right-wing pundits any more, however effectively they bark or drip or spin. But if they say "Yes, absolutely, Bush is my man, I'd vote for him again"-for him and Iraq and Katrina, etc., etc.--then they are exposed, once and for all, for all the world to see, as shamefully ignorant, monumentally stubborn, willfully blind, and clearly on a quick trip to the dustbin of history. In fact, with a question like this in our loofahs, we might be able to keep any Republican from winning any future election for anything. Really.
Would you vote for Bush again? Instead of Gore?
Yes or no?