O'Reilly, Betrayus, and the Truth
Knowing what I know about the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, today's news was frustrating. No matter the station or the channel -- CNN, FOX, or PBS -- all I heard was lies about our occupation of Iraq repeated mantra-like by a swarm of the mentally lame posing as independent reporters and commentators.
I too have a few questions for General Petraeus -- he spoke of objective and mission, of goals -- but what exactly are they? Better yet, how did they evolve -- and why do they keep evolving, speciously, stupidly, tragically? That's all. By God, I felt like an Iraqi myself today. I'm sorry to say it -- I wanted to throw something at frightened occupiers only because I couldn't get close enough to really hurt the arrogant cowards that lead them.
The bemedaled Dr. Petraeus an arrogant coward? He qualified today with a report to Congress that "he wrote with his own hand." But the truth about a murderous and morally repugnant series of political mistakes, going back to September 12th when the "crazies" got their big chance to move on Baghdad -- well, that truth is a scary thing. And Petraeus, absorbed in the tactical, and blinded by access to power and commitment to his own legacy, and his future, isn't quite ready to face the truth head on.
Speaking of facing the truth head on -- Bill O'Reilly frenetically danced on the hot coals of reality with his faux-interview tonight of an honest and reflective Republican, ten-term Texas congressman, Dr. Ron Paul. O'Reilly is incredibly ignorant and remarkably rude, a lot like modern American foreign policy, in fact. Ron Paul had some things to say about that -- and amazingly his message of logic, security and constitutionalism came through. See for yourself.
Maybe there is hope after all.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think everyone makes good points. And everyone does have different ways of viewing the same situation(s).
Peace!
Dan
http://dav
It is so easy to agree with a person on one thing and then put all of your faith in them.
It is harder to look at the overall picture and make an informed judgement.
While I absolutely agree with Ron on foreign policy and the war in Iraq (with whom? I still don't know), he is a Libertarian and I certainly don't agree with most of their platform.
I also don't agree that the Dems have sold out. What about Fiengold? Dorgan? Obama? Edwards? Walters? Barbara Lee? Boxer? Sainders? And so many others, too numerous to name.
So if you like where the repubs have taken this country for the last 20 years, Regan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and the republican congress.
If you love where they have taken us for the last 6 years, help them win again in 08. They have great plans for you for the next 20 years, world, space and cyberspace dominance as proclaimed in PNAC, corporate pollution, corporate labor laws abolished, no more corporate taxes, corporate safety laws (chemical, mines, drugs), no more social security, no more safety net for the middle and lower class, privatization of our infrastructure, privatization of all of our natural resources, war with Iran, war with Chavez and more of the same policies of Regan in South and Central America.
I suggest you read some history and study the Libertarian platform before you jump on the bandwagon of Paul and dump on the Dems.
After we cut and run and Iran moves in,will we be safer? Will the Middle East be safer?
We are all waiting for you to say yes.
The thing Republicans are doing to screw this up for themselves is leaning toward more ignoramus-right candidates like Fred Thompson, when they ought to be looking at someone who's genuinely moderate and accomplished, somebody who'd prevent the undecideds and centrists from swallowing hard and voting for Hillary or Obama. (If Edwards gets the nomination, it could change things, believe me. But of course he's not groundbreaking enough as a symbol.)
So why aren't Repubs doing that? Beats me. Maybe because they've still got the Rove slime all over them, and they're going to continue to believe that going hard to the most ignorant, backward, rightist elements of their base is how they're going to keep winning elections. If so, and if Dems manage to pull out an election, they'll have Rove to thank for it. This time.
But except for years in which there is overwhelming anti-Republican sentiment, Dems will not continue to win elections unless they start to make an overt and explicit case why their way of thinking about government is better than Republicans'. Repubs have done exactly that, and Dems' response is essentially to pose themselves as not so bad--not all that tax-and-spend, not so wasteful, not in favor of good government, really. Heck, maybe we can have something for nothing, like Republicans say, or at least a little bit. We're not anti-business; we won't require anybody to do anything for the communal good. No sir. And we'll bomb people too. You just wait, we'll show you.
If Republicans have an electoral genius, that's it--posing as the adults who are sure of themselves and sure that their way is better, leaving the Dems posing as always the ersatz version of the grown-ups, the little-brother alternative to be used to send a message to Republicans, but only when they've screwed up the country beyond recognition. Couple that with the perception of the party as undisciplined, a haven for freaks and extremists, and you have a permanent status--so far--as the once-in-a-while alternative party.
By the way, don't be too sure about Republicans not having a chance in 2008. You've got a Democratic party that values way too much the symbolism and superficial qualities of its potential nominees (otherwise, Biden probably would be the frontrunner, based on experience and bona fides, or maybe Dodd), a tendency that is of course encouraged by the media because of novelty value (= newsworthiness). Add to that an electorate that (sort of) put Bush in office TWICE; the same electorate where as recently as this summer, about 40% believed that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks; the same electorate that couldn't determine the falsehood of the Swift Boat Vets garbage; the same electorate that couldn't understand why it would make sense to vote for appropriations under one set of circumstances, then to vote the other way when the original conditions were not met as promised. The same electorate where half of them had Bush as a war hero and Kerry as a lying, flip-flopping, liberal traitor by the time the election rolled around.
Then add a media that continually refers to how much more the public is supposed to like the Republicans on national security. Add a Republican strategy that now seems to include a slow drawdown, which will blunt the antiwar argument ("We must get out of Iraq!" "We are, just not as fast as you irresponsible types want us to").
No, sorry. Republicans do have a chance, and frankly that's because of the electorate's willful ignorance and willful susceptibility to subrational marketing-style appeals.
Well, if Paul were elected, at least that'd be one Texan as President that wasn't a disaster. (I'm writing this from West Texas.)
Bill O"Reilly is truly a loud mouthed, ill informed, fool I normally wont listen to him, but watched this item because I was curious. Paul, in not being able to handle O'Reilly's bullying tactics demonstrated his lack of presidential timbre...e
I agree, but the next president will be a Democratic one, none of the republicans have a ghost of a chance of winning an election in Nov 2008. The republican party is pathetic. Just a bunch of rich people who only care about the rich. I am going to enjoy the eight years after January 2009 when Americans have a chance of having a president who cares about all Americans, not just the ultra rich (hoping for a "trickle down effect" that has been proven as false as George Washington's teeth).
Really? Not a ghost of a chance? Loss of faith in Bush by no means is loss of faith in Republicanism.
Do you really think that one single Republican has changed his stripes when it comes down to brass tacks (like presidential election years)?
We are still a solid 51% of the electorate.
Pull your head out of the sand, americanwhocares.
Dear americanwhocares,
Do not bet on a Democratic takeover of the White House come 2008. An average Republican will never abandon his party however much he may find his candidate repugnant. He, yes it is usually a 'he' has been so thoroughly brainwashed by the series of past Republican administrations from Nixon onwards and by the endless harangue of a myriad radio talk show hosts (as well as the TV ones) that he is today a mere mindless zombie who mechanically echoes Rush Limbaugh, worships Bill O'Reilly and automatically responds to the commands of Karl Rove. A perfect robot.
I agree with americawhocares. The only candidate in either party who can beat Hillary is Ron Paul, and there's not much chance he'll get the nomination.
I disagree, though, that a democratic presidency is going to be enjoyable. Hillary is as neoconservative as they come!
I have no clue why anyone other than a right wingnut would even bother to be on the Bile O'Lielly show. Bile is just a rude, bigoted clown who will not let people talk if they say anything "clownface" disagrees with (which are any real facts). Bile is part of the propaganda machine controlled by the WH. It will be fun to watch him sputtering, slobbering and drooling after Jan 09, when he will lose access to the losers in the Bush White House. He will act like a cornered rat.
25-30 years from now...if we continue this nonsense, China and IRAN will be the dominant powers in the world. We better start getting free of oil, yesterday.
Bill O'Reilly = Archie Bunker with a college education
What an irratating blowhard O'Reilly is.
On the other hand, Paul's problem is that he tells the truth, and nobody wants it. Like, for instance, his suggestion (at one of the early debates) that U.S. foreign policy might have something to do with attacks against us. I'm surprised he's not in Guantanamo by now.
Paul's making a more cogent argument than just about anybody else regarding why you can't go around trying to remove everybody's ability to make war, any more than we would put up with another country trying to do that to us. If a country attacks you, you defend yourself. If not, you don't take them down just because they have arms and can pose a threat to you. By the logic of the neocons, it's only our power that puts us at the top of the food chain. If it were justifiable to disarm and/or destroy every country that might someday go to war with us, then obviously we shouldn't complain if somebody does the same to us someday, on the same rationale. After all, they're just trying to protect themselves, right?
Paul is the one guy out there who points out the utter lunacy and insupportability of this position better than anybody, I think. Democrats ought to catch a freakin' clue from him, rather than falling all over themselves to prove to Republicans, or Republican fringe voters, or undecideds, or whomever, that they love war just as much as any Republican.
not every Murikan be tough enough to handle the trufe like a Texan.
(I don't even know when I'm being ironic anymore.)
What's great about Ron Paul is that he's a throwback to what Republicanism ought to be, and what the discussions between Repubs and Dems ought to be: What government should do. How we should pay for it. What level of government should do it--state, local, federal. What makes the economy go well. And so on.
What he is _not_ is the new style of Republican--the kind that thinks you're a traitor, we ought to be in every other nation's business, we should build our empire so that no other nation can ever pose a serious threat to us, and we can do these kinds of things by engaging in aggressive postmodernist story-manipulation. Or lying, if you prefer. And he's not the kind who'd grind the heel of his jackboot into the Constitution, just to entrench his power.
I think Paul's wrong on several issues, but what he is _not_ is an uncivilized, illogical, pampered, lying, cowardly idiot who is detached from the concerns of real people and the deaths of real soldiers. Him I could live with as president, if the right Democrat couldn't win. He's the kind of guy who might be a little too tight, a bit too anti-government for me, but you could see how he could work pretty well with a Democratic Congress--they generate the stuff, and if it's way out of bounds, he vetoes it. He'd probably veto bills I supported, but then, I'd rather have that and know 1) he'd be consistent with his conservative economic principles, so we'd start to climb out of this staggering debt, maybe; and 2) he wouldn't be inventing rationales to get us into war and get our people killed.
In short, if every Republican were like Ron Paul, this country would be in infinitely better shape, wouldn't it?
Ron Paul is the correct answer for PRESIDENT !
WAKE UP AMERICA !
O'Reilly is a fraud. He incessantly beat the drums for war with Iraq. Now he doesn't cover the war, only attempts to censor negative press on the war by saying it helps our enemies. Now he is beating the drums for war with Iran using the same fear tactics and Armageddan scenarios.
O'Reilly, as he often does, stuck his finger in Paul's face when Paul strayed far from conservative talking points. In fact, Paul mentioned that the greatest beneficiary of our war in Iraq has been Iran and our policies are fueling the growth of Al Qaeda. He said America was historically allies with Saddam Hussein and that Bush let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. One doesn't often hear these points of view on Fox News and O'Reilly responded by quicky changing the subject. To O'Reilly, his audience is blank slates who can not hear criticisms of Bush or they will break.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
