O'Reilly: "[L]eft-wing press" and others "rejoic[ing]" over Haditha
Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[p]redictably, the left-wing press has run with the alleged massacre at Haditha ... screaming about holding all of those involved accountable." Continuing, O'Reilly asked: "Why do so many rejoice when bad things happen to the USA?" "[T]he answer," according to O'Reilly, "is that some Americans, including many in the press, honestly feel that the Bush administration is evil."
During the May 31 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly began his "Talking Points Memo" segment on "Defending America" by asserting that "[p]redictably, the left-wing press has run with the alleged massacre at Haditha ... screaming about holding all of those involved accountable." Continuing, O'Reilly asked: "Why do so many rejoice when bad things happen to the USA?" "[T]he answer," according to O'Reilly, "is that some Americans, including many in the press, honestly feel that the Bush administration is evil."
From the May 30 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.
Defending America, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Predictably, the left-wing press has run with the alleged massacre at Haditha. Editorials across the country today, screaming about holding all of those involved accountable. People like Congressman John Murtha [D-PA], already convicting the military and the Bush administration. How depressing is that?
Once again, the actions of a few will be used to demonize the entire country. As Investor's Business Daily put it, quote, "The press is salivating over the prospect of an Iraqi My Lai."
But why? Why do so many rejoice when bad things happen to the USA? That's the key question here.
And the answer is that some Americans, including many in the press, honestly feel that the Bush administration is evil, and its policies have led to Abu Ghraib and now to Haditha. You'll see this line of thinking all over the place in the coming weeks, but that's like saying if one child turns out to be a criminal, the entire family's bad.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Bill must have strong arms from continuously building up so many strawmen and then knocking them down.
I think there are many on the left who while feigning outrage over the Haditha massacre (while ignoring the almost daily suicide attacks by insurgents against civilians), in truth are absolutely elated by Haditha because now they can exploit it to help push their agenda.
This is not a partisan post because there are many Republicans who jump onto tragedies for political gain as well.
This is a tragedy, plain and simple. No one is rejoicing. However, if this can be added evidence that the Iraq 'war' is complete nightmare... PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
The incessant cheerleading, deliberate confusion and double-speak, profiteering, etc -- you name it -- coming from the Right... This must stop. People need to wake up to the facts ... that is, we (the people) are footing the bill for an unnecessary 'war'. I, for one, am damn angry, appalled, disgusted, horrified. But, joyful...at the continued failure and ineptitude of our military leadership? No way.
I truly DOUBT anyone on the Left is "rejoicing", BUT of course they will USE this alleged [tragic] incident to further their agenda AGAINST the Iraq War. AND in THIS particular case it's an agenda I agree with FULLY.
And, 'use it' they should.
Yes, people will use this alleged [tragic] incident to further their agenda AGAINST the Iraq War.
Just like the right would use a woman dying from an abortion or from using the morning after pill to further their agenda AGAINST abortion.
Or, just like the right CONSTANTLY uses 9/11 to further their agenda for continued war in Iraq/Afghanistan.
Is the right "elated" at the deaths of women or on 9/11. No, they aren't.
Using tragic incidents to further political agendas is as old as politics itself and is not a tool of just one party.
Just like the right would use a woman dying from an abortion or from using the morning after pill to further their agenda AGAINST abortion.
Exactly
Is the right "elated" at the deaths of women or on 9/11. No, they aren't.
No but if a tragedy happened that a person could use to push for something they wanted, make no mistake there are plenty of sleazy politicians and people in general who would to it.
Using tragic incidents to further political agendas is as old as politics itself and is not a tool of just one party
Who said it was?
" No but if a tragedy happened that a person could use to push for something they wanted, make no mistake there are plenty of sleazy politicians and people in general who would to it. "
You got that right, brother. There are plenty of sleazy politicians who will use this story to further their careers!!
What I've got to ask is; why is everyone focusing on this event? Haven't massacres happened in all wars? Didn't US troops participate in massacres during WWII? The thing that many of you miss is that the difference between the US and the rest of the world is the fact that we actually prosecute the people doing the criminal acts. Doesn't that mean anything to any of you?
Many blame Bush for these autrocities, but how many of you blame Bin laden for the beheadings of several Americans and an untold number of other foreigners? How many of you clamored on and on about the torture, killing, burning and hanging of the US contractors? Have any of you put blame on Bin laden? How many trials have you seen Bin laden produce that punish his troops for massacres that they've done?
Many blame Bush for these autrocities [sic], but how many of you blame Bin laden for the beheadings of several Americans and an untold number of other foreigners? How many of you clamored on and on about the torture, killing, burning and hanging of the US contractors? Have any of you put blame on Bin laden? How many trials have you seen Bin laden produce that punish his troops for massacres that they've done?
Wow. Looks like you're a lot more concerned about Bin Laden than your fearless leader is. Why don't you contact him and voice your concerns? Tell him MMFA sent you.
But in answer to your questions, nobody on the left has ever forgiven Bin Laden for any of his many wrongdoings. Remember to sweep up all that straw on your way out.
" But in answer to your questions, nobody on the left has ever forgiven Bin Laden for any of his many wrongdoings. Remember to sweep up all that straw on your way out. "
Keep the broom for yourself. Nobody on the left acknowledges any of his wrongdoings, either. Sweep up on your way out.
The best way to show your outrage over bin forgotten's actions is to pressure the president to find him and bring him to justice. Remember the president claims he no longer thinks about him very much.
There seems to be some sort of disconnect on the right. Doesn't it bother you that our government hasn't caught him? I never hear any complaints from the right on this. Why is that?
You seem to be more concerned about bin laden's actions than you are about actually bringing him to justice. Strange.
Keep the broom for yourself. Nobody on the left acknowledges any of his wrongdoings, either. Sweep up on your way out.
Just how does one "acknowledge" something? How do you personally acknowledge Bin Laden's wrongdoings? By admitting they happened? Well, so have we. By expressing outrage? Well, so have we. By electing a president who actually cares enough about Bin Laden to try to do something about him? Well, ... we are the ones who tried to do just that. In other words, we're the ones who have done the acknowledging.
Once again, and stop trying to dodge the point: if you think that the U.S. should be concentrating its efforts on Bin Laden, then don't blame us for it. The man you helped put into office is the one to blame. Complain to him.
But what should we expect from someone who isn't even clever enough to come up with his own "strawman" analogy?
that nobody on the left has fielded an army to hunt him down.
And that would be because nobody on the left is Commander in Chief.
"the right would use a woman dying from an abortion or from using the morning after pill to further their agenda AGAINST abortion."
What? Believe me, we don't wait for a woman to die from an abortion to further our cause, we point to the 35 million unborn babies that have had their brains punctured and sucked from their mother's womb to further our agenda!
You are the perfect spokesman to represent those that have had their brain sucked out I must admit.
the only one using it is Billy who used it to blast liberals. He uses the blood, not the other side.
You are aware that most democrats are not in favor or withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
But I do think that many/some are happy about Haditha just like Abu Ghraib. Some people are like that, from either ideology they take a tragedy and harp on it in order to push an agenda.
The latest Harris Poll is from last year, and it showed 79% of Democrats in favor of withdrawing "most of our troops": [link to www.harrisinteractive.com]
[link to www.quinnipiac.edu]
"11. From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do? "
Responses from Democrats:
A) Increase troops 8%
B) Keep same amount 12%
C) Decrease troops 30%
D) Remove all troops 44%
DK/NA 6%
All Respondants:
A) Increase troops 11%
B) Keep same amount 26%
C) Decrease troops 28%
D) Remove all troops 29%
DK/NA 6 %
GS, if you click on the link, squint and scroll to the bottom for that question. The rest of the poll looks bad for Bush's legacy.
I agree, everyone should know about an atrocity such as this, and they should know about it when it happens. Not like the majority of the atrocities that took place in Vietnam, where the public finds out years later.
The right has constantly been lambasting the "left" media for not reporting enough hopeful stories in Iraq, ex: I could have sword I heard someone asking about a bakery opening up in some town. This is considered news worthy? This supposed atrocity took place in Nov. of 2005, right in the middle of this media bashing campaign. I remember this story being reported, without the notion of murder of course, when it took place, and the right still pointed it out as something that should have been replaced with a "feel good story". I don't think they will be saying the same anymore.
To finalize a point on this, wasn't it Rummy and Bush who rationalized the number of civilian and US casualties as "Well, we are at war. This is what happens in war." Well now all I have to say to critics of the media, we are at war people! There are not many "feel good" stories out there to report. Journalists are looking for the most newsworthy WAR story out there so their AUDIENCE will be interested and read their publication. The only WAR stories I know that sell in publications involve blood, carnage, and destruction. Why do you think FOX's ratings were so outrageous during the "Shock and AWE" bombing campaign?
Sorry, way off point.
It can be a little tricky sometimes, to distinguish in your own mind between those things you can easily imagine (and do easily imagine) that other people are thinking and feeling...
...versus what you actually see and hear others do and say (no imagination required at all).
Just who is it again who's "rejoicing" over this matter?
I don't mean who it is you might imagine to do so, but who it is you (or the bufoon cited in this item) have actually seen or heard "rejoice"?
I think the real answer is no one, nobody, no where, now or at any time, is "rejoicing" over this matter.
But don't let me stop an overly active (and hateful) imagination.
read a letter on air from on of the Marines in the unit who is thought to be responsible for the massacre. He wasn't there when the shootings happened, but was in the detail sent to carry the dead out of the house. He wrote about how he'd carried out one little girl who'd been shot in the head, and for months afterwards he felt he couldn't get the stain of it off his boots, no matter how much he cleaned them.
It's not exactly something to celebrate.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney rejoiced when 3,000 Americans were murdered on 9/11 because it provided justification for them to fulfill their desire to "regime-change" Saddam. They were elated to see people jumping out the windows of the twin towers because they could exploit the tragedy to push their agenda.
This is not a partisan post.
at least georgesoros admits that both political parties exploit all kinds of things for their own gain. and that is true, they will do whatever it takes to win, and then climb up on their moral highground and accuse the opposition party of doing exactly what they do. you can interchange democrat or republican on most of these things and you hit still hit the nail on the head.
I have seen every bit as much evidence that liberals are elated about Haditha as I have seen that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were elated about seeing 3,000 Americans murdered on 9/11. Exactly the same amount of evidence.
George W. was selected as the Worst President since World War Two. Apparently it is more than just the "Liberal?" Press that thinks he is eveil!
What do you mean by saying you partially agree with Bill O? As far as I can tell, you don't partially agree with him, you totally agree with him. Also, why do you say people are feigning outrage over atrocities committed by Americans? Why would anyone not be genuinely outraged? Are you not genuinely outraged?
..would any sane person rejoice over mass murder and why would anyone in their right mind believe that they would? Oh, I get it, it's just crazy Bill's way of projecting his craziness on to Liberals again.
I have read no rejoicing over this incident. I challenge anyone else who has. BS Bill is at it again attempting to smear his political opponents.
In his books O'Reilly always says you can never justify bad behavior by pointing to more bad behaviour. Well anyone who saw his interview with General Batiste (I believe ) last night saw oodles and oodles of that. His cooments that troops always have always massacred people so therefore this is understandable is totally ridiulous. For a guy who demands "Accountability", he never demands it of Rummy or W.
o'reilly is a hack, of course nobody rejoices in mass murder and for him to suggest so is reprehensible. he should have been very careful to make the clear distinction between what some in this country do relish however, which is bush failing. that's not to say they get off someway when innocent people get killed, he is a jerk to assert that, obviously. but he should have been very specific in saying there are some people who root against bush and anything he does, that happens from both rock hard ideological viewpoints against whomever is in the white house. did with clinton, does with bush.
"holding all of those involved accountable" that is what Bush said yesterday.
Its a sad event, and it is sad that Bill is trying to get more opposition against liberals.
So let me get this straight. A group of Marines goes and kills 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in cold blood, and O'Reilly classifies it as a "bad thing happen[ing] to the USA"?
Murtha's comments is righteous he is outraged at some of the USA's best and brightest who turn out to be cold-blooded killers.
. . .this excuse for a human is insane. I'm liberal, yet rejoicing was never a fleeting thought. My first thought was; 'How could anyone from our country do such a thing?' I was sickened, then I fought back tears.
He is right about one thing--those guilty should be held accountable. It sounded as though he thinks they shouldn't.
He's right about another thing--I don't have the stomach for this wretched war.
I hope I never stomach such a war.
The policies of this administration have directly led to the abuse at Abu Gharib Prison and the incident at Haditha. We are now a nation that condones torture. We are a nation that excuses the abusive behavior of our troops. We are a nation that allows the current administration to wallow in excessive powers that have yet to pass the constitutionality test.
It's time we held our troops, their leaders, the Bush administration and the entire news media responsible for their behavior. We don't need people like O'Reilly and Limbaugh making excuses for illegal acts. Torture is torture. Plain and simple. It wasn't tolerated in the Revolution, The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam. It should not be condoned now.
"The policies of this administration have directly led to the abuse at Abu Gharib Prison and the incident at Haditha."
No evidence was revealed that related higher military personel to the Abu scandal; this incident in H is probably due to the everyday exposure of stress, fear, blood, and killings. The last one I hold the administration accountable for: it was known beforehand that the number of troops was not sufficient.
There has been no formal investigation into the affair, so how could you claim there is no "evidence." What is clear is that starting in 2002, Bush's legal advisors adopted a framework that would in their eyes shield the executive from any international or domestic prohibitions against torture. When Bush signed the McCain anti-torture amendment, he qualified it with a signing statement that effectively rendered irrelelevant the entire legislation! What matters is that Bush views himself exempt from the LAW regarding the treatment of detainees in the "war on terror."
this administration has bungled this entire iraq mess from the outset, but to say the policies led directly to abu ghraib and haditha is inflammatory and way too simplistic.
Why don't you try to lay out an argument instead of making a claim and allowing it to stand on its face value. Do you know NOTHINg of the Bush record on torture. It is pretty clear that the administration viewed itself exempt fromthe Geneva Conventions, so why would the soldiers, who manifest the policies crafted at the civilian level, feel any different?
i have never believed the terrorists are covered under geneva convention laws because they wear no uniform, etc. you think so, fine. condoning torture as you claim without proof is more inflammatory language. we are talking about stated policy here directly leading to abu ghraib and haditha. show me, with proof, how you make that direct connection?
So your excuse for torture of individuals who have NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME is that "Well, our enemies are even worse, so we shouldn't as a formal nation state and the self-described bastion of human rights and decency in the world, confine ourselves with petty things like the LAW and do whatever the hell we want"? What a bunch of B.S.
The Geneva Conventions explicitly stipulate that any prisoner whose status is indeterminable must have it determined by an INDEPENDENT tribunal, which the U.S. has not done. By the way, most of the "terrorsits" rotting in U.S. detention centers were sold out by local bounty hunters out to make a buck.
That they fall under the protection of The Geneva Conventions or not is beside the point. The people who committed these acts are required to obey the laws of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. Any way you look at it, these were criminal acts.
We're taught that this country stands for something. We have higher standards that the rest of the world. What the rest of the world does, doesn't matter. Americans don't torture, ANYONE!
You are partially right that "terrorists" might not be afforded Geneva Convention protection (depending on the particular circumstances and whose definition of "terrorist" you use), but what court or authority has determined that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, who were abused, were indeed "terrorists"? Where do you get that? You are introducing facts not in evidence and creating another strawman.
Besides that, some of the perpetrators of torture were convicted. If what they were doing wasn't necessarily wrong in your eyes, how do you explain the convictions?
but we were talking about Abu. The soldiers involved have been tried and their layers did not come up with orders from higher up. I also have my own speculations (especially with the connection between Gizmo and Abu and the memo's on torture techniques), but we probably have to wait some time to see what is correct.
What about the press? Did they come up with any evidence concerning Abu?
their defense was not ALLOWED to produce such evidence. that is a bit of a stretch to 'there is no evidence'...
Right On says, "to say the policies led directly to abu ghraib and haditha is inflammatory and way too simplistic."
Hmmm. We send these soldiers to invade Iraq, because Saddam has WMDs. He doesn't. Frustration. On ORDERS, huge conventional weapons caches are left unguarded, and are looted by insurgents. Deadly incompetence. Not enough soldiers to press forward AND secure such weapons sites. Who's fault is THAT? The Humvees don't have adequate armor, and the Gvt. issue body armor is poorly designed, resulting in casualties from torso injuries. No support from "leadership". Fear, anxiety, and frustration. Soldiers told they will be greeted as "liberators". NO PLAN for an insurgency. Soldiers told MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, and that the insurgency is in its "last throes". Who GIVES OUT these comments? Leadership, the Bush Administration.
So in an insanity bred of being virtually abandoned in hostile territory without a plan and without adequate support, the troops WHO HAVE BEEN RE-UPPED time and again and are exhausted, snap.
So, will those TO BLAME be punished? Really? Those who have cast our brave troops into this hell everlasting, with snafu and foul-ups of greatly deadly nature happening every day as a result of incompetent leaderhip ... will THEY pay a price?
GOOD leadership does not blame the lowest on the totem pole. REAL leadership accepts responsibility, but that's not THIS Administration. They will kick the grunts under the bus, and tut-tut about how they could have gone so far wrong.
It's the LEADERSHIP, stupid!
Other than the enlisted men who were convicted at Abu Gharib. but there are too many similarities to what went on there and what went on in other prisons, like Guantánamo. By not condemning torture and by issuing a signing statement to the anti-torture bill passed by the congress, the administration has set the tone for the bad behavior. The Marines involved in the incident where 24 people may have been killed are not the only people involved in this matter. The whole affair was covered up and a story created blaming the deaths on an IED set off by the insurgents. This had to have been done by higher ranking officers in the Marine Corps.
. . .Only half of us (as exampled by the last 2 elections) would be those of whom you speak.
However, if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem.
We need to demonstrate, write letters, and get this cancerous corruption out of our leadership.
ANYONE INTERESTED IN GETTING A PEACEFUL REVOLUTION STARTED ?
I meant that even though we didn't vote for this administration, these things are being done in our name.
I wasn't being critical, just going a step further.
They are putting OUR GOOD NAME on this whole load of crap, and it's time that we speak up.
The only thing I disagree with is that BushCo excuses bad behavior of the troops.
While his policies do cause bad behavior (poor material support for the troops while the contractors thrive, too many high-stress rotations, higher-ups mouthing platitudes about progress while the troops see their situation degrading, contractors being inserted into the chain of command, etc.), he's quick to throw a few Lance Corporals under the bus if their actions make him and Rummy look bad.
As with My Lai, the only reason that the Haditha massacre is receiving any press is because the perpetrators were caught. Where is the critical press coverage of the horrendous atrocities the U.S. committed during the second Fallujah invasion right after the 2004 election? The "liberal" New York Times ran a front cover story about the invasion but portrayed positively, boastfully admitting that one of the first buildings captured by U.S. forces was the local hospital because it was a "propaganda center" due to it hyped up ( or in reality, accurate) reports of civilian deaths. The "left-wing" NYT didn't even mention that such an act was in direct contravention of the Geneve regulations of wartime behavior, prohibiting military interference in the operations of medical centers.
Also neglected in the MSM media is that U.S. troops would not allow males between the ages of 10-40 to leave the city, so innocent civilians along with the alleged insurgents were corraled like fish in a barrel. On top of that the U.S. used white phosphorus indiscriminately, murdering women and children caught in the crossfire. No mention of this in the "left-wing press." What the US. committed was a modern day Sebrenica or Grozny, a clear act of genocide and collective punishment.
If only people realized the full nature of U.S. atrocities in Iraq, they would laugh at O'Reilly's ridiculous statements. To O'Reilly, ANY mention of ANY U.S. wrongdoing, no matter how infrequent, is treachery, and upsets his woefully narrow view of th world. The man has the intellectual capacity of a five-year old. What a disgusting wretch of a human being.
in pacifying Falujah were also at Haditha?
It's understandible that BO-BO (Bill O'Reilly - Butt Ostrich) would ask: "Why do so many rejoice... "
When you think about it, shouts of outrage, severely muffled, could be mistaken for rejoicing.
Actually, with such a severe case of Cranial Rectumitis, I'm surprised he can hear anything at all.
"Once again, the actions of a few will be used to demonize the entire country...that's like saying if one child turns out to be a criminal, the entire family's bad."
So, Bill, you don't like it when an entire country is punished for the actions of a few of its citizens? How about when we attacked Afghanistan because of a small group of hijackers?
As usual, America gets to make all the rules, but is exempt from following any of them (we must overthrow any world leaders that possess WMDs, but we're allowed to have a huge stockpile for ourselves).
I think conservatives see the US as infallible in all its dealings, and during time of war they become even more visceral in their responses. Liberals contend that we can be better. So we are going to point out our moral failings even in time of war. These marines witnessed their comrades, whom they depend on for their lives (can there be a closer bond), become eviscerated by IED's repeatedly. Several months back 14 marines were burned alive in same area when a Bradley vehicle was hit with IED. What can be more infuriating? No enemy to engage. SOme marines snapped after another lethal bombing and stormed a house nearby and killed children as young as 3. The inhabitants must have known about the bomb I am sure was the thinking. They will have to live with this forever. THe family, I dont know how do you survive something like that? We spent more money on defense then the entire world combined last year. THe pentagon needs to rethink its organization. We dont need anymore 50 million dollar, radar invisible planes or mobile howitzers. There will be no more WWII's. There will be other Iraqs. Wars in which the enemy exposes weak infrastructure (pipelines, energy installations) weak supply lines and rarely engages battlefield type warfare. Our trooops were not trained for this war. The marines smashed the Mahdi army( Mahdi is like the second coming of Christ they believe in the rapture too) in Shia religious areas and later in Sunni areas notably Falluja. Where did that get us? We cant be defeated militarily we are told repeatedly. That is great but we have lost politically and that counts for more. Haditha and Abu Graib are turning points not the ridiculous purple fingers. Lastly troops, yesterday I believe, shot and killed a pregnant woman going into labor, her sister was also killed. Her brother was rushing her to the hospital and apparently didnt slow down while heading towards a road block manned by US soldiers. If the country wasnt in such unbelievable chaos mass protests would have erupted ala Kabul three days ago. Instead it is one more trauma in a litany of daily horrors. There is no time to acknowledge it bc tonight 50 people will be rounded up tortured, killed and dumped into the streets bc they are either shia or sunni.
Since when is Investors' Business Daily a reliable source for reporting on media coverage. O'Really sure pulled that one out of his butt.
One major contributing factor to these killings is getting very little coverage. This is a perfect example of how are military has been stretched too thin and misused. Marines are not trained to be policemen. They are recruited and developed to be the baddest mothers on the planet. They are the tip of the spear. They shouldn't have been walking a beat in Haditha.
With all the practice he had saying Falafel it was probably no sweat for him to say Haditha....
HOORAY WAR!! Bill, you are not helping... please leave, thank you, your loyal listener..
two OhReally? posts today, we have a clear winner for "Worst Person" by Olderman tonight.
They're still beating this technique to death. The Righty talking heads, since the beginning of GW's time in office, and especially since the war, have been accusing people of "rooting" for our defeat, of "celebrating" atrocities.
Hannity has a real fetish for the word "gleeful"
Who even says "glee"?
They all remind me of the trashy drunk parents you used to see on Jerry Springer and those shows with their messed up, neglected kids. they always had way more animosity towards the family member who was criticizing their parenting, and telling them to get their act together, than they did towards their lousy kids, or themselves.
And the same ones who accuse those who want our country and military to be accountable and proud of "hating the troops", are the ones who are first to pull out the "bad apples" or "abberation" explanation-that is, it's not administration policy, it's those damn boots coming up with this torture and massacre stuff.
It would be funny (the propagandists, not the horrible events) if I didn't hear people out breathing the same air that i'm breathing who buy into this pile.
I've heard the term "naysayer", "defeatist", and "anti-American" used by actual regular people to describe other Americans who read newspapers and exhibit a little common sense and critical thinking.
And who have the guts to notice when their representatives (Gov't , military) are screwing up.
I'm suggesting a current events quiz, or even a simple logic test before any American gets that ballot in their hands.
How do you think that would work out for the GOP?
I'm suggesting a current events quiz, or even a simple logic test before any American gets that ballot in their hands.
How do you think that would work out for the GOP?
Part of me really likes that idea (another part of me doesn't want to tamper with the "one citizen, one vote" ideal). Let's say that everyone gets, at most, 100 votes. Then the voter takes his quiz, and since he's been relying on Fox News and AM radio for his information, he scores about 20% on the quiz. Hence he gets to use 20% of his votes. A better-informed and more logical person can thus have much greater influence on an election's results.
Having votes based on a voter being informed makes a lot more sense than other limits set on voters in the past (race, sex, property ownership, church membership, etc.).
What's more, it forces people, if they care about politics, to make themselves better thinkers and better learners.
And finally, it would show for all the world to see just how poorly-informed people are when they get their news from Fox. Fox would have to change its own standards if it means to maintain credibility.
Ah, yes, it would be nice.
We would publicize the results of anyone who actually holds or seeks a public office. How well would GWB himself score on a test about logic and current events? Probably about as well as he performed in the National Guard, alas.
The far-left group that I belong to is throwing a combination tupper ware / Haditha massacre party.
I'll let you know if there is any rejoicing.
Bill O'Reilly, when you get right down to it, is probably nothing more than the reincarnation of Paul Josef Goebbels, Nazi Germany's Propaganda and Enlightenment Minister, creator of the "big lie" propaganda technique preferred by the conservative propaganda machine.
Next thing you know, expect His Fraudulency's Great Within to be secretly using public funds to finance a national daily newspaper with overtly conservative bias--one as is more than likely in the "red-top" tabloid stylee, tends heavily to the sensational, and features Page Threes with full-frontal nudity to attract especially Kankerdom.
Up there with what apartheid South Africa attempted with the use of public funds to launch the Daily Citizen in 1974 under the guise of "journalistic balance" in the face of a suspected "unhealthy dominance" by a "liberal" media as was opposed to apartheid's excesses of depravity and perverting patriotism to excuse same.
Could such be all the more likely before too long--even to the extent of concealing the use of public funds and even State interference in the day-to-day editorial policy?
Watch it.
Joe Conason made the very good point today on Al Franken's show that Bill gets a lot of his talking points and style from Joe McCarthy. His story about US troops killing SS POW's in WWII was disproved 50 years ago, but BO brought it up this very week when he was being beaten to a pulp verbally by Gen Wesley Clark.
I saw that conversation and Clark hardly beat up BO. And your complaints with McCarthy are?
I gather you approve of witch hunts? McCarthy was a drunk and a fool. A real monster.
McCarthy is a good example of how terrible methods used to hunt down real and imagined enemies can be worse than any damage the enemies could inflict themselves. It appears even today some have a problem learning that lesson.
McCarthy never provided evidence to back up his accusations:
--WikipediaHaditha and Abu Ghraib sicken me, for what they did to the troops involved, their victims, and the reputation of my country.
That said, when I marched, wrote letters to the editor and my representatives BEFORE this war, I told everyone I knew that Iraq was contained and not a threat and that there already was an occupied territory in the middle east, the west bank, and that Iraq would turn out the same way. For doing this I had people call me a traitor, and say that I loved Sadaam Hussein.
But...
I WAS RIGHT.
To say that in capitals is not a celebration, it is a challenge, all the assclowns like O'Reilly and his defenders should STFU and listen to people like me who were right all along. "Conservatives" are supposed to be for personal responsiblity, IMO responsibility for pundits who are egregiously wrong (eg on Iraq) should be that they LOSE THEIR JOBS, and stop polluting the discourse with their wrongness.
I thought Bush promised that.
Why does O'Reilly hate George Bush?
Why shouldn't he? Everyone else does.
Leading topic on a "news" show with reporting skills equal to Bill: "O'Reilly says Bush is evil and his entire family is bad!"