"President O'Reilly" would run Iraq "just like Saddam ran it"
On the June 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly declared that if he were the president of Iraq, he would run the country "just like Saddam [Hussein] ran it," by establishing curfews and shooting violators "right between the eyes." O'Reilly added that what he proposed is "not the kind of country I want for Iraq," but reasoned that "you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going."
Later in the broadcast, responding to a caller who identified himself as a former Marine who had been stationed in Tal Afar, Iraq, O'Reilly reiterated his plan for Iraq:
O'REILLY: The curfews work. You shoot on sight. That's it. And if the Italian press doesn't like it, tough. The New York Times doesn't like it? Too bad. War is a performance business.
O'Reilly's remarks were first noted by the weblog Calling All Wingnuts.
From the June 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. A tipping point in history. So you have to win the Iraq situation. Now, to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?
That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.
Now, is that the kind of country I want for Iraq? No. But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going. So, any area that is giving you trouble, you have a 7-to-7 curfew. And you can't come out of your house. That's it. And if you do, we shoot you. That's how you control it. All right?
[...]
CALLER: Hey, not bad. Actually, I had a comment to say about when you -- talking about the curfew.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
CALLER: That actually works.
O'REILLY: I know.
CALLER: We did it up in Tal Afar, Iraq, and it -- and actually works. It takes down all the IEDs, and it really works.
O'REILLY: What was your job in Iraq?
CALLER: I had to clear those IEDs.
O'REILLY: You're in the Marines?
CALLER: I was in the Marines when we invaded, and then I got out and joined the National Guard. When I was up there the second time, that's what I did.
O'REILLY: OK. Well, look, I don't just -- and I appreciate the call, [caller]. You hang on, I'll send you a Radio Factor mug. I don't talk through my hat here, OK, like many other talk show hosts do. We got military analysts over there. We got the best minds in the world. And I talk with them on a daily basis.
So I'm happy [caller] called. I don't know [caller]. But you gotta get serious about this thing over there. The curfews work. You shoot on sight. That's it. And if the Italian press doesn't like it, tough. The New York Times doesn't like it? Too bad. War is a performance business.
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
But how is this conservative misinformation?
Is the absurd notion that Bill O'Reilly knows what the hell he's talking about.
I recall this buffoon making that brilliant observation earlier, last week or the week before I think...
O'REILLY: War is a performance business.
...I recall the context was a different one then; the buffoon had been outlining some of the extraordinary strategic challenges that present themselves in the conduct of war; and he had noted that one of those challenges was getting the theatre, or the battlefield, right; that while it's easy to fight the right war (easiest still for those not fighting it at all), it's a hazard to be avoided, to fight it on the wrong battlefield...
His context then (slightly abridged, but not mischaracterized):
O'REILLY: OK. But there's a couple of problems with waging a war on terror like this. Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. And in Iraq, that may turn out to be the case. ...it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of place. ...It's a place where you can win. War is a performance business.
...now, that being the context then, that in the "performance business" of war, you need to get the place right, I'd have agreed whole-heartedly with such obvious stuff.
(I guess it's like a guy showing up at Madison Square Garden, for a prize fight that's been scheduled at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.)
You can't possibly win the fight, if you're in the wrong place; sensible enough.
(...as for that buffoon's other observation, that it should be "a place where you can win", I whole-hearted disagree; it should be, in this particular case, the place where the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9-11 are from; that's the criteria for the place; not the place where "you can win", but the place where they were from, and against those who financed and directed them; in this case, not Iraq, but Saudi Arabia.)
Anyway, we have the buffoon's advice again, now in a different context.
But it's stranger even than the first time; then, he told us that perhaps Iraq "isn't the right battlefield"; now, that doesn't matter to matter to him; right place or wrong place, who gives a darn anymore, that seems the context this time; now, the "performance business" of war requires a shoot-on-sight curfew policy.
And no doubt about it, in certain venues that's a policy maybe necessary at some or all times.
But that just brings me back (as puzzled as ever at the buffoon's advice) to question "Is Iraq the right place? Is it the right battlefield? I mean, don't we have to be in the right place, before we institute curfews and a shoot-on-sight policy against those who violate them?"
O'REILLY: Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. And in Iraq, that may turn out to be the case.
Which is it bub: Is Iraq the right battlefield or not?
Wouldn't you establish even that much first, before you go shooting any curfew violaters right between the eyes?
This buffoon's advice, on the "performance business" of war, is a little bit ridiculous, and a whole lot confusing, to me anyway.
Just what business is this buffoon in anyway, that he pretends to know so much about the "performance business" of war?
Isn't this clown the former talking head on one of those Entertainment Business Gossip Shows, A Current Affair I think it was?
Hardly a qualification to giving advice in these matters; hardly an expert on what he calls the "performance business" of war.
(His advice makes me think of that hypothetical guy I invoked, the guy who showed up to Madison Square Garden, despite the fight being at the MGM Grand. While he was in the wrong place, it didn't matter, so what; he pummeled everybody anyway; knocked out three night janitors, and beat two security guards senseless; he didn't win the title that night, he didn't win the war; but who cares if you're not in the right place, kill 'em all anyway. It's a "performance business", ain't it?)
is taking someone out of context horribly.
If this is what qualifies as "conservative misinformation," business must be really slow, and conservative media bias can't be much of a problem. It looks like Bernard Goldberg was right.
That's my 2 cents.
Really? Did you think about that comment before you wrote it? How else should one interpret "if you got out of line, you're dead." Wasn't Bill suggesting the same thing?
If this is what qualifies as "conservative misinformation..."
It isn't. But what the heck...it was funny.
...business must be really slow, and conservative media bias can't be much of a problem. It looks like Bernard Goldberg was right.
That's my 2 cents.
You're right there...on that being your 2 cents. Btw, did you know that it now costs more than one cent to mint a penny?
Did you mean me, that I took the guy out of context?
I did not, and am happy to briefly repeat my point.
This item to which we're posting comments, has the buffoon transcribed as saying "war is a performance business", in the context of explaining the necessity of a shoot-to-kill curfew in Iraq...
O'REILLY: But you gotta get serious about this thing over there. The curfews work. You shoot on sight. That's it. And if the Italian press doesn't like it, tough. The New York Times doesn't like it? Too bad. War is a performance business.
...that's the concluding thing said (as transcribed here) by the buffoon; and the context of the phrase "war is a performance" seems clear, and as I described it.
The buffoon's previous pronouncement of "war is a performance" is from an item dated June 8, found here [link to mediamatters.org]
...where the context is...
O'REILLY: OK. But there's a couple of problems with waging a war on terror like this. Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. And in Iraq, that may turn out to be the case. That no matter how effective we are and how noble we are, because I do think that we are noble there, we might not be able to control this situation.
INGRAHAM: When is the right time?
O'REILLY: Well, it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of place.
INGRAHAM: What's the right place today?
O'REILLY: It depends. It's a place where you can win. War is a performance business.
...in which "war is a performance business" is used in the context of explaining the necessity of fighting on the right battlefield; in the right place.
And so saying on June 6...
" Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. And in Iraq, that may turn out to be the case."
...and then saying on June 19...
"But you gotta get serious about this thing over there. The curfews work. You shoot on sight."
...seemed a confusion of policy to me; and without having taken anyone out of context in the least.
Is Iraq the right place, the right battlefield, or not?
O'REILLY: Sometimes the battlefield isn't the right battlefield. And in Iraq, that may turn out to be the case.
And if it turns out not to be the right place, if that should "turn out to be the case", then shouldn't we perhaps be getting fewer U.S. Troops and Iraqis killed over there, instead of more?
O'REILLY: But you gotta get serious about this thing over there. The curfews work. You shoot on sight.
Well, that's not as brief a repetition of my point as I'd have liked, but I was happy to say it again anyway.
The comments, and their context, are clear and obvious.
And the far more serious point I had made I repeat again (though not so happily): An awful lot of U.S. troops have been killed, and it's the advocacy and the cheering on of all that death that this buffoon proudly stands for; but he's a confused mess of a death-lover, he is...
Because he knows nothing about war; war that he off-handedly refers to as a "perfomance business".
This is what we get when we give a game show host buffoon a platform from which to advocate and cheer on the deaths of U.S. Troops in Iraq.
What he gets is in excess of $10 million dollars per year for doing it.
He's laughing all the way to the bank, this game show host buffoon is.
It's not near as funny to the majority of the American People though, me included.
...it isn't misinformation. Bill's statement also doesn't demonstrate a particular political bias, except maybe to lunacy. However, it is funny...well, I thought so anyway.
For a couple of years now, BOR has been one of the Kewl Kidz accusing liberals of wishing Saddam was still in charge. Now he's espousing Saddam's methods. Just the smallest amount of hypocrisy, perhaps...?
Misinformation dodge. Misinformation is not ALL MMFA does they also do outrageous comments, this qualifies
is multiple.
Here's a rightwing pundit armchair-quarterbacking "keeping the peace" in a war zone, AS IF THERE IS A SIMPLE WAY TO STABILIZE IRAQ. There's not.
For example: If you have a curfew, even with "shoot to kill" orders, you have to have people spread out on the streets at night to ENFORCE it. Troops spread out on the streets at night are a "target rich" environment for snipers. That's why we don't DO that.
A previous poster pointed out the MISINFORMATION in O'Reilly's claim about war being a "performance business". That PERFORMANCE demands knowledge, expertise, and the proper tactics. O'Reilly claims PERFORMANCE, but can't even decide if Iraq is the "wrong battlefield".
If you're asked to "performace test" an automobile, the FIRST thing to do is make sure you have the damned RIGHT CAR. If you're in the WRONG car, you're wasting your time for nothing. PERFORMACE is dependent on getting the particulars RIGHT in the first place.
It's also MISINFORMATION, to tell the public that it would be acceptable for the USA to impose a curfew and a "shoot civilians on sight" rule in a nation that we are CLAIMING is "free" and "liberated". You can't have BOTH, yet the Bush supporters wish to play a PR misinformation game that tells us how much "progress" is being made, and meanwhile there is chaos in the streets to the point O'Reilly is advocating martial law (which is a tyrant's tactic).
Tons of MISINFORMATION here, attempts to deceive the public, contradictory depictions of conditions, and the suggestion that there are easy answers.
shooting his mouth off
Is Billy suggesting we should have just left Saddam in charge?
If so, then someone won't be getting their Christmas bonus this year.
How could anyone say something like that when we're involved in a war where strategic planning performance has been non-existant?
When is O'Reiily going to learn? No one is interested in what he would do. We know what he's already done. He hid out as a teacher where he had a draft deferment. When the draft ended, he went into another line of work. Now he wants to be an armchair warlord.
I have no doubts that Bill would have any qualms about shooting someone on sight. My only feeling is that he would not shoot him between the eyes as he says. O'Reilly seems to be the kind of guy who would prefer to shoot someone between the shoulder blades.
Doesn't O'Reilly prefer to shoot people between the head?
Seriously, this must be one of the all-time dumbest things O'Reilly has ever said. I can't wait for the first person to go on his show and call him on it. Listening to the audio is actually pretty chilling. He really sounds like he would enjoy shooting people between the eyes. What a bloodthirsty goon.
clearly O'Reilly has nothing but contempt for the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq. I think we can make another direct comparison O'Reilly=Saddam=power-crazy nutball.
Just imagine if rather than invading Iraq we had allied with Suddam on the "war on terror". It's not like the U.S. has never done this.
from the Bureau of Bill's Butt ???????????
. . . hey, It'd be worth it just for him to BE IN Iraq . . .
I don’t even know what to say…I guess Bill feels we need to have a dictatorship in Iraq instead of democracy…hey wait a sec…isn’t that what we had before we “rescued” the oppressed? This man is truly a lunatic.
The pigs replace the people. Then the pigs alter "All animals are equal" to "Some animals are more equal than others." Then the pigs become the people.
We replace Saddam. We state that we're they're for their freedom. Then we shoot people that are less entitled to liberty than others. Then we become Saddam.
Damn, there's nothing as sad as an unread pundit.
"...we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us." - Walt Kelly
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." (A spoof on Cmdr. Perry's "we have met the enemy, and he is ours.")
The quote from Kelly I noted above appeared in the foreward to The Pogo Papers in the early '50s. In that context, it was most likely a reference to McCarthyism. I wish I could put my hands on a copy again as I'm sure it would be timely stuff.
I had to look it up, but Kelly later created a poster with the quote you noted. It was for Earth Day 1970. He also used that version in several strips on pollution and for the title of a book.
Perry stated "We have met the enemy and they are ours." A rephrasing of that to "...they are us" is sometimes attributed Kelly, but I don't believe he actually ever wrote that.
best... comic strip... EVER!!
"...orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight."
Ok, a pregnant Iraqi woman, going into labor, needs to get to a hospital or a clinic. It's past curfew. She has no vehicle (Who can afford one anyway? There's no jobs for Iraqi's, only KBR contractors). She has to brave the streets to seek medical help. One of President O'Reilly's 'SS' officers sees her and follows protocol.
What a great pr....dictator he'd make.
You mean these are real people we are speaking about? Wow, that may be a bit too much gray for some to handle...the human component rarely enters into these type of peoples' plans.
...but this honesty is refreshing. Its a stark confirmation of what I always suspected.
Maybe he's just trying to start an Orwellian disinformation campaign to convince the public that hey, Saddam wasn't so bad, but it was those evil liberals that were pushing for war with Iraq all along.
If the other wingnuts agree with Ol' Bill then what was the point in going in the first place??? Can you tell me, Shrub?
Sure, curfews have been effective when they've come with little notice and to protect an event such as an election.
But this is an insurrection! Not an organized army, not trying to hold real estate. They sit back, look at the situation they're faced and they react.
With a curfew, day in and day out, they'd do they're planning at night, move from house to house to get in position and at 7am they'd rush out to bury their IEDs or to attack a check point.
IF I WERE PRESIDENT, we'd be pulling out the troops, whose presence is now unacceptable to 80% of Iraqi's, redeploying 20,000 special forces to Kuwait to respond to emergencies like Falujah, and assigning part of the Iraqi army to guard the green zone while specialists train the Iraqi police.
Lobbing bombs into a neighborhood can't replace an effective AND well-trained police force tracking down the culprits who plant bombs and shoot-up buses.
You mean liberals are missing the point. That caller gets a free mug, and all he had to do was be a Marine at risk of being blown up by IEDs!
I'd say that's some good news out of Iraq right there! But will we hear about it in the liberal media? No sir.
All he had to do was say he was a Marine at risk of getting blown up by IEDs. Maybe if I call Billy and tell him I'm Supreme Overlord and at constant risk of being zapped by terrorist laser beams, he'll send me some of those nifty "No Spin Zone" golf balls.
And what happens the first, second, and tenth time one curfew office shoots another in between the eyes because they thought the other guy was a terrorist?
If "President O'Reilly" would run Iraq as he thought Sadaam did, would "President O'Reilly" have been behind the 9/11 attacks, too, just as he has said Sadaam was?
don't sound like a bad idea. I know my brother-in-law (currently stationed in Iraq) has wanted a curfew for months now.
One might argue that O'reilly is an incredibly insecure person underneath the facade. One might be right.
Unfortunately, many people (like moths toward a lamp) are attracted to his false bravado and they join O'reilly in his often ridiculous opinions....finding solace in fake courage that mirrors their own.
How simple it must be to be him.
that we've never actually seen Sadam & O'Lielly at the same place at the same time? Hmmmm.
So O'Lielly admits that it is his secret wet dream to be a ruthles, blood-soaked dictator, & that he would rule in much the same way that Sadam has.
I can't help but suspect that if Sadam had ever hosted a cable news show HE would call it the Hussein Factor.
Only I doubt that he'd be anywhere near as rude.
When Bill gets tossed from TV, he can get a job at Disneyworld. They can call him GOOFY....then again, maybe not, GOOFY is too smart a name for this YAHOO. Bill, what if we install a curfew in America?? Are you OKAY with shoot and kill?
...by accepting an honorary degree for excellence in broadcasting!! Of course, Boston University is the real embarrassment for making him the offer. He is beloved in Boston because before A Current Affair and O'Reilly Factor he was a local TV sports anchor. This is pretty well-known, yet NO opponent of O'Reilly has ever challenged him on his experience as a journalist, and his understanding of the issues! Al Franken made a go of it, but I think he was embarrassed to be in the same room with the pathetic alcoholic jingoist.
I say with all honesty that when I discuss something like the rhetoric of Bill O'Reilly, I do everything I can to avoid extreme rhetoric and hyperbole of any sort.
Having said that, I am left with the conclusion that if the word 'insane' had not been invented, I'd have no succinct way of describing this man's remarks.
Can rhetoric so conspicuously irrational be embraced any intelligent person of good will?
It could be worse.
Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter could be married....
...with children.