O'Reilly continued to discuss benefits of Saddam's methods: "If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won"
On the June 27 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly continued to suggest that using former dictator Saddam Hussein's methods would be an effective way to run Iraq: "If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won." Specifically, O'Reilly mentioned "martial law, torture, murder, kicking in doors" as tactics employed by Saddam. O'Reilly continued: "[W]e could do it. But as soon as you look at one of these guys cross-eyed, the ACLU's [American Civil Liberties Union] got you sued."
O'Reilly's statement came less than a week after he vehemently denied "praising" Saddam's tactics in a June 22 interview with Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page.
From the June 27 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: It just depends on how you want to wage the war. If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won. That means martial law, torture, murder, kicking in doors. You know, Saddam controlled that country for 25 years. He didn't have any insurrections. He didn't have bombs going off. And half the country wanted to kill him. You know, all the Shia hated him. And how'd he do it? Through terror. So we could do it. But then, you know, as soon as you look at one of these guys cross-eyed, the ACLU's got you sued.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
More wisdom from Sun Zoo's "The Art of War"...
"you know, as soon as you look at one of these guys cross-eyed, the ACLU's got you sued."
OK, I had this guy on "blackout" due to his senseless "perfomance business" advice about war.
"You to be sure you're in the right place, on the right battlefield... Now Iraq may turn out not to be the right battlefield"
...followed by...
"You have to have a curfew in Iraq; and if they're not at home and in bed (with the dishes and their homework done) by the appropriate hour, then BANG! Right between the eyes!"
But as unwise and ridiculous as I usually find this buffoon's deep thoughts on war, I find instead this time True Wisdom.
The Art of War is raised to new heights by a new master:
Sun ZOO.
And it is being incorporated into the curriculum of the War College as we speak...
The "look at 'em cross-eyed" thrust, answered with the "ACLU" parry.
OK. I am speechless. Wow.
So the problem the US has in Iraq, according to this mainstream media personality, is that we don't murder and torture enough, and that's because the ACLU (you know, those guys trying to defend a bunch of "mumbo jumbo") would sue the government if the US did.
Wow. What a guy. If this doesn't count as praise of Saddam, I don't know what does, short of wearing a t-shirt with "Free Saddam" on it or something. Maybe a good present for O' Reilly? His birthday's coming up in September, you know.
There was a great Onion article put out in the early days of the occupation saying that the US had chosen to put Saddam back in power because he was effective. Looks like O'Reilly read it and thought it was serious.
OK, I'm grasping at straws here, but I'm hoping that this was taken out of context. Maybe he was discussing, without prejudice, different ways of running Iraq now, a sort of "brainstorming" where anything goes. And this was one of those lamebrained ideas that come out of brainstorming sometimes, and he rejected it and realized that the US should strive for something better than totalitarian rule by fear. Maybe MMFA could provide a longer clip?
Oh, who am I kidding.
Bull OhReally was speaking (IMO) with his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek.
His tongue is planted firmly in his cheek alright, the right cheek of his a$$. that's because his head is firmly planted between those two cheeks.
Personally, I don't think he said it at all. Just ask him in a week if you don't believe it.
Another great response from the "friendly, compassionate" left!!!!!
I'm tired of "friendly, compassionate" left comments. As if you not allowed to make any type of negative statement without losing your compassion or ideology.
Cram it in your cram hole sir.
you definitely ain't PC. And by the way, a great show of literary originality!!!!! Keep it up, you may get a promotion in 10 - 20 years as your writing skills improve.
"It was a joke."
..until that last line about ACLU. There is nothing tongue in cheek about that - it's a variation on what he always say about them.
He tried to put a sort of jovial face on it, but there's no doubt in my mind that he really believes that the US should emply Saddam-like methods in Iraq. Not after he's now said it repeatedly.
"[W]e could do it. But as soon as you look at one of these guys cross-eyed, the ACLU's [American Civil Liberties Union] got you sued." -- BO
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
O'Reilly unwittingly conceeds that apparently the only reason we don't act like Saddam over here is because of the ACLU. I am going to send the ACLU a bonus check this year.
Thank you, O'Reilly.
"Bull OhReally was speaking (IMO) with his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek."
If so it's a really protracted joke as he's been spouting this garbage for weeks now. By me I figure he's just competing for national attention with Coulter.
THAT'S how you nurture democracy
Just like skanky annie, he's probably just being wacky.
Which I would find more credible if they didn't support every effort at making our country more like Saddam's Iraq.
I'd also find it funnier if I never listened to the righty talk shows. Then I wouldn't be aware of the fect that their fans call in and go along with this thinking.
...explicitly endorse terrorism?
"And how'd he do it? Through terror. So we could do it."
So let me get this straight. The New York Times reports on a matter of public interest, namely, that the gub'ment has been spying on the financial transactions of every man, woman and child in the USA - they're "actively supporting the terrorists", are "traitors", and "hate America".
O'Reilly says that to defeat the terrorists, we must become terrorists ourselves - he's allowed to continue blathering into the mike and nobody raises an eyebrow.
When did this stop being America?
"If we'da just dropped a nuke on them, there'd be no survivors to be screwing with America's liberation of those people!"
A little bit drastic, unless you're Roosevelt. So maybe it's not such a bad idea. I'd settle for some fire bombing Dresden style. Oh, I did get what I thought was sarcasm. I just think that if you are going to wage war, it should be waged very violently and without mercy. No differently than what they do to us. There is no moral high ground in war. I would rather there be "collateral damage" than American and Allied casualties resulting from us showing restraint. You attack us from a mosque or school or apartment? We should bomb it.
I would rather that we weren't there. After 9/11 we should have circled the wagons, secured the safety of ourselves and that of our allies, waited about 5 or 6 years for dear ol' Osama to grow complacent and show himself. Then it would have been a simple matter of lobbing a cruise missle at him. This would have been less expensive, would have saved thousands of lives, and hopefully would have resulted in America being seen in a better light globally than it is now.
Tragically this did not happen. The reality we have to deal with is unpleasant. You cannot go to war without the will to win it. We didn't have the will in Vietnam and unless something changes we don't have the will in Iraq.
Roosevelt did not approve the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He died on april 12, 1945. Truman authorized the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.
I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans who fought and died for this country disagree with you. The majority of American Veterans believed that when they wore the uniform of this nation, they stood for something. They believed that they held the moral high ground. They had values. among those values were mercy when the fighting stopped.
And about Vietnam, we didn't lose because we didn't have the will, we lost because we didn't have a plan.
Thanks for the correction between Roosevelt and Truman. I appreciate it.
The main point was, what was done. There is a difference in the reason why you go to war and how you wage war. The reasons may very well be moral and just. The method won't necessarily be. Was the method of bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki (etc...) moral? Moral for the U.S., yes, in that it saved the lives of the American and Allied military. Was it moral for the civilians that were killed, probably not, other than for many it was a quick death. But that's not my concern. American lives were saved by breaking the will of the enemy. That's my concern. We should be doing no less in Iraq.
As far as what I said that "There is no moral high ground in war." I probably didn't clarify my point well enough. I agree that a majority of American service men and women believe they hold the moral high ground. That comes back to the reasons for going to war and how you wage it. I was speaking specifically to how the war is waged, not why we are there. At this point it doesn't matter why we are there. So let's conduct this war with brutal violence, showing our enemy no mercy, so his will to fight against us is broken, the lives of troops are saved and the war is won.
Also, I want to apologize to you regarding my reference to Vietnam. It sounds like you served there. I did not and really have no authority to speak about it. I can only speak as to why I volunteered, and a big part of my reason was payback for the hostages that were taken in November 1979. But that would be for another dicussion. Thank you for your posts worrierking, I appreciate the discussion.
Which was payback for 25 years of brutal rule by the Shah imposed on Iran after we overthrew their only democratically elected leader they ever had wildly popular Prime Minster Mohamed Mossedegh. An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind (Ghandi). There are other answers besides who can be the most savage and uncivilized. I am not a pacifist. I believe in protecting oneself. I believe in a nation protecting ITSELF. I think it axiomatic that we live up to the standard we demand others live up to. The Geneva Convention for instance. Also that innocents NOT be made to suffer. YOUR prescription is nothing but brutal savagry. When WE kill civilians it cannot be appologized for by pointing out that THEY killed civilians. Would it have been a defense against a murder charge for someone who killed one of YOUR family for them to point out that Ted Bundy killed a lot more people? Or that John Wayne Gacy was much worse? Killing civilians is WRONG period. Excuses for it or torture make my skin crawl. I am all for finding terrorists and killing or imprisoning them but I draw the line at saying we ought to kill anyone who looks vaguely like them or lives in the same general area. Its morally unjustifyable. I have no interest in saving my life at the cost of my soul. We make decisions we are defined by them. The decisions you advocate are not the decisions of a decent person. To take out your rage on ANYONE, not those responsible for the wrong that enraged you but anyone convienient is astonishingly indecent. I urge you to take stock in what you are advocating it would be like the police coming to your house arresting you and saying. There is a serial killer in this area. We know you arent him but we are going to execute YOU to show we are serious about our approach to serial killers. This approach is also guaranteed to create more terrorists. What do you think a person who comes home and finds his family dead for no good reason is going to do? Do you really think his response will be boy those Americans are sure tough, I guess I will now do whatever they tell me?
"Which was payback for 25 years of brutal rule by the Shah imposed on Iran after we overthrew their only democratically elected leader they ever had wildly popular Prime Minster Mohamed Mossedegh." No arguement there. That's a true fact. But what 18 year highschool graduate was aware of that then? Not many. I know I wasn't. The reason for my enlistment was a point but not a main one.
First you didn't see too many terrorist groups rising out of Japan or Germany. Why was that? I would venture a guess that one of the many reasons is because they didn't want go through what they did a second time. The ferocity and yes, brutality of how we waged war on them broke their will to continue fighting against us, the U.K. and Russia. We did what we needed to do to win and save lives (primarily those the U.S. and of the Allies). We should have the same resolve now and in any other conflict we find ourselves in.
Next, and this is my fault for not being as clear as I should have. It sounds as if you assume that I like the fact that our government put us in Iraq. Trust me, I don't. I have little use for our current president. But then I feel that all politicians are liars and thieves.
My brother-in-law is currently in Iraq. The night he left I told him to do whatever he had to do to come home alive. I then looked him in the eye and said "kill them all, if that's what it takes to get you home in one piece, you f***king kill them all." I choose his life over the lives of any number of Iraqis. Just like I put the lives of myself and my family above yours or anyone elses. (Now that's a can of worms isn't it). Personally I don't think we need to be in Iraq at all. But since we're there lets grind the insurgents bones into dust and make bread from it. (Another can of worms).
Was Truman concerned about the civilians he killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I'm sure it weighed heavily on his mind. But he valued the lives of Americans over the lives of innocent civilians. I'm glad he did. My grandfather was glad, so was his wife and kids, and probably someone in your family is/was very happy that Truman had the A-bomb dropped on Japan, that numerous German cities were fire bombed that he and Roosevelt and Churchill waged war utterly and completely with such force and violence the likes of which the world had never seen. Good for them. We should do it now. Nukes? Probably not necessary, although they do have rrreeaallly small ones that you can lob out of a four deuce motar that only takes out a grid sqaure or two. Something to keep in mind anyway. Now is the threat of using nukes torture?
It seems you're conflating the Iraq War and Vietnam with World War II. WWII involved the US, Britain, France etc. against Germany, Italy and Japan. During that war, the populations of the participating nations were either serving in the military or working for their war industries. You might be able to justify an attack on a civilian population center. When nations fight each other, the surest way to win is to destroy the enemies desire and ability to wage war.
Vietnam was, and now Iraq is a war against ideas, not populations. The majority of the citizens of any city in Iraq are supposed to be on our side. We are supposed to be there liberating them. If to kill insurgents, we decimate civilian populations, we are murderers, plain and simple. If you think the majority of the citizens in Iraq are supporting the terrorists, your conscience should force you to work for the immediate withdraw of US Troops. If then, you feel we should kill them all, then you're advocating that this is a war against the Iraqi people, not a war against terrorists.
You are correct I was combining two very different sets of circumstances and drawing an incorrect parallel. Good call and thanks for the insight. Now to take some time to re-evaluate how I think about our current situation.
always wins in every War; everyone else loses!
O'Lielly supports our invading Iraq & overthrowing Saddam... because he is a brutal tyrant. We are there to liberate the Iraqi people & bestow upon them the gift of democracy.
The occupation goes horribly wrong, & terrorists (who did NOT operate in Iraq before our invasion) begin attacking our troops, as well as the democratic institutions that we are establishing in the name of freedom & the Iraqi people. The violence begins spinning out of control.
O'Lielly advocates the American military adopting the brutal tactics of Saddam in order to quell this violent, multi-headed uprising, including the use of "martial law, torture, murder, kicking in doors..."
You see, this is the part that I really don't get. Wouldn't it have been far cheaper & have saved THOUSANDS of lives to have left Saddam in power, & simply just rehired him as our fascist strongman for the region?
If we're going to be emperialists, at least we should be cost-effective emperialists.
"You see, this is the part that I really don't get. Wouldn't it have been far cheaper & have saved THOUSANDS of lives to have left Saddam in power, & simply just rehired him as our fascist strongman for the region?"
It worked in the 80's, I'm sure it would've worked now, and (seriously) I'm sure that some neocons saw that as an option. However, after 9/11 they saw their chance to do one better: why let that unpredictable and disobedient (he tried to kill Dubya's daddy, remember!) Saddam stay there, when it would be so much better to install a new, more America-friendly regime? 9/11 was a boon to the neocons (and no, I do not believe they were behind it at all - they just got lucky).
the Iraq War was started to win both the 2002 Congressional Election and the 2004 Presidential Elections. If you want to Win an American Election, start a War!
saddam wouldn't have put up with those liberal, freedom-spouting, hippie traitors from the ACLU.
O'Lielly & Saddam are true soulmates.
As Bill noted, these methods were a permanent fixture under Saddam. There's no reason to believe that these methods would be anything but permanent under anyone else. However, aren't we supposedly fighting against terrorism?
Walt Kelly was right.
OK, every guest needs to bring this quote with him/her
OK. I am speechless. Wow.
So the problem the US has in Iraq, according to this mainstream media personality, is that we don't murder and torture enough, and that's because the ACLU (you know, those guys trying to defend a bunch of "mumbo jumbo") would sue the government if the US did.
Wow. What a guy. If this doesn't count as praise of Saddam, I don't know what does, short of wearing a t-shirt with "Free Saddam" on it or something. Maybe a good present for O' Reilly? His birthday's coming up in September, you know.
- fawltylogic / Tuesday June 27, 2006 06:36:15 PM EST - Reply to this comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proving once again that reptiles don't give a damn about Iraq, the Iraqi People, freedom, democracy or the rule of law anymore than they care about the United States. All they care about is what's in it for them and imposing their values and beliefs on everyone else.
They had no problem with Saddam using wmd on his own people until Clinton was President. It happened on St Patrick's Day of '88. Who was President on that day? Yeah, that's right, reagan the wonderful. Yet another clear example of the facts having a liberal bias.
Reptiles have no problem with tyrants and dictators who commit genocide against their own people. As long as it's a stable government friendly to republican administrations and corporate interests. The only thing they care about is their bank balances and the advancement of their own bigoted bs.
I don't think it was necessarily taken out of context, but
Bull OhReally was speaking (IMO) with his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek.
- oscar the grouch / Tuesday June 27, 2006 08:08:25 PM EST - Reply to this nonsense -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spoken like a man with his head up his own ass.
Ya gotta love that klanservative "thought process" on parade.
The never-ending struggle for dominance between ignorance and dishonesty.
So the way to bring democracy to Iraq is to institute a Reign of Terror?
Ah, oui! Set up guillotines in the town square! Break out the tumbrels and round up the hated ancien regime!
Aux armes, citoyens!
Gee, that worked so well before--all we have to do is wait for an Iranian Napoleon !
If only O'Reilly had his phone number, he could teach Saddam the proper use of a falafel.
O'Lielly forgot to mention the rape rooms. That's the part he likes best. He would have more rape rooms than Saddam did, stocked with loofahs and falafal. It's because of the ACLU protecting everybody's civil rights that O'Lielly and idiots like him are allowed to broadcast such absurdity and continue with their hate-mongering and rabble-rousing.