O'Reilly claimed Rosie O'Donnell "doesn't want George Bush and his administration to have a victory in Iraq because she feels they're evil"
On the October 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated that Rosie O'Donnell, co-host of ABC's The View, "would not answer" his question as to whether "she wanted the United States to win in Iraq." O'Reilly, who appeared on The View earlier the same day, had asked O'Donnell if she "want[ed] America to win in Iraq," to which O'Donnell responded, "I don't think it's possible." O'Reilly concluded that O'Donnell's response was "very telling" and indicated that "she doesn't want George Bush and his administration to have a victory in Iraq because she feels they're evil. It's as simple as that." O'Reilly also asserted that O'Donnell "is basing ... her position in Iraq on emotion rather than what's good for the country," but added: "I like her -- for you left-wing websites writing all this down."
From the October 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'DONNELL: Sixty-four percent of the people don't agree with Bush's position on the war. What do you say to that? Sixty-four percent.
O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it. Want America to win in Iraq, by the way?
O'DONNELL: I don't think it's possible.
O'REILLY: Do you want, do you --
O'DONNELL: I think it's an ill-thought-out plan and I think we should get out of that situation before Americans are killed. Out. Out of Iraq.
O'REILLY: Do you want America to win in Iraq?
JOY BEHAR (co-host of The View): What does it mean to win?
O'DONNELL: I want America to be what the founding fathers wanted it to be, a democracy, where we the people --
O'REILLY: OK. So you don't want America to win in Iraq.
BARBARA WALTERS (co-host of The View): No, no, no. Don't put words in her mouth.
O'REILLY: She won't answer the question, Barbara. She won't answer the question. Do you want America to win there?
O'DONNELL: Listen, it's like saying do you believe in God or the devil. If you're not with us, you're against us. That's antiquated thinking, Bill. Peace and harmony --
O'REILLY: The sign, the sign.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. There you go. So, it was a lot of cacophony, but it was fun. I like that. I don't know how much anybody learned. And I when I speak with Oprah next week, I think we'll get a lot more out there as far as, you know, our positions and what happened. But the telling part of that interview was when I asked Miss O'Donnell if she wanted the United States to win in Iraq and she would not answer the question. And then fell back on the canard, "Would you send your child to Iraq?" Which is ridiculous. That's the [filmmaker] Michael Moore question. If my child was 18 and wanted to go into the service, I would give my blessing to that, as I did with my nephew, who, when he turned 18, enlisted in the army. That's the answer, which I tried to get out but was -- you know, I don't know if anybody heard it.
But that's -- it's all based on emotion, you see what I mean? It's all based on emotion. Now with all due respect to Rosie O'Donnell, again, I like her -- for you left-wing websites writing all this down -- she is basing, I believe, her position in Iraq on emotion rather than what's good for the country, what can happen if we prevail and what can happen if we get out and leave it to Iran to dominate.
Now, I can't get into geopolitics on The View. I'm lucky I got my, you know, the words I got out I'm lucky I got out. OK. I can't be getting into geopolitics. But I'm gonna invite Rosie on the program, and if she wants to debate geopolitics, I'm more happy to do that. But she's an entertainer. She's entitled to her point of view. All right. She's not an anti-American, she loves her country, I believe she does, but she's a secular-progressive. You know, she doesn't believe that we have any right to do any of what we're doing. You know, any authority to do this, moral or otherwise, in Iraq. She doesn't believe it.
Now she's free to hold that position because that's our country. But that is the secular-progressive position. We didn't have a right to remove Saddam [Hussein]. Even though he violated the first Gulf War cease-fire 17 times, we didn't have a right to remove him. Even though he was training and arming terrorists, we didn't have a right to do anything to him unless France signed off on him. You see? That's not my position.
Now, there's a difference between tactics and philosophy. So obviously our tactics in Iraq have not been successful. We -- I hope they will. I want them to prevail. You do too, right?
LIS WIEHL (co-host): Of course I do.
O'REILLY: But when I asked Rosie --
WIEHL: She wouldn't answer.
O'REILLY: -- if she wanted us to win, she wouldn't answer. That is a very telling position. It's not un-American, it's not unpatriotic, it's telling. It's telling. Because all -- I think, for the good of the nation, we obviously would like to win there. All good things would come from victory.
WIEHL: But isn't she just defining a win by getting out? In other words, we win by saving people, our own people now --
O'REILLY: No, she didn't -- she doesn't want, she doesn't want to be pinned down to say, "I want a victory in Iraq," because she feels that the people who put us there are evil. She doesn't want them, she doesn't want George Bush and his administration to have a victory in Iraq because she feels they're evil. It's as simple as that.
WIEHL: And as she said, she didn't believe that a win is possible. That's what she said, it's not possible.
O'REILLY: She may be right about that. You know, I mean there are a lot of people who feel that way. But that's not the question. Do you want the USA to win?
WIEHL: She wouldn't answer you -- you asked her three times, she wouldn't answer that question.
O'REILLY: It's like [Rep. Charles] Rangel [D-NY] last night.
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
And your proof of this assertion is? Oh, you don't have any. I'm shocked. He's got nothing.
Bor and his ignorant trash audience have always been scum. Now, they're desperate scumHe' Whether Rosie O'Donnell is for the War are against the War is irrelevant. Either way, it's not going to make it legitimate or winnable. Shrub and his shills are scum. They 've been busted. I can't wait 'til tomorrow because the news for repos gets worse every day. Bummer.
Reports on?
repubs, I get it. You put Repos...... confused me at first.
Those who believe in war as the only solution think victory mean continue with war until... WHAT? I have yet to hear from one single war-monger what victory means. They do know how to ask if others want a victory. Any trolls care to answer what "winning" the war would mean or look like? You would be answering ahead of all politicians.
Those who do not believe that the war is just, or think the war cannot be "won" (i.e., clear thinkers) have a hard time answering because if we say "yes, we want a victory" then we would have to have an idea of what victory means. Since nobody can do that... the question is moot.
Clear thinkers do not want our troops to die, do not want to spend $ Billions, do not want to divert our attention away from the real world threats. Somebody please ask Bill O if he wants our troops to die, if he wants to spend billions, and if he wants us to divert our attention.
Why the war cannot be "won" ?
What other world threats?
thanks
I think Scooter is saying "winning" has to be defined first.
So can you enlighten us as to what winning means in this case?
because I was never for the "WAR" in Iraq to begin with.
So how can anyone be expected to define if we can win if we can't define what it means to win?
Why did you ask Scooter the question if you can't define winning?
Why the war cannot be "won" ?
I have my own baseless opinion, but would like to hear others.
So please stop pretending that you did not read it. It cannot be "won" until "won" is defined. QED
You feel the war in Iraq could be won?
Are you playing stupid now?
I guess.
Like terrorism, perhaps? Oh, that's right, you probably swallow Bush's talking point that the Iraq war is the "central front" on the war on turr. Guess what...HE'S LYING TO YOU! Iraq is a self-perpetuating cluster f*ck, and has NOTHING to do with the broader war against terrorism.
it is a cluster @#@#
YOU MUST BE KIDDING!
BTW, I never voted for puding head...... you moron
About what?
because I am well aware it is a mess over there. I saw it coming from day 1. Liberating Iraq was fine for da day, but the civil war was going to happen.
...in order to 'win' we must all know what it is we are fighting for... that is, what is the end goal in Iraq? To bring peace and prosperity to the Iraqis? Liberty? Please.
Let's face it. We ain't going anywhere any time soon. In fact, I'd be surprised if we (US) ever left Iraq at all. I guess, that is a 'victory' for the Bush crew.
It plain sucks. If the people had asked to be liberated, then we would have suceeded that long ago. Cause everything after the liberation from Sadam would be thier own mess. Sticking around is worse then ever, and getting compounded by the day.
...with you on that. But, careful - you'll be labeled a pinko, cut-and-runner...
Please tell me that your post is an attempt at humor.
I'll turn the question to you. Define "win" (you will be the first on record, mind you), then I'll tell you why it cannot be done. Send us all a link to what anyone is calling "win" if you'd like. See if Bush/Cheney/Rummy have ever answered.
It is up to the Repubs, neo-conservatives, and other gung-hoers to explain "win" so we can have a serious conversation about the topic. Until then, what the heck does Bill O's question mean?
Other world threats??? Do you have access to a TV or newspaper? If you think Iraq is/was the biggest threat, then Fox news is waiting for your continued support.
Have you not read I did not support the war? I was ASKING YOU A SIMPLE HONEST QUESTION YOU MORON!
However, it seems you can not get past the fact that I do not SUCK UP TO THE LEFTIST MOST LIBERAL VIEWS, therfore I am a absolute NEOCON! GROW UP!
I was also asking you about world threats because I would like to understand what you are considering threats?
“Do you want us to win in Iraq’? The answer is I don’t think a “Win” is possible. Like Rosie O’Donnell, I and many other people think that it is a sophomoric question about a complicated war. A stupid war that should not have happened in the first place but with any luck, we may be able to resolve. (BTW, most people who oppose war do so because they believe that a war cannot be “won” no matter who prevails because both sides suffer inordinately.)
The bottom line is we will not “Win” in Iraq. That is a ridiculous Neocon concept. We lost the minute we invaded against all intelligent advice. Now, with the help of Secretary Baker’s committee we may be able to affect a resolution. The committee should have convened before the war.
To me victory in Iraq, is an independant Iraqi democracy that can defend itself and protect it's people.
Is that possible, I don't know (probably not), but it would be nice if it happened.
Scooter,
If you cared to look, you'd find the answer.
Bush has defined victory as the time when Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens against terrorists and insurgents who threaten its path to democracy.
[link to usinfo.state.gov]
Iraqs "Citizens' are also those insurrgents fighting against us. That still makes the definition murky. IF that is the goal, we need to leave, since more than half of the Iraqis admit to polls that they think attacks against Americans are justified and more than 80% want us to leave, its obvious we are adding to the equation of violence. To reach the goal stated in your post the most sensible thing would be to leave Iraq as soon as possible.
The old tactic of getting the locals to fight their own people to protect an occupation hasnt been successfully pulled off since the British in India. Its not likely that we will be able to pull it off in Iraq. So if by that definition he measn when the security forces can protect is people and the occupation while he continues to attempt setting up a puppet government its an unlikely goal
OK, that is about the closest statement/definition of "win" or "success" I have seen. Thank you.
For some reason I thought that the mission had been accomplished (where would I have gotten that absurd idea? As it turns out the exact opposite is true -- as defined by the King, we cannot possibly win the war in Iraq. The world knows that our presence caused more violence, more deaths, and far more terrorists and terroristic actions in Iraq and the world. Stay the Course will... make it better in the future for some cosmic reason?
I change my stance. As defined, I do want the US to "win" the "war" in Iraq (more to the point, I would like to see Iraq gain something from our actions.) But alas we can see that this is an impossibility.
BTW, how's that new government doing? Aren't "we" asking for a change in the puppets already?
The question Oreilly asked O'donnell wasn't "is the US going to win the war?" but "do you want the US to win the war?"
It's the difference between asking a Cubs fan are they going to win the World Series next year (probably not) or do they want the Cubs to win the World Series (hell yeah).
He asks a question like do you want the US to win in Iraq without qualifying EITHER what that would be or what the cost involved would be. Ever hear of Pyrris? I am sure many people wanted HIM to win, yet his victory became synonomous with a victory that causes a larger defeat. Wining the battle and losing the war. O'Reilly is a blowhard and O'Donnel is smarter than she looks. I wouldnt choose her as a spokesman for my side but not because of this.
You mean like when Saddam was in control of Iraq?
In summary, Bush admits that Iraq had been a success before we mucked it all up, and that if we ever get back to that point (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) then Bush can finally call himself a success.
The Lost Year in Iraq by Frontline is a must see for all citizens.
I think I had an aneurism while typing that. How can millions of voters be so stupid?
Funny that Mr. O'Reily tried to debase O'Donnell as an "entertainer" as he put it. What exactly is he then? If he tries to look at the camera and say he's a serious jounralist, I would laugh my ass off. Someone who started on a tabloid show, and is now really putting out something that is not at a much higher level than that. O'Reilly is an entertainer, same as O'Donnell.
Could we ask Bill O' if he wants the US to flubberghast in Iraq? Be careful not to explain what it means, but insist that he answer. If he will not or cannot answer, then he obviously hates America and feels that the administration is evil.
Does anyone have a link to a quote from ANYONE who has defined what victory in Iraq would look, or smell... taste?
MMFA's transcript begins with O'Donnell stating/asking: "Sixty-four percent of the people don't agree with Bush's position on the war. What do you say to that?"
BO does a duck-dodge-bob-and-weave by bringing out his lame "do you want America to win?" straw man.
The really sad thing is that BO will be one of the first ones to blame "S-Ps" when we withdraw without a "win."
Whatever that would've been.
The neocons know that "winning" has long ceased to be an option in Iraq... if it ever really was one. They're simply treading water in a ocean of failure, desperately scanning the horizon for a way out that doesn't entail accepting responsibility for their screw ups. But fascists are incapable of confessing to error & weakness. Their only real hope is to somehow pin this failure on someone else.
That's where we come in.
Since blaming all failures on treasonous manipulations by the Jews (or even communists) is something that not even the hard right believes it can get away with anymore, a new scapegoat must be found. The new refrain will be that liberals, progresives, Democrats, & "secular progressives" betrayed our brave fighting men, & gave aid & comfort to the terrorists, forcing us to leave Iraq with the job still unfinished. If only for these America & Freedom hating radicals, they'll argue, we would have triumphed, leaving a gleaming 'city on a hill' as a beacon of liberty for the people of the Middle East.
What the hell. It gave the Hitler the political leverage neccisary to topple the Weimar Republic. 'Heroic resistance' to treasonous internal conspiricies are the central thesis to all fascist movements. And, at the end of the day, that is precisely what Dubya', Darth Cheney, Von Rumsfeld, et al are all about. If they can manufacture a frightening enough boogeyman to menace the people, they can con them into passively surrendering their rights to these would be strongmen.
If? Hell, we already have! When McCain (a modern day Faust, if ever ther was one) caved in to Dubya's insistence that such essential questions as torture, habeas corpus, & freedom of speech be determined by the wise & loving judgement of Big Brother (in the form of a smirking chimp), we passively watched the black shirts acquire the means to impose violent control over our nation. They need only the proper political spark to unleash their conflagration upon us.
November 7th may be our last chance to preserve the concepts of liberty that so many have fought & died for over the last two-plus centuries.
We either rise to the challenge or kiss our balls goodbye.
She asks him about 64% of the American people not supporting the war in Iraq, and he completely dodges the question. What a phony. Then he goes to say Rosie wouldn't answer his question after he just did the exact same thing. I wonder what this buffoon will say if the Democrats get a majority in one or both Houses come November. He will probably say that we are losing in Iraq and then blame the Democrats. He will say what Rosie is saying now. What a charlatan.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Unfortunately I was watching this cross talking mess, and I did not hear Rosie ask that question. So it is possible Bill didn't hear it either. It's difficult when you have five people all talking at once.
it came on the end of a piece of the "interview" where they all screaming at each other. When I saw it, I thought she was talking about Bush's disapproval numbers.
Although BO could have answered it on his radio program if he didn't hear it in studio.
any military conflict that the US engages in must have three things: a clear strategy for success, with achievable objectives; a sufficient number of troops to ahieve the aforementioned objectives; and a clear exit strategy. unfortunately, the current gov't decided not to abide by this long-standing doctrine. or fortunately, i suppose, if you are a member of al-qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Venezuala, Cuba, Russia, China, or any other group or state who opposes US hegemony.
the group of neocons, known as the project for a new american century, whose main goal was to ensure the continuation of US hegemony, have done more damage to american power than any enemy of the US could have ever dreamed to achieve. remember in the nineties when everyone referred to the US as the world's police, that can only be referred to in nostalgic terms now. the US can't even take on Chavez, a two-bit thug, let alone any state that actually poses a threat to the US or US interests. the US is no longer THE superpower, it is A superpower. and while i may have decried US hegemony in the nineties, those days are looking alot rosier than the years to come, as the stability of the world is now threatened by moves to remake the balance of power on the road to multipolarity.
She did answer your question. It wasn't the answer you wanted to hear so as usual, you didn't hear it and will now attack her till the cows come home.
He wants U.S. victory in Iraq? That explains the following from Bill.
"Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses."
who would win a fight rosie o donnell or bill
middle of a debate between NotsoRosy and Bull OhReally?. One would run the risk of being drowned
Rosie doesnt want the US to win, I believe she truly hates America.
YOU dont like people disagreeing with your Bush idolotry. I beleive you are truly a moron. When will you stop being unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable to the American Public?
I believe you truly hate intelligence!!!!
War crimes are unwinnable. What's your idea for 'victory'? Total genocide of all Iraqi nationals until all that's left are the US-paid politicians in the Green Zone?
assumption is the mother of all f*** ups dave why would you just assert that somone who dosent agree auotmatically hate america thats ridiculous thats the kind of bulls**t black and white thinking that has alienated americans from the rest of the world and landed us knee deep in the guagmire of iraq
but aren't you making assumptions in your reply?
;-)
yes another american point taken i suppose i did but in my defence my assumptions are about an ideology not an ad hominum attack on individuals
He specifically said that Rosie is not unpatriotic or un-American. He simply pointed out something that was obvious during the debate, when asked whether she wanted the US to win in Iraq, she did not answer the question. She only said that it was not possible to win, which is a separate issue from whether or not she wants to win. A better answer from Rosie would have been "yes I want the US to win but I don't think it's possible." She avoided Bill's question altogether and thus Bill came to the only logical conclusion one could reach from the exchange, Rosie does not want the US to win in Iraq.
O'falafels semantic trap. Rosie wants the troops home, she has said so often. So had she said yes but I dont think its possible Bill would have replied it sure isnt possible if we cut and run like you advocate. See by not adressing the costs or the non definition of what Billy calls winning it allows a demand for open ended support of the war without objectives.
No Rosie might have done better by demanding Bill define both the costs and objectives of the war but these points are hard to make in the small amount of time between commercials.
This is one of the things that hinder liberals on such shows. You have to make your points with consision. Because of that you must speak in the terms of conventional wisdom because that is understood. To make a more nuanced point you get boggegd down in explaining what you mean because the mainstream viewer hasnt already been exposed to these ideas therefore and would, and rightfully so expect you to back up what you say once you are on that road concision is gone.
Let me give a for instance and to make it less a point of argument let me take a historical example. Suppose you were on such a format in the 80's talking about Nicaragua. Now the conservative can say the Sandanistas are communits, they are totalitarians, they are exporting arms to El Salvador. Everyone knows what he was talking about that was the accepted language of the day, it had become conventional wisdom. Now a liberal might point out that the Sandanistas had been freely elected, by a much higher margin than Raygun. That they were much freer politically than our allys El Salvador and Guatemala, that there wasnt the slightest bit of evidence for Nicaragua exporting arms ANYWHERE. All these points were demonstrably true to take one, Yes, the Sandanistas did shut down La Prensa for a couple of weeks, of course El Salvador didnt shut down their slightly to the left newspaper they blew it up and murdered the editor. Yes in Nicaragua they deported a few priests that were doing a lot of protesting, in El Salvador they didnt harass the Catholic priests they MURDERED Archbishop Romero. And its a bald statement of absolute FACT that they were elected in 1984 but it takes time to list and back up all these facts, time such shows just dont give you. This gives the rightwing with their natural allies in the press (at least for foriegn policy and economic matters) who create the conventional wisdom
So now that Bush tried to redefine what "victory" means to this cluster* in Iraq, we have the people who know what is really going on (i.e., not Bush, not Cheney, not Rummy, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc.) saying that by their own admission of "victory" we are further from our goals than ever before.
When was the last time Iraq was a "success"? How about just before we invaded?
[link to www.timesonline.co.uk]