About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

O’Reilly on dropping the phrase “war on terror”: “[W]e don’t want to offend the terrorists?”

March 31, 2009 9:51 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by harley (March 31, 2009 10:01 am ET)
         

       

      O'Racist or the rest of the radical right still hasn't explained how Iraq was ever part of the "war on terror" in the first place.  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Blueneck (March 31, 2009 10:07 am ET)
         
      I'm dropping the phrase war on ignorant beligerant loudmouthed sexual deviants since I don't want to offend O'Reilly--with all due respect of course.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (March 31, 2009 10:08 am ET)
         
      Well O'Reilly is surely right about that, now we have "overseas contingency operations', very dumb indeed.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 31, 2009 11:05 am ET)
           

        "very dumb indeed."

        You commented on your own post. Nothing further is needed.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (March 31, 2009 11:10 am ET)
             
          Actually I was anticipating your comment, now I don't have to repeat myself.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Max Credits (March 31, 2009 11:12 am ET)
               
            Do you ever wonder why everyone flees the water cooler when you arrive?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 31, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
           

        We couldn't use war on terror anymore if we wanted to.  We won that war according to O'Reilly.  Unless you're admitting that he was a liar. 

        What's wrong with overseas contingency plans?  Why do you hate the troops?  Why do you want us to fail?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (March 31, 2009 10:12 am ET)
         

      O'reilly, like Boss Limbaugh, is truly a great thinker. "This is dumb". "This is stupid". "We don't want to insult France?" "I mean, come on".

      With arguments like that, why would you NOT watch his show??

      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (March 31, 2009 10:25 am ET)
         

      I thought we won the war on terror.

       

       

      ... at least that's what I remember Keith-O quoting Bill-O as saying...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by PurpleState (March 31, 2009 10:30 am ET)
         

      When someone complains about something with "oh, come ON!" as an integral phrase in their argument, I feel it immediately degrades the knowledge surrounding the next things they are about to say.  If you want to make a justifiable argument, BE PROFESSIONAL.

      O'Reilly doesn't demonstrate that, period.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (March 31, 2009 10:32 am ET)
         
      Bill, you're an idiot, again.

      It's not about offending anyone, it's about coming up with something of a term that is more precise in its definition, that, and the WOT has a mostly negative connotation associated with it, as it is tied back to Iraq, which as we all know, had nothing to do with terrorism against the United States in the first place.

      As a man of "ahem" journalism, you must certainly realize that words mean things. Of course, then again, watching your show, I'm not so sure that you do realize this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (March 31, 2009 11:13 am ET)
           
        Is overseas contingency operations a more precise definition?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (March 31, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
             
          Yes it is. Very odd question.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 31, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
             
          Of course it is.  Do you think the war on terror was a precise title for what we were doing in Iraq?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Max Credits (March 31, 2009 10:45 am ET)
         

      Well said.  Words have meaning.  The WOT was part of the Bush administration's smoke and mirrors campaign.  O'Reilly knows this and is being totally disingenuous here. Remember this O'Reilly gem: "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Übermensch (March 31, 2009 10:50 am ET)
           
        You, like so many others, are still waiting for that apology (and distrust of the Bush administration)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Max Credits (March 31, 2009 10:55 am ET)
             
          No I'm not.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (March 31, 2009 1:55 pm ET)
             
          Don't you remember that "we" found WMDs in Iraq? A few containers of unused and unusable mustard gas IIRC. That gets O'Reilly and the others off the hook for apologies, in their minds.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (March 31, 2009 10:54 am ET)
         

      Many years ago, OJ Simpson was host of Saturday Night Live!  At one point he said "A fanatic is someone who has lost sight of their goal so they re-double their efforts."

      That's the GWOT.  It didn't work - so let's go do it with twice the effort.  This could well be termed the "Israeli Strategy," but that's another story.

      There is ample evidence the GWOT was a bad idea from the start.  Have any of these yahoos read "The Art of War?"  War is a very poor way to get things done - very difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and the outcome is always in doubt.  Anyone who has read David Kilcullen's work knows the whole GWOT concept was a very poor concept and we didn't do a great job with execution, either.

      Memo to the Right WingNutz:  The War on Drugs didn't work, either.  It's over.  Drugs won.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (March 31, 2009 11:07 am ET)
           
        And with the Bush economy coming to fruition, Poverty may win its war, too.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (March 31, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
           
        You are expecting an awful lot from this crowd.  You want them to read and understand Sun Tzu?  O'Reilly cannot even follow his own statements from birth to completion and keep them straight.  And his defenders here seem to have a tough time grasping and comprehending the links they use as support for their own arguments.  Let's have them start with S.E. Hinton or someone simpler first, then we will move onto Sun Tzu.
        Report Abuse