O'Reilly's evolving deadline on preparing Iraqi security forces
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly declared on the September 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor that Iraqi security and law enforcement forces should be given "another year and a half" to prepare to defend their country by themselves. But this is a substantially longer time frame than O'Reilly proposed less than two months earlier, on August 3, when he stated, "I mean, within six months, they either do it or they don't. I mean, we can't be South Vietnamese [sic] all over again. Either you fight or you don't." In amending his deadline, O'Reilly neither acknowledged his previous statement, nor gave any reasons for setting the new, longer deadline.
Discussing the current status of the Iraq war with Fox News military analysts David Hunt and Bill Cowan on the August 3 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly set a deadline of six months:
COWAN: But I'd add one thing, if I could, Bill. When you talk about the Iraqi people, you're right. A lot of responsibility on the Iraqi people to change things. But they don't know what's going to happen. They're still not sure what side they're going to land up with at the end of the game here. And the killings, intimidation, fear, kidnappings of Iraqis, it's not something we talk about regularly here on the news, Bill. But my friends in Iraq say it's rampant.
O'REILLY: Of course.
COWAN: It's unbelievable. And you mention coming in here, the killings down in Basra. In Baghdad itself, Shiites killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shiites.
O'REILLY: But that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about that American forces can't provide security for the people.
COWAN: Can't do it, Bill. They can't. Because the people are afraid. They can't provide it.
O'REILLY: So either the Iraqi forces are going to have to provide the security, and you guys both say they're not, or we lose.
COWAN: Bill, we are not on a good glide path right now. And it's going to be tough. And David's exactly right. When we're talking about pulling out, all the Iraqi people are sitting back saying, well, if they're pulling out, I better decide where I want to be.
O'REILLY: If they've got 90 battalions of Iraq troops, I mean, within six months, they either do it or they don't. I mean, we can't be South Vietnamese all over again. Either you fight or you don't. That's it.
But on the September 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly, challenged by Newsday columnist Ellis Henican, set a new, "fair" deadline of a "year and a half" for the Iraqis to "get [their] police and army up and running so that [they] can deal with the insurgency":
HENICAN: But don't -- don't -- let's do one war at a time. What do you say? Let me tell you, this whole notion of staying the course makes no sense unless things are getting better. This is like staying the course when the course --
O'REILLY: All right.
HENICAN: -- is off the edge of a cliff.
O'REILLY: That's not a crazy argument.
HENICAN: We've got to back off from that argument.
O'REILLY: Well, I don't know if we have to back off, but we certainly have to say to the Iraqis privately, not publicly, you have a certain amount of time to get your police and army up and running so that you can deal with the insurgency.
HENICAN: So 10 years? So what do you want to give them?
O'REILLY: Well --
HENICAN: We've given them two-and-a-half already. How much do you want to give them?
O'REILLY: I don't know. I think, to be fair, you'd have to give them another year and a half.
HENICAN: I suspect --
O'REILLY: I think that would fair.
HENICAN: I suspect that in six months, you're going to be sitting on this side of the table, joining me in this decision and saying, "You know what? This is just not getting any better."
i thought you were helping the terrorists when you set a deadline. bill o'reilly, terrorist helper.
Sometimes I wonder why he hates America so much.
Our Vice President has told us the insurgents are in their last throes some time ago, O'Reilly must know things beyond the scope of our experts in the military and our VP. Is it true that bases are under construction in Iraq? If so how are we going to bail out of there in a year and a half let alone six months? One thing we can be assured of is not to believe much from Bill or the administration, Bush doesn't say much anyway but stay the course so who knows???
It has been over two years since "Mission Accomplished". How much more time, money and lives are needed? No one really knows, but one thing is for sure, our withdrawl is difficult to envision.
U.S. base construction in Iraq? Maybe since the bases are mostly made up of trailers and concrete blocks, the term 'enduring' base can be accurately applied instead of the 'p' word.
Of course they ignore the bigger issue that the Iraqi insurgency (which is composed primarily of Iraqis) is primarily fighting the US led coalition and those protecting the US occupation. When they are not bombing the US directly, the Iraqis are predominantly attacking the forces that the US is putting in place, i.e., Iraqi security forces and police.
Another issue that O'Reilly fails to discuss is that the US is not equipping the Iraqi security forces and police with the armor and weaponry needed to fight the insurgency. If the US with its tanks, armored humvees, helicopters, fighter jets can't stop the insurgency, how are the Iraqi security forces supposed to do the same with jeeps, pistols and second class (often used) weaponry .
Finally, O'Reilly fails to have a candid discussion as to why the insurgency is fighting, besides just calling them terrorists.
Here's the administration's official "out" in this argument. The VP says the insurgents are "in their last throes", but never explains a 'throe length.'
How long is a 'throe'? a week? A month? A year? A decade?
Thank you for keeping the microscope on this scum. An outrageously high percentage of what he passes off as facts is complete BS. I think O'Reilly is starting to teeter. Please keep up the pressure. Please keep exposing O'Reilly as the lying scuzbucket that he is. He is so much worse than Crossfire. He is hurting America so much worse than Crossfire. He needs to be taken off the air.
MMFA is performing a public service here. Our conservative comrades invariably dismiss stories about Limbaugh, O'reilly and Hannity as "trivial". While each of these propagandists individually may only reach a few million voters, collectivlely, they have quite an impact. If you include all the Right Wingers who are repeating the same talking points on cable news, talk radio and the internet, their influence is quite large, indeed. The more that we can demonstrate their dishonesty, the better.
O'Reilly said in April 2004, "If these people won't help us, we need to get out in an orderly manner. If, come next October, Iraq continues to be a big mess, President Bush might very well lose the election."
[link to www.foxnews.com]
So, I guess he meant we needed to get out in about 3 years.
Jeez, whatever happened to the 3 months and home scenario? OH, it was nothing but right wing crap to begin with? Gosh, what a surprise.
It's almost as if underneath the surface Bill O' Reilly knows that it's a failure, but keeps telling himself (as well as his viewers) that it can still come out okay; it will be a shining democracy.
I wonder if O'Reilly's kids know that they can blow off all his ultimatums?
O'Reilly at 8:00 pm: Bedtime is 8:30. That's it. End of discussion.
O'Reilly at 8:45 pm: Turn off the television! If you're not asleep by 9:00, you are in deep trouble young man. I mean it.
O'Reilly at 9:45 pm: This is my last warning. Bedtime is at 10:30, and that's final.
O'Reilly at 11:45 pm: No more fooling around. After the midnight movie it's straight to bed with you. That's absolutely final.
Etc.
O'Reilly gave two contradictory OPINIONS regarding when the U.S. should pull out of Iraq. 6 months and 18 months. Whoop de do. Neither was presented as a fact. As far as I recall, nothing has happened in the past two months that would constitute him CHANGING his opinion, things are still the same in Iraq (although I haven't heard as much with all the hurricane trouble in the news). I guess he was misinforming based on his previously uninformed opinion, or something like that.
It shouldn't be on the left side of the page, it doesn't meet the standard of misinformation. But MMFA can have an "evolving policy" just like the administration if it wants to. It's another chance for MMFA to stick it to O'Reilly, I'm sure in ten years you all will still be saying he's on his "last throes". And no, I really don't care what his opinion is on the subject.
Say what you will about Fox News, it really is quite brilliant how effectively they have used "yellow journalism" to create a culture where they frame the argument for every topic. Stories that do not jive with their worldview are marginalized or totally ignored. Fox News of course, is owned by Rupert Murdock, a personal friend of the Bush family, who uses his station as almost a government (corporate?) run organization to parrot their talking points. All of their newscasters/propogandists serve a different role within this wider network. Hannity: clean-cut, unapologetic "patriot" who wants to bring back the failed policies of the 1980's, Brit Hume: older, more distinguished pseudo-journalist who appears to be more in the Dan Rather mold, so much so that his right-wing biases slip under the radar. O'Reilly: confrontational, pseudo-intellectual blowhard who claims to have all the answers, and never changes his stance even when confronted with cold hard facts disproving his views. The key to O'Reilly is his whole "no-spin, fair and balanced" persona in which he claims to be just as hard on both liberals and conservatives. This too is but a ploy, and if he ever truly strayed from the program and began actually criticizing the president and denouncing the countless lies and misappropriations that have occurred, he would be out of a job. I could go on and on and obviously most of you guys know all this but it feels good to let it off my chest. Ok, back to work :)
I, too, suspect that the relationship between the GOP and Fox, Limbaugh, et al may be just a little too cozy. We may never have any evidence to prove it, but it sure looks suspicious to me.
I saw this the other night. Bill is teetering. He now feels he has more power than major newspapaers or TV networks. It is a little fascinating to watch because he is heading for a fall because of his hubris.
He feels he is a Geo-Political strategist based upon what? Also his analysis is either flat out wrong or full of suppositions that when challenged, he doesn't rebut, he just dismisses.
Finally, when it comes to Democrats, the left, or the Clinton's Bill has no problem. However, disagreeing with George or the GOP is a tortured. convoluted thing.
Another issue that O'Reilly fails to discuss is that the US is not equipping the Iraqi security forces and police with the armor and weaponry needed to fight the insurgency. If the US with its tanks, armored humvees, helicopters, fighter jets can't stop the insurgency, how are the Iraqi security forces supposed to do the same with jeeps, pistols and second class (often used) weaponry .
--------------------
You don't equip your "human shield" it is supposed to die so that you may live. Fighting them over there, rather than over here.