O'Reilly's guest Hoenig again advocated military strikes on Iran while discussing economy
SUMMARY: On Bill O'Reilly's radio show, financial commentator Jonathan Hoenig said: "[I]f there's bad guys out there, Bill, and you alluded to Iran and whatnot -- let's deal with them militarily. You know, we didn't win -- win World War II by cutting back on German sausages." Hoenig has previously advocated military strikes on Iran and North Korea in appearances on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto.
On the July 16 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest Jonathan Hoenig -- regular panelist on Fox News' Cashin' In, managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, author, and financial commentator -- again advocated military strikes against Iran in the context of discussing the U.S. economy. While interviewing Hoenig, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that Americans can be "[d]iscipline[d] to say we only have so many resources, let's use them wisely, and sending $330 billion abroad is not a wise thing to do geopolitically," to which Hoenig replied, "[I]f there's bad guys out there, Bill, and you alluded to Iran and whatnot -- let's deal with them militarily. You know, we didn't win -- win World War II by cutting back on German sausages." O'Reilly said, "Now, look, come on. Let's stay in the real world. You deal with them militarily, you're gonna have to kill millions of people -- and I mean millions of people. That's unacceptable. If we can strangle them economically, let's do so." Hoenig responded, "[B]y that logic, we'd still have soldiers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki right now," to which O'Reilly said: "No, that's not the logic at all."
Later, Hoenig asserted: "[O]ur economy is going to be killed by the conservation."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Hoenig previously stated on the June 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto: "[F]rankly, if you want to see the Dow go up, let's get the bombers in the air and neutralize this Iranian threat. We've gone to the negotiating table, we have danced around with these people" and "[t]hat's not going to help this country nor the stock market." On June 19, 2006, Hoenig suggested that the United States should attack North Korea in order to prevent "a major sell-off on Wall Street." Hoenig asserted: "We should take preventative action here and take out their capacity to threaten us. I think that's when you are going to see this market take the North Korean threat off the table. Right now, I'm scared that this could become a real threat and a catalyst for a major sell-off on Wall Street." During the July 11, 2006, edition of Your World, after Cavuto asked Hoenig, "[W]hat happens if we were to strike North Korea's nuclear-strike capability? ... Then what happens to the market?" Hoenig responded, "I think the market rises. I would love to see us launch a pre-emptive attack on North Korea."
From the July 16 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Love convenience. There's a gas station, we pull in, put the noz in, bang, we're ready to go. "On the road again" -- Willie Nelson. So we like convenience. We love our cars. Therefore, if you mess with that equation, you are not a popular person. You are not popular. All right, now that is a truism. You can't argue with me on that. Over the years, we have used more and more energy. Three percent of the world's population, we use 25 percent of the world's fossil fuel. We are gluttons because we love our cars and drive and drive and drive. And it's a big country. We do a lot of commerce and all of that. OK. So we spend $330 billion on foreign petroleum imports. We send $330 billion abroad every year.
Think about it. That's money out of this country, out of our pockets and into the pockets of bad guys like [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez, the Saudi sheikhs, the Iranians -- before he was overthrown, Saddam Hussein -- all of these people taking our money. And because all that money is leaving our economy, our economy is weaker. If we'd kept the $330 billion here, we'd have much higher wages and much more employment because there'd be more money floating around the 50 states.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right, the bottom line on President Bush is he's not a problem solver, and this problem was apparent to many, many of us but, you know, everybody just let it go for the reasons I stated. All right, let's bring in Jonathan Hoenig of Capitalistpig Asset Management. Capitalistpig.com. Hey, at least you're honest, Hoenig. You know what I'm talking about here?
HOENIG: Hell, yes. Great to be with you, Bill.
O'REILLY: He's coming to us on the Nextel Direct-Connect hotline. Am I making any mistakes here?
HOENIG: Ah, plenty of them, Bill. I think, to be honest --
O'REILLY: All right.
HOENIG: -- kind of like you blaming the oil speculators.
O'REILLY: Right. I've --
HOENIG: You're 100 percent wrong.
O'REILLY: Of course. And -- and -- and the fact that all the airline chieftains are blaming the speculators and Congress is going to pass laws against them really don't matter, but go ahead.
HOENIG: Well, Bill, what are you basically saying? I mean, are you saying that we should conserve and consume less?
O'REILLY: I am.
HOENIG: Why?
O'REILLY: Because --
HOENIGH: Just to save money?
O'REILLY: -- to make a cleaner planet, all right? Yeah -- less fossil fuel use is better for the air. And if you use less and conserve you'll have more cash yourself that you can spend and invest with you and your Capitalistpig organization.
HOENIG: Well, when you want to write an investment book or the president wants to write an investment book, I guess I -- I'll buy that one, but I mean, Bill, the only reason to conserve is to sacrifice. The whole philosophy of conservation is sacrifice.
O'REILLY: How about discipline?
HOENIG: Discipline what? Discipline to live a less higher quality of life?
O'REILLY: No. Discipline to say we only have so many resources, let's use them wisely, and sending $330 billion abroad is not a wise thing to do geopolitically.
HOENIG: Well, a couple of things going on here. For one thing is that if you -- if there's bad guys out there, Bill, and you alluded to Iran and whatnot -- let's deal with them militarily. You know, we didn't win -- win World War II --
O'REILLY: Let's deal with --
HOENIG: -- by cutting back on German sausages.
O'REILLY: Now, look, come on. Let's stay in the real world. You deal with them --
HOENIG: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- militarily, you're gonna have to kill millions of people -- and I mean millions of people. That's unacceptable. If we can strangle them economically --
HOENIG: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- let's do so.
HOENIG: And if -- by that, you know, by that logic, we'd still have soldiers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki right now. Bill --
O'REILLY: No, that's not the logic at all.
HOENIG: Well, we are consuming less. I mean the president actually is onto something. We're buy -- driving less --
O'REILLY: Yeah, we're driving -- now we are.
HOENIG: Well, well --
O'REILLY: But he didn't take the leadership position until we were into a very painful situation.
HOENIG: Well, I don't think it's the role of the government, Bill, to tell me how much to drive.
O'REILLY: You don't think it's the role of the government to promote national security? It's like -- we're being hurt.
HOENIG: By -- by telling me to buy a smaller car?
O'REILLY: Yeah.
HOENIG: Well, I don't --
O'REILLY: Yeah. I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why. Because our economy is our security. And our economy now is damaged greatly by higher oil prices.
HOENIG: Bill -- Bill, our economy is going to be killed by the conservation that you -- what has made America great and so prosperous, Bill, is it self-sacrifice?
O'REILLY: No, it's hard work. It's not gluttony --
HOENIG: Yeah by --
O'REILLY: No. It's not gluttony in an SUV.
HOENIG: Well, you consider going to 7-Eleven and getting a Slurpee in an SUV to be gluttony. I consider it to be the American -- the great American way of life.
"Well, you consider going to 7-Eleven and getting a Slurpee in an SUV to be gluttony. I consider it to be the American -- the great American way of life."
There is your answer. You will see him at 711 enjoying the great American life.
HOENIG: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- let's do so.
And then a few breaths later he advocates sanctions that only hurt the common man/woman/child.
Bill actually put up a few good points. A tepid defense of conservation. A little nativism for spice.
Every time I get exposed to Mr. Hoenig, only two so far. I'm struck by how much it reminds me of the output of Mr. Science/Sands.
Does O'Reilly appear to be the voice of reason here or should I cut back on my meds?
Don't get scared. It's just your natural "perspective-adaptability" adjusting to an unfamiliar environment.
For instance, if you suddenly found yourself in an environment where there were many black people, you might be pleasantly surprised by the fact that those around you used utensils and weren't screaming across the restaurant for their em-effin' iced tea, rather than just disregard it as typical behavior.
Or how about this scenario? Say you're a small electrical appliance, normally accustomed to female company, then suddenly find yourself thrust into an environment which was dark and hairy, with a muffled voice discussing falafels and loofahs and such. Wouldn't you have a degree of excitement and urgency to be returned to your normal milieu in the underwear drawer?
Well, that's all in the power of perspective-adaptability. So don't be afraid. It's just your mind doing what it was designed to do to help humans survive - and thrive.
You are a very funny and very sick man!!!
Why is it that so many right-wing republican-types (oops, I mean conservatives) advocate just taking middle-east oil? They've been advocating this since the build-up to the Iraq invasion; e.g. periodically, some right-winger will go on a rant insisting that the invasion of Iraq produce cheap and plentiful oil, as if the invasion was intended to be some kind of hydrocarbon cow.
So: which is it? Did Americans invade Iraq to deliver the Iraqi people from tyranny? Or to deliver cheap oil to thirsty American gas tanks?
Most Americans are neither oil thieves, nor invaders, nor torturers. The thieves (aka conservatives) are the vocal minority...
I hope the next President will bring back the fairness doctrine.
Jon Hoenig is a very scary individual. This is a guy who says that there should be no oversight on corporations and that "the market should work itself out."
I echo the words of whoever asked Mr. Hoenig where he'll enlist the day we start bombing Iran.
Great post. I agree completely. I've always been irritated by those who see no problem with the US helping themselves to other countries' oil. We've had posters here who, when someone made reference to the US grabbing the oil of Iran, Iraq or some other country responded with "great idea."
That would put the US on about the same level of a low-life mugger. "You own something that I want and I'm strong enough to take it from you, so I'm going to do it." Since when does a country not have the right to its own natural resources?
I mean, what's the underlying logic of that statement? Since we can't drill here, we're obligated to steal foreign oil?
Whatever.
Drilling for oil is not the answer. Green is the future. Lead, follow or get out of the way because the last thing needed is more status quo thinking about energy.
And how does choosing, through our elected officials, not to drill somehow mean we don't have the right?
That was a pretty nonsensical reply, AA.
wow, Bill is actually the sane guy in this conversation.
It may seem off topic but I heard a position from someone at work this week on the Iraq invasion and occupation that wasn't the usual B.S .
Usually peple I hear talking who are all hot on the war deny that it is for oil but use the usual defences . ( WMD , 911 , Human rights etc. ) . This guy agreed that the invasion/occupation of Iraq was for oil , but was saying that it was justified because of the dangers of Iraq flooding the markets with oil then withdrawing the oil to wreak havoc on the markets and put the economy in a downspin . In his mind George Bush had no choice . Of course he thought the other reasons mentioned for invasions were lies but that Bush had to lie and invade to prevent an economic downfall . Its amazing when people who you know say such corrupt things . This guy did the usual " if Bush didn't stop Saddam Hussien he would have totally screwed up the world " and " he had no choice " right wing scaredy cat number that I'm sure everyone else has heard by now . Its amazing that people who seem normal think its OK to kill for a strong economy .
interestingobserver,
"Cavuto asked Hoenig, "[W]hat happens if we were to strike North Korea's nuclear-strike capability? ... Then what happens to the market?" Hoenig responded, "I think the market rises. I would love to see us launch a pre-emptive attack on North Korea."
MediaMatters has this item here because it shows FOX cheerleading for war for financial reasons.