Bill O'Reilly Again
The LA Times editorialized recently about Bill O'Reilly's comments that certain people would be hunted down by terrorists.
"It is legitimately maddening to Americans that people whom we have liberated from tyranny or the nearby threat of it, at a vast cost in American lives and dollars, should be so spectacularly ungrateful, and should misunderstand us so completel
Why don't they love us? It doesn't seem worthy of decapitation to suggest that ghastly stories (not all fabricated by Newsweek) about abuse of prisoners don't help. Or that American preaching about liberal democratic values might be enhanced by practicing them. For instance, by letting the Gitmo detainees (some totally innocent) have lawyers.
But to O'Reilly, "That's like saying, 'Well, if we're nicer to the people who want to KILL US, then the other people who want to KILL US will like us more.' "
Where did The Times' editorial page get the idea that winning the war on terrorism depends on persuading societies that breed terrorists that they should like us and adopt our values? Actually, this is not some wooly left-wing notion concocted over a joint during a lesbian wedding reception in Santa Monica. It is the cornerstone of the George Bush presidency, according to Bush himself.
In his State of the Union address in January, for instance, Bush said, "In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America…."
O'Reilly should be careful. Any further decapitation fantasies could get him in serious trouble with the Secret Service
"It is legitimately maddening to Americans that people whom we have liberated from tyranny or the nearby threat of it, at a vast cost in American lives and dollars, should be so spectacularly ungrateful, and should misunderstand us so completel
Why don't they love us? It doesn't seem worthy of decapitation to suggest that ghastly stories (not all fabricated by Newsweek) about abuse of prisoners don't help. Or that American preaching about liberal democratic values might be enhanced by practicing them. For instance, by letting the Gitmo detainees (some totally innocent) have lawyers.
But to O'Reilly, "That's like saying, 'Well, if we're nicer to the people who want to KILL US, then the other people who want to KILL US will like us more.' "
Where did The Times' editorial page get the idea that winning the war on terrorism depends on persuading societies that breed terrorists that they should like us and adopt our values? Actually, this is not some wooly left-wing notion concocted over a joint during a lesbian wedding reception in Santa Monica. It is the cornerstone of the George Bush presidency, according to Bush himself.
In his State of the Union address in January, for instance, Bush said, "In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America…."
O'Reilly should be careful. Any further decapitation fantasies could get him in serious trouble with the Secret Service
posted by Max Hartshorne at 4:03 PM
2 Comments:
You know, I have some real problems with O'Reilly so you're not so far ahead of me there.
But you end up discrediting yourself when you refer to "grisly stories", most of which, if we even assume they are true and not significantly inflated, are nothing compared to the tortures inflicted by Saddam & Co.
Most of what the left is calling torture hardly lives up to that name. Now I'm not condoning any of it - in fact it may well be inapporpriate treatment in some cases. But the left and their media tools have taken things well beyond any reasonable limits and are indeed now part of the problem.
So should we let people like O'Reilly rail against them? Doesn't he have the same rights to free speech as the rest of us? Funny how it's the liberals who usually speak out of turn then whenever someone on the other side does so they forget how important free speech is.
I also disagree with your conclusions in that you are forgetting that the first step in helping raise those teeming masses out of the dispair that feeds terrorism is eliminating brutal despots like Saddam. Now we can't just go bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia, at least not until we secure a major oil source like Iraq... hmmmmm... maybe Bush and his team aren't as dumb as the left would hope we might conclude!
You know, I have some real problems with O'Reilly so you're not so far ahead of me there.
But you end up discrediting yourself when you refer to "grisly stories", most of which, if we even assume they are true and not significantly inflated, are nothing compared to the tortures inflicted by Saddam & Co.
Most of what the left is calling torture hardly lives up to that name. Now I'm not condoning any of it - in fact it may well be inapporpriate treatment in some cases. But the left and their media tools have taken things well beyond any reasonable limits and are indeed now part of the problem.
So should we let people like O'Reilly rail against them? Doesn't he have the same rights to free speech as the rest of us? Funny how it's the liberals who usually speak out of turn then whenever someone on the other side does so they forget how important free speech is.
I also disagree with your conclusions in that you are forgetting that the first step in helping raise those teeming masses out of the dispair that feeds terrorism is eliminating brutal despots like Saddam. Now we can't just go bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia, at least not until we secure a major oil source like Iraq... hmmmmm... maybe Bush and his team aren't as dumb as the left would hope we might conclude!
Post a Comment
<< Home