Per usual, Mr. O'Reilly, your reductionism gets the best of you. This, I'm saying, in that there are far, far, far more than three perspectives relative to the Iraq war. Just take me, for example. I love my country. I root for my president, regardless of his party. When, however, this president does something as incredibly stupid as to invade and OCCUPY a Middle Eastern country (one, evidently, that he himself had NO understanding of prior to the invasion), then, yeah, I'm going to call him on it. And when he tries to dig himself AND MY COUNTRY deeper and deeper into what Senator Hagel has properly called " a meat grinder", I'm gonna call him on that, too. As for our going in there (i.e., to liberate) being a "noble" thing, noble shmoble. Nobility had NOTHING to do with it. We went in there supposedly for self defense - remember? Well, guess what, our defenses, because of this blunder, have been seriously damaged. This, I'm saying, in that if in fact another rogue state(one that might actually BE a threat, HELLO!) tries to cause some trouble on the world stage, we wouldn't have the troops/ capability (never mind the credibility) to do a whole hell of a lot to stop them. We've shot our load, in other words, dude! Think about THAT, would you, when you criticize the critics of this fine president of ours.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Oh yeah, and Laura Ingrham, let me ask you something, too, there kiddo. Since when has the fine art of nation-building........been considered a conservative value? I mean, seriously, it can't be as simple as the fact that a Republican president (currently in the fight of his life, mind you)......is now in favor of it....can it?
I'm tellin' ya', though, Kayte, she was THE most beautiful woman EVER at Sassy's. And the pattern of her tribulations, too, I'm saying, damned if that (Wellesley's chocolate maker, his inability to pass the mustard, etc.) didn't make for a prideful epitaph of sorts, as well. I mean, that was in fact a beautiful form of scenery at Sassy's, delightfully and, yes, as straight as the crow can fly, in addition, wasn't it?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
First of all, Bill, it isn't just a liberal mantra (i.e., that Bush's decision to go to war was based on cherry-picked intelligence, an inadequate understanding of the Middle East, a naivete' regarding Iraqi history, an idiotic notion that democracy itself can be prompted by external forces, an unrealistic expectation regarding nation-building, etc., etc.). In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that this war was NEVER, EVER popular among traditional conservatives. I mean, just look to what the dudes from Bush's father's administration (Baker, Scowcroft, etc.) have had to say about it, what Tucker Carlson, William F. Buckley, George Will, Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, etc., etc., etc. have had to say about it. You're not going to accuse them of using liberal/ far-left talking points, are you? But seriously, though, for you to so consistently paint this issue as one of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, etc., its despicable, absolutely despicable. In fact, I don't even know how you live with yourself, dude.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Let me break it down for you, Bill. Race and ethnicity, those are what we call immutable traits, characteristics about which a person in fact CANNOT change. Religion, that, on the other hand, is a belief system, a paradigm about which a person makes sense of the world. And since it is, I'm saying, a process in which people think (or not) and reason (or not), it certainly shouldn't be held to the same level of reverence - comparable to that which IS innate. I mean, don't get me wrong here. I think that to a degree we should respect a person's individual beliefs. But if, I'm saying, another person finds those beliefs.......not only to be absurd but intolerant and dangerous (the pope dissing on birth control, for example) as well, certainly you cannot begrudge that person an opportunity to underscore those absudities. And, besides, its a little something called free speech, dude; going around saying that the world isn't flat, etc..
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
As to the response by the "mainstream media" TO Ann Coulter, I don't know, I didn't really see anything "over the top". In Newsweek, for instance, all they did was give her an arrow pointing downward in their "Conventional Wisdom" section. Wooooooooooo, huh? Such brutality.
I don't even know where to start here. First of all, Bill, other networks DO cover Rosie O'Donnell's tirades. Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson (you know, thoses guys from MSNBC, that network you continuously lambast) have continuously been holding her feet to the fire (Glenn Beck on CNN Headline, also). But even if they didn't, I'm saying, the lady is a friggin' comedian who nobody, NOBODY with an IQ over 95 takes seriously. Ann Coulter, she, on the other hand, DOES have a political constituency (25 year-old sex-starved stooges on Wall Street, I'm gathering). I mean, that is her on C-Span, isn't it?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
I'm sorry, but the audacity/ hypocrisy here is palpable. This, I'm saying, in that you actually have the nerve to go on national television and accuse other news organizations of selective and partisan political reporting. I mean, come on, Mr. O'Reilly, when was the last time your "spin-free"/ "fair and balanced" program did a hard-hitting report on the 2 million Iraqi refugees, the recently exposed tawdry conditions at the Walter Reed hospital (way to support the troops, Bill), the increasingly lowered standards of the military relative to recruitment, the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, the fact that only 30% of Iraqi kids currently attend school, the military cover-up concerning Pat Tillman's death, etc., etc.? Huh, not that any of these stories are as important as Britney Spears or Anna Nicole Smith, mind you, but their absence seems to, I'm saying, underscore a certain "the pot calling the kettle black" mentality of sorts. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that it wreaks - dishonesty, etc.. Hell, you haven't even covered the Scooter Libby trial, for Christ!!!
I don't know, Bill, I guess that Plato and the ancient Greeks didn't get your "I'll put my trust in nature" memo.......back then - you know, being that THEY tended to glorify homosexuality and were in fact strong proponents of having academies raise the children. Yeah, I'm talking about the Greeks, you nimrod, the greatest civilization the world has ever known (sexism, aside), the bedrock of democracy (Plato's Republic, aside), etc.. And don't even get me started on the hundreds of actual exceptions to "nature" - examples in fact where homosexuality not only exists but is as normal AS the procreative function itself. A factual analysis of nature, in other words, Bill.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Hey Bill, congratulations on that hard-hitting interview with Tom DeLay. Its like, seriously though, why didn't you just give him a back- rub and be done with it? I mean, we are talking about Tom DeLay here, right, the same guy who, on page one of the book you so graciously allowed him to plug, compared the Democratic party to Nazi Germany? Of course, the very fact that you don't see Mr. Delay as a member of a far right "that has very little power and influence in this country" probably says all we need to know about you, as well. Yeah, I'm talking about you, Mr. Fair and Balanced.