SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (179212)1/5/2006 10:00:58 AM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 281500
 
Excellent post in my opinion.



To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (179212)1/5/2006 10:33:03 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
We're not in Iraq because of that.

Who are you kidding??!!

Do you think we'd still be there if we weren't involved in fighting Zarqawi and his Islamo-Fascists?

There may, or may not, have been a Ba'thist/Al Qai'da linkage previous to OIF (There definitely were contacts, but it's uncertain to me as to what purpose). HOWEVER, there most definitely are now, IMO.

Former regime (FRE) intelligence agents are supporting, financing, and in some cases, leading Al Qai'da cells in Iraq. And if this is the "face" they have chosen for the purpose of carrying out their insurgency WE MUST FIGHT IT, if only because a retreat will be seen as a victory for Jihadists world-wide.

It will be interesting to see if the FRE leadership will decide to remove themselves from their involvement with Zarqawi, since all it accomplishes is that the US will remain in Iraq to fight him and his group. Hell, from what we know, that may be the actual intent of the FRE.. Keep the US around, engaged in fighting their Sunni "pawns" until they are strong enough politically to defeat the Shi'a leadership in Iraq, at which point Zarqawi will be offered up as a sacrificial lamb and slain (along with all he knows).

Having a born again recovered alcoholic president

Well, I'm hardly in a position to know, but presumably Bush has been a "tee-totaler" for many years now.

When's the last time you had a beer?

Maybe you'd could do with a bit of "christian humility" yourself, rather than playing Mr. "holier than thou" in your comments.

Alcoholism is a terrible disease and I'm very supportive of those who have been able to stay "on the wagon"..

I just wish I could quit smoking... But then, I guess, you'll stigmatize me for life as "former smoker Hawkmoon".

You may not agree with GWB in his policies or spiritual beliefs, but it's totallly unnecessary, and downright malicious, for your to think you have the right to refer to his previous drinking issues.

It's irrelevant until such a time that, god forbid, he falls off the wagon and alcohol dominates his life.

Hawk



To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (179212)1/5/2006 11:17:34 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
This is part of the problem of the "liberal elitist mentality". They will criticize past decisions to the point of implying that the Iraqi insurgency is made up of "freedom fighters".

It's the result of a shallow, one-sided, touchy-feely, analytical process that fails to take into account the agendas and political goals of non-democratic factions within Iraq (if not the world).

I especially thought it ironic that Letterman questioned O'Reilly as to how he thinks he can speak for Sheehan when he hasn't lost a son in battle himself.

But the opposite argument is what right does Cindy Sheehan have to believe that she speaks for the thousands of other families who have lost sons and daughters in this war by referring to Iraqi insurgents as "freedom fighters".

And what right does Letterman have to claim that Sheehan's voice is the only one deserving of being heard amongst those who have lost loved ones in this war?

Hell, what right does Letterman have to even criticize O'Reilly when he admits that he has NEVER watched O'Reilly's show??

If O'Reilly were being interviewed about one of his books, one would think that Letterman, as the interviewer, would have at least taken the time to read it.

Is this the sign of a well-informed analytical process?

Hawk

*************************************

With O’Reilly as Guest, Letterman Denounces Iraq War & Criticism of Sheehan
Posted by Brent Baker on January 3, 2006 - 22:46.

newsbusters.org

Displaying a hostility to President Bush and the Iraq war similar to that expressed by Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, on Tuesday’s Late Show David Letterman went further than I’ve ever heard him in revealing his derision for President Bush’s decision to launch the Iraq war and contempt for anyone who dares to criticize Cindy Sheehan.

Letterman normally tries to make the guest look as good and entertaining as possible. But he greeted FNC’s Bill O’Reilly with disdain. When O’Reilly urged an end to tagging Bush as a “liar,” scolded Cindy Sheehan for calling the insurgents “freedom fighters” and urged people to be “very careful with what we say" in disparaging others, Letterman took him to task: "Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also." Letterman demanded: "How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?" And he tried to discredit O’Reilly’s contention: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?" When O'Reilly conceded that "no, I have not," Letterman castigated him: "Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?"

Letterman mockingly recalled: "The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?" Letterman demanded: “Why the Hell are we there to begin with?" When O’Reilly pointed out that the British, Russians and Egyptians also presumed Iraq had WMD, Letterman retorted: “Well then that makes it all right?" Turning unusually serious, Letterman soon lectured: “I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ. Honest to Christ." That prompted O’Reilly to contend: “No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter' on my program." To which Letterman fired back: “I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.”

Video excerpt (3:35): Real (5.8 MB) or Windows Media (6.8 MB) Transcript follows.

Letterman regularly has on guests from the mainstream media, but I’ve never heard him raise liberal bias with them, yet with O’Reilly he took the time to ridicule FNC’s motto: “This 'fair and balanced.’ I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint." O'Reilly requested: "Well, you're going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims." Letterman then admitted he hasn’t bothered to watch the program he felt comfortable criticizing: "Well, I don't watch your show so that would be impossible."

A transcript I put together of O’Reilly’s appearance on the January 3 Late Show with David Letterman on CBS, picking up after Letterman dismissed O’Reilly’s examples of hostility to Christmas:

Bill O’Reilly: “I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it’s a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it’s absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?”

David Letterman: “Yes, absolutely.”

O’Reilly: “Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him. That is putting us all in danger. So our philosophy is we call it as we see it. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. Robust debate is good. But we believe that the United States, particularly the military, are doing a noble thing, a noble thing. The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,’ we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history. And we should all take it very seriously. Be very careful with what we say.”

Letterman: “Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also.” [audience applause]

O’Reilly: “Give me an example.”

Letterman: “How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”

O’Reilly: “Because I think she’s run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.”

Letterman: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?”

O’Reilly: “No, I have not.”

Letterman: “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?” [applause]

O’Reilly: “I’m not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question.”

Letterman, referring back to O’Reilly’s examples of a war on Christmas: “Let’s go back to your little red and green stories.”

O’Reilly: “This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters,’ how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, what about their feelings, sir?”

Letterman: “What about, why are we there in the first place? [applause] The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?”

Bill O’Reilly: “No.”

Letterman: “No, it was the intelligence gathered by his administration.”

O’Reilly: “By the CIA.”

Letterman: “Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There’s no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we’re in it it’s going to take a long, long time. People who expect it’s going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it’s not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of ‘Why the Hell are we there to begin with?’”

O’Reilly: “If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that’s obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin’s people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak’s intelligence agency in Egypt.”

Letterman: “Well then that makes it all right?”

O’Reilly: “No it doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we’re there?”

O’Reilly: “It doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “See, I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.” [audience applause]

O’Reilly: “No, I’m sorry.”

Letterman: “Honest to Christ.”

“O’Reilly: “No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you’re going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.”

Letterman: “Do you have children?”

O’Reilly: “Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter’ on my program.” [mild audience applause]

Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

Paul Shafer: “60 percent.”

Letterman: “60 percent. I'm just spit-balling here.”

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”

Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

O’Reilly: “Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read. You know what say about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat.”

Letterman: “You’ll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat”

O’Reilly: “I’ll be happy to.”



To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (179212)1/5/2006 11:38:51 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
"The only reason ..."

Whenever I see a post that includes that phrase, I read on to see how it will be bolstered by whatever scripted and propagandized agenda prompted it. There is never 'one' reason that accounts for historically world changing dynamics. Thanks for being concise but I have now read thousands of posts by Geode, Sylvestor80, Parsons, the SiouxPals etc that amount to little else. It really is just a whine that goes on and on and on and on about your guy having lost an election. ... yawn.