Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly: Either You're with Me or You're a Traitor

Reported by Marie Therese - July 8, 2005

On last night's Factor, Bill O'Reilly used his Talking Points Memo to outline the FOX News-GOP spin of the day: Liberals, wimpy European governments and a hostile media caused the London attacks; Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia had better watch out; and the rest of the world needs to dance to our tune, because we're the good guys and we say so.

O'REILLY: This is a special edition of the Factor. Terror attack in London. I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us this evening. The death toll right now stands at 37 and at least 700 wounded after a series of bombs exploded in England's capitol city. The Talking Points Memo this evening is about sanitizing terror, failing to deal realistically with a deadly enemy.

[If you'd rather watch a video of the Memo, go to Crooks and Liars.]

O'REILLY: This morning I was having breakfast in Killarney, Ireland when the terror attack news broke. My first thought was: Al Qaeda trying to disrupt the G8 summit in Scotland. My second thought was: Now, maybe Europe will wise up. The terrorists are the evildoers, not the U. S. A.

That is probably wishful thinking. Generally speaking the European media is viciously anti-American when it comes to the war on terror. The garbage these people are throwin' out to a largely clueless public is astounding. Failed leaders like Chirac in France and Schroeder in Germanyalso pound home the anti-American theme to divert attention away from their own disastrous administrations.

But now the terrorists have struck again. 9-11. Madrid. Today London. If all the anti-U.S. bitterness were redirected into anti-terror bitterness, the world might defeat these savages. We all know which major countries allow terrorists to operate: Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan and Indonesia. (louder) Why isn't the European press condemning THOSE countries?! Why doesn't Europe admit Saddam's regime helped terrorists all day long? Why won't the world help the struggling democracy in Iraq? These are powerful questions and this London terror attack should get those questions on the front burner where they belong. But don't expect the elite American media to ask them.

A few days ago Edward Wong of the New York Times described Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a "Jordanian fighter.". Can you believe an American newspaper would print that? (louder) Al-Zarqawi is a vicious Al Qaeda killer, a man who beheads civilians and orders the murders of women and children and the New York Times calls this guy a "jordanian fighter"?!!! That kind of sanitizing terrorism must stop. The American people - YOU! - must demand that it stop.

The anti-American press both here and in Europe is actually helping the terrorists by diminishing their threat. Talking Points urges you to begin holding people accountable for their position on the terror war. Walk away from media that excuses or sanitizes these brutal acts. U. S. A. is not the problem in this world. The terrorists are.

And if you don't agree with that you are helping killers like al-Zarqawi. Enough's enough. London should be the last straw. And that's the Memo.


Bill O'Reilly should, if you'll excuse the expression, go to hell!

This time, I take it personally. I do not agree with much that O'Reilly said in his Talking Points Memo. By his logic, that makes me a traitor to my country - simply because I have the audacity to disagree with his bloviating bilge. I suppose I should be used to it by now, but somehow last night he managed to get under my skin.

I opposed the war in Iraq. It breaks my heart every time I see the casualty figures - ours and the Iraqis. Steadily, inexorably, they creep higher and higher. How much easier it would be if I could just shut my eyes and ears, drag out my flag pin and shout: Hurrah!

But I can't.

The willingness of our soldiers to lay down their lives for us is a breath-taking gift, a treasure, a precious jewel to be valued highly and used only in the most extreme circumstances. Our military personnel - most young, barely out of high school - pledge loyalty to their country through their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States. In exchange, the President makes an implicit and solemn covenant never to put them in harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary.

I believe that President George W. Bush has violated that covenant of trust between himself and our soldiers. They deserved much, much better than a war started by choice based on false documents, false reports, false intelligence, hyped by pontificating hacks masquerading as journalists who played on public fears and anger.

Maybe it's because I'm a woman. But I think that, when someone offers you the gift of their life, it is a sacred trust - a trust that is deep and binding and, once broken, is not easily repaired.

In my opinion George Bush did not and does not value his covenant with our fighting men and women. I believe they are dying for a vainglorious, ill-advised misadventure. THEY are paying the price in blood while George Bush gets to play golf, attend fancy summit meetings and hang out at the White House.

According to my mother, I'm a seventh cousin of Gen. Omar Bradley. She told me that he was known as the "soldier's general" because he didn't puff himself up and look down on the grunts. In the movie Patton, Bradley was played by the late Karl Malden. When I first saw it, I remember how proud I felt to be related to the quiet yet steely "soldier's general" as he fought against the flamboyant recklessness of Gen. George Patton. Patton's nickname was "Old Blood and Guts" because, in the end, he cared little for the men and only for the glory the mission could bring him. Gen. Bradley somehow managed to consider BOTH the men and the mission.

I like to think it's the Bradley blood in me that believes - when someone offers you his or her life - you damned well better be sure that you've done everything in your power to avoid the conflict and that, once you've engaged, you give it your all. This President has done neither.

Aided and abetted by a complicit press, Bush and his cronies created a war out of whole cloth and then allowed the Secretary of Defense to fight the battle with too few troops stretched too thin across too many miles among too many people who hate their guts. I think of it as Rumsfeld's Folly.

There is an out.

Put the good of the Iraqi people above our own self-interest.

Admit we made a mistake.

Ask NATO and/or the UN to take over.

Deploy 400,000 international troops throughout Iraq, commanded by NATO or UN brass, a force that includes our troops, but wearing a generic uniform. [I can hear the howls of indignation already!]

This would stabilize the country, leading to a higher level of confidence among the indigenous population.

Fire all the contractors currently working on projects in Iraq. Put the work up for international bid. Require that a large percentage of the work be given to Middle Eastern/Muslim contractors.

As people feel more confident, they will stop giving aid and comfort to the insurgents.

Eventually, as with all violent revolutions, the voices of violence will die down and the voices of reason will ring out.

But this President will never do anything so drastic.

Nor will this Congress do it.

And many Americans would never accept it.


Because - like Patton - they value their own egos more than they value the health and welfare of the soldiers under their command or the Iraqi citizenry we were duped into attacking in the first place.

I'm interested in what our readers think. Do you have an idea for a solution to the Iraqi dilemma? If so, why not share it with us?

Remember: Please stay on topic and adhere to our few simple rules.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.