Bill O'Reilly flip-flops on Iraq; owes apologies
Reported by Chrish - November 23, 2005
According to Editor and Publisher, Bill O'Reilly has had a change of heart and now believes that the US has to offer a timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
In part the hypocrite's column reads "The polls show most Americans have turned against the war, and who can blame them with the media pounding home a depressing picture every day? "
Psychotically not including himself (Mr. #1 in his spot on cable braggart) from "the media", he seeks to blame the accurate reporting of the depressing reality of a pointless war for people's disillusionment. Like Bush's sinking poll numbers are the fault of the Democrats and not of his failed policies and corrupt associates, the war is unpopular because it is being reported realistically.
Showing himself to be a poll-driven popularity seeker charading as an opinion-maker, O'Reilly abandons ship and joins the majority in calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq:
"But there must be a time limit. Mr. Bush and his crew have to understand that American blood and treasure are not unlimited. It is not undermining the war to suggest giving the Iraqis a realistic private timetable to defend themselves. Basic training for a U.S. soldier is six weeks. We've been training the Iraqi army for almost two years now. Even Gomer Pyle would be up to speed."
People do change their minds. Circumstances change. We liberals understand that. Sometimes, in light of new data and fresh perspective, the right thing to do is refute your earlier stance and say you were mistaken. That takes courage. But in addition to correcting one's self, one should also issue apologies to anyone slighted or derided for holding the view initially. For starters I suggest Bill O'Reilly owes apologies to Arianna Huffington, Cindy Sheehan, and Phil Donahue.
On another related note, in the same piece O'Reilly also penned this gem:
" The problem for America now is that we have politicians trying to get elected using the chaos of war."
If you search the web you'll find over 25,000 entries for "Bush war president". Google "election 2004 Iraq war" and you'll find over 2 million entries. Similarly, "election 2004 war" nets over 2.6 million. This administration has been, is, and will be defined by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There's nothing new about politicians using war, and if it suddenly distasteful or unethical then I'd say that's two flip-flops in one column.
