O'Reilly would run Iraq "just like Saddam ran it"
I love the laziness of right wing thinking.
They have such a natural propensity to see violence as the solution to any given problem that they often sound remarkably similar to the dictators that they are supposed to despise.
However, very rarely do they actually admit this in as obvious a way as Bill O'Reilly has recently done.
From the June 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
So O'Reilly's solution is to return to the kind of violence last seen under Saddam's regime as the only way to restore order. Which sort of begs the question, if a Saddam type leader is the only way to run Iraq, then why did we invade in the first place? And doesn't wishing for a Saddam like leader undermine your claims to have entered Iraq in order to "export democracy?"O'REILLY: So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. A tipping point in history. So you have to win the Iraq situation. Now, to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?
That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.
It's fascinating that O'Reilly sees no hypocrisy in advocating the very behaviour that he has previously condemned.
Torture, occupation and Saddam-like behaviour are only bad things if they are being done by people who we consider enemies. If we, or our allies, indulge in such behaviour then it's perfectly acceptable; indeed, it's possibly laudable as we are proving we "have what it takes to win."
Bill doesn't realise that he and Saddam are actually cut from the same cloth. Do it my way, or die.
Related Articles:
Media Matters. Listen to the clip.
Anything They Say.
15 comments:
What really pisses me off about these guys is that they refuse to understand how the US army is actually seen as an occupation army by the Iraqis. That and they think that democracy -- even Bush's simulacrum of democracy -- is a very easy thing to establish. In other words, they have no sense of their country's own history.
The colonies fought a war against an imperial power and then spent 13 years figuring out how to govern themselves. US forces gave the Iraqis six months while insurgents were fighting the US occupation. C'mon, how hard can it be? has been the simpleton attitude over here. And O'Reilly has given voice to the attitude of lazy Americans who neither appreciate nor understand their country's traumatic birth and who simply think that democracy is some sort of natural state of nations.
Please. O'Reilly makes these sort of wild tongue-and-cheek comments all the time. He knows it isn't going to happen.
BTW, many conservatives don't consider O'Reilly to be a right-wing individual. I don't think he is a true conservative since I suspect he is probably left-of-center on many social issues (but he is certainly not a liberal either).
Stash,
O'Reilly doesn't believe in democracy and he doesn't really believe in freedom of expression. He thinks when war starts we should all "Shut up!"
Bhc,
Couldn't agree more. If you look at the time it took to establish democracy in the US, or the period following the French revolution, or even the decade of Cromwell and the setting up of our parliament you will find that you can't export democracy in the same way as you can plant a McDonald's in central Baghdad. The truth is O'Reilly and his ilk are furious with the Iraqis 'cos this is making them look bad. They worked on the assumption that Democracy was the natural opposite of tyranny and that they only had to remove one for the other to flood in and fill the void. The opposite of tyranny is anarchy - and that is what they've got and now O'Reilly's blaming them for it.
Tommy,
Either you don't follow O'Reilly or you are being disingenous. He has already said the US should pull out because these people are crazies. And the fact that he "knows it's not going to happen" doesn't mean that he's not being serious when he says they should be shot on sight. He means that. I know there are degrees of conservatism in your country just as there are degrees of conservatism in mine. O'Reilly famously said that he wasn't a Republican "because I believe in global warming".
And I'd love you to name the social issues on which you consider O'Reilly left of centre. All I have ever heard from the man is right wing opinions. He's not Coulter, I'll give you that, but then there could only be one pundit that insane.
The one thing that comes to mind when I see snippets of O'Reilly (can't take too much of him at this point, I don't need more for a 'stress' factor right now) is that he's basically a political shock jock. So many 'right wing' talking heads, on tv or radio say these outrageous things that can only speak to the most common denominator of denominators that I cannot help but think they just need to rile people up, Howard Stern or Jerry Springer style. Except when it comes to issues of sex (Stern) or just the plain idiocy(Springer) it is easily dismissable. The rightwing talking heads make you think that most right wing people think the way they do..in essence, to me (but, what do I know) it seems like one of those, who came first, the chicken or the egg..the opiniated talking heads with their BS or the people copying them...I think that people seem to take over what's being said rather than if you had a reasonable one on one conversation, not too many people would espouse those radical,extreme intolerant and violent views..(sorry, thought stream was perhaps not too understandable..)
Ingrid (ya know what I mean thoug??)
Ingrid
Ingrid,
You are right, to a large extent they speak this way because it shocks and that enables them to take home a very large pay check.
However, what's scary is that they get large viewing figures because a large proportion of the populace agree with them.
That's what's scary about this!
Stash,
I did follow your argument.
I was simply thinking of how this man's idea of democracy includes no notion of any dissent.
Indeed, dissent in his world is someone displaying their lack of patriotism.
Thinking for yourself is a very unpatriotic act according to their mindset.
All of you are clueless! Take the real deal from a man on the ground. Been here in Fallujah for the last 6 months and this is my 3rd time here. MR. OREILY'S
views may seem extreme, because you don't understand the point of the curfews, and have never talked to an actual Iraqi.The curfews are put in place to protect the troop movements and the people who reside in the cities, the curfews are demonstrated mainly at parts where there are the most attacks such as government buildings and checkpoints. Now the people aren't shot as he suggest but they are asked to identify thelmselves and usually the patrol gets it right. So As for occupiers the people who actually live here and not the foreign fighter or people who are ifluenced by IRAN, or syria want us here to help them stabilize the country. So shut your left wing pie holes, kiddies the adults are trying to get some work done.
Sorry, this is nitpicking, but it doesn't "beg the question," it prompts the question or raises the question.
An argument begs the question if it takes for granted what it seeks to prove.
Anonymous,
You are a soldier completing your third tour of Iraq, you have my respect.
You imply O'Reilly is correct when he says that what Iraq needs is a Saddam like figure. So don't you feel a little cheated?
Why was your intervention needed if only to supply what was already there?
Beervolcano,
I am lost at the distinction you are making. And I am rather proud of my standing when it comes to results in English examinations.
But I am always willing to learn. Can you elaborate?
Oh, if you insist Kel.
O'Reilly has indicated he supports homosexuals adopting children, he supports gun control, and he opposes the death penalty. I'll stop there for now.
Now running Iraq like Saddam did is one of the most intelligent exit strategies I have heard but it omits one important factor. Saddam!
You want stability in Iraq so we can leave? Easy. Just turn the whole Bush administration over to the Hague War Crimes court, agree to enough reparations to rebuild the infrastructure. Then we apologize to Saddam, and on the condition he agrees to some anger management therapy and sensitivity training, turn him loose and back him up while he settles things down in Iraq. In about 2 weeks we could pack up and go home. And if we agreed to protect him from his neighbors and cool it with the sanctimonious sanctions we could probably work a jam up oil deal with him...
Nah, To practical.
Exomikey
Okay Tommy, you have left me open mouthed. O'Reilly supports gay adoption? Is he for gay marriage as well or can they only adopt kids out of wedlock?
Anonymous, thanks for that. Made me laugh out loud. It's the idea of anger management.
I don't know if he supports gay marriage or not. He clearly doesn't like the idea of it being imposed by courts against the will of the people. He also has commented that supporting gay marriage is a clear loser for Democrats with conservative Christian voters - an obvious conclusion.
Whatever his views of gay marriage, he has hinted that he supports "domestic partnerships" which would entitle gay couples to the same legal rights as married couples.
I wish you'd supply links to some of these claims. I'm not saying I don't believe you when I say that, but I seriously would like to read how he actually phrases such stuff.
I've included a pile of stuff on him today.
In each clip he simply seems obsessed with the "far left".
Is there a far right in his world?
Post a Comment