Pontificator at the Daily Kos writes:
Posted by DeLong at June 19, 2004 10:36 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postDaily Kos || Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: Media Matters catches O'Reilly crossing the line again.... From the June 17 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.
And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work.
[...]
They're just people who are primitive...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406180005
Someone get that man some antibiotic cream for his knuckles.
D
The exercise of fully and methodically pointing out why Mr. O'Reilly is wrong is, unfortunately, still necessary. It cannot be foregone and can only be delegated rather in the manner of a wedding bouquet, i.e. if you don't really care who catches it.
And in a few months, when someone calls him on this, he could very well deny that he ever said it. Then again, I haven't watched an entire show of his in months, so maybe he's be better.
In any event, what kind of this is that to say? I'm no expert on the Balkans, but isn't he forgetting that we had or still have a presence there? Does he really think that bombing any country and then running off, especially in the Middle East, is going to help us?
Posted by: Brian on June 19, 2004 02:49 PMAnd in a few months, when someone calls him on this, he could very well deny that he ever said it. Then again, I haven't watched an entire show of his in months, so maybe he's be better.
In any event, what kind of this is that to say? I'm no expert on the Balkans, but isn't he forgetting that we had or still have a presence there? Does he really think that bombing any country and then running off, especially in the Middle East, is going to help us?
Posted by: Brian on June 19, 2004 02:49 PMI don't watch the pussbucket, but I'd bet he was ridiculing anti-war positions as anti-humanitarian just a few weeks ago (when all the other justifications for "bombin' the crap out of them" had dried up).
At one time, perhaps still, O'Reilly had the highest rated news show on television. Which is enough to make one hate a large percentage of the population of this country.
Posted by: elliander on June 19, 2004 04:58 PMHis bombing rhetoric sounds very similar to words I remember hearing during the Vietnam War but can't remember who said them--something about "bombing them back into the Stone Age." Perhaps O'Reilly has never noticed that alleged bombing program didn't work? He sounds like a bigot and someone who knows very little about Iraq. Also sounds like someone who doesn't spend much time (outside of a limo, high priced residential and eating areas) in larger cities of the US (or university campuses) or he'd know that quite a few of these 'primitive' types did their undergrad/grad school education here and quite a few have lived and worked here, as students or refugees. Then again, I don't know anything about this guy (no TV for years) perhaps he regards graduate school as a hotbed of liberalism and all grads immediately suspect in their adherence the one true way of thinking (which is however the pundit thinks).
We did leave the Agent Orange (TCDD) legacy in Vietnam--there's a very high frequency of occurrence of certain types of cancers and birth defects in Vietnam (carrying through to the 3rd generation born after the war) that have been connected with exposure to Agent Orange. Testing of the soil (although TCDD is a "fat-loving" compound, the Vietnamese government would not allow farm animals to be tested as it didn't want its growing pork industry threatened) showed levels of TCDD way over what EPA says is ok--or the risk of cancer is determined to be "acceptable". I think the testing was done in 2000 or what 30-40 years after the spraying ended. If O'Reilly was as smart as he seems to be vicious and bigoted, the he'd suggest that instead of dropping bombs, the US just send alot of crop sprayers (planes) over. Remember when a bunch of soldiers stumbled on what was first thought to be a "chemical weapons" cache in Iraq? (one soldier was sickened by his exposure to the chemicals) Turned out it was "just" pesticides. Except that many pesticides and herbicides (including quite a few that were finally pulled off the market) are compositionally very closely related to chemical weapons and were developed and marketed at least in part as a way of using up all that stuff left over from WWII.
Posted by: azurite on June 19, 2004 05:41 PMGrammar correction: "...been better..."
Posted by: Brian on June 19, 2004 06:34 PMazurite,
He went to Marist and then did some work at Harvard and also, I think, BU. I don't know how big Marist is with international students, but BU and especially Harvard aren't exactly slouches in that department. So perhaps he did at one point realize something like what you are describing.
Posted by: Brian on June 19, 2004 06:38 PM"His bombing rhetoric sounds very similar to words I remember hearing during the Vietnam War but can't remember who said them--something about "bombing them back into the Stone Age."
Saint Reagan made at least one simlar pronouncement while he was employed as a patent attorney in Sacramento.
Posted by: CD318 on June 19, 2004 07:01 PMThe lack of knowledge in world geography and history by large sections of the American public have real negative consequences to the rest of us.
Posted by: chuck on June 20, 2004 02:58 AMNot Reagan. I think it was Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia.
In any case, the statement was made at a fairly early stage of the war - 1967 sticks in my mind. it became harder to make this advice once we began to follow it.
Posted by: Dave L on June 20, 2004 05:40 PMThat's right. Iraqis are rejecting democracy. I mean, here we are, giving them democracy ... wait, you mean we haven't? Not yet? Well, I'm sure we will. I mean, look at them, embracing Sadr. Wait -- you mean that Sadr argues for democracy now? And the US argues for democracy later? So ... the Iraqis might be ... might head hurts.
I just know that we're right and they're wrong and I'm going to go watch Fox now. Yeah.
[Footnote for the irony impaired. I know I'm a lousy fiction writer, but if you still can't see the tongue firmly in cheek ... well, you should get up, and go look at something else other than the internet]
Posted by: Ennis on June 20, 2004 07:37 PMA lot of what OReilly says is really stupid. OReilly has no understanding of Kosovo, why NATO won and why Milosovic is now on trial and no longer in control of a relatively stable Bosnia. I don't understand why anyone bothers with him.
Posted by: bakho on June 20, 2004 07:42 PMI just want to point out that, reprehensible as the sentiment is, O'Reilly apparently felt the need to self-correct his grammar in the penultimate paragraph, where he restates "like we did" as "as we did." There's that high-quality Catholic school education for you.
Posted by: JRoth on June 21, 2004 04:43 AMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 02:24 PMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 10:50 PMGreat site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk
Posted by: reductil on July 8, 2004 03:06 PMMendacem memorem esse oportet - A liar needs a good memory. (Quintilianus)
Mendacem memorem esse oportet - A liar needs a good memory. (Quintilianus)
Mendacem memorem esse oportet - A liar needs a good memory. (Quintilianus)
Mendacem memorem esse oportet - A liar needs a good memory. (Quintilianus)
Mendacem memorem esse oportet - A liar needs a good memory. (Quintilianus)
Get it up mate, it's fun!
Posted by: Viagra on July 8, 2004 08:41 PMCave quid dicis, quando, et cui - Beware what you say, when, and to whom
Vinculum unitatis - The bond of unity
Muppets love Viagra!
Posted by: Viagra UK on July 14, 2004 04:04 AMThanks for your blog!
Posted by: Kontaktanzeigen on July 17, 2004 12:34 AMHire a car to feel higher!
Posted by: Car hire UK on July 20, 2004 05:17 PM