Video: O’Reilly asks Letterman if he “want[s] the US to win in Iraq”, no straight answer

posted at 12:35 pm on October 28, 2006 by Ian

T-warrior Bill O’Reilly was interviewed by argued with David Letterman on last night’s Late Show, where the two friends (according to O’Reilly) sparred over Fox News’ credibility. What a surprise, a liberal knocking Fox News. The discussion soon turned to Iraq; as he did with Rosie last week, O’Reilly responded to Letterman’s criticism of the mission by asking him if he “want[ed] the United States to win in Iraq.” Like Rosie, Letterman also had problems answering the question. It’s a simple yes or no — do you want us to win or not? How dare we question their patriotism if they don’t answer yes.

One socialist blog noted that Letterman suggested how much larger his audience is than O’Reilly’s (apparently 2x as big). If that’s so important, why all the hush-hush from the left on Olbermann’s ratings, then? O’Reilly’s ratings are more than quadruple Olby’s.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

They want us in Iraq. They want us in Afghanistan. Because they know that will weaken us and strengthen them.

The old “They love it when we’re killing them.” argument. Riiiight. They’ve got us right where they want us now.

Just look at how strong Zarqawi is now. Look at how well al-Qaeda is doing in Iraq.

Pablo on October 30, 2006 at 7:23 AM

Pablo, the media is doing their best to make it look like a.q. is kicin’ our butts in Iraq, but according to catured letters between zarqawi and bin laden, they admit to each other that it’s really the other way around. The media’s obviously not fooling Pablo, but they have the libs convinced we’re losing. The weak minded are easily influenced, just like the old Jedi Mind Trick. “These are not the droids you’re looking for, we are losing in Iraq.”

Tony737 on October 30, 2006 at 7:39 AM

haha^ and you guys talk about moonbats

crr6 on October 30, 2006 at 10:01 AM

I’m not fan of O’Reilly, but I did notice that after Letterman said O’Reilly has a brain full of “artificial facts” Letterman admitted that he neither had read O’Reilly’s book nor seen his show.

So….how does he know this about Bill and his facts?

So typical of celebrities. Just take the “party line” and don’t even bother to listen to the other side. Heaven forbid they might have a informed opinion.

Rightwingsparkle on October 30, 2006 at 10:45 AM

Letterman kicked OReilly’s butt. OReilly has a bit of that star-struck thing going on, he was positively giddy when he appeared on The Daily Show and there’s a bit of suck up in his interaction with Letterman. “Culture Warrior” huh? Funny Billo didn’t take the opportunity to be real warrior when he was young. Funny, but entirely in character.

Of course this is high literature compared to the truly laughable “War on Christmas” by that Gibson (?) character.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 11:23 AM

Funny Billo didn’t take the opportunity to be real warrior when he was young.

(excuse me…I’m going to ask this of EVERYONE I encounter who strays into “chickenhawk” territory from now on….)

…tell me: did YOU ever serve? When, where, how long?

Don’t take the dodge, so common today, of “well, *I* wasn’t making ‘warrior’ remarks”. If you question someone’s sincerity, patriotism, or cojones, be prepared to stand short-arm inspection yourself….

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 11:35 AM

(excuse me…I’m going to ask this of EVERYONE I encounter who strays into “chickenhawk” territory from now on….)

…tell me: did YOU ever serve? When, where, how long?

Don’t take the dodge, so common today, of “well, *I* wasn’t making ‘warrior’ remarks”. If you question someone’s sincerity, patriotism, or cojones, be prepared to stand short-arm inspection yourself….

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 11:35 AM

As a woman of a certain age, that question lacks any real punch. My first husband was a career military man and my youngest son is planning on attending the Air Force Academy.

And as usual, you are missing the point: people who wrap themselves in the flag and are eager to send other people’s children into an ill conceived war (which does not describe me at all)–you’re damned right I question their sincerity. Actions versus words.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 11:47 AM

As a woman of a certain age, that question lacks any real punch. My first husband was a career military man and my youngest son is planning on attending the Air Force Academy.

…I’m a feminist, although a knuckle-dragging male, and believe that you should treat a woman as an equal, not a “weaker vessel”. That in mind, I’m going to address you as I would any male who’d said the same thing you’re saying:

You volunteer to be a birdwatcher, pointing out the “chickenhawks” for us, on the weight of your having slept with a servicemember once upon a time, and the expectations of your son becoming one.

…and this empowers you to speak to the issue of patriotism — that and the biological fact of your motherhood, from what I gather about the “other people’s children” remark — and Mr. O’Reilly can’t because he didn’t serve. So much for freedom of speech.

…and, no, I didn’t miss any point…freedom of speech *IS* the point.

Citizens can express opinions. Apart from your marital connection, you have no portfolio to hold forth on geopolitical or military matters…but, you’re expressing yourself anyway, aren’t you? Folk are putting up with you and replying, aren’t they?

As far as Ol’ Bill wrapping himself in the flag, would that more folks did so. Try it sometime.

Speaking as someone who’s served, who’s also slept with a servicemember (my wife, who still serves), and who has two sons currently serving (Army and Marines), on this subject I should have some of that “absolute moral authority” that Comrade Sheehan’s been vested with by the Left. According to the “New Constitution as viewed through a Leftist lens”, I should whup out my resume and you should clam up and scamper off.

…but, I don’t want that any more than you or anyone here does. I think that you’re free to speak, and should do so.

While you’re speaking, by the way, feel free to wrap yourself in your flag of choice. It might make your allegiances more obvious.

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 12:14 PM

and this empowers you to speak to the issue of patriotism

I am empowered to speak on anything I choose. That’s quite a trick you’re trying to pull off: implying that your service makes your POV somehow more valid than mine, yet claiming that “chichenhawks” somehow shouldn’t be called on their lack of service. Really, pick a side.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 12:21 PM

I’m not a fan of O’Reilly and I am a fan of Letterman, but just like the last time O’Reilly was a guest of his, Letterman comes off looking like an uninformed, ignorant jack ass.
Dave needs to stick to stupid human tricks as that seems to be all that he is qualified to discuss.

DrEvil on October 30, 2006 at 12:23 PM

I am empowered to speak on anything I choose.

…yes…*YES*…*THAT* was my point! You CAN speak out on anything you choose! So can O’Reilly, without your non-substantive sniping about his service or lack of same. Stick to the issues. Don’t tar the messenger, speak to the message…point, Point, POINT, *POINT*….

That’s quite a trick you’re trying to pull off: implying that your service makes your POV somehow more valid than mine…

I know that there’re no tags in HTML, but you seem able to read.

That, again, was my point. We’re free to speak as *citizens*, not as veterans, or by virture of our club memberships, bank account balances, ancestry, or sexual “orientation” (I myself prefer to start pointing southwest, ending up the evening pointing full north).

O’Reilly speaks, even while wrapping himself in the flag and volunteering others to go and fight (to encapsulate what you said), he can still speak…and is probably waiting for folks to deal with the *substance* of what he’s saying. He shouldn’t have to put up with being lambasted for his being some sort of coward for not going himself (I’m too old to go, and he’s five years older than I am, so pleeeeease).

Are we saying that the folks over a certain age can’t support this or any other war without having their message ignored and their character and courage impugned?

…pick a side? Well, I usually start pointing southwest….

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 12:49 PM

…above, that was “no irony tags in HTML”…I tried it with facing arrows and a slash for off, but knew it’d probably get blow off as an unrecognizable tag.

…so, it’s hard to read some posts because it’s hard to convey irony and sarcasm in plain text…and I hate using that smarmy little winking emoticon….

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 12:51 PM

He shouldn’t have to put up with being lambasted for his being some sort of coward for not going himself

Really? Let’s see, he routinely demonizes other folks as being cowards for not coming on his program. Yet I am to walk on eggshells and not point out how such a hyper-patriot hasn’t walked the talk? Not in this lifetime.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 12:57 PM

honora,

Here is a fact you need to know so you can stop spouting that lie. Sons and daughters of our Representatives serve in greater numbers proportionally than the general population.

source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595230211/102-2486267-2799361?v=glance&n=283155

Now, given that our troops voted for Bush 4 to 1 over Kerry, one would assume that most of them came from REPUBLICAN families. You know, the ones who wrap themselves in our flag.

Rightwingsparkle on October 30, 2006 at 1:10 PM

…he routinely demonizes other folks as being cowards for not coming on his program…

…ah…substance at last…yes, by way of sarcasm he does say that folks who won’t come onto his show are “hiding under their desks”. He also says that folks with wacky views drink Kool-Aid (a reference to Jonestown, where, in all fairness to my favorite childhood beverage, the actual stuff was called Flavor Aid). He’s full of sarcasm and mock outrage.

He’s also rather successful at stating a line not exactly in strict triangulation with the editorial line of the NYT. That makes him fodder for a lot of people — like yourself — to take cheap-shots at him…and, in my opinion, he has an ego which doesn’t take kindly to being trod upon.

…but HYPER-patriot? That, melded with “chickenhawk”? Conservatives hear a lot of that nowadays. Is that to mean that, in this case, you’re hearing a lot of talk and not a lot of action? Well…for action, how’s publishing and promoting a book (O’Reilly) and having a war (Bush and Cheney, two notorious “chickenhawks”). Both are pretty vigorous activities.

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 1:26 PM

Here is a fact you need to know so you can stop spouting that lie. Sons and daughters of our Representatives serve in greater numbers proportionally than the general population

.

What lie am I spouting? I challenge your statement: see below, in 2003 there was a survey taken: of 435 reps and 100 senators, there were 4 children in the militay, 1 enlisted. I would like to see any new information that counters this, your link did not provide it.

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.moskos.html

honora on October 30, 2006 at 1:50 PM

Honora: get over it.

You’re implying some kind of equivalency between coming on Bill’s show and serving in the Military. No such thing exists.

Walking the talk has many aspects, and for Bill walking the talk did not involve serving in the military, just like it did for you. Is there some kind of problem with Bill making his own choices?

RiverCocytus on October 30, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Give poor Honora a break. Imagine the level of cognitive dissonance she must endure!

On the one hand, she (secretly … or not so secretly) loathes the military; on the other hand, she has to pretend to honor it – just so that she can criticize those who haven’t served. All while simultaneously insisting that civilian control of the military is vital for freedom; while at the very same arguing that those same civilians – if they’re not from her party, or don’t believe what she believes – are “chicken hawks” if they didn’t serve.

Ouch! Some serious mental and ethical gymnastics!

But wait! It gets worse for the poor thing!

Since ironically enough SHE did not serve – she has to somehow rationalize simultaneously condemning the “chickenhawks” for not serving … while ignoring the fact that many of US here did serve (5 years USMC – and that’s just lil’ ol’ me) … all while at the very same time making rather tepid excuses for her OWN lack of service. (… “a woman of a certain age …?).

Go ahead. Try and wrap your brain around all the ironic hypocrises in Honora’s babbling in this thread alone. It may give you a headache, though – it ain’t easy to do.

But then again, this sort of thinking is a fundamental requirement of liberalism. Still – you gotta admit Honora’s pretty good at it. ( … “a woman of a certain age!”).

Besides, Honora’s not exactly the brightest bulb around here. The other day she actually claimed that Nixon had never run for a second term … history and facts aren’t her strong suit.

Professor Blather on October 30, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Speaking of Honora and her lies – let’s expose one right now, just for fun!

What lie am I spouting? I challenge your statement: see below, in 2003 there was a survey taken: of 435 reps and 100 senators, there were 4 children in the militay, 1 enlisted. I would like to see any new information that counters this, your link did not provide it.

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.moskos.html

First, let’s all chuckle at the fact that she used NPR as a source. (Insert chuckle here).

Now let’s look at her argument: she was disputing “RightWingSparkle’s” point that children of our lawmakers serve in disproportionately high numbers.

Well guess what? As usual – Honora is factually wrong.

Even if we pretend her number is accurate, it’s pretty close. 4 out of 535 is 0.75%. Extrapolated to the 300 million US population, that would equal 2.3 million.

Guess what? The active duty military is just 1.4 million; add in reserves and Guard and you do reach 2.6 million …

… but wait! Here’s the actual numbers, in 2003 as Honora cited.

The actual number was AT LEAST SEVEN — I say again, at least! – and according to the above source from April 2003, that figure actually only represented troops deployed to war zones or about to be deployed to war zones; for all I or Honora know, the number serving elsewhere in the military may be significantly higher!

So – 7 out of 535 = 1.31%. Which would extrapolate to a military = almost 4 million. Actual general population = 0.86%.

So guess what? In 2003, the percentage of Congressmen and Senators with children in the military was close to TWICE that of the general population.

RightWingSparkle – 1
Honora – 0

This is just way too easy.

Of course, Honora’s still trying to figure out how the heck Richard Nixon was still President in 1974 …

:)

Professor Blather on October 30, 2006 at 3:53 PM

I swear I closed that tag ….

Professor Blather on October 30, 2006 at 3:54 PM

Perhaps the key to settling the “chickenhawk” issue is to keep in mind that the framers of the Constitution – for whom memories of Oliver Cromwell were still relatively fresh – saw to it that the one person who really is authorized to “send other parents’ children off to war” (the President) is a civilian.

Which is just as well, because there is no direct correlation between past military service and present military wisdom when it comes to being a wartime president:

Some of the most successful wartime presidents were “chickenhawks”: Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt led us to wins in the Civil War, WWI and WWII, even though all of them had no real military service (save for Lincoln’s brief stint in a local militia, which even he derided as farcical).

Some presidents who were definitely not “chickenhawks” nonetheless turned out to be woefully inadequate as commanders-in-chief: Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter come to mind.

Aside from the above examples, the record of military background vs. presidential wartime success is, in fact, largely a crap shoot: Harry Truman (military service, muddled performance in Korea but properly sacked MacArthur for his insubordination); John Kennedy (military service, disaster at the Bay of Pigs, success in the Cuban Missile Crisis); Ronald Reagan (Hollywood military service, successes in Grenada and Libya, failure in Lebanon), Bush 41 (successes in Gulf War I and Panama, but a mixed bag in Somalia); Bill Clinton (draft-dodger, yet relatively successful in Bosnia/Serbia; disaster in Somalia, mixed results with Iraq).

Crap shoot.

In its classic usage, the “chickenhawk” label is employed to shut down debate by pre-emptorily “disqualifying” those without military service from commenting on military strategy. But as history shows, when it comes to leadership there’s no reliable linkage between past military service and dependability in deciding when/where/how to use our military.

Upshot: arguments about where/when/how to engage our military should rise or fall based on their merits, and not on the existence or lack of a uniformed-service “pedigree.” When one sees the term “chickenhawk” being bandied about, instead of fruitlessly debating who it should or shouldn’t apply to, it’s a good time to simply apply a variation of Godwin’s Law.

Spurius Ligustinus on October 30, 2006 at 4:09 PM

Blather, you’re comparing people (members of Congress) with children to the entire population. To get an accurate comparison, you would have to use the number of people in the U.S. with children (I don’t know what it is, but it’s significantly less than 300 million), then divide that number by two, then somehow account for the fact some people have more than one child. If you don’t have the facts, try to dazzle ‘em with (obviously wrong) statistics.

Vanya on October 30, 2006 at 4:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2