For example, last night, Bill had a segment on Alec Baldwin and his appearance on the view. He then went to Geraldo Rivera as expert guest to counsel FoxNews viewers on Marriage. Geraldo Rivera then began his diatribe on how to handle ex wives.

This from a man that has been divorced 4 times and is on his 5th marriage. Wow, what a culture warrior. At our dinner table we were so offended that we immediately hit the remote.

Bill O’Reilly has always thought the War in Iraq was a mistake. Remember back a few years ago, he opened the talking points with; “I will give GWB 1 year to turn this around” Blah Blah Blah. He is no different than the cut and run MSM but he packages and spins it differently for the FoxNews audience.

Bill is no conservative. He is a blue dog democrat and tries to disguise that fact with taking on causes like Megan’s law. Worthy causes for sure but do not mistake his politics.

After the shooting in Virgina, he led his show with talking points criticizing the left for trying to use Vtech for gun control. Then on Monday, he invited Chucky Schumer on to propose, you guessed it, Gun Control. O’Reilly supported Schumers measure by an emotional plea that it was not a draconian measure to ask that the Senate pass this by Unanimous Consent.

The problem is that the measure Schumer wants passed is HR 297 the Brady Law which includes assault weapon ban expansion, gun registration, a huge expansion of gun control that infringes on the 2nd amendment.So much for the talking points about the left using Vtech for gun control.

Bryan I agree with you that Bill O’Reilly is a defeatist. I think it is despicable that he has now sold our solders out with his latest segment denouncing the war as a total failure, the wrong battlefield, and promoting retreat.How is he any different than his colleagues in the MSM and the anti war left.

He now wants stricter gun laws
He has been softballing interviews
He wants retreat and re-group in Iraq
Whats next?

Another point Savage alluded to was the obvious fact that much of the Arab world is unable to step out of their “tribal mentality” of centuries past to move into the 19th century let alone the 21st century. Also, it’s obvious the Arab world cannot get along with each other let alone the rest of the world, this in-of-itself should be enough to prompt us to change our strategy to one of containing Iran, Syria, and stemming the flow of foreign fighters entering Iraq as well as securing the flow of oil, and if we’re attacked, as Savage said we hit back swiftly and devastatingly.

Once we have containment and secured the flow of oil let the Iraqi factions kill each other until only one is left standing as it seems they’re most interested in hate, revenge, and killing, not freedom, prosperity, and peacful co-existence, let alone a better future for their people!

You can lead a nation to the path of freedom and democracy, but you can’t make them walk the path…and it’s unfortunate the Iraqi’s are incapable of doing so especially considering how many of our brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice to clear the path to freedom and democracy so they would have a better life and future.

For me this was the main point Bill was trying to make, he was venting his frustration at the Iraqi people being unable or unwilling to rise up to the occassion and walk the path to freedom and democracy our brave soldiers gave their lives to clear for them.

Just my 2-cents…

He’s been doing the pee pee dance accompanied by the “if they want freedom why don’t they do it themselves” chorus for a while.

TBinSTL on April 27, 2007 at 5:27 AM

Doing the pee pee dance……too f*cking funny. That truly deserves a LOL.

Great stuff!

The thought of leaving my Iraqi friends makes me sick… but O’Reiley is right, they have not steped up. The ‘nanny state’ created by Saddam and certain aspects of their religion have stripped any sense of personal responsibility from the population. They are waiting for us to fix their country, then blaming us for every little problem.

Having see the way the Iraqis deal with their enemies… I think a little bloodbath might wash away the bad apples faster if we weren’t there holding them back.

If you read the new counterinsurgency doctrine, it will take 3x as many troops as we have now on the ground for YEARS to defeat an insurgency. I know were not willing to do that. Petraeus knows he doen’t have enough soldiers… he is just playing the good soldier. We can mostly leave now, launch SF/CIA ops and conventional strikes from a few bases, regroup and prepare for the ‘real’ war with Iran. While we are tied down, we have little deterrence factor.

I’m more concerned about Iran than anything else. I hate to say it, but I’d support the Dem position on this if they weren’t so publicly campaigning for failure from the initial invasion and I thought it was coming from a rational decision making process. But it’s not… so screw them.

So what he said is probably not what he personally believes, but I think he is beginning to become less optimistic. Just not to the degree that it looks like in this clip.

We cannot force americans to be rational, so we need to adopt the libs gameplan by creating an extreme right so the center, as perceived by the sheeple, is shifted toward traditional ideals.

I don’t know. Yes, let’s marginalize and defeat those who call for our retreat. However, I don’t think we get there through further politicization because the outcome of this war transcends ideology.

Most Americans don’t see it this way, but the struggle we’re in with Islamic extremism is really about our own survival as a nation and our way of life. Now, I don’t expect the media to communicate this alarmist message, but I do expect the Bush Administration and those in power who believe it to shout it from the highest mountaintops because it’s the TRUTH.

So, let the Left continue to politicize the war. We need to drown them out with our message. Americans need to know that this war will continue for a very long time, that we’re killing bad guys who would do us harm here in America if left alone.

And for heaven’s sake, let’s find a traitor and put him/her on trial! What better way to get a positive and patriotic message out than through a televised trial where all Americans have an opportunity to hear what damage has been caused by those invested in America’s defeat.

Food for thought: If we would’ve bombed government and military centers in Syria and Iran much earlier in this war, perhaps even while we were bombing Baghdad, you know… a real “shock-and-awe”, where would we be today?

At the same time, we must do a better job of appealing to the common sense of mainstream America.
CliffHanger on April 27, 2007 at 9:52 AM

True, but the message isn’t reaching them. The message that reaches them is shrill and extreme and it has huge value in the battle to get americans to take back their country from the crazy libs.

Americans have common sense but it has been stifled by political correctness. Look at how insanely stupid Reids comments are. Why does he get away with it? PCness and the perception of reality. What person to the right of Rosie O Piggo doesn’t look reasonable, but when that person is viewed against traditional conservative ideals it’s obvious they are “out there” too?

Many americans, and more importantly the MSM, establish their opinions based on the full spectrum of credible political ideas. They want to find the middle so they are acceptable to a majority of people. They are relativity driven and not ideologically driven. Those of us here are ideologically driven. We don’t care how crazy the left gets and do our best to condemn extremism on the right. That is the right way to be in a perfect world where we aren’t in a battle for the survival of traditional political direction in america.

People driven to accept beliefs based on the relative center of ideological positions, are constantly moving to and fro based on their perception of what it means to be a moderate. We as high horse conservatives aid in shifting the political center toward people like Reid, because we don’t really have any credible extremism on the right and when we do, we excoriate them. And even that “extremism” is not really extreme. It is only extreme in relation to the liberal center we have helped to create.

You want proof? Look at Fox news. They ARE moderate by definition, yet the MSM and the crazy dem candidates call them tools of the VRWC. How many people have you met that have a negative opinion of Fox, yet never watch them? We all see it very often. Why? Because these people don’t want to appear to be extreme, so they adopt the position that puts them in the center as they percieve it.

We cannot force americans to be rational, so we need to adopt the libs gameplan by creating an extreme right so the center, as perceived by the sheeple, is shifted toward traditional ideals. Just as they have done on the left.

What’s it going to take before we become the next greatest generation…?

CliffHanger on April 27, 2007 at 9:36 AM

A lot of hard work and determination. Our troops are doing their part and now we need to do ours. A Gathering of eagles was a good start, but we cannot rest on that victory. What I do is educate kids. I get them to engage me in debate and socratically lead them to their own conclusions. They are not always in lock step with mine, but they OWN the opinion instead of parroting anyone else’s talking points. I have a myspace account and have my kids and their friends on my friends list. I use that forum to reach people who consume the regurgitated vile from the libs. I link to Hotair and other middle of the road sites that use common sense instead of emotionalism to develop ideals. It works. Kids now a days are just looking for a direction to apply their considerable talents but lack the life experiences to do so wisely.

csdeven on April 27, 2007 at 9:25 AM

You know, I used to couch my comments in terms of “Defeatocrats”, “Moonbats”, and “Libs”, but today I feel that the situation is so tenuous and the stakes so damn high for future generations, I’m going to begin to blame us, Americans and ask that we take a different approach.

The hard Left is lost so we must stop simply blaming them for our troubles. However, if we consider them enablers of our defeat, then it stands to reason that we should find ways to marginalize and defeat them. At the same time, we must do a better job of appealing to the common sense of mainstream America. That’s where the future of how we fight this war will be forged.

Sometimes I wish I would have signed that letter of intent to the Academy. But with a wife, you have many other priorities then yourself.

Robert Hackman on April 27, 2007 at 9:04 AM

Hackman, you are absolutely right. Unfortunately there was hardly a mention of how Iraqis are increasingly cooperating and taking initiative against AQ in Al Anbar, for example.

There are other examples of Iraqis coming together for the sake of their country but they do not get widespread coverage. If we do a better job of reporting progress maybe Americans will get a more complete picture of what’s happening on the ground.

saint kansas on April 27, 2007 at 9:08 AM

I know. All we’re asked is to go about our daily lives while our armed forces do their job.

We’re such friggin’ crybabies. What’s it going to take before we become the next greatest generation…?

He’s most likely getting “reaction” from war supporters and military families so watch tonight to hear how he handles the blowback. My guess is he’ll open up his Talking Points with this.

I’m tired of this war is not an option…It is the dumbest reason I’ve ever heard not to do something.

Yeah, I’m pretty tired of hearing about “war fatigue” from anyone not in combat.

I’ve been asked to do jack sh!t for the cause; I wake up in a decent house, take the kids to school, go to work and come home. I don’t ration anything or grow my own veggies in a victory garden. Someone else much braver than I am has taken on all the responsibility, and my great burden is having to hear about it on the news. Boo hoo for me.

But a defeat in Iraq would be far worse than a military setback. Iraq has oil reserves rivaling Saudi Arabia which would pass into enemy hands and make us even more reliant on the dubious ethanol substitute. Consider a change to ethanol. The price of corn would skyrocket as farmers, corn dealers and speculators conspire to jack up the prices. Corn, as you know, is the primary source of feed for livestock and for sweeteners in soft drinks and other products. Thus a shrinking supply of oil plus a gargantuan increase in demand for corn—far outdistancing supply–and we have inflation high enough to collapse the stock market.

Why should the people of Iraq work with us since they know we’re going to bail on them? After Vietnam and now Iraq, who will trust this country again to protect them? Millions lost their lives in SE Asia when we turned and ran and it will be the same in Iraq.

This problem is about 2000 and that is sad.

Unless O’Reilly has a direct news source in Iraq, he seems to be parroting the MSM back home by taking on the mantle of the Democrat’s and MSM’s defeatist mantras.

As for him being fed up with the war, he has a point in that it is not being prosecuted correctly. The U.S., even after the Viet Nam and Somalia experiences, still has no idea how to fight a guerrilla insurgency.

So, there we are with our Humvees, tanks, and our troops walking guard-duty down the streets of Baghdad, while the guerrilla force is hunkered down in caves as they’ve done for hundreds of years in previous wars. Recall, that the great Russian cold war army was defeated by this ‘rag tag’ force.

I agree with a previous comment that we have “half-assed” the war, as we did in Viet Nam. It’s déjà vu all over again, kiddies.

Evidently, the generals thought it would be like shooting fish in a barrel as it was during the first Iraq war, when the ‘mother of all forces’ was decimated on the road to Baghdad.

When we realized that we would, again, be fighting cave dwellers, as in WWII, we should have immediately changed tactics and put in an overwhelming Iwo Jima type force to kick ass and take names.

And, from the pictures we’ve seen of insurgents begging not to be shot as U.S. troops approached them, I doubt that the they would allow themselves to become crispy-critters, as the Japanese did in WWII, if they knew flame-throwers were in our bag of tricks.

Losing in Iraq is not an option.

General pocomoco has spoken.

Under the Jon Voight interview earlier posted on this site, I posted my comment that really was my reaction to what is shown in the clip above and perhaps contributed to the decision on this site to post the clip above. In my comment, I stated that “I tutned off O’Reilly tonight” and “also cancelled my O’Reilly premium membership with the statement that I will never watch ‘The Factor’ again.” I stated that “[a]s far as I am conccerned, O’Reilly announced that he was a defeatist tonight, and I have had it with that kind of cowardly politics. My older son is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving as a platoon leader in Iraq, and while it is a tough mission, it is by no means ‘lost.’ Our military guys are not defeatists. I more than respect them; I am awed by them.” I concluded: “As for the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and now Bill O’Reilly, they are disloyal bums who deserve our derisive contempt.”

I stand on my comment. O’Reilly is making the mistake that Victor Davis Hanson a few years warned against. If you call the Iraq War a mistake and you focus on present difficulties in rationalizing running away from the war, you have to justify the proposition that the world would be a better place today if Saddam were still in power.

Do you really think that the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein, the “Butcher of Baghdad,” were still in power? If so, I have to ask facetiously: Do you think that letting Saddam have a pass on 17 U.N. arms resolutions was just fine? Do you miss the rape rooms of Saddam’s sons? Or perhaps the repression and murder of the Kurds? Or the real physically mutilating torture that Saddam’s government meted out to anyone suspected of being a dissident? Or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam’s government? Or is it that Saddam’s dictatorial, cult of personality mode of government suits you? Perhaps it was Saddam’s corruption of the United Nations in the Food-for-Oil scandal that thrilled you? Or maybe it was Saddam’s payment of suicide bombers? Or perhaps Saddam’s allowance of terrorist training camps in Iraq? Or was it that the terrorist thug Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was allowed to use Iraq as a base of operations?

The Iraqi War has been prolonged, and there has been violence, bloodshed and suffering. But contrast what America has done and what the adversaries have done.

America with its coalition partners have removed a tyrant from power, handed sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, propelled the Iraqi people to adopt a democratic government and assisted the Iraqis in defending their young government. It cannot be ignored that the Iraqis bravely voted three times, raising the “purple finger,” in the process of adopting a written Constitution and electing their own leadership and that the present Iraqi government is the legitimate, sovereign and lawfully constituted government of Iraq. Nor should it be ignored that the Kurds in northern Iraq enjoy peace and that insurgent attacks elsewhere in Iraq on marketplaces, police stations and the like are both terrorist and criminal in nature and are specifically targeted to undermine the Iraqi government’s authority.

Radical Islamists, both Sunni and Shiite, do not want democratic government and society to take root in Iraq, and they have caused much bloodshed, death and injury in their efforts to undermine the elected Iraqi government. Al-Qaeda’s No. 1 Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri have declared that Iraq is the major front or “greatest battle” in what they describe as the “Third World War” between Islam (actually their radical Islamism) and the West. Al-Qaeda, in opposition to the Iraq government and in league with other Sunni extremists (e.g., the post-Zarqawi Islamic State of Iraq), has led the insurgency in areas such as Anbar province, has engaged in bombings killing innocent Iraqis and has actively sought, with some success, to incite sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni Baathists unreconciled to the loss of power in post-Saddam Iraq and Shiites who had been repressed by Saddam. The radical Shiites in Iran have similarly been channeling resources to fueling sectarian violence and providing material assistance in the form of a massive supply of IEDs, EFPs and other weaponry not only to radical Shiite militias but also Sunni insurgents. Radical Shiites in Iraq such as renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have militias that engage in sectarian violence, either oppose or seek to compromise the Iraqi government and at times work with their Iranian radical allies to attack American troops. Do you think for one moment that if we withdrew from Iraq now, that country would be better off? That is not the judgment of New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns, who has stated that such withdrawal could result in “levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we’ve seen to this point.”

The fact is that we are the good guys in Iraq. Our military has been supporting the lawfully constituted Iraqi government, seeking to establish security for the Iraqi people from radical Islamist insurgent violence and mayhem and training the Iraqi army and police to take the responsibility for that security. Our military with civilian contractors have been rebuilding the country that had been driven into the ground economically by Saddam’s misrule and exploitation. Young Iraqis are drawn to our soldiers and Marines; my wife and I send candy to the our son so that my son and the guys under his command can hand it out to the kids. Pictures of American soldiers and Marines carrying in their arms Iraqi kids do tell a truth about the conflict. I sometimes use an example from my older son’s division to contrast the Americans and the radical Islamists. My older son’s division has, among other things, built schools for the Iraqis and distributed medical supplies to local hospitals and clinics; in contrast, the girls’ school that was next to my older son’s base was blown up by a suicide bomber with much loss of life because the radical Islamists do not want girls educated.

The present situation is difficult. But one should not think that there is difficulty because we made a mistake. The world at times present difficult problems, and we are now faced with one terrible time and problem in the confrontation with radical Islam.

Do you think that radical Islam will go away if we run away from Iraq and berate ourselves? Think again after remembering some dates. On February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center Towers in Manhattan were bombed for the first time by radical Islamists who were followers of the blind sheik Omar Abdul Rahman and who were led by Ramzi Yousef; six people were killed and 1,042 people were injured. On August 23, 1996, Osama bin Laden, from a cave in Afghanistan, declared jihadist war on America; the statement was entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” which asserted that terrorism was “a legitimate right and a moral obligation” and that the youths carrying out jihad “love death as you love life.” On August 7, 1998, the American Embassy in Kenya was bombed by al-Qaeda operatives, causing the deaths of 213 and injury to thousands, and the American Embassy in Tanzania was bombed by other al-Qaeda operatives, resulting in the deaths of 11 and the wounding of 85. On October 12, 2000, the U.S. Navy ship USS Cole in a Yemen port was attacked by two al-Qaeda operatives on a suicide mission, resulting in the deaths of 17 American sailors and the wounding of 39 others. To all of these actions, America did not do much because America was in fact unprepared for war but rather longed for peace. (See generally L. Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda And The Road To 9/11.)

There is a silver lining in all this. Our “Greatest Generation” has been called that because they dealt with the Great Depression and World War II — terrible times. But they perserved and triumphed. In our days of comnfort and ease, the “Boomer Generation” may be the worst generation because of its narcissism, amorality and perpetual political hype. Difficult times require us as Americans to be better people and say such words as “God Bless America” and mean it.