What Say You, Bill O'Reilly?

First, the evil one's Talking Points Memo

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.

A prelude to war, that is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, the prime minister of Australia, John Howard, says this: "If Iraq isn't effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league. That will multiply the likelihood of terrorist groups laying hands on such weapons. The consequences for mankind would be horrific."

Mr. Howard, of course, is right. Failure to disarm Saddam -- and the U.N. inspectors simply can't do that -- is setting up a potential disaster that could alter the world forever.

The chance is simply not worth taking. Saddam has to go.

Now, no matter how much logic is used or how many articles are written, some in the world will support -- will not support, I should say, the removal of Saddam.

And we've gone over the reasons which are primarily financial, France making billions from oil contracts and ideological. Here's an example of that.

The singer Sheryl Crow is a big anti-war proponent, but in 1997 Ms. Crow traveled to Bosnia with Hillary Clinton to entertain American troops. Ms. Crow wholeheartedly supported American military action in the Balkans, as did I.

So what has changed, Sheryl? Milosevic was a villain who allowed his army to rape and murder civilians. Saddam does the same thing. And Saddam has weapons far worse than anything Milosevic had. And we didn't get a U.N. mandate to bomb Belgrade.

What say you, Sheryl Crow?

This kind of selective outrage is bogus and we all know it, but there are Americans who are sincere in their dissent and once again we respect that.

However, once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that, to shut up.

Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do.

We don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country at a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted.

Talking Points welcomes all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in.

This does not give the government carte blanche to do everything, but it does give the government the benefit of the doubt, at least until that benefit is proven wrong, as it was in Vietnam.

We are all Americans here, and those fighting in our name deserve our loyalty until the time we are proven wrong.

And that's The Memo.

Yes, it's true. Click to see in all its glory!

Point one: John Howard, PM of Oz claims all sorts of dire consequences if Iraq is not dis-armed. You'll note he does not give any time frame. Is John Howard an expert on Middle-Eastern affairs? On state sponsored terrorism? On terrorism in general? Does he have the qualifications of a Glen Rangwala, or an Ahmed Rashid ? Let me give you a hint, It's not likely. Very unlikely. Mr. Howard's prediction are tarot card predictions. And Bill, you as a "reporter" are slapping the faces of all real investagative reporters, past, present and future. It would not be a stretch to say that Bill O'Reilly is professionally and morally bankrupt.

"Mr. Howard, of course, is right." Well, Bill, he's only correct in the sense that you too are in agreement over the issue. It is unsubstantiated rubbish. We all know Saddam's a bad guy, and should at the very least be kept on a short leash.

Point two: "Now, no matter how much logic is used or how many articles are written, some in the world will support -- will not support, I should say, the removal of Saddam."
It's more than a little interesting that you stumble over this sentence. What is the real message here? Is it that Saddam must be removed regardless of the facts? And we both know, okay I know, that the populice of the US of A has been lied to--serially--in the buildup to war. It's a sad day for democracy. A sad day for Bill O'reilly.

Point Three: "So what has changed, Sheryl? Milosevic was a villain who allowed his army to rape and murder civilians. Saddam does the same thing. And Saddam has weapons far worse than anything Milosevic had. And we didn't get a U.N. mandate to bomb Belgrade." Well, I can think of a couple of glaring differences. We armed Saddam Hussein, and turned a blind eye when he was gassing the Kurds. Oh, and for your edification, you can read about some of this at the National Security Archive. It's a short read, no long attention span required.

What you say, Bill O'reilly? If you need more background, see the Project for a New American Century website. I have hundreds of supporting documents regarding American complicity, illegal arms sales, and other nefarious papers regarding GW1, and the planning for, "Gulf War, the sequel."

Point four: "However, once the war against Saddam begins, we expect every American to support our military and if they can't do that, to shut up." Oh, that's rich. How exactly does one support the military? Are you willing to give up 10% of your salary to "support the military?" You can get back to me on that, Mr. O'reilly.

"Americans and, indeed, our allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway will be considered enemies of the state by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do." Enemies of what state, Bill? Your totalitarian state? Informed dissent is essential to democracy. If this was heard by the Iraqi people, you'd be the villian. Selective democray is no democray at all. The above vitriol is inane chest-thumping by one who never served. I'm no fan of Streisand's politics, but she is allowed her voice. You can choose to listen or not. Obviously your chance to serve your country during wartime was lost, so now you have to pit Americans against one another. To what end, Bill? Is Civil war what you want. Let me give you a clue, no wars are civil. *sigh* This is too easy.

"We don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country at a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted." Very nice, Bill. A little Nazism reference. Cheap, but well timed. Who is going to be spotlighted? If there are millions of protestors, are you going to be taking names? I'll look for you. Honest, I will.

"Talking Points welcomes all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in." Oh yes, I've seen your dog and pony show. Cutting people off from mikes, invective, and ad hominem attacks are all part of "vigorous debate?" Let me elucidate what a proper debate is. Logical fallacies seem your weak point, so go here to learn more.

"This does not give the government carte blanche to do everything, but it does give the government the benefit of the doubt, at least until that benefit is proven wrong, as it was in Vietnam." As all the wars of the 20th century have shown, the government is reluctant to make a real case for war. As a "reporter", you must have taken classes in propaganda, well maybe you haven't. Let's journey back to Gulf War I. The Saudi's were shown satellite imagery of Iraqi forces massing on their border. US government fabrication. Maybe "babies and incubators" raises a red flag with you. If your memory fails you, try "Googling." The current administration with its cloak and dagger handling of inforamation, should be much more heavily scrutininezed than any since Nixon. Lies, lies, and damned lies is this administration's way of carrying out it's affairs. I won't say you're a sycophant for this administation, but your motives are seemingly less than patriotic.

"We are all Americans here, and those fighting in our name deserve our loyalty until the time we are proven wrong." Wrong. The government has to earn the trust of the poulace. This administration using the tools of executive priveledge has done everything to fuel the fire of skepticism. Question everything. Always. Bill, you're just not cut out for true journalism. That's okay, just stop pretending that you are.