Dave Letterman & Bill O'Reilly

[El Vez]

http://newsbusters.org/node/3454

[BlueChair]

Wow... go Dave!

[Mike Boom]

O Reilly is full of shit - he asks "how would people who have had loved ones , relatives, blown up by insurgents, feel about having them called Freedon Fighters"? Well isnt that exactly what happened to Cindy Sheehans son? So isnt Cindy Sheehan an example how they would feel?
Who cares what theyre called?
I would say its more like 100% of what he says is crap.

[mood swung]

Letterman: “See, I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.” [audience applause]

the grammar police will get him, if the thought police don't!

[Who Shot Sam?]

Cool. You can tell that Letterman doesn't have much time for Bush.

[pophead2k]

I saw this and loved it. I love seeing O'Reilly get the piss taken out of him.

[bobster]

It is indeed a lovely thing.

And it's deeply refreshing. Letterman was, I thought, surprisingly outspoken in his (admittedly fairly cautious) support the Iraq war early on, so he's probably feeling as if he's been taken in kind of personally. His righteous, yet bemused, anger is magnificent to behold.

[alexv]

Disclaimer: I think O'Reilly is as much of an asshole as Michael Moore. They are both opportunists making mucho dinero from their respective shticks.

But, it also bothers me when we refer to the Iraq opposition as "freedom fighters". I'm even bothered by the use of the word "insurgents". Freedom fighters assumes that we are somehow restricting Iraqui freedom. We provided a substantial net benefit to any "freedom" loving people of Iraq by removing a heinous dictator. American involvement in Iraq, whether misguided or not, has, at substantial costs to Mrs. Sheehan and others, made Iraquis "freer". The US would love nothing better than to get the hell out of Iraq and end our so-called occupation. The people opposing our presence there have a vested interest in making it appear as if we are an "occupying superpower" to demonize our presence. We are only "occupying" the nation, if that is the term, because their continued "insurgency" does not permit our leaving. To the extent that Iraqui "freedoms" are being curtailed it is only because the so-called "freedom fighters" are creating the havoc. Unfortunately for the US, and here is where the mistake was, we are in a catch-22: we need to stay to keep the "insurgents" from regaining power and elimitating the freedom we have created, but so long as we stay, we are denying the insurgents their "freedom". It's a mess, but I still believe that the majority of Iraquis are far better off today than under Hussein, and at least to that extent some good has come out of this. The cost to the US is a great one, however, greater than I certainly thought, and peope like Mrs. Sheehan should be respected. If she's calling the murderers of her son "freedom fighters" I think she's nuts, but I would not say it to her face or utter it publicly, out of respect.

[Boy With A Problem]

Unless of course freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.


Seriously though - I agree, calling these people freedom fighters is pretty ludicrous. I think insurgents is pretty much as close as we're going to get to an accurate label.

[noiseradio]

alexv,

I'll only take issue with one of your comments: "our so-called occupation" of Iraq. It's not a so-called occupation. It's an occupation. Bush called it that. He said, "They don't want to be occupied" early on in the occupation. Then that word became fodder for the Democrats in an election year, and Rumsfeld and Cheney (and ultimately Bush) acted like it was an insult to our troops to call them occupiers. Which they are, and it's not an insult. But whatever. The point is that not liking the term doesn't make it inaccurate. Cindy Sheehan has earned the right to say whatever the hell she wants, by the way.

Welcome to the occupation.

[alexv]

Noise, I think I made clear in my post that Sheehan clearly has the right to call it what she likes, and in fact deserves more respect than the usual person since she's lost a son in the process. So we agree on that.

On the use of the term occupation, it really doesn't matter to me what Bush or anyone else in or outside of the administration calls it. I have my own take on it.

We certainly "occupied" the country upon defeating Saddam. Of course, we had to occupy Iraq since at that time we were the party in power. There was no established opposition that could immediately take over for Saddam, and establish order. And since such a party has not yet been put in place, we are still "occupying" Iraq. If by us "occupying" Iraq that is what people mean, then I have no problem with the term. It connotes a process which is benevolent and orderly: we are there to assure that the progress that has been made is not forestalled, and to permit a new government to come into place without attacks from internal elements allied to the old order. A good occupation.

But I think that opponents of the war, looking for every opportunity to portray US actions in a negative light, make use of the term in a very different way: they use "occupation" in a pejorative sense. The term is used to create the impression that the US has "taken over" Iraq, almost in a colonial sense. The big, bad US has taken control of Iraq and wrested control of the country from its people. US bad; iraquis good.

That is just not the case. As I pointed out in my prior post, my view is that our occupation was intended to be a temporary measure, and the goal of the US was and is to terminate it as soon as possible. The reason we are still occupying Iraq (in the sense of still being there) is that there are factions within Iraq and outside of Iraq (minority factions, by the way) who have an interest in keeping US there to destabilize the country and erode morale both within and outside of Iraq.

So to me, even though clearly occupation means occupation, the use of the term allows for the negative impression to become fossilized in the debate and distorts what's really going on there. That is why I object to its use, because it is a term whose meaning can easily be twisted for partisan purposes.

Having said all that, I reiterate that I initially supported the war, but failed to realize that the fall of saddam would lead to further instability within the country (fostered by a minority within Iraq and by outside agitators) which could not be put down easily, meaning that the occupation would be a longstanding one. Once this became obvious, my feeling has been that we have to get out of there as soon as we can, and that the goal of establishing a spanking new democracy in this crazy area is farfetched. The goal should be more limited: leave them with a modicum of order and get out. I doubt that a new Saddam will surface soon, and that should be our only concern. No matter how much internal bickering develops within Iraq, the country is better off without Saddam. And it is irrational to expect a country like Iraq, with its tradition of instability in an unstable are, to suddenly function like an old Greek city-state, which it seems to me is the unrealistic goal we have established for ourselves.

[noiseradio]

As I pointed out in my prior post, my view is that our occupation was intended to be a temporary measure, and the goal of the US was and is to terminate it as soon as possible.

I just think that's as far from the truth as possible. I don't think we'll materially leave Iraq for decades.

[LessThanZero]

I just hope that Osama has learned his lesson!

[alexv]

Noise, just because the original belief that our occupation would be temporary might turn out to have been wrong (which I acknowledge) doesn't make the original belief a false one, just a wrong one. Right? Or are you suggesting that it has always been our goal to have an extended occupation? If that is your view, then we just plain disagree.

[noiseradio]

We just plain disagree. I have no doubt that this administration has has designs on control of Iraq for over a decade. The fact that the invasion was planned out by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in 1998 (!) would seem to support that point. The fact that Jim Baker is on record as saying that the first Gulf War was much more about controling the flow of oil than about any other factor also lends support to that point. This was never about WMD, which Wolfowitz as much as admitted to on camera. This was never really about 9/11, as administration officials knew all along what they now finally admit--that Saddam had nothing to do with that. This was never really about Saddam being an evil bastard. Otherwise, we'd be at war with 3 dozen countries right now. We're going to be in Iraq--whether in direct control (as occupiers) like we are now--or in indirect control until my young children are old enough to be drafted and sent to help. And it pisses me off to no end.

[Mr. Average]

How can the discussion make any sense if it ignores the predicted political swings in Iran?

One word: Ahmadinejad, the leader of Iran, ready to slide east, take the resources, and continue to accelerate the nuclear weapons capabilities of Iran. In your face.

If you cannot immediately recall at least three of his recent public statements, later reinterated and verified by the source...Ahmadinejad himself, then I don't understand who a reasonable discussion on the "occupation" or the "withdrawal" can take place...

1. "The Holocaust is a myth/never happened"
2. "Isreal should be wiped off the map. Entirely. Gone and all it holds and all it stands for."
3. "The people who occupy Isreal should be relocated to eastern European countries, Canada, or Alaska, en mass."

And one of the most recent "pray for the death of Sharon"

I know the easy counterargument: "If we would have left Saddam alone...". Unfortunately, the militarily weakened Saddam was in a position to offer no resistance to the growing Iranian threat.

This issue has been central to this "occupation" from the beginning. If left unbridled, well, I suppose that is where the opinions become very polarized and quite divergent.

Unbridled, they stop nothing short of complete and utter destruction of Western society: culture, borders, and people.

Or "Imagine" that we will all grow spontaneously to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". Talk about putting your head into the sand, tapping your heels, and saying "There's No Place Like Home...There's No Place Like Home..."

[alexv]

Noise, I have no quarrels with the view that for a long time America may have wanted and planned to (i) remove Saddam from Iraq, and/or (ii) see to it that whatever government in Iraq followed was one that made sure that the smooth flow of oil would continue. By the way, I have no problems with the first goal since what Saddam did over the years merited his removal.

Where I disagree is with the view that the US also planned to have an ongoing role in Iraq, for our generation and future generations, similar to what is going on now. I think that's just not right. I assume that the policymakers thought, wrongly so far, that once saddam was removed the US's role in Iraq as an occupying force would be temporary. The US's role thereafter, I agree, may have been one which they assumed would be substantial but with no troops on the ground to maintain order and beat back "inusrgents".

[noiseradio]

alexv,

We'll just have to see. If Iraq is fully sovereign (meaning 0 US presence or intereference) by 2015, I owe you a beer. If we're still there in 10 years, you owe me a beer. If it's 20, I'd like a case of Young's Oatmeal Stout. And God forgive us.

Mr. Average,

Iran is dangerous. No argument. It was dangerous when we invaded Iraq, too. Maybe Bush forgot how to spell Iraq? That there was a joke. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan (which is almost as unstable now as it was before we got there) and gotten bin Laden. And if Iran had done what it's been doing, we should have taken care of that next, with BROAD support and participation of the UN. We had Saddam in check. That wouldn't have changed. And the middle east would be MUCH safer than it is.

But if we really wanted to get the states that fund terrorism, why the fuck are we still buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia?

I have to stop. My cup seetheth over.

[Mr. Average]

Serious or suicidal?
Jan 2, 2006
by Thomas Sowell

When you are boating on the Niagara River, there are signs marking the point at which you must go ashore or else you will be sucked over the falls. With Iran moving toward the development of nuclear weapons, we are getting dangerously close to that fatal point of no return on the world stage.

Yet there are few signs of alarm in our public discourse, whether among politicians, the media, or the intelligentsia. There is much more discussion of whether government anti-terrorism agents should be able to look at the records of books borrowed from public libraries.

The Iranian government itself is giving us the clearest evidence of what a nuclear Iran would mean, with its fanatical hate-filled declarations about wanting to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

Just last year, before the American election, Osama bin Laden warned that those places that voted for the re-election of the President would become targets of terrorist retribution.

We could ignore him then. But neither we, nor our children, nor our children's children will ever be able to ignore him again if he gets nuclear weapons from a nuclear Iran.

We will live at his mercy -- of which he has none -- if he can wipe out New York or Chicago if we do not knuckle under to his demands, however outrageous those demands might be.

We will truly have passed the point of no return. What will future generations think of us, that we drifted on past the warning signs, preoccupied with library records and with giving foreign terrorists the same legal rights as American citizens?

We could deter the nuclear power of the Soviet Union with our own nuclear power. But you cannot deter suicidal terrorists. You can only kill them or stop them from getting what they need to kill you.

We are killing them in Iraq, though our media seem wholly uninterested in that part of the story, just as they seem uninterested in the fact that the fate of Western civilization may be at stake just across the border in Iran.

Of course they would like us to prevent Iran from going nuclear -- if it can be done nicely by diplomacy, with the approval of the U.N., and in ways that do not offend "world opinion."

It is as if we were on the Niagara River and wanted to go ashore before it was too late, but did not want to turn on the motors for fear of disturbing the neighbors with excessive noise.

But at that point, the choice is between being serious or being suicidal.

That is where we are internationally today. Many years ago, there was a book with the title "The Suicide of the West." It may have been ahead of its time.

The squeamishness, indecision, and wishful thinking of the West are its greatest dangers because the West has the power to destroy any other danger. But it does not have the will.

Partly this is because most of our Western allies have been sheltered from the brutal realities of the international jungle for more than half a century under the American nuclear umbrella.

People insulated from dangers for generations can indulge themselves in the illusion that there are no dangers -- as much of Western Europe has. This is part of the "world opinion" that makes us hesitant to take any decisive action to prevent a nightmare scenario of nuclear weapons in the hands of hate-filled fanatics.

Do not look for Europe to support any decisive action against Iran. But look for much of their intelligentsia, and much of our own intelligentsia as well, to be alert for any opportunity to wax morally superior if we do act.

They will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran's nuclear development sites. They will be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalence, such as: Other countries have nuclear weapons. Why not Iran?

Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives. The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal.

Thomas Sowell is a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow.

Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[ReadyToHearTheWorst]

.. you cannot deter suicidal terrorists. You can only kill them ... We are killing them in Iraq, though our media seem wholly uninterested in that part of the story ...

I'm no expert on foreign affairs, or on the motivations of a suicide bomber, but it seems to me that if we hadn't invaded Iraq there would not be an 'insurgency', and therefore the net amount of terrorism globally would be less.

In other words we have created, and are maintaining, the conditions that encourage terrorism (martyrdom etc), and if killing them is all we can do then it's a vicious cirlcle and genocide is on the cards.

There has to be a better way (buggered if I know what it is though).

[noiseradio]

We are killing them, and they are recruiting ever more people to take the place of the last bombers. When will the world learn that killing just leads to more killing? We will NEVER be able to kill enough of them to make their recruitment ineffective. There will ALWAYS be more than enough people willing to take their place. And every time we take out 10 terrorists, 20 more sign up.

[Mr. Average]

Sure. Both of the above arguments are the same circular arguments that have been rehashed for years and years and years.

I was hoping that someone might address the real message of the scholar Thomas Sowell. To the degree that it is an uncomfortable topic, and that it stimulates a collateral but not a direct comment, lends creedence to his editorial.

I think he is looking at the issue holistically. And in a concentrated war zone, you have fighting. Fighting by our guys is called 'war'. Fighting by their guys is called 'terrorism and insurgency'. Why is there an insurgency? Because the Islamic extremist platform can ill afford to give the PEOPLE a voice, and even more so, they cannot afford to allow the people to be free. Thus, recruitment and insurgency. I think it is wierd that the 'trigger' event is seen as 'our occupation', when the real trigger is ideals that we represent by our occupation...freedom, removal of an oppressive murderous dictator, and funding for terrorism that was very public and very real. To ignore that is plain ignorant.

What gets me everytime, Noise, is the Oil argument. Without a question or a doubt, our involvement in the region is most definitely related to the "unfettered access" to a premium natural resource, oil. However, in other wars, where other, stronger nations invade weaker ones, history (I think) demonstrates that the natural resources and the riches that they represent become the 'spoils of war'. In this case, the US led coalition has not stolen, taken, controlled, nationalized, or whatever the Oil reserves of that region. The oil remains the natural resource of the keepers of the land. It continues to enrich the land and the people who occupy it...the Iragi's.

In the hands of Ahmadinjad, do you think of a second that our access to this precious resource would remain unfettered?

Oh man....

[Who Shot Sam?]

Zzzzzzzzz.........

[cbartal]

Joke:

Kanye West walks into a bar. At the bar sit David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Bill O'Reilly and James Frey.

Kanye sits down and orders a Budweiser.

15 minutes later they all get up, walk out of the bar and into their respective limos, then proceed to call their press agents.

Pretty funny, huh? Get it?

[noiseradio]

What gets me everytime, Noise, is the Oil argument. Without a question or a doubt, our involvement in the region is most definitely related to the "unfettered access" to a premium natural resource, oil. However, in other wars, where other, stronger nations invade weaker ones, history (I think) demonstrates that the natural resources and the riches that they represent become the 'spoils of war'. In this case, the US led coalition has not stolen, taken, controlled, nationalized, or whatever the Oil reserves of that region. The oil remains the natural resource of the keepers of the land. It continues to enrich the land and the people who occupy it...the Iragi's.

In the hands of Ahmadinjad, do you think of a second that our access to this precious resource would remain unfettered?

Oh man....

If you're referring to my comments about Jim Baker, I'm merely passing along what I saw him say with my own eyes and ears. The former Sec. of State during the 1st Gulf War said that was about our access to oil more than anything. This is the guy bush Jr. trusted above all others when Florida was still in play. He's as loyal to the bush family as anyone, and he's not just saying this to be provocative. He's telling it like he sees it, and that's from the vantage point of DEEP inside the Bush administration. Both of them. If he says the primary concern was oil, then you can take it to the bank that that was the biggest thing on the minds of the people in power. And that's an odious reason to go to war.

So what of the current conflict? Is it all about oil? I don't think so. Not all. But I do think it's about control, about a long-held grudge against Saddam, and about the build-up of the military industrial complex as a cure-all for economic woes. That old chestnut. Ask yourself this: Before the invasion of Iraq, what nation was the biggest threat to our national security? Not just in hindsight, but then. What nations seemed poised to do us the most harm? Either by direct attack or by plunging the world into a new arms race. What nations had already harmed us? Either in terms of terrorism or economic destruction. These aren't ranked, but if you had asked me that question in January of 2002, I'd have said Saudi Arabia long before I'd have ever thought of Iraq. And before I ever arrived at Iraq, I'd have gone through Iran, N. Korea, China, India, and Pakistan. All for totally different reasons, but the problem is that they still pose us as great a threat now as ever. War wasn't the answer to solving those problems. You can't threaten Kim Jung Il with invasion; he'd blow up the Korean peninsula. So you have to find other ways. So why invade Iraq? Because we could. And we could because we already had him in check. It's abhorrent.