BILL OLIELLY HAS GONE TO FAR IM FURIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brettdale]

Attacking America's enemies first. That's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." The Bush administration has released a report that says the policy of preemptive action in the War on Terror will continue. As you know that policy led the USA into Iraq, which has become a more difficult situation than the administration predicted.

In the report, the president singled out Iran as a country that is threatening the USA right now, clearly signaling to the Iranian government that a nuclear weapon is not acceptable. Now the policy of striking perceived enemies before they attack us is controversial and made more so because of the nation's disenchantment over the war in Iraq. Every poll shows most Americans have turned against that action. It's not for philosophical reasons. War is a performance business. If the USA had stabilized Iraq, Mr. Bush's approval ratings would be through the roof. But since the conflict is dragging on with no clear definition, many Americans now feel it's not worth it."

"Talking Points" believes the Iraq war can still be won, and the world will be a far safer place if it is. If the terrorists lose in Iraq, they'll be confined to a very few places on this earth, Iran and Syria being the two primary sanctuaries. But here's the key question: Can America win the war on terror if it does not strike first? Consider that the Clinton administration had a number of chances to kill bin Laden and decimate Al Qaeda before 9/11.

[Erika]

1. Jesus did not believe in the preemptive strike theme

Not at all.

[RevCheesehead]

3. Very true.

In fact, it could be argued that Jesus was willing to TAKE the pre-emptive strike, so others would not have to.

[Daphne08]

4. Jesus was a liberal, bleeding heart peacenik,

but you would never know it according to the Religious Right.

No, I don't believe he would approve of preemptive war.

Just my thought.

[fishwax]

2. I saw that too. masterful how he manages to bring clinton into it

sorry, bill, but i don't think the nation is buying that bullshit anymore.

Compared to what we're dealing with now, everyone but the most rabid and desperate right-wingers thinks of the clinton administration as the good old days.

[wake.up.america]

5. "Win" (whatever that means) or lose in Iraq, Bush is a failure.

People have to understand the invasion was not justified at the outset, regardless of the results of the war.

Had not one American died, had not one Iraqi child died - it was wrong.

Billy O and his group of dumbF****

[still_one]

6. I am surprised that you say that talking points believes the iraq war

can still be won

This war was based on a lie whose only motivation was to control the Iraqii oil. We have KILLED over a hundred thousand people in this war, for the most immoral reasons which had NOTHING to do with self-defense

Are we really fighting the terrorists in Iraq? Are the insurgents terrorists? Are the Sunnis terrorists? Are the Shia terrorists?

Perhaps we are the real enemy. Pre-emption is a bad policy, and if we continue this folly, we will fall. History is litered with countries who tried to over expand their reach, and are no more

[Erika]

7. W's moral compass isn't there

Other than profits for his buds.

Totally enabled by ushbots.

[madmark]

8. the analysis is just stupid; al quada will continue to thrive where they

get funding, spiritual support, and manpower which is most of the muslim third world; and of that world Iran will be one of Al Quada's least favorite places because of the dominant shiite clergy in control. The Iraq War is an Al Quada recruiting poster, tactical incubator, and haven creator. And even if the US somehow transformed the place into a jeffersonian democracy, and there was as much Al Quada there as there was under Saddam, which was essentially none, Al Quada would just continue with its operations elswhere in the muslim world. Of course this scenario will never happen, but even if it did what do we get out of it? Nothing. I am an amateur and this is simple and clear as day to me. Who are the fucking professionals making these horrendous judgments that O'Riley's analysis parrots? Is Brent Scowcroft the last of a competent species, and now we are stuck with fuck ups who cant think straight from here on out?

[JohnnyRingo]

9. Fair and Ballanced, Independent voter, Mr middle-class, Bill O'Reilly

is blaming Clinton for the war's failure?

And he has the ignorance to blame the rebellion to oust The US on "terrorists"?

As if Terrorists came from all over and moved into timeshares and condos to attack our troops.
As if no one notices tens of thousands of new people in town shopping for IEDs.
As if the Iraqi sec forces have to cover their faces because these "carpetbagging, out of town terrorists" will recognize them and kill their families.

Bill O'Rielly works the senior crowd for Republican votes. It's his job.
Fear is his most effective tool.

[Old and In the Way]

10. What did BO say when Clinton bombed the Sudanese factories?

I'll bet anything he thought that was an awful idea. He's another blowhard Republican moral relativist.

[magellan]

11. O'Leilly has his head so far up this administration's ass

...I do believe he's suffocating in the vacuum between Bush**'s ears.

If the terrorists lose in Iraq, they'll be confined to a very few places on this earth, Iran and Syria being the two primary sanctuaries.

Oh really. What ever happened to "al Qaeda operates in more than 50 countries - in Europe and North America, as well as the Middle East and Asia. It is believed to form loose operational alliances across continents with a wide range of similarly-minded groups."

But here's the key question: Can America win the war on terror if it does not strike first?

No, here's the key question: doesn't pre-emptive warfare -- and our track record of enthusiastically attacking countries that have nothing to do with terrorism (we're 0 for 1) -- make the US the terrorist?

Consider that the Clinton administration had a number of chances to kill bin Laden and decimate Al Qaeda before 9/11.

Consider that Bush** spent most of the 7 months before 9/11 on vacation, ignoring anyone or anything that suggested bin Laden was planning to attack the US. Consider that Bush** knew bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora but left it to Pakistan to get him...and they missed. Consider that bin Laden is STILL free after five years of Bush** at the helm.

Also consider that Bush** had the chance to off that wiley terrorist Zarqawi as well, but made a conscious decision not to, allowing Zarqawi to join ideologically with bin Laden while Bush** turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground for them.

If you ever decide you want to shoot more than blanks, Bill, try the truth.

[bridgit]

12. i never...ever watch him...not even a bet...

:shrug:

[slaveplanet]

13. consider letting your viewers know

Consider that the Clinton administration had a number of chances to kill bin Laden and decimate Al Qaeda before 9/11.

That had Clinton taken those chances , He likely would have taken out members of the UAE royal family and destabilized the middle east.

The Emir has been know to Falcon hunt w/Bin Ladin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=526548

[Warren DeMontague]

14. So Where's "Far Im Furious"? Shit, I hope he stays there.

;)

[Lefty48197]

15. Why does he refer to himself as "talking points"

that's weirder than falafals in the shower.

[LisaLynne]

16. Attacking America's Enemies First ...

and our friends second! Or maybe ourselves second and our friends third ... Oh, decisions, decisions. BTW, O'Lielly is a tool.

[zanne]

17. The worse thing you can do to Bill O'Reilly is...

ignore him.

[johnfunk]

18. I can't wait for O'Reilly's forthcoming book...

Falafel, bay-bee!