Bill O'Reilly Reports for Duty
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
The other night I saw Bill O'Reilly interviewing Michael Moore. As one would expect from such a collision of blowhards, more heat than light was generated. But there was one memorable moment: Moore asked O'Reilly whether he would be willing to sacrifice the life of his son or daughter to secure Fallujah. O'Reilly refused to answer; but he did say that he would readily give his own life to secure Fallujah.
So let me get this straight. If the insurgents in Fallujah announced that they would surrender on condition that they first be allowed to behead O’Reilly -- and if U.S. intelligence sources assured him that the insurgents’ promises were reliable -- would he happily turn himself over? Really?
If he would, then he's plumb loco. If he wouldn't, then he should stop lying.
comments powered by Disqus
Jason Pappas - 8/3/2004
The idea is to die in battle – not just die. The Jihadist wants to die killing the Infidels. This prospect galvanizes the religious warrior and gives them hope. On the other hand, being killed while sitting on the toilet is pathetic. Thus, you’ll see the Jihadists angry at the deaths of their comrades when Israelis target their cars in traffic and bomb the hell out of them. There’s no glory in just dying - it's dying in battle.
Give O’Reilly his due. He’s willing to wage Holy War. Just stay away from 6th Avenue & 48th Street here in New York City during the evenings!
Arnold Shcherban - 8/2/2004
I can hardly find words to express my sirprise and distress.
We CANNOT accuse someone of LYING, no matter how "appalling" their lie is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????
What's is this? A Martian's mumbling or a new
polemical IMPERATIVE just invented by you?
M.D. Fulwiler - 7/31/2004
Yes, how many neocons have actually gone over to Iraq to help out? None, you say? That's odd, considering the future of Western civilization is supposed to be at stake. But that doesn't mean they are hypocrites or liars, no sir! It doesn't mean they'd prefer to blow hot air in their fashionable Washington and New York apartments while collecting a nice paycheck, rather than serving their country in its dire hour of need.
Arthur Silber - 7/31/2004
Why, Roderick, you surprise and distress me. "Lying"?? "LYING"??!!!! I am certain you know that such an accusation is beyond the pale, and completely outside the bounds of civilized discourse. No matter how vast the divergence between a statement and what the reality might be in any case, we simply cannot and MUST not accuse someone of "lying." I am appalled. I think you must retire to a designated corner for an indeterminate period, to contemplate the incomprehensible nature of your error.
By the way, did you see the item at the Antiwar.com.blog, about Mark Kleiman's posts concerning your entries and Randy Barnett's re libertarianism, war, etc.? I'm sure you would find them of interest.
- New Hampshire professors at odds with library over discarded books
- Troubled history fuels Japan-China tension
- Independent Scotland's last gasp forgotten in Panama jungle
- LBJ was the ‘most-threatened president in American history’
- New exhibit at the World War I Museum ... Over by Christmas: August-December 1914
- Ken Burns on Colbert to promote his new documentary, "The Address"
- UC Santa Barbara History Department featuring a series on the Great Society at 50
- Historians are trying to recover censored texts from World War I poets
- Diane Ravitch blasts the NYT for failing to understand the controversy over Common Core
- Mormon history professors debate atheists in bid to foster greater understanding