Letters to the Editor
-
Regime change
If it means killing Bill O'Reilly to bring about regime change, I'm all for it.
-
That's Incredible!
Remember the TV shows, "That's Incredible!" and "Real People"? Absolutely execrable T.V., but very popular at the time. Of course, these days people look back on that stuff (and a lot of other stuff on TV in the late 70s/early 80s) and quite rightly laugh their asses off.
I look forward to the day when we listen to old clips of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their kindred nincompoops and find ourselves wondering how in the world anyone ever took them seriously. It'll be like hearing about the way people reacted with fear when they saw the first moving picture of a train coming toward the camera - we won't be able to understand it at all.
Those are the days I long for.
-
O'Reilly and Other Right Wing Apologist
I can hear their defense now. Something like: He only said he would run Iraq like Saddam ran it. He didn't say Hussein. That was added by the writer and that's why it's in brackets. He meant Saddam Johnson. A guy Bill grew up with in the hood.
And then anyone who wrote that will be fired by their editor.
-
How dictators start
I imagine that O'Reilly's sort of plan is how many evil dictatorships start: "We have no choice but to crack down hard for a few weeks, to impose order at all costs. Once our enemies have been defeated, then we can worry about niceties like 'civil liberties' and 'rule of law'". And inevitably the "few weeks" stretch on into months, then years, and eventually any initial impulse towards a democratic society is forgotten. Meanwhile, the combination of constant fear, daily violence, and absolute power makes the dictator's actions become more and more draconian, which fuels the chaos the dictator is ostensibly fighting.
It's quite likely that if you travelled back in time and showed the 20-year-old Saddam Hussen what he would be like later on, he would be quite shocked at his own future actions. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and bad judgment.
So I'm glad that O'Reilly isn't in charge in Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence that the people who are in charge are any better.
-Jeremy
-
Wait! I'm confused...
...isn't getting rid of Saddam one of the many reasons we went over there? So, O'Reilly just wants to switch one ugly narcissist out for another?
Eh, sounds like a Bushy....
-
A teachable moment for the unteachable
This is very sad but also very educational.
The same people who wanted to liberate the country from Saddam are now starting to feel some type of sympathy for the man's techniques.
O'Reilly added that what he proposed is 'not the kind of country I want for Iraq,' but reasoned that 'you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going.'"
But once you get used to the stabilized situation, so to speak, how will you ever regain the confidence in freedom necessary to remove the restrictions that created the stability?
In the process of stabilization, you're going to kill and imprison people whose families will swear bloody revenge on you, and you'll spend the rest of your life making sure they don't carry it out.
And there goes your confidence in freedom and your willingness to moderate your policies.
If O'Reilly only had a brain that he was willing to USE -- he could learn something from listening to himself blather.
-
A humble request...
If you live in Ramadi and happen to see Bill O'Reilly out and about at 6:59PM, looking for a place to duck into, please do us all a favor here in America: Lock your doors.
-
A Kinder, Gentler, Bill O'Reilly
At least he didn't threaten to shoot the Iraqis "between the head" as he once threatened to do to Al Franken.
-
Well, DUH!
I'm not defending Sadam- Okay? Nor am I defending the choices which got us into this situation, Okay?
I'm just observing that, as ruler of Iraq for many years, Saddam probably did what he judged necessary to keep it relatively intact, orderly, and under his control. And that was to act the part of a brutal dictator. Now we are the power behind the nominal Iraqi government, why should we expect to succeed if we behave any diferrently?
-
The solution
Saddam isn't too busy these days. Give him his old job back, and let's get the hell out of there.
-
Swapping one dictator for another
So, O'Reilly just wants to switch one ugly narcissist out for another?
That would be an improvement on US Cold War policy of assassinating or deposing democratically elected but left-leaning leaders in favor of US-friendly brutal military dictators.
-
Worked for Bush!
> you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going
Isn't that basically what Bush did when he took power? Overthrew the legitimate leader (Al Gore), suspended civil liberties "temporarily" to get us through a crisis (the neverending War on Terror), long enough to get security in place (a Berlin Wall along the border and an NSA agent on the other end of every phone conversation).
-
O'Riley and Iraq
So O'Riley would run Iraq just like Saddam? Interesting, though alarming, for -as we were told ad nauseam - he was the bad guy, the evil one. And as we all know, Saddam now finally stands trial for the forced expulsion, torture and murder of Shia Muslims in response to a failed assassination attempt against him in 1982. O'Riley needs to remember we do NOT do such things, 'we are the good guys'! We do not jail, torture and/or kill our opponents....on the other hand, oh well, never mind!
B Kavanaugh
-
Sad Because It Was Always True
From the start of the war, it was pretty clear that the best we could hope for is a new and improved Hussein (improved insofar as he would be pro-US, just like the original Saddam before he went astray).
Any notion that we would get someone better than Hussein (beyond proximity to US agendas) was pure fantasy. What's disturbing about O'Reilly's statements is that there isn't even any irony about this broadening realization.