Bill O'Reilly says he wants to be just like Saddam

In one of Bildo’s latest rants, I think he’s revealed more about himself and his lack of mental stability than he probably really wanted to:

Man, that would be a great campaign speech, wouldn’t it? “You get out of line and you’re DEAD, motherfuckers!”

This guy seems to spend a lot of time fantasizing about shooting people between the eyes (or “between the head” in the case of Al Franken). I started to wonder a couple of years ago whether O’Reilly might literally be mentally ill. The more time goes on, the less I wonder.

Here I am thinking “Our own, illustrious, wonderful, organizational man Bildo said all of that?” And I was confused.

Then I realized you mean that other guy from TV. The one who lies all the time. Big diff.

Nobody’s that loony. The only commentator who I think really believes their shit is Bob Novak.

Well I’m glad others feel Billy-O is a lunatic. Oh oops… I’m sorry thats a little too tame for this forum…

Well I’m glad others feel Bill-Fucking-O is a raving fuck-tard…

Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles.

  • Jack London

I say we grant his wish. Throw him in a bag, fly him to Baghdad, and drop him on the corner of Liberty Street and Freedom Way (formerly Saddam Road and Saddam Avenue) with a sash that says “President of Iraq” around his shoulders, and let Bill take care of the rest.

O’Reilly does have an eye-rolling tendancy to grossly oversimplify complex issues like this. There are plenty of ways to better enforce curfews (if they’re needed) without shooting violators on sight.

He’d be leading the insurgency within 20 minutes. Megalomaniacs are the same no matter what their ideology.

Then Bill O’Reilly becomes the #1 Enemy of America and eventually gets bombed to bits. I’d laugh, then I’d cheer. I don’t see a problem with this outcome.

You’re so fucking overreacting. Did he say he was going to gas women and children? Did he say that you goat-felching pigfucker? Because that’s what sub-human 3rd world dictators do, they gas people. Sarin is not 7.62mm jacketed hollow-point round. There’s is a huge fucking difference between shooting a woman between the eyes who’s breaking curfew and gassing her during daylight. Can’t you fucking see that, you knee-jerk America-bashing fuckwit!!!1!11!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What? No slew of posts informing us what BillO really meant? Not even the people that assure us that Rush “I put the Heroin in Hillbilly Heroin” Limbaugh is actually putting on a big act?

Nobody?

-Joe

Well, there’s a couple of problems with that. Firstly, it’s not like this conclusion is a result of suggestion; he did come right out and make clear what he was talking about. The only real defense is to say he was being entirely sarcastic or joking; i’m sure that’ll be the position taken.

The most interesting thing is that is Bill isn’t joking, to defend his words is to say terrorism has risen as a result of the war. If Bill is correct, or his words are understandable, then that points out that Saddam was much more able to control any terrorist threat than the coalition forces are; and if that’s true, the rationale for going to war is totally underminded.

Not if you ask the woman…

Holy fuck, that hadn’t occurred to me at all. Thank you. I’m such a fucking ass.

Maybe, like Ann Coulter, he’s just a brilliant satirist and us humorless liberals are too dense to get the joke.

Not really, since he seems to think that the “shoot to kill” order would need to be in effect for only a few months-- until the gov’t is stablized. Now, one might argue that he’s being naive in thinking two or three months will make any difference, but that’s a separate matter.

Plus, Bush’s argument in going to war wasn’t that Saddam could or couldn’t control terrorist threats, but that he was in league with some terrorists.

It would if the person saying it was Samuel L. Jackson. :cool:

The point still stands that Bill thinks Saddam’s methods would be effective and advisable to use; even though he believes (as you say) that after this results in stability that the killings could be stopped, it doesn’t diminish that he feels that for a while they’re acceptable.

I wasn’t actually thinking about that rationale, but the “we need to save the people there” basis; Bill’s pointing out that Saddam’s internal policies for keeping Iraqi terrorist actions down against him (Saddam, not Bill) could be used by the coalition forces to keep terrorist actions against them down. By using those tactics ourselves, we aren’t any better than he was; and so the rationale of saving the Iraqi populace doesn’t hold up.

Granting O’Reilly his wish would give him a sudden realization of what a War On Christianity really looks like. He’d know that only briefly, until he became just another Bhagdad bodybag. :rolleyes:

Right, he is saying that they are acceptable on a temporary basis.

I didn’t read your other post that way, but if that’s what you meant, it still doesn’t undermine the rational for the war. Using 1 of Saddam’s “evil tactics” for several months wouldn’t mean that we had suppressed the Iraqis in a manner equivalent to Saddam. In fact, I don’t even know that Saddam used curfews (with shoot-to-kill orders for violators) to control his people, but if he did, that wasn’t the most brutal of his practices.

Please note that I’m not trying to defend either the war or O’Reilly’s suggestion. I’m just pointing out that you haven’t made a case against the rational that Bush used in going to war.

As Biggirl mentioned, I do hope that you were using a nickname for Mr. O’Reilly, rather than a slight misspelling of my screen name here.

Whatever you may say about my mental stability (which does wax and wane at times), I don’t recall casting myself in the role of meglomanical dictator all that much lately.