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.
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.
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!!!
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 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.
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.
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.