I think you need to get a dictionary and look up the word “scorn”. O’Reilly was simply reporting what is factually correct. She (Sheehan) has indeed thrown in with the most radical elements in this country. Also, many of these radical elements hate their country right now, and blame Bush for everything.
O’Reilly’s statements are: A.) True and correct. B.) Not scorn.
And the verdict is: … Idiot.
All of you who picked Illiterate, thanks for playing.
BTW, apropos prior argument on this thread about cheerleding others to kill or die from the sidelines, the following article expresses my feelings much more lucidly than I could ever hope to accomplish – however, it’s got nothing on me when it comes to actually engaging the 101st Keyboarders in cyberwar. 
Moral logic of common sacrifice
So, those of you that are willing to die for the “vital national interests” found in Iraq, you know exactly what to do. After all, I’ve already shown just how ineffective firing bytes over the Internet really is.
Wait a minute… Michael Moore and MoveOn.Org are the most radical elements in this country? The most? Maybe I just haven’t been paying attention, but I don’t recall MoveOn.Org bombing any federal buildings lately, and I was not aware that Michael Moore had been definitively named as the Anthrax mailer.
Are they outside the mainstream for this country? I wouldn’t argue otherwise. But they’re a far cry from the “most radical element” in this country, more’s the pity.
Yep, your 1800 or so posts chock full of bytes have demonstrated that well.
And I wonder if you’d say this kind of crap to me, sir, seeing as I am a veteran of a foreign war myself.
This “chickenhawk” bullshit is a rhetorical cop-out. Heavens knows left-wingers will embrace someone who has shunned military service, so long as that person is spouting a line agreeable to them.
I have a right to support this war, and it is not found in my own veteran status. It conveys to me as a citizen, a voter, and a concerned individual.
“This ‘support the troops’ bullshit is a a rhetorical cop-out. Heavens knows right-wingers will destroy someone who’s made sacrifices for the war, so long as that person is spouting a line disagreeable to them.”
Glad to see you’ve been paying attention.
Damn straight I would, sir. Past service in prior conflict, does not by itself absolve you from re-enlisting in a time of need – specially if you believe and support the “cause.”
Once again, the bolded part of my cite makes the point quite clear:
So, question is, are you?
No it isn’t. It is simply pointing out the obvious.
Strawman. I am not speaking of military service per-se – to me, that’s rather irrelevant as I hold no special admiration for the Armed Forces themselves. However, if push comes to shove, and my nation is involved in a conflict which I find just and unavoidable, you can bet your ass I’d be standing in line asking if my old, decrepit self could be of any use.
Moral logic. Just like the article says.
Sure you do. But by the same token, so do others to point out the inherent hypocresy found in said position.
I found a page that has the full O’Reilly discussion about Sheehan. This is the night before Sheehan was scheduled to go on the factor.
O’Reilly is sympathetic to Sheehan, but does say that he believes she is being used by the far left elements that she is with now, and that her story has been inconsistent.
Also, I noticed that O’Reilly is specifically talking about a Sam Hussani, the United for Peace and Justice Coalition, and Code Pink led by a Mrs Benjamin when he says that Sheehan has thrown in with “some of the most radical elements in this country.” He isn’t talking about Moveon or Moore. I’m not familiar enough with those groups to know if that is accurate. It’s possible that he’s being hyperbolic. In any case, I don’t think it’s fair to compare those groups to terrorists. I’d say he’s talking about the most radical political elements in the country, which does seem accurate based on the little I’ve heard about Code Pink.
Sheehan’s response to O’Reilly’s analysis was to cancel her appearance on his program and to call him an “Obscenity to Humanity” and also mentioned that The “mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government,” she said, and without the Internet, “we would be a fascist state.”
Also, Bill O’Reilly’s site has a new talking points memo up:
His analysis is reasonable, and right on the money, IMO.
Whatever works for you, dude. Oh, and by the way, just to spare you some research: I’m a Dane (as in Denmark) - go have some fun digging for historical slurs regarding my nationality.
Actually, and all silliness aside, it seems to me that Spain has the right idea: Elected officials who decide to join (or start) needless wars and spin terror attacks to further their own political goals do not deserve to be reelected, they deserve to be thrown on the scrapheap of history. Would that a few more US voters had gotten that message a little earlier.
[Helmer]
O Swedish watchtowers!
With plutonium we will force the Danes to their knees.
Here, Denmark. That out of chalk and water.
There, Sweden. Hewn out of granite.
Danish
Scum
Danish scum!
[/Helmer]
I kid! I kid Spiny Norman!
OK, granted: As a nation, we have to take responsibility for releasing Lars von Trier on an unsuspecting world.
Responsibility? You mean credit! 
I agree with Spiny’s post. If Mrs. Sheehan’s activities change people’s minds and people vote those into office who will get us out of this ill-conceived quagmire, then that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Grieving mother, or political activist? It doesn’t matter. She’s entitled to her opinion, and she’s entitled to promote it. It’s people like Mrs. Sheehan who are forces of change in this country, and that’s how it should be.
If you think that is disgusting, you should take a look at the people posting on the Hannity board. One of them even suggested that her son may have “put himself in harms way” because he was embarrassed by his mother.
Don’t forget, according to Stephe her husband’s also thinking of a divorce; also, as he has pointed out, she doesn’t appear to have a job. It’s hard to ignore these hard-hitting facts. In fact, she’s probably not even sorry her son died.
Scylla and Shodan: I know you people on the right-ish side don’t all march in lock-step; I respect your opinion, but I’m curious- do you think Stephe’s attempted character assasination helps?
This thread has gone on for five pages now, and no one has bothered to explain to me what I asked on page one - How is Sheehan a puppet for Michael Moore?
To address the question from the quote above, how is it that these things aren’t smears?
While many of the details regarding these stories might be factually accurate, I think most people would agree that discrediting someone is as much about what does and does not get reported as it is about getting the facts right. Why else would O’Reilly, Drudge, etc. believe that these were legit news stories if they didn’t have an agenda? The Republican noise machine understands this quite well, and they know that with every non-story they can promote to discredit Sheehan, that sows more seeds of doubt in the minds of the American people. Pretty soon, people will get tired of hearing about Cindy Sheehan. And when they do, the things that will stick in their minds the most will be that there was some sort of controversy over whether her family really supported what she was doing, and that she had changed her mind about her opinion of the President somewhere along the way.
It’s a smear. Or, rather, a series of them.
[QUOTE=bizzwire]
Don’t forget, according to Stephe her husband’s also thinking of a divorce; also, as he has pointed out, she doesn’t appear to have a job. It’s hard to ignore these hard-hitting facts. In fact, she’s probably not even sorry her son died.
[QUOTE]
“Thinking of a divorce?” Nope. According to The Smoking Gun, he’s filed for divorce already. I’d say he’s well beyond the “thinking about it” stage.
And, yes…I’d like to know how she’s supporting herself these days. Who’s feeding her? What’s wrong with wanting to know who her supporters are? If it’s Michael Moore, just say so. What’s the big deal?
Just to be clear, I wasn’t talking about Drudge, only O’Reilly. I watched the Sheehan segment on O’Reilly, but I never read Drudge. I couldn’t tell you what Drudge did or didn’t say.
Well, I just got finished watching Headball, and Chris Matthews brought up those exact same items while interviewing her live. So, Chris is now part of the “Republican noise machine”? That would be news to him, and a lot of folks.
Chris actually went a bit farther, and asked if she’d be doing this if her son had died in Afghanistan*. Now that’s a brutal question to ask a grieving mom, but his show is called Hardball. He also asked if she planned to run for political office.
You really need to look at what the whole of the media are doing before you jump on O’Reilly on this one. I don’t see his reporting as being out of the mainstream at all.
*She said “yes”, btw.
HARDBALL. :smack:
Well she may have received as much as $500,000 in death benefits. Out of tax payer dollars. You may be paying for her visit to Crawford. Hehe.