He’s interviewing Michael Savage tonight and apparently Michael is going to tell Bill and the American populace what is wrong with the United States and how to fix it.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But that’s not what this pitting is about.
This pitting is about O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo from yesterday. Handy dandy link
The gist of it is that we are in the middle of World War III. O’Reilly uses that phrase four times.
What’s wrong with using that phrase?
Well, in the very same Talking Points Memo O’Reilly says, "Talking Points believes that Congress should formally declare war, thereby crystallizing the issue for everybody to see."
But how can you call it World War III if war hasn’t been formally declared?
Also, I think the previous two world wars involved a lot more nations/countries then have entered the present action.
But O’Reill has never let anything as inconvienient as the facts or the truth get in his way.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Back a few years ago, Bill used to be an observant and, I daresay, sometimes even insightful commentator. But these days he has gone totally nucking futs.
There’s plenty of legitimate stuff about which to Pit Bill O’Reilly, including such Pit standards as “being a blowhard,” “being factually challenged,” “being a moron” and “impersonating a journalist.”
But on this he’s right. It is World War III. Heck, if you believe James Woolsey (which I do and you should) it’s World War IV (he counts the cold war). The U.S. and its allies are currently conducting overt operations in three theatres I can think of offhand, and the enemy has conducted offensive operations on every continent save Antartica.
Sure, some large, important countries are late so far in terms of being full participants. But the same could be said of the U.S. during the first two wars.
In response to Miller, that’s a fair and tricky question. One is tempted to say “al Qaeda,” but the war is much broader than that. The difficulty in putting a simple name and a definable geographic location on the enemy does not, however, make them less the enemy or this any less a war. It just makes it trickier.
“Which I do and you should”?? Well, shoot, manny, if you say so, then it must be true.
I hope you’re not counting Iraq, which wasn’t a ‘front’ in the WoT until we went in and made it viable for terrorists.
With total casualties numbering somewhat less than our war in Iraq, and way less than those in places like Liberia or Sierra Leone, let alone Rwanda or Burundi. I’m gonna call it World War 3.04, if that’ll make you happy.
So we’ve been noticing: it’s Al Qaeda and whoever else is a target of the theoreticians on McNamara’s…er, Rumsfeld’s team. Syria next, or Iran? Why not Pakistan? Oh, that’s right; they’re on our side; never mind that they helped the North Koreans and quite likely the Iranians with their nuke programs.
Sure, we’re fighting wars all over the place. But where and why we’re fighting has long since lost any coherence. It’s become the War to Re-Elect Bush Because It Would Be Unpatriotic To Do Otherwise.
My favorite recent comment of O’Reilly’s is “Famous people have no protection in this country” (quoted in the N.Y. Times).
So when other famous people are disagreeing with you, they’re “bad Americans”? (a phrase he has actually used) - but when you’re not getting “protection” via silly lawsuits, you come whining to us?
Blame Walter Winchell. Winchell is the guy who pretty much destroyed the idea that famous people have ANY right to privacy in America… and, ultimately, anywhere else.
As to WWIII… well… I’d been thinking about this.
WWIII has plainly not started yet. Not every continent is at war. But I think that future historians may well comment that this particular time frame constituted “the prelude to all-out world war.” Assuming that prophecy comes true, that is. I sure don’t see much cure for world terrorism ASIDE from a truly ugly, all-out nasty-assed world war that makes the one in Iraq look like a schoolyard fight over lunch money…
