Mr. O’Reilly seems most embittered by the ingratitude of the Iraqi people. In a way, I suppose this is understandable, in that he believes, or dearly wants to believe, that the invasion of Iraq was a gesture of armed altruism: we bring the advances of Western. Civ. to the one Sitting in Darkness, and they spurn our gifts.
Maybe it was the overtly assertive, even aggressive, insistence in proferring this wonderful blessing. Perhaps they might have preferred the option of polite refusal. “Liberal, parliamentary bourgeois democracy? No, thanks, really, not today, we’ll get back to you if we change our mind. No, we wouldn’t dream of imposing like that.”
Its nonsense, of course. The invasion of Iraq as liberation is an excercise in retro-fitting reality. The previous bogus rationale cannot be marketed, a new! improved! bogus rationale is therefore required.
By way of illustration, I offer the following: (PDF format)
which is either an authentic representation of the marketing strategy for pain, horror and death, or the most brilliant example of Swiftian satire in the young century.
I guess that’s a reasonable interpretation of the piece, although i don’t credit O’Reilly with thinking much about the syntactic logic of his own thoughts.
What he also fails to appreciate, in his mindless blathering, os that there might be a third way. Sure, some attempts at winning hearts and minds do fail, but that doesn’t mean that all such attempts must fail. All it means is that the policy in Iraq has been one big fuck-up.
Even though i disagreed with the pre-emptive strike, i was at least happy to see Saddam Hussein out of power. And there were plenty of Iraqis who welcomed the Americans. But it’s the policy since then that has turned many Iraqis against the US-led coalition. There have been interviews with many Iraqis who expressed gratitude when the US-led forces entered last year, but who are royally pissed off at the way things have gone since then.
Sure, there were always going to be some fanatics who were going to bomb and shoot whoever was in charge, but the battle for hearts and minds could have been smoothed considerably by a better though-out post-war strategy that included UN oversight and less overt US control. Of course, now the same people who fucked everything up in Iraq–Bush and his administration–are trying to convince us that they’re the only ones who can be trusted to clean up their own mess.
And this is what O’Reilly fails to appreciate. He blithely assumes that America went in with only the best of intentions, and it’s only the ignorant natives who have caused the whole house of cards to come crashing down. I’m sorry, but the history of US interventions does not allow for American professions of benevolent generosity to be taken at face value.
Mm, well, I’ve definitely heard of/read self-described “conservatives” who very definitely hold to a “kill-em-all-let-God-sort-em-out” strategy, mocking Islam as a backwards, war-like religion that doesn’t deserve the consideration. Of course, whether these people are “conservatives” or “loonies” is the key question.
It’s typically arrogant and completely myopic of O’Reilly to call an occupied country “ungrateful” for being occupied.
I also read his comments about bombing as being pretty broad since he did use the phrase “Muslim world.”
O’Reilly has become so unhinged and prone to incoherent violent rages in recent months that I can’t really stand to watch him either more. I think the guy is literally mental ill.
Whaddaya wanna bet his comments are being translated and used as propaganda against the US? Talk about your post-modernist irony: after all this shit about how anti-war commentary offers comfort to our enemies, the guy who’s really putting our troops at risk is…Bill O’Reilly.
So when our dear departed comrade December made such remarks, and the lot of you shat your pants and called him all sorts of nasty names, it was A-OK. To even suggest that terrorists, who thanked the antiwar protesters, were being morally bolstered by said protesters, by golly, that’s just unspeakable!
However, when you do it, it’s merely ‘post modernist irony’.
Mr 2000 said
If I jabbed Bill O’Reilly in the eye with a sharp stick as a favor to him, do you think he’d appreciate it? If not, would that be an indication that I should’ve bombed him instead?
Rather, I think O’Reilly would go “AAAARRRRGHHHH!!! MY EYE! YOU STABBED MY EYE!!! YOU FUCKING PSYCHO!!! MY EYE!!! OH GOD SOMEONE GET ME TO A DOCTOR!!! MY EYE!!! MY EYE!!! GOD THE PAIN!!!”
Something like that.
~ In Memory to Michael O’Donohue
Does this include standing in line to vote? I don’t enjoy standing in line to vote, and I don’t really have to, but I’ll sure as hell do it for chance to cast my vote for Kerry, or, more accurately, against Bush and all his henchmen.
Who’s “they”? What do you recommend - arrest, shutting down his show, assassination?
As, once again, we see cries for censorship coming, not from any Republican, but from the fringe elements of the Left. Not to mention that Reeder, of all people, characterizes the idea that “you’re not going to win in Iraq” as bullshit.
And thanks, Brutus, for pointing out the latest hypocrisy of the lunatic Left on the SDMB. I can now get on with my day.
Am I the only one who noticed that O’Reilly actually seems to be endorsing the policy that Clinton used rather than the one GWB enacted?
I think that hurts my brain.
And this gets to something MUCH missed in the Iraq debates. What was missing from the beginning was proper marketing to the Iraqi people. Start selling them early on the concept of regime change.
Prior to invasion, use leaflet drops over big and small cities aimed at telling the people that we’re coming with the intent of overthrowing Saddam and bringing a representative government to Iraq. STRESS that the choice is theirs once Saddam is gone.
During the invasion broadcast (a la Radio Free Europe) how much we regret any loss of life but keep selling that the payoff is worth the cost.
During the occupation use daily broadcasts on news shows to have interviews with senior military and political figures about what is happening and what’s being done to promote the welfare of the Iraqi people. Keep trotting out tame IGC members to sing the praises of the new Iraq. And make certain you leave time for dissenting opinions so people don’t view the media as a shill.
Really, the administration is composed of business types. You think they’d have some marketing people on staff.
Minty, I see your POV, but O’Reilly’s comments didn’t seem as measured to me as they did to you.
Reeder,as your continued posting history shows, we don’t “shut assholes up” in this country. You have lost your credibility as an anti-Bushnik by advocating the same censorship of your opponents as Bushco. You are Bushco with a goatee (Star Trek reference alert) because you show the same contempt for reason and refusal to compromise as the most hardline Pubbie.
Shodan and Brutus, it’s not enough to sniff superciliously at the lunatic Left; it’s incumbent upon you as the voice of the GOP here to stand up and say that O’Reilly does not speak for you and that you are disgusted by the idea of carpet bombing innocent people.
Sure we do. We, as a whole, decide that their opinions are pure crap, we stop watching them on the tee-vee, and we make sure that airing them is not profitable for the network, which then pulls them.
Want to shut O’Reilly up? Change the fucking channel.
It’s rather obvious that O’Reilly doesn’t speak for me. (I can’t speak for Shodan, but I would presume the same) Never defended the guy, never will. At best, I occasionally point out the irony of how much attention his detractors shower on him, who as a ‘media entity’, thrives on said attention. Regardless, I don’t quite understand why O’Reilly is considered a mouthpeice for the GOP. He does not possess the True Faith.
As for ‘carpet bombing innocent people’, come on now. We don’t carpet bomb anymore. Just ain’t done. Even the B-52s are used to drop guided munitions. It’s cheaper, and more effective.
