Bill O’Reilly says if he was in charge of Iraq
By on Jun 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Viva the Islamic Republic of Iraq!
June 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pmWhat a waste of a human life BO is. I puke everytime I read that people actually listen to his show in large numbers. He’s got a room-temperature IQ at best.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pmO’Reilly’s Iraq
Exit – one dictator
June 19th, 2006 at 4:02 pmEnter – one dictaster
So then why did he support the multi-billion dollar and multi-thousand life war to remove Saddam and replace it with a theorcracy?
June 19th, 2006 at 4:05 pmMaybe we should put him in charge of Iraq. If that were the case, I would actually condone “regime change”.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:07 pmOK, let me get it straight.
The right didn’t like how Iraq was run, or thought it could be run better. So they took out Saddam, and occupied. Now, that we are in there, we find out Saddam was right. The only way to run a country full of headchopping barbarians was with an iron fist. So hindsight is always 20/20. Talk about having to learn the hard way, which is a sign of immaturity, or flat out stupidity.
I would let BO go run it.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:07 pmAs I read it, I first thought O’Reilly was simply playing devils advocate, trying to illustrate to us what he thinks the leaders should do if they want to get the country the way they’d like it.
But the more I read it, the more I do believe O’Reilly also believes that the ways he described the running of the country, are ways he actually agrees with! It’s amazing to read.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:08 pm#4
June 19th, 2006 at 4:12 pmCause Saddam wasn’t killing in the name of freedom. He was a brutal dictator. We had to invade another country that didn’t do anything to us to show how it is done properly. When this administration paints flags on the bombs we drop to kill people its spreading the democracy mixed along with blood, guts, eyes, limbs, brains….
He’s got a room-temperature IQ at best.
Comment by DrSinker
A very cold room…
June 19th, 2006 at 4:15 pmWait a minute. I thought O’Lielly was anti-death penalty. Now he’s going to shoot people for being outside after curfew? So in Billy’s world, Saddam gets a life sentence. But if you’re an Iraqi who is outside at 7:02 p.m., you’re going to get shot between the eyes.
I give up trying to figure this bozo out.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:20 pmNoam Chomsky predicted that Saddam would be replaced by someone just like Saddam, but who we liked more. He observed that to keep the country whole (and arbitrarily defined, ignoring historical and cultural realities) you can’t run it any other way.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmGreat.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIraq’s waiting.
Bush needs an endgame.
Let’s send Bill over to run the place.
We can pay him a good wage, we’ll have an exit,
and the entire Middle East will be a better place to live.
Thanks, Bill
I mean it…Bill, America needs your iron fist right now.
How’s tomorrow morning sound?
Comment by dlet — June 19, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Yes you’re right… And let’s not forgetto include the war being santioned by god… God Bless America and all that self-righteous propaganda….
I posted something a few days ago about people being less inclined to disagree with a leader who invokes religion… Something KKKarl Rove undoubtedly knew and encouraged the King to spout as often as possible…
June 19th, 2006 at 4:28 pmAnd best of all, we wouldn’t have his show on TV anymore!
June 19th, 2006 at 4:30 pmTo think that Bill could
do something, now that’s a miracle in itself!!!!
June 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pmNoam Chomsky is a prescient man.
The Decider did not understand that culture has a large role in the type of government that arrises in an area. He seemed to be missing the realities of the Middle Eastern way of life (lots of violence) and failed to understand that Democracy does not work everywhere.
I get so irritated with these people who think there is ONE right way (theirs) and it is their divine purpose in life to force themselves upon everyone else. When a man does that to a woman, it is called rape. When a Superpower does it to a smaller and physically weaker nation, it is called ‘Liberation’. Now I understand why the neocons argue so much over semantics. It’s all they have.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:34 pmUS soldiers charged over Iraqi deaths
The US army has charged three soldiers in connection with the murders of three Iraqi men who were in military custody in Iraq in early May, military officials said tonight.
The Multinational Corps-Iraq said three members of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division had been charged in connection with the deaths of three male detainees during an operation near the Thar Thar canal in the southern Salahuddin province on May 9.
The soldiers face charges including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, communicating a threat, and obstructing justice. It was not immediately clear whether all three faced the murder charge.
A military statement said the commander of the unit involved had ordered an inquiry on the day the three men died. The soldiers are in custody pending a hearing to determine whether they should face a court martial.
The case comes amid investigations into other cases of alleged abuses by US troops in Iraq, including the murder of 24 civilians in Haditha last November.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:55 pmIt’s a shame O’reilly never enlisted so he’d have given himself the opportunity to rise thru the ranks and become a leader.
So O’reilly, it’s not you, it never will be you, so just continue sitting there with that falafel up your butt and dream on.
June 19th, 2006 at 4:56 pmGreat! Let’s bring home the troops and send B.O. there.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:11 pmJust who is surprised that BO is a fascist?
June 19th, 2006 at 5:18 pmNobody here.
And, ladies and gentlemen, that’s why Bill O’Reilly is an evil, hypocritical a-hole.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:27 pmDid b.o. realize that he was advocating the regime of the man we just removed? Of course not, b.o. just likes to hear himself bloviate and his stupid lemmings believe his bullshit.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:43 pmIf Bill says it, it must be true. (Imagine a huge coughing fit.) Yes, true, oh-so-very-true. It is not as if O’Reilly is insane, or anything, right?
June 19th, 2006 at 5:43 pmI hate Bill O. I have a plan to get famous. Get on his show. Hell as me a question. Ill clear my throat, … and then stand up and kick his ass on TV. Sure Ill go to jail, but Ill get my 15 minutes of fame and life long satisfaction.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#24 – Herman B. Hayes, you are the greatest.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#25 – I’d buy tickets to see that!
June 19th, 2006 at 6:02 pm#’s 19- 27 are you all related to queef olbermann? Why do you all attack O’reilly he is a liberal.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:07 pmSometimes I think the talking heads on Fox just play a game of one-ups-manship. Lets see who can piss the liberals off this week. Its ridiculous and no sane person could do anyting but laugh at how desperate Bill sounds nowdays.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:16 pmAll Hail President for life, Supreme leader and Generalissimo of the Glorious Armed Forces Bill O’Reilly Dildo-tater of Iraq.
-GSD
June 19th, 2006 at 6:22 pm# 29 pissing off liberals is the new hot sport, it is surpassing baseball as the national pastime, it is wholesome, it is something the whole family can get involved in and it is soooo easy.
June 19th, 2006 at 6:32 pmif you think Bill O sounds desperate you ought to hear all the moonbats… and yourself.
O’Reilly said that?
Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in awhile, I guess.
June 19th, 2006 at 8:35 pmbill o’lilie head of iraq, butt maybe, not head…….I would rather see bush, cheney, rummy, rice and this rabid bunch we have go over there…..Hell, they have just about ruined our country beyond repair, time we moved them over there. Maybe the moon would work for this bunch in our govenment, we could ship them water and bush knows how to drill for oil…..LOL…Not find it but drill for it.
June 19th, 2006 at 9:36 pmHow much more proof do you need — really — that O’Reilly’s not playing with a full deck? In spite of having been a supporter of the War in Iraq, he’s saying that he would have done the same in Saddam Hussein’s place? What a hypocrite…
Then again, what was that quote from Bush? “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier — just so long as I’m the dictator.” So am I supposed to gather that being a dictator really isn’t such a bad thing unless someone else is doing it?
June 20th, 2006 at 2:07 amREAD THIS EVERYBODY
Who’s Against a Ban on
Fissile Material?
In 2005, Mohamed ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his outstanding work in the international control of nuclear weapons. In 2003, ElBaradei had proposed a verifiable ban on the production of weapons-grade fissile material – a positive move that would severely limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
In a vote of the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations (UN), one and only one nation voted against ElBaradei’s proposal – George Bush’s America. In that same vote, Israel abstained, apparently fearing international interference with their own outlaw nuclear weapons program, and Britain abstained in an act of diplomatic fealty to the “special relationship” between Tony Blair and George Bush. The final tally was 147 nations to one with the two abstentions. In a later vote of the entire UN General Assembly, Israel and Britain abstained, while America and Palau voted against ElBaradei’s verifiable ban on fission, and 179 nations voted in favor of his proposal. The final vote on that occasion was 179 in favor, two opposed (U.S. and Palau), and two abstentions (Israel and Britain).
ElBaradei’s proposal would monitor all nuclear fission and guarantee that non-nuclear weapons states would be able to obtain adequate supplies for their nonmilitary usage of enriched plutonium.
One nation has publicly accepted ElBaradei’s proposal: Iran.
In light of this important backstory, it is now perfectly obvious that the so-called “negotiations” among America, its intermediaries, and Iran have been designed to camouflage, distort, and erase the historical record. America and Israel are opposed to ElBaradei’s proposal for a verifiable ban on nuclear fission (Fissban) apparently to prevent the intrusion of international inspectors into the Israeli nuclear industry.
Given the facts of the highly publicized “Iran Plans” for a massive American military intervention against the Iranian nuclear industry and the constant threat of bombing Iran leveled by American authorities from George Bush and Condoleezza Rice to Richard Perle and John Bolton, it is equally clear that American policy is being driven by a Machiavellian political calculus.
Over the past two weeks, there has been a chain of interlocked events: the execution of Zarqawi; the Camp David summit on Iraq; Bush’s secret flight to Baghdad; and the narrow escape of Karl Rove from federal indictment in the Valerie Plame case. These events are fitting into a discernible pattern designed to resuscitate the dying political corpse of the Bush administration in time for the midterm elections this November.
The continuing weakness of the Bush administration, as measured by the president’s approval rating, will embolden those proponents of the unilateral bombardment of Iran as a measure that could precipitate the president’s resurgence. With so little left to lose, Bush may press the button for war in hopes of gaining approval in red-state America, where his political fate will be decided on the Nov. 6.
Darker plans may even be afoot, or so we are led to believe by scholars of the U.S. intelligence industry. The former CIA official Ray McGovern has warned of “staged” atrocities as part of a covert U.S. program for the manufacture of “’synthetic terror.” Robert Woodward warned an academic audience in Texas that the next major atrocity on U.S. soil would reduce 9/11 to a footnote in world history. There are persistent back-channel rumors of Republican Party officials circulating memoranda longing for a return to the heady days after 9/11 to revive the ailing Bush presidency – even at the cost of a new 9/11.
Neither America’s people nor the peoples of other nations are being adequately informed about the history of international planning for the control of fissionable materials, which are the essential ingredients for nuclear weapons. The global media is complicit in the increasing threats to peace by a deeply unpopular American president and his loyal cadre of neoconservative apparatchiks, who now threaten the future of the planet with a holocaust of gigantic proportions.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:01 amLeave Boycott Bill alone, I think his programme is the best comedy on T.V., he is a very funny little man. J. Arno – England.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:26 am