Bill O'Reilly: "How Lieberman's defeat is bad news for you & your family"

[Human Torch]

Lieberman's Defeat
Thursday, August 10, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207786,00.html

How Senator Lieberman's defeat is bad news for you and your family. Stay with me on this one: Lieberman lost because Democrat voters in Connecticut have rejected the Iraq war and his support of it. So they cast their ballots for Ned Lamont, a man who has no idea what the Terror War is all about, judging by his public policy statements. And a new poll says that Connecticut is not unique. Sixty percent of Americans now oppose the campaign in Iraq. And who can blame them? It's chaos over there. Muslims are killing each other and the new Iraqi government can't get organized.

The USA can only do so much. We can't force the Iraqis to stop murdering each other. We can kill some of the terrorists, but not all. If the Iraqi people will not stop the chaos themselves, we can't do it for them. The biggest problem here is that Iran is behind the sectarian violence, according to Stratfor and other astute analysts. Iran now has the power to mobilize terror killers in Lebanon — Hezbollah — and in Iraq — the Mahdi army — and create mini-wars designed to wear down Israel and the USA. If America and Britain pull out of Iraq, Iran would then dominate the country and control Iraq's oil. That would dramatically increase Iran's power. Worldwide oil prices could double. Nuclear blackmail could be on the table.

I do not believe that Ned Lamont and his fellow travelers understand any of this. The far left continues to believe the USA is the root cause of the Terror War, and that Iran is not a major threat. The far left mantra goes, "Why shouldn't the Iranians have nukes? Israel has them."

"Talking Points" understands that geopolitical analysis is difficult, and that the Bush administration has not fully explained the grave danger we face from Iran. Joseph Lieberman and others do understand that danger and he did not sell out his country to pander to the anti-war vote. For that, Lieberman was defeated. Now, I believe this is a chilling indication of what lies ahead in American politics. Iran's betting we Americans have no will to restrain their jihad, and judging from the Connecticut vote last night, they might be right.

:silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly: :tinfoilhat: :silly:

[Champion Jack]

1. That idiot is a total waste of oxygen

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Yep bill is so well-informed

[Cary]

4. Right. And the implementation of his point of view has. . .

yielded such fabulous results. <rolleyes>

[Cary]

3. "the Bush administration has not fully explained the grave danger we face"

<rolleyes>

[n2doc]

5. a man who has no idea what the Terror War is all about

Well, now, Bill, please let us know what it is about. I know the real reason:

[MikeyJones]

9. I love that oil price graph you posted there

I remember in 1990 where I lived gas was about 91 cents a gallon. From 1990 to 2002 gas went up to $1.40 a gallon where I live -- roughly an increase of only 50 cents. Or a non-adjusted increase of 60% over 12 years which would give us a:

60%/12 years = 5% increase on average per year from Bush Sr.'s term thru Clinton's and into Dubya's second year.

Then he launches his little neo-conservative war in Iraq and the oil traders use the opportunity and excuse of decreased output to spike prices like crazy. Gas is now $2.98 a gallon where I live. My Republican father told me as a child that $2.00 a gallon of gas was 20 years away -- actually it was more like 5 or 6 and 3 bucks a gallon was only 7 years away.

Gas has doubled and then gone up another 20 fucking cents where I live. A 125% or so increase in 3 fucking years since Chimpus started his little cowboy rodeo in the Middle East.

If anybody's responsible for the slowdown in our economy, it's that tobacco spitting hick.

[movonne]

6. I am soooo tired of these people and the crap they spew...the ones

that listens to this are really off the deep end and that is who they are speaking to.

[boolean]

7. I think I hear an echo!!

What's that? Vote Repuglican because Democrats can't fight the terror war?

I've heard this song before and I think most people are getting sick of it.

[Human Torch]

10. Yes, from "Dick Cheney's Greatest Hits"...

"...if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists..."

Gotta give these bastards credit...once they find a lie they really like, they never stray from it.

:grr:

[CHestonsucks]

8. Bill O'Baloney

is the last person I'm going to listen to when it comes to foreign policy analysis. You'll notice that nowhere in this half-assed nonsense does O'Baloney even mention the word 'diplomacy' or 'diplomatic solution'. That's because the wingnuts have already made up their, and I use the term guardedly, minds that might makes right, dammit, and anyone that doesn't think so is a traitor or defeatist or ignorant or weak on defense or some other stupid, self-edifying bullshit.

I like the unintended irony: "Talking Points understands geopolitical analysis is difficult..."

Yeah, that's right. Too difficult for a fucking asshole wingnut like you, O'Baloney.

[Cosmocat]

11. JESUS GOD ...

I post on a mixed board ... For two freakin years now, I have RAILED on 1) Them letting OBL go ... 2) Their near complete failing grades from the 9-11 commission ... 3) How the Mexican border is a total sieve ... Of course, 100s of battles over how Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism, and in fact has made it worse for us ...

And, today, I wake up, and a freeper has a post saying that I would be disappointed about the foiled Brittain attempt, and maybe my guys will get lucky some other time ...

THIS is the mentality of these freaks ... I have heard Lamont on COUNTLESS times note Iran's influence in all of this, but all these freaks need to know is that you don't brainlessly support the "stay the course" mantra, and you are a terrorist ...

[Efilroft Sul]

12. How pompous the phrase "Talking Points"!

Bill, if you're going to refer to yourself in the third person, at least say, "Bill O'Reilly understands that blah blah blah blah..."

Otherwise, change your name to Talking Points. Or Falafel Man.

[Contrary1]

13. The Repubs are falling all over themselves

trying to convince the good folks of Connecticut (and elsewhere), that they
have made a grievous error in judgment. They protest too much.

The Bushies had relied on good Old Joe to carry their water, since the Repub
candidate in CN has virtually no chance of winning. They were so sure of
this, that didn't even have a plan in place in the off chance that Lieberman
didn't win. Sound familiar? That gives them only 90 days to operate the spin
machine.

And all the Right Wing Wackos are more than happy to oblige. The more they
prattle on about it, the less credible they become.

[IChing]

14. War pigs

[tsuki]

15. Why does Murdock want this war so much? What's in it for him? nt

[McKinneyIsAHero]

16. These people are just obsessed and raving I think on the news media

They never have any serious or open discussions about what they want for America and the world. Their entire life consists of throwing ad hominems at the greater of the two evils they see in American politics.

No wonder so many people don't want to get involved in America.

[OregonDem]

17. Um when did the "far left" ask falafel boy to be their spokesman?

They act like were incapable of speaking for ourselves, and that its their job to articulate our positions. His show is crappy one man debate show where he puts up straw men and then he knocks it down. Fair and Balanced my ass.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. It's an argument worthy of a rebuttal, at any rate.

I think O'Reilly is certainly right that when the US leaves Iraq will go even further to hell in a handcart than it currently has. I'm not at all confident that Iran will become the power behind the throne in the way he suggests, but we certainly can't be confident that he's wrong, and that happening would be every bit as bad as he suggests.

The mistake he makes is in the implicit assumption that there is some way to prevent this happening. The longer the US occupation of Iraq continues, the worse matters there will get, and eventually the - disastrous - scenario above, or something else just as bad is going to become fact one way or another.

Incidentally, this thread somewhat depressed me. The ratio of mockery and ridicule to actual rebuttal seriously worries me that a lot of DUers *couldn't* rebut O'Reilly's argument systematically, and so are joining in with snide posts indicating that doing so isn't necessary. It is, and nothing else is worthwhile.