Michael Moore--Bill O'Reilly finally, on Foxnews tonight

by sf 123 Replies latest social current

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    Did I say that Kerry spat on the soliders? I didn't say that, you did.

    No, I didn't say that. And I wasn't talking to you. I quit addressing you after your dumb ass post that said the following:

    If Kerry actually (which I doubt) engaged in combat,

    When you see a Vet, thank him or even her for the freedom they provided for you in order to sit in front of a computer and make postings on forums like JWD

    Oh, yeah, Viet nam was a threat to my personal freedoms of typing on my computer. Yeah, Saigon fell and yet here I am still posting away to *people* (original words self edited to prevent moderators from getting upset) like you. Except, I won't after this one.

  • Richie
    Richie

    Bush Sends Nobody to Die

    July 29, 2004

    (...analyze how Michael Moore got Bill O'Reilly to accept a false premise on war)


    I read the transcript of it and hen I finished reading the transcript, I was um...unsatisfied. I was disappointed, and I was disappointed in the whole flavor of the interview and the way it went. I thought, I mean, if Moore is going to agree to come in then there's an opportunity there to really expose some of the myths and the lies and the distortions and the outright danger that is posed, particularly to young servicemen in this movie. You know, they're showing this movie around the world and 18-, 19-, 20-year-old servicemen are being very dispirited by it, because they don't understand the context, the political context. They're neophytes, they're kids -- but they've joined, which is the point ultimately that I'm going to get to. So what happened instead was that the interview was descended into a false premise, and it was frustrating to me that Mr. O'Reilly accepted a false premise and attempted to argue it.

    Now it's easy. One of the reasons I don't review and comment on things, is because it's easy in hindsight to be critical of the way somebody else does something, and that's one of the reasons I have not done it. I mean, a lot of people have probably found disagreement with the way things I've done over the years, and once they're done they're done, and all the criticism in the world isn't going to change what happened. But in this case, the false premise that was put forth that was accepted and thereby shaped the entire interview, was, "Bush sends kids to die." Bush sends no one to die. The Palestinians send their kids to die. The Palestinians strap bombs on their kids and send them into civilian areas in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with the express purpose of having those explosives blow up and kill not only the kids, but as many innocent civilians as possible nearby. That is "sending your kids off to die."
    no one off to die -- kids, adults, anyone. Yet the interview descended into, "Would you die for your country? Would you die for Fallujah?" and that's not at all an acceptable premise to me. Here's why. We have in this country a volunteer army. Since 2000, particularly 2001, everybody joining the Army knows exactly where they're going. The odds are they're going to go to combat. As such, most of them joining do so willingly. This notion that in this day and age, given the present circumstances, that there are people joining the Army simply to get a college education or to escape poor, dire economic circumstances, while it may be true, it denigrates those who are signing up. It denigrates the intentions and honor of those joining. This is not a generation of 1960s, blue-jeaned, tie-dye clad, long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking protesters.

    This generation of people joining the U.S. military, you can talk to their parents, are going to defend their country. They're going precisely because of what happened on 9/11. They are making the decision on their own. They are not "being sent to die." They are willingly, and thank God for them, joining various branches of the armed service to go defend their country. It is a lost concept to many on the left who think it's up to the French and the U.N. to defend us. But this really galls me, because what it ultimately is, is a cut and a denigration at those joining. It's making them out to be victims. They are not victims. They are heroic people. They're heroic young people who are doing what they want to do of their own volition, choosing to go, knowing full well the likelihood they'll end up in a combat zone at some point in their service -- and yet they join, and throughout the course of this period since the Iraq war started, I have marveled at the stories they tell when they come back and call this program.

    I have marveled at the stories I've heard reading newspapers from local communities about the people who join and why, and I don't hear where anybody's forcing them to because it's a volunteer army. I don't hear where George Bush is rounding people up under cover of darkness in various communities around the country and saying, "Here kid, I'm sending you to die." The whole premise of this interview, therefore, was false. Yet it was accepted and got argued, and it was just disappointing because there was no ground gained in this, and yet the premise was allowed to stand when the debate began, "Would you send your kid to Fallujah? Would you die for Fallujah?"

    This is not about Fallujah! This is not about Basra. This is not about Iraq. It's not about one place. It's about the defense of the United States of America. It's about ensuring that another 9/11 doesn't happen. It's about taking whatever steps we can to see to it that there's as peaceful a life, day to day, in this country, as there is -- and there are people, young people, who are willing to risk their lives, signing up for the military, and the last thing we need is for some overweight, bloated bigot moviemaker to start denigrating them, and then have this premise accepted all over the media.

    It's even worse when a major political party seeks to denigrate the armed forces and uniform-wearing men and women of this country, by accepting the same false premise and bracing an entire presidential campaign around it. It just offends me to no end. I've also exercised considerable restraint in talking about this stupid, foolish movie. One of the reasons for that is, Why talk about it and give it even more attention? You know, I'm not sitting here with chump change as an audience. You are the largest audience in talk radio in this country. When I talk about it, people who haven't heard about something, hear about it.
    Well, in this case everybody's heard about this stupid movie. But I also know that when you start criticizing and ripping something, all you do is generate curiosity about it. Well, the curiosity factor is sated. Everybody who wants to see this movie, has. Everybody who's heard about it, has. So I'm safe to talk about it and not fear that I'm going to unwittingly stupid thing. But the premise that any U.S. president in this day and age is "sending kids off to die" is insulting. It is banal. It is infantile. It is puerile. It is insane. It is lunatic. It is absolutely degenerate -- especially in this day and age. Now, people are free to say what they want to say, free to make a movie, do whatever they want to do, and anybody's free to glom on to it and sign on to it and say whatever they want. But when this kind of thing is taken up by an out-of-power, scared-to-eath, filled-with-fear-and-rage political party that used to once be great, and seeks to build its own identity around the lies and distortions and the efforts to ridicule and impugn fine people, then it's worthy of concern and discussion.

    And I just felt like I had eaten a meal but never swallowed anything, after reading the transcript of this interview, because the whole thing took place under a false premise. I know you're saying, "Why don't you get Moore on?" It's not what I do. If I ran into him, it's not what I do -- and that's why it's difficult to comment about this, because I didn't interview him, and it's after the fact. So please don't interpret this as a criticism Mr. O'Reilly. It is not that. It's a criticism of Mr. Moore. It's a criticism of a premise that ends up being accepted, because there is a genuine desire to discredit this man by people who feel he's being grossly inaccurate and unfair to some really honorable people.

    So I'm not being critical of Mr. O'Reilly here, and I don't want anybody to think this, but I think it is just a shame. It's just an absolute shame that this kind of whatever you call this -- docudrama, propaganda, whatever it is -- is being accepted and transmitted as some sort of factual, relevant bit of news that people need to shape their lives by or grow up or get up and learn to smell the roses and the coffee, because there's some so-called new profound truth in this movie when it's nothing but distortion and lies -- and this premise that Bush is sending kids off to die, when we have a volunteer force, we have great young people who bear no resemblance to the rabble-rousers of the 1960s, their age then, who are doing this for their genuine desire to defend the country.

    I just react in a very negative way when their efforts are besmirched, and when efforts made to impugn their honor, integrity, sense of purpose, and to make them out to be victims, because we are not victims in this country unless we want to be made victims. I think what is happening is the whole Democratic Party is beginning to look itself as a victim. They are the ones that instituted victimology. They're the ones that started making groups and groups of people victims. "You're a victim of this. You're a victim of that. We're going to fix it for you." They now look at themselves as all being victims, and they have no ability, it seems, to understand what is relevant in the country today and what's important to a lot of people.
    And instead they want to try to lie to people and use whatever class B actors and directors and people they can to further this charade; this picture of America that is untrue -- only for one reason: to advance their own power in their quest to reacquire it. So that's that. I had to make this brief departure from my policy and philosophy this one time. And there are many of these false premises out there, that are being advanced and discussed as "genuine fact" on the left. It's not the way to argue these things, is to accept the premise. If you're going to do this, don't allow the premise. Dispute it; argue that, rather than accept it -- and move on from there, because there's no gaining at all when you accept the false premise and then begin to argue it. Remember undeniable truths of life. "The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things." The purpose of armies is not to die. Therefore, our United States military is sent by no one "to die." The United States military is sent to kill and win -- and we love them. (transcript from EIB)
  • Yizuman
    Yizuman


    Oh, yeah, Viet nam was a threat to my personal freedoms of typing on my computer. Yeah, Saigon fell and yet here I am still posting away to dumb asses like you. Except, I won't after this one.



    Ohhhh name calling and have I ever called you any names? God forbid that I do.

    There's an old saying, "You can't win'em all!" and we did lose the war, but we did learn from it.

    Yiz

  • Yizuman
    Yizuman


    So I'm not being critical of Mr. O'Reilly here, and I don't want anybody to think this, but I think it is just a shame. It's just an absolute shame that this kind of whatever you call this -- docudrama, propaganda, whatever it is



    And his isn't? What a laugh!

    Yiz

  • Crazy151drinker
    Crazy151drinker

    Robdar,

    Im a Veteran? Well kind of, but I re-enlisted A Vietnam vet no, but if he screwed them im sure he'll screw me.

    The only reason the North continued to fight after getting their asses stomped during the Tet-offensive is because they knew that America would GIVE UP. How did they know we would GIVE UP? Because the @#%@# protests and anti-war BS which lead to Politicians putting restrictions on the War because they didnt want to look bad to the American Public. Stupid Stupid Stupid. John Kerry was a VERY influencial force in the Anti-War movement which lead to our eventual FAILURE in Vietnam and the WASTE of American lives. All the North had to do was continue to push push push no matter what the cost and they knew we would eventually pull out. The whole thing was a stupid waste.

    In a recent interview published in The Wall Street Journal, former colonel Bui Tin who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975 confirmed the American Tet 1968 military victory: "Our loses were staggering and a complete surprise. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection.
    The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to reestablish our presence but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely.
    We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was." And on strategy: "If Johnson had granted Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.... it was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort involving tens of thousands of
    soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units .... our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom .... if all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would
    have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of time to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest was damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us. And the left: "Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9AM to follow the growth of the antiwar movement.
    Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey
    Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us .... those people represented the conscience of America .... part of it's war- making capability, and we turning that power in our favor."

    The NORTH WAS GOING TO QUIT. THANK YOU KERRY AND FONDA FOR ALL YOUR HELP

  • gypsywildone
    gypsywildone

    Oh, yeah, Viet nam was a threat to my personal freedoms of typing on my computer. Yeah, Saigon fell and yet here I am still posting away to *people* (original words self edited to prevent moderators from getting upset) like you. Except, I won't after this one.

    How did this thread get hijacked anyway? It was originally about a Tv show & the merits of that particular discussion. How did this once again get hijacked into Kerry is the debbil, no wait, BUSH is the debbil???? Comeon people, must it always turn into this? Can't you take it to a Democrat boad, or a Republican board, or a board about conspiracy theories, or maybe O'Reilley has a board for this stuff

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    How did this once again get hijacked into Kerry is the debbil, no wait, BUSH is the debbil????

    LOL.

    What? They aren't the debbil? *puts away holy water and crucifix*

    You make a good point and one that I was thinking myself until Ritchie brought the discussion back to topic.

    Gypsy, I looked at your bio info to the left and noticed that you have been here since 01. You should post more often. I hope to see you around more in the future.

    Robyn

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    Im a Veteran? Well kind of, but I re-enlisted

    Crazy ,

    I salute you!

    A Vietnam vet no, but if he screwed them im sure he'll screw me.

    And you don't think that Bush is screwing the military too by cutting their benefits?

    Personally, I think that veterans of war shouldn't even have to pay income taxes considering that they have already paid their debt to the US.

  • gypsywildone
    gypsywildone

    You know what? Most every time I come here, I get bummed out about how mean & insulting people can be, & I remember H20, which was full of great minds, support, & information. Then I stay away for quite a while.

    Too many time wasters, bordering on vulgar. Too many sitting here 24/7 instead of at least attempting to get into the real world & cultivate education, hobbies, friends, whatever it means to actually LIVE in a healthy body! "My penis can talk, can yours?" "I've got the biggest nipples in the world!". I think sometimes people forget that there are literally thousands of people reading this s**t. Everyone is entering thousands of homes, they are literally in some person's living room with it.

    I am trying to help my sister out, mainly her husband, who was raised & actually believes it. But I can't send them HERE! Too much of it fulfills the prophecies of the borg. So I get disgusted & split, then return & hope I see something good, then I scratch my head & split again.

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Well, I am glad that you dropped in today.

    Robyn

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit