quote:

---

Now we are involved in a protracted guerilla war and the casualty toll mounts daily.Since I was there for the first one,I predicted this.However,nobody consulted with me before going in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill R

I like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. No, not because I believe everything extremely right-wing that they say. I like them because they provide a counter-point to Jennings, Brokaw and the Big Three networks - ABC, CBS, and NBC and of course CNN. If not for Fox and O'Reilly all we'd get would be Leftist pap. The counterpoint tends to keep those guys a LITTLE honest and a LITTLE objective at least.
Mainly, if you turn to the big three and CNN and listen to their leftist slant, then turn to O'Reilly and listen to the right wing slant - the truth lies somewhere in the middle there. Without O'Reilly and others like him, it'd be all to the left and the truth in the middle would be entirely lost.

What I like about Brokaw is his BIG, solemn, almost tearful announcement that he was retiring right after the 2000 election.
Hmmmmm. He's still there. Why is that? Thought he was retiring?
He's still there because Bush won. He didnt expect that. He still has work to do - slam Bush and the Reps and help ensure (if he can) that a Gore clone (or worse) wins the next election.

What I don't like about O'Reilly, what really grinds my teeth, is his manner. Ask a question, then not let the guy answer. Sure, pin the guy down if he obfuscates or weasles or nail him on contradictions........but at least let him ANSWER. If you don't want to know his answer, why ask him the damn question in the first place. Comes across as bullying (hell, it IS bullying) and does not serve his viewpoint.

As a side note, so what about Rush's addiction? How many housewives are addicted to pain meds or some other med? Do you think Ted Kennedy's florid nose and puffy face is genetic? He's a drunk and an addict. As are many in the media, entertainment, and politics.
He who is without addiction cast the first stone.......ya know? [quote]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Highlander

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill R

I like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. No, not because I believe everything extremely right-wing that they say. I like them because they provide a counter-point to Jennings, Brokaw and the Big Three networks - ABC, CBS, and NBC and of course CNN. If not for Fox and O'Reilly all we'd get would be Leftist pap. The counterpoint tends to keep those guys a LITTLE honest and a LITTLE objective at least.
Mainly, if you turn to the big three and CNN and listen to their leftist slant, then turn to O'Reilly and listen to the right wing slant - the truth lies somewhere in the middle there. Without O'Reilly and others like him, it'd be all to the left and the truth in the middle would be entirely lost.

What I like about Brokaw is his BIG, solemn, almost tearful announcement that he was retiring right after the 2000 election.
Hmmmmm. He's still there. Why is that? Thought he was retiring?
He's still there because Bush won. He didnt expect that. He still has work to do - slam Bush and the Reps and help ensure (if he can) that a Gore clone (or worse) wins the next election.

What I don't like about O'Reilly, what really grinds my teeth, is his manner. Ask a question, then not let the guy answer. Sure, pin the guy down if he obfuscates or weasles or nail him on contradictions........but at least let him ANSWER. If you don't want to know his answer, why ask him the damn question in the first place. Comes across as bullying (hell, it IS bullying) and does not serve his viewpoint.

As a side note, so what about Rush's addiction? How many housewives are addicted to pain meds or some other med? Do you think Ted Kennedy's florid nose and puffy face is genetic? He's a drunk and an addict. As are many in the media, entertainment, and politics.
He who is without addiction cast the first stone.......ya know? [quote]

---

I don't hold it against him that he's addicted.But if he wants illegal drug users to be heavily charged under the law,then when he is released from rehab,he should go down to the police station and turn himself in.Think he's man enough to do it?It is also just more than a tad hypocritical for he and O'Reilly to call for other people's kids to go fight and die in Iraq when they did not do so in Vietnam.(Just like it is for GW to send them).O'Reilly also never condemned Bi

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christina

I won't go into O'Reilly or Limbaugh's politics because I don't want to open that can of worms. But as a journalist (I'm a newspaper writer who covers religion, so nobody lump me in with the so called left wing media either...I don't even deal with politics...) I just plain can't stand either one of them because they've mainly gotten famous by yelling and screaming and bullying people with their opinions.
I like the quote about the schoolyard bully. O'Reilly especially reminds me of one of those. I'm willing to sit down and listen to anybody, political slant notwithstanding, if they can present their point in a civilized, educated and respectful manner. I'd have the same problems with O'Reilly if he came from the left wing.
Rush I mainly disdain because he uses his cute little terms like "Femi-nazi" to make his points instead of in-depth arguments. It's much easier to throw out buzzwords than it is to form a coherent opinion. I'm tired as hell of getting into arguments with ditto-heads who decide the best way to disagree with me (or anybody else) is to throw buzzwords out and hope they'll do some damage. Guess what, lamers, they don't!
My three cents, for what it's worth. I'll now duck behind my desk...
Christina

quote:

---

Originally posted by Highlander

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill R

I like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. No, not because I believe everything extremely right-wing that they say. I like them because they provide a counter-point to Jennings, Brokaw and the Big Three networks - ABC, CBS, and NBC and of course CNN. If not for Fox and O'Reilly all we'd get would be Leftist pap. The counterpoint tends to keep those guys a LITTLE honest and a LITTLE objective at least.
Mainly, if you turn to the big three and CNN and listen to their leftist slant, then turn to O'Reilly and listen to the right wing slant - the truth lies somewhere in the middle there. Without O'Reilly and others like him, it'd be all to the left and the truth in the middle would be entirely lost.

What I like about Brokaw is his BIG, solemn, almost tearful announcement that he was retiring right after the 2000 election.
Hmmmmm. He's still there. Why is that? Thought he was retiring?
He's still there because Bush won. He didnt expect that. He still has work to do - slam Bush and the Reps and help ensure (if he can) that a Gore clone (or worse) wins the next election.

What I don't like about O'Reilly, what really grinds my teeth, is his manner. Ask a question, then not let the guy answer. Sure, pin the guy down if he obfuscates or weasles or nail him on contradictions........but at least let him ANSWER. If you don't want to know his answer, why ask him the damn question in the first place. Comes across as bullying (hell, it IS bullying) and does not serve his viewpoint.

As a side note, so what about Rush's addiction? How many housewives are addicted to pain meds or some other med? Do you think Ted Kennedy's florid

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill R

"My problem with him is that he clamored for US to go to war in Iraq,while he got out of going to Vietnam.(so did all of GW's staff,but I digress)."

So did all of GW's staff? I must have been mistaken. I guess Colin Power and Condoleeza joined the staff AFTER that, huh? I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine there were a few on the Joint Chiefs who might have been reluctant also, at least until the job in Afghanistan was completed. Particularly in light of how the military had been gutted and downsized on Clinton's watch. Doesnt matter at this point. We are THERE. We have to finish the job. Let's just not start any others until that one is finished. One reason Afghanistan went over to the Taliban was that we pulled our support out of there when the Soviets pulled out and lost our interest in the place. Left a vacuum. Taliban filled it. We pull outta Iraq now, and we get the worst of both worlds...a more technologically advanced (compared to Afghanistan) society with Al Queda and extremists in control of an oil rich country. Not a good idea. Nope.

Folks, there are people out there that hate us just because we are Americans and it has nothing to do with past offenses. There are people out there who LIKE killing Americans, any American, because we are the biggest and baddest Christian nation even if we had never made any mistakes in the world. Do you REALLY think Saudi Arabia hates Israel because Israel owns a valuable strip of land? The only thing there that Saudi Arabia could possibly want is Jerusalem. That's important to them, but heck folks, they just HATE JEWS. And, they want Jerusalem all for themselves. Only for themselves. Barring any other religion from practice therein. Medina. Mecca. Jerusalem. The third gem in the Islamic crown. And intended to be just as "open" to non-believers as those two cities are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill R

Actually, I apologize. You probably love your country as much as the next guy. You don't seem to like Jews much though.

Be that as it may, we support Israel, at least I do, because it grates my stones when five nations surrounding a smaller nation have vowed over the last 50 years to kill everyone in that smaller nation and push them into the sea. If the Israel situation is so much the cause of current situations in the middle east, point the finger at the UN. They voted for that nation's establishment. We, as Americans, generally don't like to see the little guy bullied.

Back to O'Reilly. I have watched him and can't stand him much for many of the same reasons everybody else states. I can't listen long to Rush either. But in amongst their diatribe, I get snippets of information and truth that I would never get anywhere else and certainly not from the mainstream media.

Christina, why is it whenever I criticize the mainstream media and NAME them, you seem to come out swinging like I have attacked the print media and you in particular. I don't mean to be defensive, but Christina dear I was a journalist long before you entered the profession. It is a much different media today than it was 30 years ago. Firstly, print media and audio-visual media has been absorbed and is now controlled by a relatively few, or single, organizational entitity. That's bad right there. Secondly, I am old enough to remember how television news was presented long ago. Far less editorialism and far less agenda. Now everything is slanted.

Maybe we listen to those two guys occasionally to get something of the other viewpoint as we would get it nowhere ELSE.

And maybe some of us get frustrated when we are willing to recognize when we have been bamboozled and lied to by OUR guy, and retract support yet the other side will never admit to error nor admit THEIR guy is anything but wonderful. When THEIR guy screws up, it's just a Republican or Conservative plot. Frustrating.

O'Reilly is a bully. Rush is pedantic and an idealogue. But they called Clinton's character right from the beginning and everything they predicted about the guy came true. Is that what angers you about Rush and O'Reilly? I think so.
I don't much like them being the representatives of the opposing veiwpoint, but nobody else is allowed to step forward....certainly not on ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. The ONLY time there is any attempt to provide balance is on Capitol Gang. That's their one hour sop to balance. The rest of the time it's bias as the norm.

---

quote:

---

you look at Desert Storm,the media was restricted by the military and their control of information.Alan Colmes asked last night why this administration bans media coverage of the dead soldiers being brought back from Iraq to Dover AFB.Is it because it doesn't want the public to see the real cost of the war?

---

quote:

---

Christina, why is it whenever I criticize the mainstream media and NAME them, you seem to come out swinging like I have attacked the print media and you in particular. I don't mean to be defensive, but Christina dear I was a journalist long before you entered the profession. It is a much different media today than it was 30 years ago. Firstly, print media and audio-visual media has been absorbed and is now controlled by a relatively few, or single, organizational entitity. That's bad right there. Secondly, I am old enough to remember how television news was presented long ago. Far less editorialism and far less agenda. Now everything is slanted.

Maybe we listen to those two guys occasionally to get something of the other viewpoint as we would get it nowhere ELSE.

And maybe some of us get frustrated when we are willing to recognize when we have been bamboozled and lied to by OUR guy, and retract support yet the other side will never admit to error nor admit THEIR guy is anything but wonderful. When THEIR guy screws up, it's just a Republican or Conservative plot. Frustrating.

O'Reilly is a bully. Rush is pedantic and an idealogue. But they called Clinton's character right from the beginning and everything they predicted about the guy came true. Is that what angers you about Rush and O'Reilly? I think so.
I don't much like them being the representatives of the opposing veiwpoint, but nobody else is allowed to step forward....certainly not on ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. The ONLY time there is any attempt to provide balance is on Capitol Gang. That's their one hour sop to balance. The rest of the time it's bias as the norm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill R

"Never said that I didn't like Jews.The first terrorist attacks in the region were the result of people like Menachim Begin attacking British soldiers who were there to keep the peace,not Palestinians.Even a mouse will fight back when conered.My patriotism is not an issue here.O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's are.I've been to the Middle East,and drew Imminent Danger Pay.Don't consider myself liberal or conservative.Has US foreign policy placed us in somebody's crosshairs?Yes,I believe so.If you've never been to S.W.Asia,don't pass yourself off as an expert on the region."

Says Highlander.

My first response got lost as I had not logged in properly, and probably good that it was lost.

You may not be anti-semitic Highlander, but your quoting all the usual Palestinian and anti-semitic rationales as to the problems in the Middle East and as to our problems - including 9-11 apparently -goes far in leading me to wonder.

As to the British being there only to keep the peace....read up on that. While they had the mandate, they actively allowed the Arabs to arm while working very hard to keep the Israelis unarmed...the closer it got to that magic day of nationhood (for the Israelis) the more they leaned toward the Arabs and closed their eyes to what was going on, but worked diligently to disarm the Israelis. Lots of reasons for that of course. British interests in the oil fields which had not been nationalized as yet, but there were movements to do so. Their innate anti-semitism - not rising to the level of others in Europe, but there none the less. To the British, both the Jews and the Arabs were "bloody wogs" but the Arabs were useful "bloody wogs". British occupiers aren't always the "peace keepers" they pretend to be....ask the Irish and the Indians about that. Interestingly enough, there was a Jewish battalion fighting with the British in North Africa during WWII while the Arabs pretty much sided with the Germans and identified with the German view vis a vis the Jew. But when it came time to impartially administrate Palestine the British were much more pro-Arab despite the allegiances of WWII.....oil wins out again.

You say your patriotism isn't at issue. Patriotism and military service arent at issue with Rush or O'Reilly either. That is not a requirement in this country to speak one's mind nor to have their opinion voiced. Sometimes I wish it was, but not really. Neither having military service under your belt, nor the lack of it, has anything to do with the validity of the opinion voiced. Nor with a proof of love of country.

Now, addressing the fact that our policies have put us in the cross hairs.......so what? Are we to now base our national interests and policies on whether or not it puts us in somebody's cross hairs, whether or not somebody is going to be mad at us, whether or not somebody might want to hurt us if we don't play THEIR game? If so, then we have totally lost our moral compass as a nation and our strength of character. Not to mention, we were in their sights anyway, they hate us anyway, and only have contempt for us if we DO give in to their demands and threats.

As to the last part of your nice little quote there......the part about my not being an expert on that region. First you allude I am one of your "chickenhawks" who stay at home while sending others in harms way and thumping my chest. I answer that, and in answering it also tell you a little about my "chickenhawk" resume. You must have skimmed past that post. Go up and read it again.

You apparently were in Desert Storm. Thank you. You served then. You must have missed the part that I was over there too. Go back up and read it. So tell me, what was your military occupation specialty over there? Rank? Unit? Job? Where did you get your expertise and kn

quote:

---

Originally posted by SgtMunro

[quote] you look at Desert Storm,the media was restricted by the military and their control of information.Alan Colmes asked last night why this administration bans media coverage of the dead soldiers being brought back from Iraq to Dover AFB.Is it because it doesn't want the public to see the real cost of the war?

---