E tu Bill O’Reilly?? Rumsfeld must be toast!
Published by Mike Stark April 14th, 2006 in Bill O'ReillyEven Bill O’Reilly agrees. Rumsfeld has got to go.
Here’s some speculation.
Generals are, and must be, somewhat conservative in their actions. Not necessarily ideology, mind you, but in their actions. Their every move is thought out several steps ahead. And they never freely enter a battle they don’t think they will win.
If you’ve noticed, the six retired Generals have stepped forward one by one. We’ve had one week of one a day Generals making headlines with their votes of no confidence in Rumsfeld’s leadership.
I’m betting that this is but phase one in a series of steps that will result in Rumsfeld spending more time with his family. I’m not sure what next week will bring - perhaps active duty officers speaking publically under the guise of defending the Constitution? I won’t speculate further… but my radar is pinging… I sense another shoe dropping.
And by the way…. did any of you notice Peter Pace’s lame defense of Rumsfeld?
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff defended Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from new criticism by former Pentagon brass Tuesday, telling reporters that “nobody works harder than he does.”
“He does his homework. He works weekends. He works nights,” Gen. Peter Pace said. “People can question my judgment or his judgment, but they should never question the dedication, the patriotism and the work ethic of Secretary Rumsfeld.”
Anyway, if Rumsfeld et al have lost O’Reilly, they’ve lost everything….
This administration is falling apart…
PS - Fundraiser is on this week… Please see this post for reasons your contibutions are important. So far this round $55 has been donated. Thank you to you know who you are!!
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
It must be that you have said it all.
If memory serves, O’Reilly called for Rumsfeld’s resignation/firing on his radio show over a year ago. Bush didn’t seem to take his advice. Bush can’t fire Rumsfeld. It would be an admission that the war was wrong, as Rumsfeld is the enforcer of Bush’s policy. Plus, Bush is far too stubborn to admit a mistake. The only way I can see Rumsfeld going now is if there’s a string of GOOD news out of Iraq for awhile, and Rumsfeld can leave on a high note (relatively speaking).
Mike, you have done this several times now so you must not know what you are doing here (as usual).
In Latin, Et = and.
In Spanish, Y = and. (However when the word after ‘and’ starts with a vowel, the Y is changed to E.)
In Spanish and Latin tu = you.
I don’t think you are trying to use Spanish here, although I guess that is possible, but rather Latin. You are probably trying to echo the famous phrase by Julius Caesar
“Et tu, Brute?”
As usual though, you got it wrong. You might want to know alittle more Latin before you attend a law school.
Mike - Trust me, knowing Latin will not be a key factor in your success in law school.
Chuck - is that the best you can come up with? Insulting Mike’s Latin? bwwaaaahhhhaaaa
As crazy as Bill O’Reilly can be sometimes, and although he was the one speaking out against everyone who opposed the war at first, I do respect that he is at least taking this stance while so many of his colleagues on Fox News are denying that Iraq is a total mess.
Yeah, Chuck. Who would possibly need to know nonsensical terms frequently found in law and legal writings like:
addendum
ad hoc
a priori
a posteriori
bona fide
corpus delicti
de facto
ex officio
ex post facto
fiat
habeas corpus
in banco
in camera
in loco parentis
lex domicilii
lex fori
lex loci
lex non scripta
lex scripta
locus delicti
mala fide
That’s just a smattering of phrases among many more. But who needs to know that stuff?
Well, Mike, it sounds as though you were trying hard to squeeze in everything and were a little gunshy about your mic. getting cut (I know the Olbermann history) however, when your points are as salient as our military professionals, guys who are BTDT’s with stars on their collars, speaking out against the absolute criminally negligent planning for the occupation of Iraq I dont think even O’Reilly is gonna be quick to mute you when you have the backing of our finest military leaders.
Take your time, make your points, if O’Reilly were to close you down early when making such sound statements as our civilian chickenhawks making disastrous decisions (Iraq is only one of many) then he would lose credibility.
(It should be noted in his famous head to head with Phil Donahue on the “No Spin Zone” one evening he came out and questioned whether or not the Iraq war was a good idea, said it “might not be”) so O’Reilly is more openminded than his robotic counterparts on FAUX.
I really thought the same thing until I read this Greg Palast article on his site and it sort of was somewhere between a littlebulb moment and ‘doesn’t really surprise me’:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=493&row=1