O’Reilly’s solution: Run the place like Saddam
Published by Mike Stark June 19th, 2006 in Uncategorized
On today’s (6/19/06) Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Loofah-falafel shared with us his strategy for keeping the peace in Iraq. As the title notes, it involves ruthless murder.
O’Reilly: Now to me, they’re not fighting it hard enough. See, if I’m president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That’s me… President O’Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, you’re dead.
Now… is that the kind of country I want to have for Iraq? No… But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and can get the structure going.
I wanted to bend over backwards to be fair to Mr. O’Reilly, but I want y’all to listen to the clip. Listen to the way he says, “I shoot you right between the eyes.” Y’all come back and tell me if you think he meant what he said in his follow up.
This, to my ears, was the epitome of the 101’st Fighting Keyboards with a microphone. I’m going to soon post more from today’s show - he ridicules and refuses to take the call of a person that challenges him to put some of his own skin in the game.
Another question for Mr. O’Reilly? Haven’t we killed enough pregnant women at checkpoints? You gonna shoot them right between the eyes when they go into unexpected labor?
64 Responses to “O’Reilly’s solution: Run the place like Saddam”
- 1 Pingback on Jun 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
- 2 Trackback on Jun 19th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
- 3 Trackback on Jun 19th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
- 4 Pingback on Jun 20th, 2006 at 9:31 am
- 5 Pingback on Jun 20th, 2006 at 11:27 am
- 6 Pingback on Jun 20th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
- 7 Pingback on Jun 20th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
- 8 Pingback on Jun 20th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
- 9 Trackback on Jun 21st, 2006 at 11:31 am
- 10 Pingback on Jun 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
shooting between the eyes? can someone say, “haditha”.
So why don’t we just put Saddam back in power and leave?
As 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 of running the country is a way he actually agrees with! It’s amazing to read.
Well put, Red.
Saddam is on trial for doing the things that O’Reilly is advocating. But he’s got nodding fans all saying, “Yep. O’Reilly hit it on the head again! Common sense is all it is!”
O’Reilly is showing his ignorance yet again. I think he’s been watching too many John Wayne movies.
Imagine O’Reilly and Coulter having a kid a true “Devils Child”
O’Reilly, a servere case of verbal diahrea if there ever was one. What a piece of work!
I certainly don’t agree with him, but since all of this nonsense in Iraq started I always felt that any country that has groups and factions that have been fighting eachother for centuries like in Iraq, Sunni’s,Kurds and Shiites can only be effectively run by a bastard of sorts. Saddam sure fit that bill to a tee. The real problem with Saddam was not that he was a bastard, we turn a blind eye to other despots in this world all the time he just wasn’t the Bushes bastard and by extention the oil companies bastard. So he had to go.
Maybe what needs to be done is to send over a few of our better known chickenhawk bastards to run Iraq, you know, Cheney, Rove, O’Reilly and the whole bunch that wants to stay the course in the mess that they made of that country. I am sure the Iraqis would be throwing rose petals at thier feet as soon as they stepped into the country.
What a dumbass that O’Reilly is… For years he blows air about how bad Saddam is, how horrific he treated the people of his nation, all to justify an illegal war in Iraq. Now he’s saying that Saddam’s “technique” is the best way to maintain civility? Aren’t the Iraqis all looking at us with doe-eyes, greeting us as “liberators”? Weren’t they supposed to be throwing flowers at the feet of U.S. soldiers? I really feel sorry for O’Reilly… as big as his head is, there’s a whole lot of rage, destructive anger, and pitiful loneliness to cram in that cranium. Must have one hell of a headache all the time. Maybe he should go suit up and “take care” of all those insurgents, if he’s so freakin’ cocky.
“Just a few months of Martial Law to straighten them out” seems to be the siren call for all Conservatives.
Perhaps Saddam had the same idea 30 years ago, but, jeez, once ya got ‘em scared to the point of doing whatever you want, how could you relax Martial Law?? As it may cause riots and troubles and mayhem; you are only doing it for their own good…to save them from themselves.
Let’s all slide down that slope folks…
So is O’Reilly somehow saying the mission wasn’t accomplished???
The banner said it was! I feel lied to.
Whenever I hear O’Liely I think of a spaghetti western, with Bill wearing a black hat and twirling a six shooter.
Ahhhh….ah…..ahhhhh…..wa, wa, wa.
This is the same “remedy” that O’Rottweilly would apply to dissent in America. At least he’s finally out of the closet as far as his completely unethical fascist credo is concerned. And to think - this asswipe gets paid for this. He actually gets paid to talk out of his ass.
Nice to know that our $400 billion was spent so wisely, to come up with the O’Rottweilly solution.
Syphilis O’Reilly or Mercury Poison O’Reilly?
Which version of Bill is this speaking?
“Perhaps Saddam had the same idea 30 years ago, but, jeez, once ya got ‘em scared to the point of doing whatever you want, how could you relax Martial Law?? As it may cause riots and troubles and mayhem; you are only doing it for their own good…to save them from themselves.
Let’s all slide down that slope folks… ”
Yup, and before Saddam there was unrest and sectarian strife. He was an a**hole but he was OUR a**hole for a bunch of years, because he had the tribes and clans under his thumb. Will the right ever admit that Iraq was a corral for unwanteds after the first world war that even GBI knew better than to open? By the time this is over SA will have a fence along their border and the Iranians will be the ones imposing martial law. Feh!
Minor typo:
“~*~You’re~*~ on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, ~*~your~*~ dead.”
The second “your” should be “you’re.” It’s interesting that you got this right the first time, but not the second.
What did he mean? I’ll take a shot at it.
He meant, “this thing is going all pear-shaped so let’s appeal to the bloodlust that lives in all hearts. Mine especially. As members of the O’Reilly brigade sitting on your backside in an air-conditioned room, I know you all feel the same.” DRINK!
its not just oreilly who thinks like that. earlier this year i had the occasion to read an editorial about “white guilt” by shelby steele in the wall street journal, in which steele said pretty much that our “white guilt” causes us to be restrained in how we engage in warfare, not like the good-old-days, and that this is why we’re losing in iraq. so pretty much we need some good old fashioned massacres to straighten them out. but theres just too many bleeding hearts in america, or something; we lack the fortitude. (to be fair, the editorial was a lot more subtle than that)
its pyschotic ideas like that that destroys any common ground, and any possibility of bipartisanship. how do you argue with someone who doesnt feel torture, massacres, and etc are bad things?
Wow, more practicality from Mr Falafel. I’m sure that with such a large deployment of US troops already in Iraq it won’t be difficult at all to manage the not-at-all-unhappy-or-hot-no-it-isn’t-116-degrees-in-Baghdad-without-AC-or-much-electricity residents of Baghdad or the so-called Sunni triangle and that, given our wonderful treatment of Iraqis until this time, they will be more than happy to agree to the not-at-all-coerced-or-forced-demands-of-our-troops there. Thank you Falafel. Hey, Olbermann’s on, I gotsta go watch it. You know billie, I’m sure our troops would be happy to enact your completely reasonable solution…it’s not as if they’re under threat from restless Iraqis at the moment. Dipshit.
Whatever the solution is, you can bet that Bill won’t get any closer to it physically than he is now.
Mike, do you ever say to yourself on days like these “God rewards all the good that I do?” If not, you should.
OMFG
ROTFLMAO
that’s about all I can muster
Hell is empty and the demons are working at Fox.
Yeah, spoken like a true Patriot! Let’s see, was it four or five deferments that kept your ass out of Nam, O’Reilly?
Tell us all about what you’d do, chicken twit.
Wow, with attitudes like this, who needs Saddam, anyway?
Great post… O’Reilly is starting to unspool. It’s gonna be great entertainment watching him come apart in his final year of relevance or prominence. Not sure if he actually ever WAS “relevant” though.
By the way… If I donate some money to your cause will you teach me how to do that with the audio clips? Is that a Wordpress only thing?
Nate
It sounds like him, when I ran into this I linked back to you from my blog. But really if you think about it that would be exactly what he would do, but he is wooing his audience also, you don’t have to look very far every day the “right” is bound to say something to magnify their totalitarian regime and on the average they are not that far from Saddam himself.
Old ‘Boycott’ Bill has finally come round to the rest of the worlds opinion that there was no need for the invasion and it would have been better to have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, after all he had the place under control and we had him under control with ‘no fly zones’ and sanctions etc. The U.S. has had no problem supporting fascist dictators in the past, coining the phrase “He may be a bastard, but he’s OUR bastard”. He was no friend of Iran or Bin Laden, terrorist attacks only started as soon the U.S. and its allies invaded. In the end the U.S. will ‘cut and run’(and there is an evacuation plan in place), as they did in Vietnam and Somalia because the American public (apart from Fox News presenters and the rest of the blood thirsty loony right) will not stand for the mounting death roll, thousands of brave young American kids are dying and being maimed because Bush wants to play toy soldiers and be the great ‘Commander in Chief’. Barmy Bill should visit Iraq and maybe all the terrorists will hang themselves as they did at Gitmo. J. Arno. - England.
I get the feeling the Blogosphere and Olberman will be on this statement like white on rice. It exemplifies the idiocy of O’Reilly. Summary executions on anyone guilty of walking hisser daughter home. Do it like Saddam, although I don’t think Hussein had a thing for luffahs and falafels.
Notice how the right can go all the way back to Carter, yet if we mention a statement made BY THE CURRENT PRESIDENT we’re living in the past? Sean Hannity is really guilty of this little kindergarten debate tool.
This guy is oneof the biggest pussies on the planet. He talks tough, but I imagine if he were ever to be in one of the tough scenarios he describes, I bet he’d either piss his pants or hesitate and the other guy would take him out. Thinking about that now,……both happening wouldn’t be a bad thing, either!!!
Do you think shooting ‘MAMS’ after curfew is not what we’re currently doing?
You are talking about a culture at a stage where they want a strongman to keep ‘the trains running on time’. You cannot apply our social mores to that situation - hence 80% of our problem. By all infrastructure reports, the citizens of Iraq are worse off since we invaded.
So, refresh my memory, why did we go into Iraq again?
OMG I think Bill might be doing a Colbert impresssion… erie.
Aaron,
Everyone else is talking about O’Reilly advocating murder and you’re talking about typos? Give me a break!
T.M.
If you are looking for the antichrist you can narrow it down to him being a christian, conservative republican and on the payroll at Faux News. Let’s get the bastard! On second thought, lets leave him alone. By giving him a forum we allow the absurdity on organized religion and right wing conservative politics to be exposed.
I was channel surfing and actually listened to this idiot spew his drivel on the radio. Pregnant women and children are the first victims I thought of too.
Why are people like O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and Coulter allowed to breathe, much less speak into a microphone!
These hate mongers are tearing our country apart. They do it for the money, in a capitalistic society, I guess everyone has a right to make a living. What is really sick, is knowing there are people who listen and agree with them.
Are you sure this isn’t taken out of context? Was he taking the persona of someone else? No wait, he said President ‘Reilly. That really leaves no room for any of that.
We need to make some photoshop pics of O’Reilly as Saddam on pictures in the street. Know what I mean? Then show Iraqis beating O”Reilly’s picture with shoes.
Here you go:
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i237/beervolcano/PresidentOReilly.jpg
O’Reilly is just going the Coulter route after watching her book sales shoot up in the aftermath of her insane ranting. Ignore him.
Nice job with the picture Jack!
Another ivory tower media elitist spouting off about how young Americans in harm’s way…people’s sons, brothers, daughters….should become raging psychopaths when the son goes down.
It’s time to frame this discussion in terms middle America understands…. O’Reilly is an insult to military honor and tradition (we’re the Good Guys….even when our chickenhawk minders throw us into impossible situations). O’Reilly, and indeed the entire right wing media industry, profits off of headlines of dead Americans. O’Reilly believes in nothing….he’s simply another member in good standing of the same snobish chattering class that anoints itself with the right to lord it’s opinions over our country, safe behind their personal assistants and limos, while someone else’s kid humps an M-60 through lethal foreign streets, trying desperately to put an impossibly vague and useless foreign policy into action.
O’Reilly again exposes that he’s a moron. “Shooting people between the eyes.” Please. Saddam had informants everywhere and he Abu-Ghraibed anybody and his mother who even thought about getting out of line. The only difference between the U.S. and Saddam in the eyes of most Iraqis is that Saddam was a pro and we’re amateurs.
O’Reuily is right on all the time. He is a great american that was simply getting a little carried away and you take it out of context. Just look at his ratings… most americans agree with him. Sorry wussy liberals.
“Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I’d shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I’d run that country. Just like Saddam ran it.” - Bill O’Reilly
Then why did we invade Iraq in the first place?!?!?!?!
Oh my GOD the stupidity of the Right! Seriously, I just wanna give up and let the idiot nazi-wannabes melt this planet… sometimes I think we’re just a bunch of bipedal animals who can speak and drive cars.
I second the motion to send bill o’reilly to Iraq. All in favor say AYE.
As Walt Kelly once wrote in his political comic strip Pogo, the Doonesbury of its day: We has met the enemy, and he is us.
Did o liely say that the world was better off with Saddam in power? That’s a switch from all the wingnuts excuses for the Invasion. I heard hannity scream it at his guest a million times “IS THE WORLD BETTER OFF W/O SADDAM, IS THE WORLD BETTER OFF W/O SADDAM?” Maybe BOR can debate hannity on the subject, maybe BOR will shoot hannity between the eyes, that would be nice
Sounds to me like Bill got into Rush’s stash of OXY. Can’t we send these Lazy Boy reclining Chicken Hawk’s like Bill, Rush and Sean “Insanity” to the front lines? I wouldn’t give them bullet proof vests just a pair of Depends.
Wow! The right has finally come up with a plan other than “Lie and Die”. Okay, let the Senate vote on this one too: “Bring Back Saddam”.
Wow. O’Reilly is one tough talker. I’m sure he’s not opposed to backing his words up with some action. Maybe he can get out of his air-conditioned studio and into an Iraqi miltary checkpoint one of these days.
Considering that Iraq presented as a quasi-failed state, O’Reilly is right on in his assessment. The USA hasn’t been too tough on Iraq; it hasn’t been tough enough.
The USA has the challenge of making peace in Iraq, but even the most mind-numbed liberal must admit that there’s not going to be 100 percent cooperation from the folks. There’s always a bad apple somewhere, and particularly bad in Iraq.
For example, in post-war Japan and Germany, there was an unconditional surrender that was well-announced; there were 10 years of war that reduced the ranks of the fighting men; there was desperation; and there was a glimmer of hope in the eyes of the war-weary that the Americans would make things better.
But in 2003 Iraq, there was no surrender; there were 12 years of sanctions that permitted Saddam to consolidate his power; there was desperation, but there was also an unwillingness to trust Americans which was amplified at the mosques, in newspapers, and on al-Jazeera television. Worse yet, Saddam employed dirty tricks — for example, emptying prisons of the most heinous criminals just before the war’s beginning, and making AK-47s available by the millions.
Japan and Germany were much better candidates for occupation because the least helpful elements of society had been lost in the war and the best elements were intact. In Iraq, the most pro-USA elements of society were hunted down and destroyed before the war, but the worst elements — the most gruesome Fedayeen militia — were given resources and offered huge rewards.
Even so, American soldiers and sailors were not safe. More than 5,000 GIs died during the occupation; a large number of these deaths were from an insurgent (”terrorist”) campaign. Even by 1950, much of Europe and Japan lay in ruins.
The antiwar left has prosecuted a savage campaign based on lies, half-lies, and a basic disregard for The Way Things Are. Using ignorance and impatience as tools to set the public against the war is pathetic, and it’s shameful that the leftloons have done this.
O’Reilly has the right idea: get tough, shake out the terrorists and kill them, and then put the country back together on a sound footing. He’s talking about Iraq and not about America, but it’s still a good idea. You can’t rebuild until you’ve cleaned up the lot.
jesse mckay-
what is your source for saying 5000 americans died in post-war germany and japan?
you say, “O’Reilly has the right idea: get tough, shake out the terrorists and kill them, and then put the country back together on a sound footing. He’s talking about Iraq and not about America, but it’s still a good idea.”
jesus christ, i hope youre a satirist. you say “but” as though the flaw in oreilly’s logic is that hes talking about iraq and not america. 3000 dead is excuse enough for martial law? how many more than 3000 have died to protect those freedoms? the message from past (justified) military endeavors has been that our freedoms are worth sacrificing a lot more than 3000 lives.
freedom is valued far more than security (not that there needs to be a choice, national preparedness doesnt impinge on the constitution, bush could at least implement the 911 commissions recommendations, and not appoint micheal browns to homeland security), here in the land of the free.
and on your more general point, oppressing iraq further is not the way to make peace.
O’Reilly doesn’t scare me half as much as Tom and Jesse do. He’s just engaging in a little “Coultering”: “just like Saddam…” That’s ratings GOLD!
But Tom and Jesse, they really BELIEVE this sh*t. Tom would be like one of those “good Germans” in the late 1930s who felt that Der Fuehrer was just getting “a little carried away” with Kristallnacht. (Just look at Hitler’s approval ratings, Tom would respond to critics.)
And Jesse: Oh my God! O’Reilly has “the right idea” in suggesting that we run things “just like Saddam … shoot ‘em between the eyes” - “BUT” he should be talking about America and not Iraq? He’s gotta be kidding - isn’t he?
Dear Tom,
You call that a little out of line? The only reason it isn’t is because there’s all talk and no action but you can rest assure of good ole Bill ever did attempt running Iraq as he stated, America wouldn’t be behind him at all. And I don’t think that just because it was talk that we should just ignore it. Btw how are we taking it out of context? He bitches about Saddam, then he says he wants to basically run things the same way. Then he dismisses that he wants Iraq to be run this way and then reaffirms that it’s the way it should be done. Very indecisive. Why is that? And as for Bill getting crazy and out of line, he does run a news show. You do know this? So why is such an uneducated response being made from someone who supposedly gives facts? Because it’s a bad show. Why? Because the man makes statements such as the above and passes it off as a good idea. I know your feeble brain can’t even attempt to handle all this so I will leave you.
Why a 7 pm curfew? Aren’t the suicide bombings taking place during the day?