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.

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?

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.

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.