posted on April 6, 2004 08:47:36 AMO'Reilly doesn't side with Bush but presents both sides to the issues.
In your dreams. O'Reilly is a FOX republican partisan, and has sided in the past with Bush on every issue of importance. O'Reilly also supported the lies that led to the invaision of Iraq FOR MONTHS, and when it turned out the WOMDs claims were lies, he mentioned it perhaps twice. If he were on no one's "side", he would be beating the drum every night about the Bush lies.
He may not be a registered republican, but he supports republicans almost exclusively. When you go down the republican platform and what O'Reilly supports he is no doubt a republican.
When he says he is a "traditionalist", it means he is a conservative republican.
And O'Reilly didn't say that Bush was a liar and an idiot for invading Iraq, but instead blamed the people of Iraq for our failed policies there.
The point is that even republicans are being driven to the point of not being able to support Bush's lame a$$ policies.
posted on April 6, 2004 09:06:45 AM
So what does Iraq have in common with Vietnam. Catering to the peace honey dippers, congressional fact finders and media control. Bill O'Reily is right!. "It time for the Military to take control" Factor 4/1/02 and remove any doubt of how powerful our Troops are.
The Marines have crap city sealed off, cones of fire set to cover every inch of the city. Now they need to shut of the supplies. In other words water & electricity & food. Give them a choice of life or death for all weapons in the city & those that committed the death & mutilation of the four Americans. Should this not be done in 72 hours, start destroying the city outside moving inward. That is text book military. That is war.
posted on April 6, 2004 09:18:45 AM
Fallujah represents a symptom of a greater problem and as a battle pales in comparison to threats posed by al-Sistani and al-Sadr.
posted on April 6, 2004 11:34:37 AM
reamond - My point was that he's always judged by the left as being *ONLY* a 'right wing' conservative who supports only the Republican positions.....and he's not.
Of course more of his views are right leaning....otherwise I wouldn't support him the way I do. But that doesn't mean he has NEVER been critical of nor disagreed with this Presidents positions, because he has. And I agree the conservative voters have found a great source for letting their voices/opinions be heard in a mostly liberal leaning media.
That's why his program is #1 on cable.
I don't think, nor do others who have been quoted on his political affiliation, Bill O'Reilly fits neatly into any 'box'.
He personally has agreed with people calling him an Independent, a traditionalist and a populist.
Here's his positions on some of the issues:
Political opinion
O'Reilly's opinions contain a mix of traditionally conservative and liberal positions:
Traditionally conservative views
Supports cutting taxes across the board and eliminating the inheritance tax
Supports use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific experiments
Supports harsher prosecution for hard drug offenders
Supports U.S. military action against the Taliban and Afghanistan
Opposes strict separation of church and state and secularization
Opposes illegal immigration (e.g., proposes placing troops on the U.S. border with Mexico)
Believes that most news media has a liberal bias.
--
Traditionally liberal views
Supports raising automobile fuel efficiency standards due to his belief in global warming
Supports campaign finance reform
Supports de-criminalizing marijuana
Opposes the death penalty
Opposes additional regulation of pornography
--
In his book The O'Reilly Factor, he answered the question of his political affiliation this way: "You might be wondering if whether I'm conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what... See, I don't want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That's my political position."
posted on April 6, 2004 02:55:58 PMSo what does Iraq have in common with Vietnam.
Everything with the exception of communism.
We are trying to use our military to impose a government on a majority population, and more importantly a majority RELIGION, that doesn't want anything to do with us.
It is not about setting the people of Iraq "free", because there are any number of other countries that we could do that for, including Saudi Arabia, but we didn't. Simply put, we wouldn't be there if it wasn't for oil. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or democracy.
After the whacking our Marines took today, the retired generals now say it could take 30 years of military force in Iraq to even begin a democracy. That's ageneration.
But it will get even more interesting. It is claimed the Shiites have asked the Sunnis to join them in driving the invaders from Iraq. Iran and Saudi Arabia both have a great interest in seeing democracy fail in Iraq, and while neither is OVERTLY supporting the insurgency, neither are trying to stop it either.
Iran will or already has started funneling arms and material into Iraq for the Shiites and may even support the Sunnis against us, and Saudi Arabians will or are funneling money to the insurgents.
But that doesn't mean he has NEVER been critical of nor disagreed with this Presidents positions, because he has. And I agree the conservative voters have found a great source for letting their voices/opinions be heard in a mostly liberal leaning media.
