Bill O'Reilly needs to think before he speaks

[DngrRuss]

Did anyone happen to catch Bill O'Reilly on his FOX News show the other night when he dared to lecture Sen. John McCain on the merits of torture?

McCain stated that torture of POWs simply does not work to acheive the intelligence goals desired. He has also been very critical of the handling of current POWs at Guantanimo. How would McCain come to such conclusions? How could he not follow the party line and rhetoric of the Pro-War right regarding POWs? Hmm... maybe since he was a POW in a VC hell-hole for some 5 years? Maybe he has paid a far greater physical and emotional price than most of us can even imagine? Maybe he's actually an authority on the subject due to experience rather than theory?

Then O'Reilly states that he has read the reports and that he disagreed with McCain on how information can be gathered from POWs through more extreme measures. Huh? Who the hell is O'Reilly to lecture McCain on how any POW should or should not be treated? To my knowledge, Bill didn't even serve in the armed forces, nevermind having the slightest clue what it is to be a POW.

O'Reilly, shut up. You invite McCain, a Republican, to your show to discuss this issue, then you correct him and denote your knowledge on the subject that you are so clearly ignorant of when he does not follow the "yes-man" attitude that so many of your right-side guests have? Man, that takes such an amazing combination of brain-washed idiocy and quantum-sized man-berries that it would take a Master's Degree in Physics to figure out why their mass hasn't collapsed on themselves and created a Right-Wing Black Hole.

 

[KenpoEMT]

I repect Mr. O'reilly's (and everyone else's) right to free speech, but the man strikes me as someone who talks just to hear his own voice. Every now and then he has a valid point; however, his treatment of the good Senator was (IMO) less than respectful.
This is one area where I think that experience trumps random opinion, and Bill doesn't have the experience.

 

[Kempogeek]

I repect Mr. O'reilly's (and everyone else's) right to free speech, but the man strikes me as someone who talks just to hear his own voice. Every now and then he has a valid point; however, his treatment of the good Senator was (IMO) less than respectful.
This is one area where I think that experience trumps random opinion, and Bill doesn't have the experience.

Very true on all points. He always seems to never let his guests finish their statements, probaby because he don't like what he's hearing. It's fine to disagree but have a little bit of consideration for your guests. After all they were nice enough to come on your show. He wants to think that he's always right and everyone's wrong. I always thought that he was an idiot and this is just another occasion to back it up. Shame on you O'Reilly......Steve

 

[michaeledward]

John Stewart did an excellent (as usual) job commenting on this particular incident last evening.

You would think the 'Media' would get a hint when a comic, with a wry comment, can kill a program, or ridicule a network. Of course, if the 'Media' was reporting any news, Stewart wouldn't have a job. So, perhaps it is best not to complain.

M

 

[ginshun]

To my knowledge O'Reilly has never thought before he spoke, I don't know why he would start now.

While I am sure McCaine knows more about this subject than anyone, I still don't care for him. He seems to just say what he thinks the most people want to hear, regardless of the issue.

 

[Tgace]

Shouldnt anybody who agrees to go on his show be prepared for what they get? Its not like the Sen. was dragged there against his will.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Did anyone happen to catch Bill O'Reilly on his FOX News show the other night when he dared to lecture Sen. John McCain on the merits of torture?

McCain stated that torture of POWs simply does not work to acheive the intelligence goals desired. He has also been very critical of the handling of current POWs at Guantanimo. How would McCain come to such conclusions? How could he not follow the party line and rhetoric of the Pro-War right regarding POWs? Hmm... maybe since he was a POW in a VC hell-hole for some 5 years? Maybe he has paid a far greater physical and emotional price than most of us can even imagine? Maybe he's actually an authority on the subject due to experience rather than theory?

Then O'Reilly states that he has read the reports and that he disagreed with McCain on how information can be gathered from POWs through more extreme measures. Huh? Who the hell is O'Reilly to lecture McCain on how any POW should or should not be treated? To my knowledge, Bill didn't even serve in the armed forces, nevermind having the slightest clue what it is to be a POW.

O'Reilly, shut up. You invite McCain, a Republican, to your show to discuss this issue, then you correct him and denote your knowledge on the subject that you are so clearly ignorant of when he does not follow the "yes-man" attitude that so many of your right-side guests have? Man, that takes such an amazing combination of brain-washed idiocy and quantum-sized man-berries that it would take a Master's Degree in Physics to figure out why their mass hasn't collapsed on themselves and created a Right-Wing Black Hole.

Apples and oranges. There's a big difference between being a POW and understanding how to interrogate prisoners (not that O'Reilly is an expert on either subject). The fact is, claiming that McCain understands better than most the most pragmatic and effective way to elicit information from these terrorists, by simple virtue of the fact that he was once a prisoner of war is a bit of a reach. This is a rather emotional issue for Mr. McCain, however, his feelings on the matter aside the larger questions still remain.

Again, we can argue over whether or not we want to get in to the business of this type of interrogation on moral grounds. It's effectiveness, however, isn't in serious dispute by anyone with any knowledge of interrogation and a dispassionate eye.

 

[Thesemindz]

I don't think that being tortured neccesarily makes you an expert on the relative merits, or lack there of, of torture. Maybe McCain is stronger than most men. Maybe he has more metal. Maybe he's made of sterner stough. This is the same kind of thinking which says that unless you've been a coke addict, you aren't qualified to help coke addicts beat their addiction. Unless you've been a rape victim, you don't have the right to speak on the issue of rape. Unless you are a terrorist, you don't have the right to judge their actions. Unless you've been stabbed in the gut you can't teach knife defense. Bull hockey. Experience may give you a unique perspective, but it does not neccesarily make you an expert, nor does it give you a monopoly on being right. Many people experience many things which are beyond their limited comprehension and which they have no true understanding of, either before, during, or after.

I'm not saying O'Reilly was right. In fact, he often irritates me by saying things which I feel or believe to be diametrically opposed to the truth. Sometimes I think he's dead on. Sometimes I think he's disrespectful and says foolish things. Sometimes I'm glad when he shuts up his guests. Regardless, if people are watching his show enough to complain about his behavior, he's certaintly doing his job and earning his paycheck, and that's really all he has a responsibility to do. Remember, he may be part of the media, but his show is clearly an opinion show, not a news broadcast. And I'd hardly say he's right wing, although I think he gets that alot. As a person who is very conservative, although hardly right wing myself, I wouldn't want his beliefs associated with my own in such a blanket fashion. How far out on the wing are we going here? What do you define as right wing? I'd find him more to be a centrist who leans generally right on security and social issues, but often left on environmental issues. Regardless, in this particular instance, I did think it was short sighted of him to lecture a man well known for his first hand experiences with torture on the merits of torture, but then again, he was quoting interrogators themselves and not merely espousing theory. He said, "the men in Bagram tell me coercive interrogations work and they are getting good stuff." He didn't say "I sure think torturing those (explitive deleted) terrorists is the right thing to do cause they got it coming shucks howdy!" I think there's a difference, but then I don't have first hand knowledge with making an *** out of myself, so I'm probably not qualified to say.

By the way, that's a joke. I've made an *** out of myself many times.


-Rob

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't think that being tortured neccesarily makes you an expert on the relative merits, or lack there of, of torture. Maybe McCain is stronger than most men. Maybe he has more metal. Maybe he's made of sterner stough. This is the same kind of thinking which says that unless you've been a coke addict, you aren't qualified to help coke addicts beat their addiction. Unless you've been a rape victim, you don't have the right to speak on the issue of rape. Unless you are a terrorist, you don't have the right to judge their actions. Unless you've been stabbed in the gut you can't teach knife defense. Bull hockey. Experience may give you a unique perspective, but it does not neccesarily make you an expert, nor does it give you a monopoly on being right. Many people experience many things which are beyond their limited comprehension and which they have no true understanding of, either before, during, or after.

I'm not saying O'Reilly was right. In fact, he often irritates me by saying things which I feel or believe to be diametrically opposed to the truth. Sometimes I think he's dead on. Sometimes I think he's disrespectful and says foolish things. Sometimes I'm glad when he shuts up his guests. Regardless, if people are watching his show enough to complain about his behavior, he's certaintly doing his job and earning his paycheck, and that's really all he has a responsibility to do. Remember, he may be part of the media, but his show is clearly an opinion show, not a news broadcast. And I'd hardly say he's right wing, although I think he gets that alot. As a person who is very conservative, although hardly right wing myself, I wouldn't want his beliefs associated with my own in such a blanket fashion. How far out on the wing are we going here? What do you define as right wing? I'd find him more to be a centrist who leans generally right on security and social issues, but often left on environmental issues. Regardless, in this particular instance, I did think it was short sighted of him to lecture a man well known for his first hand experiences with torture on the merits of torture, but then again, he was quoting interrogators themselves and not merely espousing theory. He said, "the men in Bagram tell me coercive interrogations work and they are getting good stuff." He didn't say "I sure think torturing those (explitive deleted) terrorists is the right thing to do cause they got it coming shucks howdy!" I think there's a difference, but then I don't have first hand knowledge with making an *** out of myself, so I'm probably not qualified to say.

By the way, that's a joke. I've made an *** out of myself many times.


-Rob

Exactly. As I pointed out, the argument is apples and oranges. It's "Torture is morally bad" versus "Torture works to elicit information". DngRuss has made this an either/or proposition, when in reality both statements can be and probably are true.

As for O'Reilly, his show isn't hard news (as he points out repeatedly) but news commentary. He's no more or less asinine than the Editorial page of the New York Times (who are his actual peers in the news business). People tune in to his show to hear his opinion and see him debate that with guests. Anyone who takes him more seriously than that, is the one with the problem.

 

[Thesemindz]

I will say this. If you wanted to know something, and I knew it, and you threatened to do any number of things which come immediately to mind and which I don't care to enumerate here, I'd probably tell you. Period. And I have a pretty high opinion of myself, my beliefs, and my morals. Doesn't matter. I'm not trying to get tortured, and if I really thought that giving up the info would spare me that, I probably would.

Now, if giving up the info would bring about the death or suffering of my loved ones, that's a different story. I haven't been there, I couldn't say. I hope I'd be strong enough to take the suffering on myself instead. Ideally, I'd just not get taken alive.

As to whether or not it's morally objectionable, I find torture to be so yes. I don't mind coercion, and I don't think piling up naked people, or putting panties on their heads, or shining bright lights in their eyes, or playing loud music, or withholding food or water within reason, or any number of other "soft" coercive techniques are inherently wrong, although they could certaintly be carried to that extreme. I think pulling people's toenails out, or puncturing their eardrums, or flaying, beating, or burning them, or torturing their families is, and I don't want my country to engage in those types of things. I want America to stand for something greater than that. If I really thought we could hug our enemies into giving up the info, I'd opt for that technique every time. Unfortunately, I think hoping for the best in these situations without any action is not just irresponsible, it's wrong. Our enemies are hard, and we have to get hard to beat them. I only hope we don't lose our way in the darkness.


-Rob

 

[Marginal]

Well, just have to look at the facts and we'll come to the natural conclusion.

1) O'Riley questioned an elected official of the US government.
2) O'Riley disrespected a vetran

Obviously O'Riley hates America and is a traitor.

 

[Tgace]

Hmm..did he call the Senator a semiliterate moron? Or perhaps "Hitler" or hey how about "you make me embarrassed to be an American"?

Disagreement isnt the problem....

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hmm..did he call the Senator a semiliterate moron? Or perhaps "Hitler" or hey how about "you make me embarrassed to be an American"?

Disagreement isnt the problem....

I don't recall O'Reilly claiming that the Senator was lying about everything, and that it's really HIM that is the problem with this planet.

 

[Marginal]

Hmm..did he call the Senator a semiliterate moron? Or perhaps "Hitler" or hey how about "you make me embarrassed to be an American"?

Disagreement isnt the problem....

If the shoe fits...

 

[MisterMike]

Torture does work. Every time I see Hillary on TV I change the channel.

 

[sgtmac_46]

If the shoe fits...

Are you referring to the senator?