posted
For those of you who are interested, President Bush had a long interview with Bill O'Reilly, and O'Reilly is running it in sections on his program this week (I usually listen to his radio program - but I think there is a TV version as well) He had portion one last night, and there will be more this afternoon and tomorrow.
For those of you interested, but can't stand his voice, the transcript is being posted on the O'Reilly site for your review.
(duh! I started both graphs with the same phrase -- how stupid)
posted
Ok, I almost never do things like this, but seriously, does anyone really believe that the "Mission Accomplished" thing was about thanking the troops? And did you honestly believe that before the White House decided to spin it that way?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For something you almost never do, that doesn't really sound like an uncharacteristic sentiment. But I can't figure out how to find the interview transcript from the site.
If the White House is spinning "Mission Accomplished" which I will assume means declaring the war in Iraq over back in 2003 as thanking the troops, then yes that would be baloney. The mission was regime change, as I recall, and that was accomplished at that time.
The troops that are there now are involved in a different mission. The new regime doesn't work without a lot of support at this time, so the mission now is to support the new regime until it is better able to function. If Kerry is elected and yanks us out of there as fast as possible, the 1000+ troops that have died so far really will have given their lives for nothing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the interview -- this "Mission Accomplished" referred to is the appearance President Bush had on the aircraft carrier -- if you remember that.
FG (my link doesn't take you right to the interview?? Let me check it)
AH -- under the "Segment Summaries" click on the link that says "Click Here for a transcript of the interview" which should take you to This site
posted
pooka, when has Kerry ever said he will "yank our troops out of there?" His most optimistic estimate available is that it will take four years, and even then only if something miraculous happens. Neither candidate supports immediate withdrawal. Not yours. Not mine. In fact, Kerry wants to put even more troops on the ground, but he wants to see that they are international troops. He also wants to start doing more for the hearts and minds campaign, by which I mean several large, visible rebuilding projects that Iraqis will see and appreciate. Stuff like getting the Electricity stabilized as quickly a possible. I really don't understand the mischaracterization I'm seeing here. There are enough substantive differences between the candidates without making stuff up.
I suppose on a thread about Bill O'Reilly...
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. "Mission Accomplished" would be an odd name for it. In that case, no- I don't consider it baloney.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really loved it during the DNC when Terry McAuliffe was on "the Factor." Every single jab O'reilly made, McAuliffe immediately and absolutely conceded.
"Michael Moore said this! He's horrible and a bastard."
Yeah, I know. What about that? Ah, nobody's listening to that douchebag anyway.
"Your people are bad-mouthing Fox News. They are horrible bastards."
Hmm. Never heard that. I like Fox News! I watch all the time!
"Really. Are you sur.. I mean. Yeah! So, will you tell John Kerry to come on my show, then?"
I'll sure ask him!
Poor O'Reilly didn't know what to do. He just coughed and sputtered and stammered. The complete opposite of his debate with Klugman of the NYTimes when he ranted for an hour about how Klugman is a communist.
To be fair, Chris Matthews is just as bad on the other side, it's just that nobody actually watches his show.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: pooka, when has Kerry ever said he will "yank our troops out of there?" His most optimistic estimate available is that it will take four years, and even then only if something miraculous happens.
Oh, well I'm glad to hear that then. The soundbites that get through to me led me to believe he wanted to get the troops out immediately at any cost.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Mission Accomplished" was to mean the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which was, to quote some on here, baloney. I don't think he intended to pull troops out in major amounts, but I think they intended the creation of a police state where we were security guards and builders, not soldiers. There was no "regime change" at that time. Saddam was still missing which meant that in the eyes of many, he was still in charge...though keeping the hell out of dodge. If a leader is missing and that is "mission accomplished" then Bush can declare the War on Terror over, too...since Osama hasn't made a peep in a few years.
Bush and his team screwed up with the words "Mission Accomplished" and what they meant at the time, pre-spin. Troops were being told they could start to rotate out...but now, troops who have done their time are being called back in. More have died since that date than prior to it, I believe. He jumped the gun and used poorly chosen words and he should simply have said "ooops, we underestimated things" and left it at that...but here comes the spin! And in the "no-spin" zone, of all places...like no one saw THAT coming...
fil
Oh and...
quote: However, O'Reilly is a little more objective and balanced that either Limbaugh or Hannity
I think more people watch him because he is a more entertaining blow-hard than Hannity and less repetetive than Limbaugh (who for the most part is doing the same monologue he has done for two decades now as he doesn't often have guests on). With the big O, you have him chewing up guests in the no spin zone. Kind of like feeding time at the zoo. And nothing pulls in viewers like a good feeding frenzy. But more balanced?
posted
That the initial mission was accomplished was not baloney. That it has been spun to sound like he just wanted to thank the troops is baloney.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, your misconception frightens me. Not that you have/had it, but that there are tons of other, less "plugged in" voters out there with the same misconception.
For instance, Mr. "Anti-War" himself, Howard Dean, was also not for pulling out immediately, he made it repeatedly clear that he thought we needed, in the short term MORE troops, preferably from allies.
Of course, the media only remembered his initial criticism that got him on the map, and identified him with some of his more liberal supporters, rather than actually making it clear (I don't expect the right-wing media to be precise in this regard, but even the "mainstream" liberal media ran with the anti-war thing).
posted
The funniest thing to me about the "Mission Accomplished" brouhaha is the initial spin control: when it was pointed out that US troops are likely to be in Iraq for a long time so how is the mission accomplished, Bush PR people said the banner on the aircraft carrier was done the sailors.
This was quickly exposed as a lie by the press, a Bush advance team made the banner and had it put up on the carrier.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was no "initial message" unless it was to land the majority of our ground forces, in which case that was clearly completed at the time of the PR stunt. Combat operations? Not done. Regime changed? Nope...on the run, sure, but no more "changed" than arresting one crime boss in a mafia family. There is ALWAYS others ready to step into those shoes. It was a failed PR stunt that Bush has been able to skip around and, like his predecessor in Reagan, see slide off his shiny teflon coating.
quote:However, O'Reilly is a little more objective and balanced that either Limbaugh or Hannity. There are more people of both parties that listen to him.
That large numbers of people listen does not make it more objective. O'Reilly is "a little more objective and balanced" in the same way Brittany Spears is only a little more popular than Christina Aguillera.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On September 17, Stewart appeared on Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor" only to be told his viewers are "stoned slackers" and "dopey kids."
"You know what's really frightening?" O'Reilly asked Stewart. " You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it's true."
quote:"Daily Show" viewers are 78 percent more likely than the average adult to have four or more years of college education, while O'Reilly's audience is only 24 percent more likely to have that much schooling.
Plus, the network noted, "Daily Show" viewers are 26 percent more likely to have a household income more than $100,000, while O'Reilly's audience is only 11 percent more likely to make that much money.
posted
Obviously need educators to produce more stoned slackers.
What's pathetic is that Daily, Leno, and Letterman watchers are more politically aware than those who watch network news.
That newspaper readers were less politically aware isn't that surprising. From discussions, I've noticed that most people never seem to get much past the heading and the first couple of paragraphs: selection of which is Drudge's editorial strong suit in creating a desired political slant. And most of the interesting stuff, hard data, complete quotations, and contextualization/provisos/disclaimers/qualifiers/explanations are usually buried -- as single-sentences each in a different paragraph -- well past the middle of the story.
posted
The "stoned slacker" comment by Bill O'Reilly was a joke. Some liberals are just too sensitive. They can't take it when they are the butt of a joke. (They can dish it out, but they can't take it.)
The "Mission Accomplished" stunt on the aircraft carrier was General Tommy Franks' idea (the general himself said), as a means of encouraging our European allies to recognize that the end of major fighting was over, so they would send in people and resources to help rebuild Iraq--since some allies had said that is when they would.
The president also obviously meant it--like he has said--as a hearty congratulations to the military people who had served in the area during the successful invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The first mission of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime was accomplished before President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier. Overcoming the resistance of terrorists and insurgents so a new, stable government could be established based on the principles of democracy and toleration for all ethnic groups, is a second mission. It was understood from the beginning that this second mission would be a more difficult mission, and it has turned out to be even more difficult than anticipated. That does not mean the mission should be abandoned.
[ September 29, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
