Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Rush Limbaugh is much the same way - very sure of himself.> I don't see that. I see a blathering oaf who shoots off his mouth without thinking and calls it 'the truth.' I see an insecure hypocrite. I'm obviously in the minority.
Originally Posted By jonvn The implication is that he took extra medicine. He did say "too," himself, but the statement made here, out of context, is that he somehow took, TOO much.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "<Rush Limbaugh is much the same way - very sure of himself.> I don't see that. I see a blathering oaf who shoots off his mouth without thinking and calls it 'the truth.' I see an insecure hypocrite. I'm obviously in the minority." An accurate minority, however.
Originally Posted By DAR I saw the show on Friday and to me it's was nothing more than two guys debating. It was always civil and I think the Post made a big deal about nothing.
Originally Posted By jonvn I missed it. The Post is a tabloid, so maybe they did make more of it than there was.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper O'Reilly answered all of Letterman's questions. Letterman would ignore many of O'Reilly's. Letterman came off as someone who just wanted to gripe and whine. Like most of Letterman's opinion, when pressed about what they would have done with the Saddam problem, they don't have any answers. The one thing that angers me about conservatives (including O'Reilly that night) is they suddenly turn apologetic when it comes to WMD. There is no reason to apologize about WMD, or the lack thereof. We didn't need solid evidence of WMD to justify the war. We already had solid evidence of Saddam's intent, capability, and history with regards to WMD. He'd actually used them already. We had no confirmation that he DIDN'T have WMD, and he wasn't cooperating. Even without that, Saddam's treatment of his own people, and the terrorism he used to terrify the region were reasons enough to take action. I'm also tired of hearing people whine about the loss of life in the war, and how terrible it is compared to World War II, and such. World War II may have been shorter in terms of time, but it was far deadlier ... in part because the world delayed so long in responding to the menace of Germany, Italy and Japan. We would lose hundreds of lives (thousands?) in ONE DAY back then. We lost tens and tens of thousands in WWII, and hundreds of thousands in the Civil War. (There were no WMD at issue in the Civil War. Should that one not have been fought?) In terms of cost, the Iraq war is no comparison. Viewed in the context of history, we ought to be grateful that far more lives have not been lost in Iraq. George Bush was in an impossible situation. When pressed, even David Letterman (who we know hates Bush) cannot admit that Bush is evil, or say how he lied. "Misguided" was the best he could do. Yet Bush did the only thing he could do ... protect America (and the free world, and Iraq) from what was to most people a real and unnegotiable threat. People will quibble about strategy and tactics, but those who say the Iraq war was unjustified essentially argue against any war we have ever fought. We'll get through this ... but we'll get through it quicker if we gather our resolve, remember who it is we're working against (bloodthirsty terrorists), recognize the fine work our men and women are doing, and look towards a positive end. We're getting there. But rather than freaking-out with every grain of bad news, we ought to be thanking our men, and women, and president every day for the many, many good things they're doing. They're there ... if we open our eyes and take of our politically-filtered glasses.
Originally Posted By jonvn "We didn't need solid evidence of WMD to justify the war. " Well, actually, we did, because now over 600,000 people are dead over a phantom. The reason these guys are apologetic is because they know they are wrong. And the reason that the Administration keeps changing its justification for the war is because its original reasoning has been proven to be wrong. "Saddam's treatment of his own people, and the terrorism he used to terrify the region were reasons enough to take action." Except that how he behaved is no better or worse than many other tin plated dictators around the world. We aren't rushing in everywhere, we're not rushing into North Korea, where they actually do have nuclear weapons. Basically, there has been very poor and very faulty reasoning for us to be Iraq, and for us to remain there. "George Bush was in an impossible situation." Well, no. If he had simply had waited like the rest of the world was asking of him, then we would have found out the truth, and that would have been that. We wouldn't have lost prestige around the world, and we wouldn't be even more reviled by the Arab population for whom we are foolishly dependent on our oil for. "We'll get through this ... " Perhaps, but in a much diminished capacity than we would have otherwise--and for absolutely no good reason. When Bush leaves office, people around the world, and I talk to people from around the world, will breathe a sigh of relief. The main thing I hear from people is "We just don't understand how he was re-elected."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I'm also tired of hearing people whine about the loss of life in the war, and how terrible it is compared to World War II, and such." Oh boy. You must have considered by now that many people are just as tired of this kind of logic, so it's a push, isn't it? Big difference here is Iraq never attacked the U.S. Japan did, then latter allied themselves with Germany. Could be that people are tired of others not thinking about that part when using WWII as a defense for the current war. "(There were no WMD at issue in the Civil War. Should that one not have been fought?)" One of more inane strawman questions posed recently. Hell, we fought each other in that war for starters, so let's rip the person in the mirror before using that as a defense for attacking an Arab country. "Viewed in the context of history, we ought to be grateful that far more lives have not been lost in Iraq." You really lose people here. In the context of history, this war was easily one of the biggest bungles. Are you seriously saying, knowing what we know at this moment, this was an inpsired decision?
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Well, actually, we did, because now over 600,000 people are dead over a phantom. Try telling the 400,000 (estimated) that Saddam Hussein has killed, and their families, that he is a "phantom." >>> If he had simply had waited like the rest of the world was asking of him, then we would have found out the truth, and that would have been that. Hardly. The "rest of the world?" The world was hardly agreed on what to do. Many (including me) thought we waited too long. And what makes you able to predict that Saddam would have shriveled-up like a harmless worm on a sidewalk if we'd left him alone? History tells us clearly that quite the opposite happens. >>> You really lose people here. In the context of history, this war was easily one of the biggest bungles. Are you seriously saying, knowing what we know at this moment, this was an inpsired decision? I'm saying that it was the only moral decision. Saddam was a bully. He was already killing people. I'm saying that just because people are still dying in Iraq doesn't mean the choice was wrong. People were dying there before, in larger numbers. Terrorists were expanding their bloodshed around the world. There was no "good" choice without unpleasant consequences. Anyone who thinks THEIR deicision (or indecision) would have saved lives in the long run is deluded. No one can no that. Personally, I believe there was no clear and simple solution for this. Neither action nor inaction would have spared the lives of thousands. The nature of the evil at work here assured us all long ago that they would kill and kill and kill, and die trying to take out as many as they can with them. Bush knew that, and said so repeatedly. The best we can do is do our part to stand in the way of evil. We can't know that letting Saddam alone would have been "peaceful." Indeed, our experience says otherwise. It's a gamble either way. But if we must gamble, we MUST put the odds in favor of innocent people, and never outright had the dice over to people like Saddam ... which is exactly what Bush's critics are saying we should have done.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I saw the show on Friday and to me it's was nothing more than two guys debating. It was always civil and I think the Post made a big deal about nothing.>> <<I missed it. The Post is a tabloid, so maybe they did make more of it than there was.>> <<O'Reilly answered all of Letterman's questions. Letterman would ignore many of O'Reilly's. Letterman came off as someone who just wanted to gripe and whine.>> At first I felt that Letterman was sincere about being contrary to O'Reilly's arguments. But a little bit into it, and then I felt that Letterman was simply mocking the liberal press by not letting O'Reilly answer questions at all. If you watch the two, Letterman isn't really looking at O'Reilly when he brings up populist contentions about the whole affair. And while probobly not staged, Letterman didn't seem to believe what he was actually saying. Dunno. But it was a strange moment.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<And while probobly not staged, Letterman didn't seem to believe what he was actually saying.>> So as not to be too confusing, I meant it that Letterman didn't seem to believe what he himself was actually saying. It was strange.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> And what makes you able to predict that Saddam would have shriveled-up like a harmless worm on a sidewalk if we'd left him alone? << Fidel Castro. >> I'm saying that it was the only moral decision. << Because you are the ultimate arbitor of morality? wow. >> People were dying there before, in larger numbers. << You're referring largely to events that happened years prior - as much as twenty years. It's an after-the-fact excuse, not a justification of bush's invasion. >> Terrorists were expanding their bloodshed around the world. << Totally and completely unrelated to iraq. >> The nature of the evil at work here assured us all long ago that they would kill and kill and kill, and die trying to take out as many as they can with them. << "They"? The iraqis, or the 'terrorists'? Two different things. Here we see the black/white mindset that is the hallmark of armchair generals. You refer to 'action versus inaction' but fail to acknowledge that there were other courses of action that didn't require a full-scale military invasion. >> The best we can do is do our part to stand in the way of evil. << I'm sure doing my part by my opposition to this war and this administration. >> we MUST put the odds in favor of innocent people << How many innocent people have been killed and maimed in iraq? Hundreds of thousands? >> a gamble either way. But if we must gamble << This was an unnecessary gamble. We took it anyway and gambled that we would be complete with the task in less than six months. We lost. Now there's no good way out. >> and never outright had the dice over to people like Saddam ... which is exactly what Bush's critics are saying we should have done. << Empty and meaningless rhetoric. Whatever 'handing the dice over to saddam' means to you, you'd be hardpressed to point to any responsible bush critic and say that's what they were advocating for.
Originally Posted By jonvn <<Try telling the 400,000 (estimated) that Saddam Hussein has killed, and their families, that he is a "phantom.">> As far as a threat to us, he was a phantom. As far as his own people, he was no worse than all sorts of others just like him around the globe. <<The world was hardly agreed on what to do. Many (including me) thought we waited too long.>> I think there was a general agreement to wait until the inspections were completed. We didn't. And we incurred the emnity of many nations because of it. "And what makes you able to predict that Saddam would have shriveled-up like a harmless worm on a sidewalk if we'd left him alone?" The fact that he had no WMD program, and we had evidence that he didn't. Yet we proceeded anyway. He was a beaten man. There was basically no real reason to invade, and we have gained nothing from it. "The best we can do is do our part to stand in the way of evil." The best we can do is protect our best interests. There is evil all over the planet. We're not in a position to get rid of all or any of it. "But if we must gamble, we MUST put the odds in favor of innocent people, and never outright had the dice over to people like Saddam ... " This is all simply ridiculous. He wasn't a threat to us, and was no worse than many other dictators around the world. And what we have done in Iraq has made the country no better off than it was before.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "As far as his own people, he was no worse than all sorts of others just like him around the globe." Yes, and I'm sure that made the Iraqi citizens much more self-assured and content. Achmed: Do you realize that Saddam is killing hundreds of us every week because he fears we might become obstacles to him someday! Mohammed: All too true. Yet, in North Korea, I hear that thousands of people are killed every week for the same reason. Achmed: That makes me feel so much better, Mohammed. Thank you for the uplifting message.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm sure that made the Iraqi citizens much more self-assured and content." So? Somehow we should be more concerned about the Iraqi citizens than those in say, Somalia? The logical disconnect here is that we don't go around invading all the countries in the globe. We did here, and the last reason in the world we did it is for the sake of the poor Iraqi citizens.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I meant it that Letterman didn't seem to believe what he himself was actually saying.<< I think Letterman came off looking bad in this interview. He didn't have his thoughts together, and I think he let his personal dislike for O'Reilly and his emotions get the better of him. O'Reilly, by comparisson, had a couple of funny lines and made more valid, on-topic points. And I think about 2/3's of the way through the interview, Letterman knew it. O'Reilly's previous appearance on the show went kind of the other way. O'Reilly was more strident, and Letterman easily poked holes in O'Reilly's whole 'war on Christmas' nonsense. Current Score: Letterman: 1 O'Reilly: 1
Originally Posted By DAR Plus was anyone surprised by the rather positive reaction O'Reilly got when he told someone in the audience to "knock it off." when he mentioned 9/11 and the person kind of booed? I was.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What I was (not very) surprised by is how wildly innaccurate the NY Post version of this story from Post #1 was. They made it seem like O'Reilly's response to the audience member was directed at Letterman (it was not). They also made it seem like when Letterman said "Bonehead" he was enraged -- it was all part of a joke set up, and both men laughed about it at the time. Who owns the NY Post again?........
