Donahue vs. O'Reilly
It was guaranteed to be a fracas, and it was. O'Reilly lost his marbles and started screaming patriotic drivel in his trademark attempt to make it seem as if HE alone is defending us from evil. Of course, it was all ridiculous and responding to a slight that only existed in his head, but, that's par for the course.
As always, the excellent Crooks and Liars has the story and clips here, as well as a post on the inevitable post appearance spin effort by the "no-spin" O'Reilly.
Falafel Bill's head explodes!Without belaboring the point, O'Reilly thrives on setting things up so he can't lose. Someone can appear and hand his ass to him, as Donahue argueably did, and then O'Reilly can spin madly for weeks and sometimes months afterwards until he's emerged as some sort of valiant hero and those who bested him appear as cowardly nut jobs or worse.
Phil goes on the offensive immediately telling Billy that he's leading the pack to marginalize Cindy Sheehan.
Donohue: Cindy Sheehan is one tough mother and nothing you say or anyone else is going to slow her down.
Bill: That's fine, she's has a right-
Phil:....You can't hurt her, she's already taken the biggest punch in the nose that a woman can take.
Bill, in his infinite wisdom asks: How? Phil: She's lost a son- Bill: Oh, OK...
Phil asks O'Reilly if his children would fight in the war and the meltdown ensues. Bill tells him that his nephew just joined (that's not his kids) and blows his top. O'Reilly threatens to boot Donohue off the set for saying absolutely nothing. The bloviator really lost it, playing the " you're denigrating him" card. If C&L was like certain right wing sites, I'm sure we would fact check Billy's nephew.
Bill, what did Phil say to denigrate him? Nothing. Donohue brought up Jeremy Glick.
Phil: I'm not Jeremy Glick, Billy...You can't intimidate me...
Newshounds has the transcript up...
posted by The Inside Dope @ 9/23/2005
4 comments
4 Comments:
Phil didn't ask O'Reilly if his children would fight in the war... he asked him if he would send his kids to die in the war. Those are two different questions. (Would you send your kid to college to binge drink and die of alcohol poisoning?) Not a single kid in Iraq was sent by his or her parents. A parent cannot send their kid to war. And when someone enlists to fight for their country... they are not going there to die... they are going there to kill.
Phil also very smugly, (you know the way he starts winding up his fat head), says, "Well you must be very prou..." upon Bill's mention of his nephew. That's what set him off. Now, I'm no fan of Bill's, as he requires a couple of Macro Econ 101 lectures before explaining free markets to the country, but Phil didn't offer anything new or intellectual. And, the entire time Donahue is criticizing O'Reilly for yelling... he too is yelling. They are both morons. Donahue should be forced to debate PJ O'Rourke or Fred Barnes. Then you'd see some asshanding.
Well, senor badass, although you may think that asking someone who supports the war in Iraq whether they are sending their own children to fight and possibly be injured or killed in this war is not "offering anything new or intellectual" to the debate but I agree with Phil Donahue that this is one of the strongest arguments against the war. It is much easier to support a war in which you are not sacrificing anything. Young people are being sent to fight and die but, by and large, not the children of the people doing the sending. The supposed benefits of this war only outweigh the costs for people for whom the costs are low because they are being paid by someone else.
Although you claim that this is not a powerful line of debate it sure seems to have unhinged Bill O'Reilly. You seem to be claiming that this is because O'Reilly is a lightweight but it is just speculation on your part to claim that P J O'Rourke or Fred Barnes would do better against Donahue. How many family members to they have in Iraq?
The problem with people like Donohue is that they believe if they simply refuse to fight a war, somehow, their enemies will give up and go away. They live in a nebulous world of sweet dreams and foolish fantasies. They’re cute in a way, much like children, who, because of their tender age, are naïve enough to believe that all people are kind, decent, and incapable of evil intent.
Dave, I'd suggest that it's YOU who lives in some fantasy macho dream world where it's actually posible to actually identify, fight, and eliminate all our supposed "enemies", usually whoever our government tells us they should be.
Donahue and others don't think we should never fight. Just that we should never invade a country who posed no threat to us in any way shape or form on the basis of trumped up bullshit and lies. In other words, unprovoked wars of choice are illegal and immoral.
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, just exactly how would our "enemies" have gotten over on us Dave?
What about the fact that the invasion has mulitplied the number of people willing to do anything to attack us, Dave?
What about the fact that we're LESS secure now than we ever were before George's little adventure?
Don't be so stupid as to simply catagorize those who wish to end the death and destruction that Bush's stupidity is costing us as people who simply would never fight for any cause whatsoever.
They just feel that continuing to KILL people for NO FREAKING GOOD REASON, is immoral and wrong.
It's folks like you that are living in some dream world where America is a comic book hero fighting for truth and justice.
It's YOU that ought to wake up and join the reality based world.
Post a Comment
<< Home