Cut and run O'Reilly?

[her209]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what we've been trying to do for the last few months? Bush has been trying to get authority over to the Iraqi government so we can start backing out ourselves for months. How are O'Reilly's statements out of line with that?

"Here's the essential problem in Iraq. There so many nuts in the country... so many crazies... that we can't control them. And I don't... we'll never be able to control them. So the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible... because we just can't control these people. They're just all over the place. And that was the big mistake about America... they didn't... it was the crazy people underestimation. We did not know how to deal with them and we still don't."

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
What O'Rielly's position now, is what many prominent Democrats' have been for a while now.

For all the people here claiming that this is not a complete reversal of O'Rielly's position, no, it's not a complete reversal. But it definitely is a reversal of opinion on the Democrats who, believe or not, have been correct the whole time!

The ironic part, and here, I'll try and make it as clear as possible for those who cannot understand irony, is this:

Months before. O'Rielly: "Those Democrats only want to cut and run! Telling the president to "get our troops out of there" is treason and cowardice!"

Today. O'Rielly: "We need to get our troops out of there!"

Hopefully I don't need to explain it anymore.

Pefectly said

so can we call Oreilly the big traitor to america now?

too bad the damage is so far done in our media by Blowhard$$ like Oreilly.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Hey Frackel,

I'll buy your load of crock from you if you can show a single Dem/"Leftie" that has stated we should drop everything and "run" from Iraq without some kind of formal handover. You know, what O'Reilly, Hannity, Boortz, Savage, Rush, Rove, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc, etc, etc have so deftly coined "cutting and running".

Face it, O'Reilly has called for the same exact thing that he has called "cutting and running" when those that are on the opposite side of the political fence have suggested THE VERY SAME THING.

He is advocating "cutting and running" by his very own definition. He is a hypocrit and a pandering sack 'o shite and you are almost as bad for posting 40 replies in defense of him when you know that he is "guilty as charged" as a flip flopper.

/thread

 

[colonel]

'm so shocked the two biggest liberals on these forums would respond in such a way to this suggestion.

you guys started this mess, so GIVE us a solution......we are waiting for you

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Frackal
It's interesting to watch the last several posts totally incorrectly characterize what was said. Whether this is a complete reversal of O'Reilly's opinion is a valid issue, but is not what is being argued about here. The debate is between whether what O'Reilly said equates to the "Cut and Run" terminology used by Steeple to describe it. I see accuracy is not a great concern for the last few posters either.

Okay, let's assume O RLY is saying what you are claiming. So then the question has to be asked, if the hand over process can be done faster, then why isn't it (regardless of the current events)?

I hope you guys don't normally go through an issue like this. So much wasted time.

O'Reilly DIDN'T say that it COULD be done faster, he just said that we have to do it as fast as humanly possible. I don't know the answer to whether it could be done faster or not... I mean, theoretically sure it could be done faster... ask the idiots who thought this whole stupid thing up.

Oh what irony!

Yeah man but you can do better, it's ok

I could if I thought it was worth my time. :laugh:

 

[zephyrprime]

Aisengard & Rightiswrong are exactly right. O'Reilly now advocates the same position that the democrats did at an earlier time. He is now advocating the position that he himself defined as "cut and run" in the past.

 

[Polish3d]

Well ok, you guys keep saying it, I don't think it's impossible... can you prove it?

I mean, you all seem so sure, so you must have direct knowledge of a time when xxx democrat said this and O'Reilly in response said xxxxx cut/run xxx.

Since you are obviously so sure, one of you should post the quotes.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Well ok, you guys keep saying it, I don't think it's impossible... can you prove it?

I mean, you all seem so sure, so you must have direct knowledge of a time when xxx democrat said this and O'Reilly in response said xxxxx cut/run xxx.

Since you are obviously so sure, one of you should post the quotes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165401,00.html

 

[Polish3d]

Uhhhh... no.

"Both liberal and conservative Americans need to stop putting ideology above the truth. To cut and run in Iraq would be a disaster for the USA. It'd be a tremendous victory for the terrorists."


I don't see how you guys can win this one.


All he was saying in the original quote, (unless you can show differently), is that we have to complete the handover process as quickly as possible... that is different from packing up and leaving immediately regardless of what stage the handover process is in.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Uhhhh... no.

"Both liberal and conservative Americans need to stop putting ideology above the truth. To cut and run in Iraq would be a disaster for the USA. It'd be a tremendous victory for the terrorists."


I don't see how you guys can win this one.


All he was saying in the original quote, (unless you can show differently), is that we have to complete the handover process as quickly as possible... that is different from packing up and leaving immediately regardless of what stage the handover process is in.

I think we hit a nerve, poor loofah boi. So misunderstood, how dare your hero turn out to be a coward.

Good thing you were here to try to offer him a hand.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Frackal
Uhhhh... no.

"Both liberal and conservative Americans need to stop putting ideology above the truth. To cut and run in Iraq would be a disaster for the USA. It'd be a tremendous victory for the terrorists."


I don't see how you guys can win this one.


All he was saying in the original quote, (unless you can show differently), is that we have to complete the handover process as quickly as possible... that is different from packing up and leaving immediately regardless of what stage the handover process is in.

I think we hit a nerve, poor loofah boi. So misunderstood, how dare your hero turn out to be a coward.

Good thing you were here to try to offer him a hand.

Well Steeple, you again introduce yourself in classic fashion, with another massive error of assumption.

Your thinking ability does not seem promising.

The irrelevant effort to slander by potraying me as a "fanboi" of O'Reilly is both a red herring and an ad hominem. (And it's immature to boot.)

Bill O'Reilly is not my hero, despite your continued attempts to make it appear as though he is.

I am not interested in discussing it further, or diverting the topic by letting everyone on the other side of the argument slam me about it.


I am discussing the OP and the continued thread of it from the beginning.


I hope your pathetic effort ends at this post, and the rest of us can continue our debate.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Uhhhh... no.

"Both liberal and conservative Americans need to stop putting ideology above the truth. To cut and run in Iraq would be a disaster for the USA. It'd be a tremendous victory for the terrorists."


I don't see how you guys can win this one.


All he was saying in the original quote, (unless you can show differently), is that we have to complete the handover process as quickly as possible... that is different from packing up and leaving immediately regardless of what stage the handover process is in.

Youre' implying that what he meant was: "As quickly as possible, make sure everything is in place to ensure an Iraqi-controlled Iraq is stable, hand over control, and then leave."

But if that's what O'reilly really meant, why is he even saying it? Are you implying that O'reilly PREVIOUSLY advocated NOT accomplishing this "as quickly as possible?" Does ANYBODY NOT want this result "as quickly as possible?"

Do you see the problem?

I've listened to the excerpt four times, and what O'Reilly says is (to paraphrase): There are too many nuts in Iraq, too many crazies. We can't control all of the nuts, all of the crazies in Iraq. We'll never be able to control them. So what we've got to do is turn over everything to the Iraqis. And that our original error was in underestimating the number of crazies there.

O'Reilly CLEARLY is not talking about getting everything stable, because he says that's impossible. His phrasing makes it clear he thinks the U.S. needs to wash its hands of the matter and dump the problem on the Iraqis. If that isn't "cutting and running", than that phrase has no meaning.

 

[Polish3d]

I don't think he means that, I think he means that we have to get this accomplished ASAP because we'll continue to have trouble there.


But at this point, who gives a sh*T???? People ramble along on their radio shows... until he takes a specific position on it I am tired of trying to debate it personally

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Uhhhh... no.

"Both liberal and conservative Americans need to stop putting ideology above the truth. To cut and run in Iraq would be a disaster for the USA. It'd be a tremendous victory for the terrorists."

No what? You asked for a quote, you got a quote.

All he was saying in the original quote, (unless you can show differently), is that we have to complete the handover process as quickly as possible... that is different from packing up and leaving immediately regardless of what stage the handover process is in.

Let me rearrange his quote to make it more clear to you:

because we just can't control these people. the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible...

 

[Aisengard]

Frackal, can't you see? O'Rielly doesn't care about stability in Iraq anymore. He only cares about our American soldiers, and their safety.

"We can't control these nuts." So what are you saying, Bill? That we get our troops out of there before the Mission is accomplished? Defeatist! Coward! Traitor!

Oh, and here's Murtha's quote, if you are interested.

Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region.

And the site

Now please, if you will, how is what Murtha said last November substantially different than what Bill O'Rielly is saying today?

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
It's interesting... Someone from "the other side" changes his position and rather than receive congratulations from the left he's bashed for it. I would think you guys would be cheering him on for "seeing the light".

And people wonder why I think that lefties are never happy... no matter what.

Personally I think his comments were a bit early. It's a rough situation there but over the last 24 hours things have been fairly well quelled. Maintaining that will be a huge (some say impossible) chore... But it can be done.

The lefties arent applauding this because the lefties never said to cut and run as the righties suggested.


SHUX

 

[OrByte]

why does Oreilly hate america so much?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: shira
But if that's what O'reilly really meant, why is he even saying it? Are you implying that O'reilly PREVIOUSLY advocated NOT accomplishing this "as quickly as possible?" Does ANYBODY NOT want this result "as quickly as possible?"

That's exactly what I was saying above. I don't know why O RLY would think that the hand over wasn't already happening "as fast as humanly possible".