Lying Liar Caught in the Act

But, right now, the U.S. is involved in an intense war on terror in which American soldiers are being killed and wounded daily.

              --Bill O'Reilly

That's funny, I thought we were in Iraq.

O'Reilly with an article in that commie paper

Can't read it ("registration required")

Dissent Stinks if It Exploits the Pain of GIs 'Nightline' was within bounds, but the rabidly partisan 'Doonesbury' crosses the line.

By Bill O'Reilly Arousing passions to promote or protest war is not a difficult thing to do. Joseph Goebbels, the minister of propaganda for the Third Reich, was able to convince millions of Germans that Poland actually attacked the Fatherland. All Goebbels had to do was fake a few pictures of dead German soldiers at the Polish border and the Panzers were off to the races.

Imagine Iwo Jima in the age of the live shot. Or D-day in a time of instant satellite communication. "Saving Private Ryan" was bad enough, but what if you were watching that bloody French campaign unfold in real time — you would very likely have been emotionally devastated.

Fast-forward to the war on terror, which we actually did watch commence live when the second plane crashed into the World Trade Center.

Journalists who covered the event saw people jumping to their deaths from windows and unbelievable death and destruction.

Those horrific images galvanized the nation and led to a quick war in Afghanistan. But now 9/11 has begun to fade in the memories of many, and we are bogged down in a bloody struggle in Iraq.

Now there's a political struggle over how and where to wage the war on terror.

Enter the media, which are fully engaged in that struggle. The liberal journalists generally dislike the Iraq campaign, the conservative media generally support it, with the exception of isolationists like Pat Buchanan.

The ABC News program "Nightline" angered some Americans by broadcasting pictures of our military people killed in Iraq. I personally had no problem with it and, as usual, Ted Koppel played it with a neutral face.

Each individual was recognized for two seconds. Then they were gone. Just as they are from life.

The "Nightline" people put forth that the program was a tribute and, since I can't read minds, I will take them at their word. There is no antiwar record on "Nightline's" rap sheet. Koppel reported the war straight when he was embedded with invading U.S. troops last spring.

The same cannot be said for the "Doonesbury" political cartoonist Garry Trudeau, a committed leftist.

Just two months after the horror of 9/11, Trudeau drew a Doonesbury strip accusing President Bush of using the attack to further his political agenda. As a commentator, Trudeau has a perfect right to do this. But there is a line that all commentators should not cross.

That line is using someone's personal tragedy to advance a political agenda, and Trudeau is now doing that in his exposition of a fictional U.S. soldier who loses his leg in fighting in Iraq.

Trudeau does not support the Iraq war, and it is clear that he is attempting to engage the issue on an emotional level that is far more intense than intoning the names of soldiers killed in action. The ongoing suffering of a wounded soldier, even within the frame of a cartoon, carries a wallop.

Imagine if you lost a limb in the fight and believed in the cause. Would you want your ordeal used to further Trudeau's political views?

I have received letters from wounded soldiers and their families who are outraged by Trudeau's methods, and I agree with them.

"Doonesbury" makes political points all the time, albeit usually the same ones. But, right now, the U.S. is involved in an intense war on terror in which American soldiers are being killed and wounded daily.

Even if you disagree with the war, it is imperative that responsible people respect the military and do nothing to harm our soldiers.

A case can be made that Trudeau is attempting to sap the morale of Americans vis-à-vis Iraq by using a long-running, somewhat beloved cartoon character to create pathos. As an opinion cartoonist, Trudeau has a right to do this, but sometimes exercising a right can lead to a wrong.

Of course, a case can also be made that Trudeau simply wants to heighten awareness of what our soldiers are going through. If Trudeau had a history of independent thinking, I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt. But unlike "Nightline," Trudeau is a true believer of the liberal cause and a rabid anti-Bush partisan.

I believe in connecting dots, and these dots are too large to ignore.

Dissent in a time of war can be noble, but it also can be irresponsible.

Each of us in the media has the mandate to make sure we are not in the latter category. I believe "Nightline" did not cross the irresponsibility line, but Trudeau did.

*

Bill O'Reilly is host of "The O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox News Channel.

I wonder what they'll have to say about this on The O'Franken Factor?

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr I wonder what they'll have to say about this on The O'Franken Factor?

Who cares? No one listens to that junk anyways.

I love how all these conservatives say "it's their right to disagree" but in the very next sentence "this is wrong of them, a line that shouldn't be crossed" Imagine, if you will, O'Reilly in the time of the Revolution:

"The liberal 'patriots' are engaged in a smear campaign against the British ruling class. They have every right to say that, but it's really not in our best interest that they do so."

F-ing prick (him and Hannity can go buttfuck Dubya for all I care)

Originally posted by Tristan Jayol > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> I wonder what they'll have to say about this on The O'Franken Factor?

Who cares? No one listens to that junk anyways.

True enough, but that's just because all the major markets are controlled by neanderthals like Hannity and O'Reilly. You can't get a word in edgewise on talk radio.

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by Tristan Jayol> > > > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > I wonder what they'll have to say about this on The O'Franken Factor?>

Who cares? No one listens to that junk anyways.

True enough, but that's just because all the major markets are controlled by neanderthals like Hannity and O'Reilly. You can't get a word in edgewise on talk radio. Liberals have their forum on radio, NPR. It's not the conservatives fault if they present their opinions in a more tantalizing and appealing manner. Maybe if NPR would have people on their shows that actually sounded like they still had a pulse, then maybe NPR would become more popular.

"Lying Liar" Ventriloquist and Dummy...caught in the act!

"...Yet somehow the administration Mr Bush leads has convinced the vast majority of Americans that exactly the opposite is the case.

A poll conducted by the University of Maryland in April found that 57% of Americans believe Iraq was substantially supporting al-Qaeda before the 11 September 2001 attacks or was involved in the attacks themselves. And that number was hardly changed from a similar poll a year earlier.

It has been a subtle operation. Only rarely do administration officials state the case quite as baldly as the Vice President, Dick Cheney, on Monday.

Mr Cheney said Iraq had "long established ties" with al-Qaeda. As usual, he was speaking among friends, in a forum that did not allow critics to question the assertion."

i gather what he is saying that only a fully non partisan (impossible) commentator may use subjective examples to further an analysis on an emotional level?

absolute bollocks. absoluteism too. you cant expect people to take every major issue (war, environment, terrorism, welfare, employment) on a case by case basis. there are all linked, and anyone is entitled to their own analysis.

what if your dissent goes so far as to say that a soldier killing another human being is a murderer (i think so) in the same line as a terrorist blowing up a building? that the act (killing a human) is wrong, regardless of who (or whom) sanctioned it, and in who's name it was commited (the people of the free world/ the people of the holy land, etc).

surely if you come to this conclusion, you will, by extension see the army as a group NOT to be supported in any circumstances in a specific war,but as an organisation that actively supports murder- and your dissent may strech as far as you ethically see fit.

12 months ago, some irish peace activists took a hammer to a us warplane in shannon military/civilian airport. they did $1.5million damage to the aircraft. i totallt support what they did, and their motives for it. their trial is on at the moment. the lengths they went to were far beyond the line this column sets out - and far beyond a fictional cartoon articulating a state of affairs for many US oldiers and their family.

you must decide upon your ethical parameters on a daily basis, and i think a cartoon like doonsbury (i think its shit tho) can help some do that.