O'Reilly Attacks Vet

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_uBWxdZ … re=related
   
   O'Reilly is usually a very pro-war type of guy.  He even said after we invaded Iraq that people should not openly dissent.  It was quite a scary claim.
   
   In any event, since he is not a pacifist, O'Reilly has a terrible time dealing with the fact that someone who is also not a pacifist and a soldier would be against the war in Iraq or agree with putting restrictions on when and where the military can recruit.
   
   It's an amusing video to watch, and O'Reilly's attempt to wrap himself in the flag to stave off criticism utterly fails.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The problem with O'Reilly and his cohorts is that they assume America is all about military might when it comes to backing up policy whether made up or real. They think that anything contrary to that opinion as being anti-American. This glares in opposition to the fact that America stands for freedom and that includes the freedom of others to conduct their business as they see fit. We got enveloped in this civil war in Iraq to satisfy "W's" need to complete his fathers topple of Saddam and with it came the country building commitment that was needed and he responded with a military occupation. Short sighted and totally unwarranted.
      
      War is not the answer and never has been but it is now the accepted vernacular in our arsenal of world domination strategies.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, sooner, it should be obvious to us all that they nations with the upper hand today are not the ones with the biggest battleships. It is why the Right continues to be discredited, 20th century thinking, or is it 19th? The last 60 years should have shown the militarists that military threats have limits regarding their effectiveness.

      replyreport
2. 59

   Xenonlitposted 11 years ago

   This is all O'Reilly has: his big mouth. He has no military or in government experience and he is desperately trying to stay relevant as the American public is getting tired of his lame rhetoric. When a man has to resort to such dirty tricks to get attention, he is on a downward spiral.

   replyreport
3. 60

   American Viewposted 11 years ago

   With all that is important right now, with all we face, let's bring back a video interview from 2009. Yea, that sure helped balance the budget.
   
   On a side note, you all ca pick on O'Reilly if you choose, but the man claiming to be a 9 year vet is OK with the recruits in schools as long as they tell the females interested that they will be sexually abused and attacked. Really? How about you did something about it during your 9 years instead of turning our back on it. What about doing something now? If he knew and did nothing, then I do not want him in my military, Shame on him

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, you only support right-wing vets right? .
      
      "DON'T DENIGRATE HIS SERVICE" is O'Reilly favorite line that he loves to say to anyone who speaks out against wars.  Yet, he appeared to be doing this to the soldier, and  additionally accused the man of trying to HARM the military.   The vet was simply pointing out recruiters are not always entirely forthcoming about the downsides of the military.
      
      Intellectual honesty would be appreciated in future responses.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Sooner,
         
         Wow, what an intelligent response, attack me. For $100, show me where I said I "only support right-wing vets". Show me those exact words
         
         Who cares what O'Reilly says, I even said you can attack him all you want. Now be honest with yourself, yes the vet was pointing out he believed recruit centers should give more information and I agree with him, but do sit there and act like that was all he was saying when he was spewing as much propaganda as O'Reilly was. Come on man.
         
         My post had two points which you missed. First, he said he was a vet of 9 years and wants the recruiter to tell woman who are interested in enlisting about all the sexual abuse they will face. Did he address it during those 9 years, I got another $100 says no. Why do I say that? because of spewing propaganda, he should have made his case about why the recruit need to be informed better and lead that charge to make changes so there is nothing to warn recruits of in the future. Seems to me all he wants to do is act anti military than address the issue and find a cure. He is turning his back for his own agenda. Again, shame on him.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "Who cares what O'Reilly says, I even said you can attack him all you want. Now be honest with yourself, yes the vet was pointing out he believed recruit centers should give more information and I agree with him, but do sit there and act like that was all he was saying when he was spewing as much propaganda as O'Reilly was. Come on man. "
            
            I'm not sure exactly what your point is here.  Is it propaganda that there is a lot of sexual assault in the military, especially for women?  Is it propaganda that he was against the Iraq war, which destroyed O'Reilly's narrative that all "good Americans" are "patriotic and support the war?"  I'm not sure the propaganda was equal on both sides.
            
            "My post had two points which you missed. First, he said he was a vet of 9 years and wants the recruiter to tell woman who are interested in enlisting about all the sexual abuse they will face. Did he address it during those 9 years, I got another $100 says no. Why do I say that? because of spewing propaganda, he should have made his case about why the recruit need to be informed better and lead that charge to make changes so there is nothing to warn recruits of in the future."
            
            Whether he did or did not do anything about it while in the military, it wouldn't change the fact that it is occurring, and he was trying to do something to stop it after he served.  Perhaps he had a change of heart, or he did try to do something about it while he was there.  No context is given either way in the actual video, and I haven't researched it further.  If you have, link me up for sure.
            
            "Seems to me all he wants to do is act anti military than address the issue and find a cure. He is turning his back for his own agenda. Again, shame on him."
            
            This is the part that annoyed me.  How is it anti-military, when the man was in the military, and explicitly said he wanted a strong military? He wasn't a pacifist claiming the military was evil.  He was simply saying the Iraq war was a bad choice, and certain aspects of the military needed desperate reform.  He didn't want recruiting to be so easily done in schools because he thought the Iraq war should have been ended immediately (whenever the interview was), and not needlessly continue with more young soldiers.
            
            I wasn't trying to be snippy with you, but there is a narrative on the right that only conservatives can be patriotic.  This man is an actual vet, who wasn't a pacificst, who was making the same criticisms many liberals make, and O'Reilly STILL couldn't address them.  He used the same types of attacks he did on anti-war protesters, and it was the height of intellectual dishonesty to do so.

            replyreport