Oreilly to pull a Cronkite?

[Ed]

Some may recall the famous Cronkite broadcast where he went from hawk to dove:

Some accounts of television's role regarding this war assign a key role to a special broadcast by Walter Cronkite wrapping up his reporting on the Tet Offensive. On 27 February 1968, Cronkite closed "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where, Why?" by expressing his view that the war was unwinnable, and that the United States would have to find a way out. Some of Lyndon Johnson's aides have recalled that the president watched the broadcast and declared that he knew at that moment he would have to change course. A month later Johnson declined to run for reelection and announced that he was seeking a way out of the war; David Halberstam has written that "it was the first time in American history a war had been declared over by an anchorman."
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/V/htmlV/vietnamonte/vietnamonte.htm

I noted with interest a segment on Bill O'Reilly's show this past week:

Top Story
What's really happening in Iraq?
Guests: Fox News military analysts Col. Bill Cowan & Col. David Hunt
21 Marines have been killed in the last two days and an American journalist was assassinated after writing an article that said Shiite militia were executing people in the port city of Basra. Colonel David Hunt said some things in Iraq were getting worse, despite what people in the U.S. might think. "What's getting worse is the fact that the Iraqis are not standing up and fighting. Of the ninety battalions that we've trained, only two are capable of independent action, and the rampant corruption within Iraq is hurting everything that we're trying to do." Colonel Bill Cowan addressed other problems. "I was on a year ago talking about unemployment being a factor; it has not gotten much better. The lack of essential services being a factor, it has not gotten much better. We are having a tough time. The insurgents are tough, they are getting smarter. The short answer is we're hanging on." The Factor challenged the Iraqis to get more involved. "Hanging on is not really going to cut it. It seems to me that the Iraqi people are going to have to decide for themselves. It doesn't seem like they're actively involved in their own welfare."
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=392#2

This summary does not really capture it, unfortunately. While the military guys were trying to be upbeat, O'Reilly kept coming back to the lack of progress in spite of he enormous expenditures of riches and lives. The end of the interview was downbeat to say the least. His closing observation was that they had "six months" meaning these much vaunted Iraqi battalions had to be doing the job by then.

As I watched, I thought of Cronkite and wondered three things:

1) Does Bill really think that he has the stature of a Cronkite where his opinion would represent the beginning of a groundswell of negative opinion of the war? (I think that he is setting up a portentious "announcement" wherein he, in fact pulls a Cronkite at some point in the future. To which I respond "Bill, I knew Walter Cronkite and you, sir, are no Walter Cronkite")

2) Is the mass of opinion (represented, perhaps, by Bill as a bellweather) beginning a slow but ponderous shift against the war?

3) How badly are the Republicans going to get f*cked in '06? I see Frist, ratlike, beginning to futively scurry to put distance between himself and the neo-cons (whiskers aquivver).

I foresee an interesting 18 months or so.

Thoughts?

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Ed
(1) Does Bill really think that he has the stature of a Cronkite where his opinion would represent the beginning of a groundswell of negative opinion of the war? (I think that he is setting up a portentious "announcement" wherein he, in fact pulls a Cronkite at some point in the future. To which I respond "Bill, I knew Walter Cronkite and you, sir, are no Walter Cronkite")

(2) Is the mass of opinion (represented, perhaps, by Bill as a bellweather) beginning a slow but ponderous shift against the war?

I think it shifted long ago, but that shift has zero political power.
Given the heat, it'll be a decade or two then you might see a thaw.

(3) How badly are the Republicans going to get f*cked in '06? I see Frist, ratlike, beginning to futively scurry to put distance between himself and the neo-cons (whiskers aquivver).

The republicans probably will gain a few seats in the house and one in the
senate. I suspect they'll be angry at the Democrats for not getting more.

Transcript: July 29, 2005
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Exit question -- before that, however, U.S. military dead in Iraq, 1,792; U.S. military amputeed, wounded, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, 43,200; Iraqi civilians dead, 113,500. Exit question: Will the U.S. be able to make dramatic troop reductions in Iraq next spring? Yes or no, Pat.
MR. BUCHANAN: Whether we'll be able to or not, I think we're going to do it. That secret British memo that talked about a drawdown of allied forces from 170,000 to 66,000, I think they were on to something.

Not this spring but over the course of three years, maybe,
but the reductions will relect a decline in enlistments, deaths,
and injuries, not a true reduction.

Prediction: a Republican wins the white house in 2008.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Oreilly to pull a Cronkite?

Originally posted by Synchronicity


Yes, a good quote. I invented it

I think it shifted long ago, but that shift has zero political power.
Given the heat, it'll be a decade or two then you might see a thaw.

There is a critical mass thing. I think that that is what we are approaching. It occurs when the "statesmen" in DC perceive that they are on the wrong side of an issue. A micro-event happened w/ Terri Schivo.

The republicans probably will gain a few seats in the house and one in the
senate. I suspect they'll be angry at the Democrats for not getting more.

Dunno. I think they may well experience an ass whuppin'. It depends on whether Dean et al. are still in the pay of Carl Rove.

Not this spring but over the course of three years, maybe,
but the reductions will relect a decline in enlistments, deaths,
and injuries, not a true reduction.

Prediction: a Republican wins the white house in 2008.

Right now, who knows. If Clinton runs it will bring out the worst in both parties, in which event I think that you are right. If two non-polarizing candidates are running I would give it to the dems. [/QUOTE]

 

[Mark]

On the Daily Show the other night, Senator Biden suggested that he would consider a bi-partisan run for the White House with Senator McCain (He didn't say who would be Prez and who would be Veep). I doubt the power brokers would ever let it happen, but it would be a cool move away from this disastrous one party rule we are under now.

 

[Skeptic]

I always said O'Reilly is an idiot, even when I agreed with what he said. What I want to know is why is this news? If Bush or some other important decision maker changes his mind about the Iraq war, that is news. But why is the fact that a journalist does so any more important than the fact that a choropodist does so? O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...O'Reilly's ego is the size of the galaxy, I swear.

Really? That small?

 

[Phrost]

Or how about just giving O'Reilly credit for being intellectually honest instead of trying to weasel in a snide snipe at the man on an internet forum?

Oh no, it couldn't be that easy could it?

Do skeptics realize how ridiculously dogmatic they sound when discussing their politics?

 

[corplinx]

On the Daily Show the other night, Senator Biden suggested that he would consider a bi-partisan run for the White House with Senator McCain (He didn't say who would be Prez and who would be Veep). I doubt the power brokers would ever let it happen, but it would be a cool move away from this disastrous one party rule we are under now.

Yet another jackass trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

 

[corplinx]

Its important to know that O'Reilly always tries to position himself as a populist. Right now the war in unpopular. He was asking the same questions some people are asking in their heads.

It seems like the holdup is the Iraqi police and military forces. The nation-building aspect of putting together a government is on schedule, however there is nothing to enforce that government.

We have to admit the strong point of the insurgency has been attacks on their own fellow Iraqis who try to become police and military.

There is a perception that there isn't progress in Iraq. Perhaps the administration needs to do a better job of communicating milestones and progress. Bush calls himself the CEO president. Well, businesses have quarterly meetings where they have glossy charts and presentations showing their strategy, where its working, where it is changing, and of course results.

 

[hgc]

...
There is a perception that there isn't progress in Iraq. Perhaps the administration needs to do a better job of communicating milestones and progress. Bush calls himself the CEO president. Well, businesses have quarterly meetings where they have glossy charts and presentations showing their strategy, where its working, where it is changing, and of course results.

Au contraire, Bush's problem is nothing to with communication incompetence, and everything to do with war-fighting incompetence. If he had something positive communicate, we'd know if from every Republican shill in the universe.

The quantitative nature of corporate quarterly reports does not make it a beneficial format for Bush's war accountancy and projection pronouncements. You know, turning the corner and light at the end of the tunnel are a lot harder to grab onto than actual numbers of Iraqi police and soldiers trained, equipped, effectively led and ready for duty, especially when held up to the standard of baseline projections of a few years ago.

 

[Mark]

Yet another jackass trying to ride on McCain's coattails.

Nice personal attack on him, but it says nothing at all about the concept of a bipartisan ticket.

 

[Ladewig]

Or how about just giving O'Reilly credit for being intellectually honest instead of trying to weasel in a snide snipe at the man on an internet forum?

Oh no, it couldn't be that easy could it?

Do skeptics realize how ridiculously dogmatic they sound when discussing their politics?

O'Reilly? Intellectually honest? Please!
Media Matters

Host Bill O'Reilly threatened Canada with a boycott like the one he advocated against France, then cited a phony statistic about the success of the French boycott. The threat came during O'Reilly's April 27 debate with Toronto Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick about Canada's harboring of two deserters from the U.S. military who have fled to Canada. From FOX News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now if the [Canadian] government -- if your government harbors these two deserters, doesn't send them back ... there will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting.

MALLICK: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partners.

O'REILLY: No, it will take place, madam. In France ...

MALLICK: I don't think that your French boycott has done too well ...

O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."

MALLICK: I think that's nonsense.

Add his love of loofahs and subordinates to his loyalty to family values and you have a man who does not deserve the title of intellectually honest.

If you are going to complain of unwarranted attacks, do it in a thread other than one devoted to the man who launched a lawsuit against Frankin that can generously be described as the silliest lawsuit in modern history.

 

[Mark]

Did anyone make this fairly obvious point yet?

If a Democrat did this it would be called "flip-flopping" and would be evil.

 

[Phrost]

O'Reilly? Intellectually honest?

If you are going to complain of unwarranted attacks, do it in a thread other than one devoted to the man who launched a lawsuit against Frankin that can generously be described as the silliest lawsuit in modern history.

He's being honest in this instance. If you consider yourself a skeptic and want to attack someone for what they've done you should do that instead of creating elaborate conspiracy theories or rabid assumptions to explain why they're agreeing with you when they do.

It's infantile and completely evident that your hatred of said person is overriding your reasoning skills.

 

[Mark]

He's being honest in this instance. If you consider yourself a skeptic and want to attack someone for what they've done you shoud do that instead of creating elaborate conspiricy theories or rabid assumptions to explain why they're agreeing with you when they do.

It's infantile and completely evident that your hatred of said person is overriding your reasoning skills.

Then you were OK with Kerry changing his own stance on the Iraq war.

 

[Chaos]

Au contraire, Bush's problem is nothing to with communication incompetence, and everything to do with war-fighting incompetence. If he had something positive communicate, we'd know if from every Republican shill in the universe.

The quantitative nature of corporate quarterly reports does not make it a beneficial format for Bush's war accountancy and projection pronouncements. You know, turning the corner and light at the end of the tunnel are a lot harder to grab onto than actual numbers of Iraqi police and soldiers trained, equipped, effectively led and ready for duty, especially when held up to the standard of baseline projections of a few years ago.

What was it the administration told you back then? "Six to twelve months, and then we´re out of there"?

"Our lads will be home by Christmas" is the oldest lie since the invention of...well...Christmas.

 

[Skeptic]

Or how about just giving O'Reilly credit for being intellectually honest

But that's not the point; I don't think he is dishonestly pretending to change his mind when he didn't. Only--just as I thought, and said, when he agreed with me--I simply don't see why what O'Reilly honestly thinks is more important than, say, what the local hairdresser honestly thinks.

 

[Phrost]

Then you were OK with Kerry changing his own stance on the Iraq war.

If he'd only done it once, completely. I almost voted for Kerry because of stem cell research and to stave off the Christian garbage that Republicans are notorious for pushing.

The thing is though, O'Reilly has stated on his show several times (which leads me to wonder if the original poster even watches it), on this and a few other subjects, that his view on things is subject to the latest information.

Yes, he's a blowhard about a lot of things. But it's asinine to lump him in with the Hannities, Limbaughs, and others, and doing so only demonstrates the ignorance and partisanship of the person doing it.

But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Ugh.

 

[Mark]

If he'd only done it once, completely. I almost voted for Kerry because of stem cell research and to stave off the Christian garbage that Republicans are notorious for pushing.

The thing is though, O'Reilly has stated on his show several times (which leads me to wonder if the original poster even watches it), on this and a few other subjects, that his view on things is subject to the latest information.

Yes, he's a blowhard about a lot of things. But it's asinine to lump him in with the Hannities, Limbaughs, and others, and doing so only demonstrates the ignorance and partisanship of the person doing it.

But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Ugh.

While I also would not lump him in with Limbaugh, et al (in other words, he is not a nitwit), I think allowing him to change his mind, while denying Kerry's right is unfair.

 

[RandFan]

But with everything, critical thinking goes out the window with Skeptics when it comes to politics. This forum demonstrates that if you create a dichotomy between two parties from which to chose, people line up on one side or another and start sniping at each other like good little sheep.

Bears repeating.