Bill O'Reilly Answers My Mail...And Takes It Out Of Context

Bill O'Reilly answered my letter on his November 7th show. I thought I should put it up here, unfortunately, I only have audio. By the way, he got my name wrong too.



I wrote my letter in response to a segment he did on the previous night's show about the torturing of captives. In that context, I thought it was pretty clear that by "enemies" I meant those that we had captured, but I guess I was wrong. The bombings of Japan and Nazi Germany during WWII were just acts of war, however, the torturing of helpless captives is never justified.

I should also clarify that nowhere in my letter did I mention "dead Americans". The "Americans" portion of that was a complete fabrication. What I wrote was "Your 'families dead in the streets' argument is merely fear-mongering." This was in response to an argument Bill had with Liz Wiehl. He said something to the effect of "So your family is lying dead in the streets and you won't allow us to use harsh interrogation methods." The primary objection of my letter was this message of "allow torture or your family will be slaughtered." That is fear-mongering.

Since I have really no authority to speak on this subject, and it is just my word against Bill's when I say torture is immoral and it doesn't work, I've decided to bring in an expert. Retired Army Colonel Stuart Herrington worked as an interrogator in Vietnam, Panama, and during the Gulf War with Iraq. He was also asked to help train Iraq-bound interrogators in the art of non-coercive interrogation. I will use his words to support my argument now.

"In interrogation centers I ran, we called prisoners "guests" and extended military courtesies, such as saluting captured officers. We strove to undermine a prisoner's belief system, which we knew instructed him that Americans are unschooled infidels who would bully him and resort to intimidation, threats and brutality."

Can you imagine a 19 or 20 year old Al-Qaeda fighter, captured on the battlefield, sitting in the interrogation room? A person that has been indoctrinated with the idea that Americans are pure evil, and will brutalize him mercilessly. If we merely strap him to a board and pretend to drown him, it does nothing but reinforce these beliefs. He can say to himself, "they are exactly as I thought they were." However, treating a captive with respect, probably more than he ever received from terrorist leaders, will go farther to show him Americans are not bad than electricity applied to the genitals ever could.

"But the so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a Hollywood construct that I never encountered in my 30-year career."

Funny, a 30 year career that has never encountered this situation, and yet every question about torture given to Presidential candidates seems to focus on it.

Finally, he ends with a story from the Gulf War, about an Iraqi general who was interrogated not with hostility, but with respect and skill.

"An Iraqi general, captured and humiliated during Operation Desert Storm, is initially frightened and defiant but eventually cooperates, knowing that Saddam Hussein's penalty for treason was certain death. Before repatriation, the general hands his captor his prayer beads and a scrap of paper bearing an address, saying with emotion, 'Our Islamic custom requires that we show gratitude to those who bestow kindness and mercy. These beads comforted me through your Air Force's fierce bombings for 39 days, but they are all I have. When Saddam is gone, please come to my home. You will be an honored guest and we will slaughter a lamb to welcome you.'"

You can read the full article from the Colonel here.

I guess not everyone agrees with you Mr. O'Reilly.

When we use the fear of terrorism to justify torture, we become a little bit like the terrorists that we are trying to defeat. We do their job for them, and in fact do far more damage to ourselves than they ever could.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose out freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Dog's Bark Worse Than His Bite?

The A&E Show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" has been put on hold in the aftermath of a racist tirade by the show's star, Duane "Dog" Chapman. The incident began with a recorder telephone conversation in which Chapman referred to his son's girlfriend as a f------ n-----. He said that he refused to risk his entire career on her hearing him use the word n------ and turning it over to "The Enquirer." The Enquirer released the tape earlier this week. This sort of irony is really only fitting for a guy who's "hit" show is on a network that is only watched by old men who can't get out of their chair to change the channel.

But, is it real any surprise that the guy with the leather vest with no shirt underneath and the largest mullet in history harbors some racial bias? He even has to employ armbands just to cover the swastika tattoos on his arms (ok, so I don't know they are swastikas, but until I prove otherwise, I'm going to say they are). His entire persona oozes paranoid white guy with superiority complex, and we are supposed to be surprised when he is actually like that?

However, if the show is ever put back on the air, this may actually help Dog's ratings. After all, who more than white supremacists would like to see a muscular half naked-man running around and capturing muscular, half-naked men of occasional mixed race. If that isn't a KKK TV night/orgy, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately, the real fall-out in this case could be between father and son. The prevailing idea is that Dog's son is the one who released the tape in the first place, and probably cost his father a career, along with several of his friends of color (just kidding, I'm pretty sure Dog doesn't have any friends of color). If his son did hand out the tape, however, it sort of ruins that old adage, "the family who tracks down criminals and then takes part in highly suggestive heart-to-heart talks with them together, stays together."

"Reformed" Gays For Obama!

Senator Barack Obama has come under fire recently for allowing the "reformed" gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to perform in one of his campaign's sponsored concerts. Many groups have accused him of pandering to the anti-gay southern church-goers, and quite frankly, they won't get off his ass about it.

McClurkin says that he was delivered from homosexuality by the grace of God, and that he realized his life-style was "not God's intention." He has also stated that he became gay due to being sexually assaulted by male family members in his youth. This also seems to explain why women can't seem to keep their hands off serial rapists.

There is no doubt McClurkin exemplifies the "change" aspect of Obama's campaign, and maybe just in time. The homophobic vote is one that is often ignored by candidates, and it is estimated that these so-called "homophobes" make up a significant part of the population. In fact, many seem to be concentrated in Christian churches, which is the area Obama is targeting. It is also important to note that these people hold very strongly to their beliefs, saying that "homophobia is not a choice" and that instead, it is something placed in them, almost as if by a higher power.

But perhaps McClurkin's message can help bring Obama's campaign to the forefront. If history tells us anything about politics then there is nothing like preying on irrational fear and ignorance to help raise a few dollars. Obama is promoting an idea that might be most appealing to many groups: a society in which there is no need for civil unions.

Things I Just Don't Understand

There are probably a lot of things I don't understand, many more than I could write about here, but I'm just going to focus on two of them.

First of all, Bill O'Reilly. Now I enjoy his show, and I watch it as much as I can. I don't agree with everything he believes or says, and I think I speak for most of his viewers when I say that half the fun of watching The O'Reilly Factor is calling Bill an idiot and hurling insults and rebuttals at the screen from the safety of a couch.

O'Reilly tends to do stories that amount to little more than journalistic pornography. In fact, one of his main stories today, a piece on Girls Gone Wild, featured actual pornography! Naturally, this discussion contained provocative video of young girls, and followed a story in which O'Reilly deplored the way our culture exploits provocative young girls.

Finally, and probably more importantly, I still can not nail down Rudy Giuliani. I would like to stop short of calling him disingenuous, because I think he may actually believe his own nonsense. My biggest qualm is that he speaks about 9/11 as though it is his big accomplishment! This seems akin to lauding yourself for the plague just because you happened to be King. In my opinion, September 11th is an important issue, but it should be a talking point for no candidate.

Unfortunately, it seems he has dragged his wife into it now. She seems like a nice enough person, although it was difficult to tell because in their interview with Sean Hannity I think she was told not to answer questions with any detail whatsoever. Her favorite line was probably "You know Sean, I'm really not a very political person." I thought this was pretty honest, but then counted at least four (it may have been five) references to 9/11 during the relatively short time she actually answered questions.

I just can't get behind this guy...it seems to me that he would say whatever he thought would boost his name further up the polls.

I was going to post pictures of these two, but for some reason blogger won't let me. Hopefully they fix it soon, because just having to read my writing can get pretty boring.

CNBC Republican Debate

Well, another Republican debate is over, and the public is in a tizzy over the results. This debate was held in Dearborn, Michigan and featured Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, those six other guys like them, and Ron Paul, who is kind of like the guy who always gets picked last on the playground. Although I don't have specific statistics, I'm pretty sure the ratings put the debate somewhere between midget thumb wrestling and the convertible bed infomercial. Anyway, let's get right to the analysis.

First, I would like to expose my bias on the subject. I, as well as many who have seen the debates and heard him speak, favor Ron Paul for the Presidency. Thus I will most likely unfairly mock or berate the other candidates in this and future writings. Actually, I take that back, I will still mock or berate them, but I plan to do it fairly.

This particular debate was focused on the economy, and since I have a feeling that most Americans can't tell you much about the Alternative Minimum Tax, or how the federal reserve regulates the market and sometimes causes inflation, I will leave those subjects alone. For me, there was really one question that hurt the two major candidates, Giuliani and Romney, and that is the question I would like to address.

MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Did he need it?

ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.

Yes, you read that correctly, before going to war, President Romney wouldn't consult with the Congress, but rather with his lawyers! Now that may not sound like a very good plan, but then again, you haven't seen Mitt Romney's lawyer.After that brief exchange, you may have thought Romney had the dumbest remark of the night sewn up. But no! In a stunning upset, Giuliani pulled in with a worse gaffe during that same question.

As a set up, this is how Congressman Ron Paul answered the same question:

MATTHEWS: The same question down the line, gentlemen. It's so important.

Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

I know what you are thinking..."Gee, the Constitution, that is something I haven't heard a Presidential candidate mention in a while." But now, the moment you've all been waiting for, the number one flub/downright stupid statement of the night, and here it is:

PAUL: Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.

The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way.

Only minutes later...

GIULIANI: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable, it's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.

If you're really dealing with an exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.

And the point of -- I think it was Congressman Paul made before -- that we've never had an eminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.

PAUL: That was no country.

That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.

GIULIANI: And since September -- well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe -- maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it.

Yes, of course, a preemptive strike on Afghanistan or Pakistan, that would have stopped it for sure! Never mind that the terrorists who hijacked the planes had been in the U.S. for months beforehand preparing for the attack and even living here. I'm sure an attack on a country where the group they belonged to was hiding would have stopped everything in its tracks. Not to mention this statement begs the question: where should we attack? Does Al-Qaeda have a big headquarters with gold trim and a giant sign? This is a decentralized, non-governmental terrorist organization. What do we gain from attacking a sovereign nation? Furthermore, we have had an almost constant military presence in the Middle-East for decades, which did nothing to prevent the attacks.

Unfortunately, Giuliani seems concerned only scaring the American people into a flawed foreign policy, unfortunately now he seems to even be willing to use dishonest arguments to do it.

In, conclusion, I think that Giuliani is blinded by his own propaganda. He seems to think of everything in terms of 9/11, and apparently seems to have historic amnesia that began at the beginning of the 21st century. The reason I say this is because I think that there may very well have been a legitimate objection to Dr. Paul's comment that we have never had an imminent attack posed against us, but it was not 9/11. The one that immediately comes to mind is Pearl Harbor, which drew us into the last legitimately declared war we fought, World War II.

I apologize for this being so long and not all that amusing, but this was a subject I hadn't seen covered in the news that much (with the exception of the Romney answer, which is why I was able to make a joke rather than actual commentary), and one that struck me as being important.