Medea Benjamin Claims North Korea Has No Nukes on O'Reilly
March 21, 2006 4:49 AM Subscribe
On O'Reilly, Code Pink's Benjamin Claimed North Korea Has No Nukes This is embarassing. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink insisted that North Korea has no nukes to Bill O'Reilly. You can't blame Bill for this one.
This post was deleted for the following reason: [mostly] single link blog-op-ed newsfilter. save editorializing for inside, or another site altogether
C_D: No concrete proof that Israel has them either...
posted by PenDevil at 5:12 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by PenDevil at 5:12 AM on March 21, 2006
I'm sure Bill invited Medea on his show for an intelligent discussion of the issues, and was very upset by her error.
Please note that if I want to know about all the stupid shit that goes down on the O'Reilly Factor, I'll watch the O'Reilly Factor, and this is a terrible FPP - you could have at least linked to some evidence to the contrary. Or how this is remotely relevant to current events. Or Benjamin's significance (apparently she helped start the WTO riots, neato).
posted by mek at 5:15 AM on March 21, 2006
Please note that if I want to know about all the stupid shit that goes down on the O'Reilly Factor, I'll watch the O'Reilly Factor, and this is a terrible FPP - you could have at least linked to some evidence to the contrary. Or how this is remotely relevant to current events. Or Benjamin's significance (apparently she helped start the WTO riots, neato).
posted by mek at 5:15 AM on March 21, 2006
So an unelected member of an advocacy group apparently confused Iran and North Korea?
Yeah, I guess you're right, we can't blame Bill O'Reilly for this one.
Unless the blame is that these pseudo-news shows which are mostly the host screaming at the guests aren't conducive to reasoned debate or real explication of the issues, and in all that heat-but-no-light, these sort of mistakes are almost inevitable.
So can I blame O'Reilly for being a hack whose "news show" is to real debate or discussion what professional wrestling is to a chess tournament?
And can I ask why you think one guest's mistake is worth noting here? Neither Code Pink nor medea Benjamin control our country's military policy, or vast a single vote in Congress or rule on any court. So why should we care.
More to the point, why do you care? Why do you take the time to point this out? I assume your goal is either to damn Code Pink or praise Bill O'Reilly, but what I don't see is why doing either would be your goal.
If you hold Code Pink in contempt, all you've done is to dignify them as worth responding to, as possibly having enough expertise on foreign policy matters that it's worth pointing out their errors. You wouldn't, presumably, bother pointing Britney Spears's or Gary Coleman's foreign policy flubs, would you?
If, on the other hand, you think Bill O'Reilly is worth your time -- even if you agree with his views -- you've revealed yourself as someone who prizes entertaining brawls by like-minded buffoons over any attempt at real intellectual consideration. You could be telling us about Bill Buckley or Irving Kristol or Francis Fukuyama or Irving Babbit or John Calhoun -- real conservatives of one stripe or another who are real intellects --, but you prefer to spend your time praising a side-show clown like Falafel Bill? This will make us respect conservatism?
posted by orthogonality at 5:16 AM on March 21, 2006
Yeah, I guess you're right, we can't blame Bill O'Reilly for this one.
Unless the blame is that these pseudo-news shows which are mostly the host screaming at the guests aren't conducive to reasoned debate or real explication of the issues, and in all that heat-but-no-light, these sort of mistakes are almost inevitable.
So can I blame O'Reilly for being a hack whose "news show" is to real debate or discussion what professional wrestling is to a chess tournament?
And can I ask why you think one guest's mistake is worth noting here? Neither Code Pink nor medea Benjamin control our country's military policy, or vast a single vote in Congress or rule on any court. So why should we care.
More to the point, why do you care? Why do you take the time to point this out? I assume your goal is either to damn Code Pink or praise Bill O'Reilly, but what I don't see is why doing either would be your goal.
If you hold Code Pink in contempt, all you've done is to dignify them as worth responding to, as possibly having enough expertise on foreign policy matters that it's worth pointing out their errors. You wouldn't, presumably, bother pointing Britney Spears's or Gary Coleman's foreign policy flubs, would you?
If, on the other hand, you think Bill O'Reilly is worth your time -- even if you agree with his views -- you've revealed yourself as someone who prizes entertaining brawls by like-minded buffoons over any attempt at real intellectual consideration. You could be telling us about Bill Buckley or Irving Kristol or Francis Fukuyama or Irving Babbit or John Calhoun -- real conservatives of one stripe or another who are real intellects --, but you prefer to spend your time praising a side-show clown like Falafel Bill? This will make us respect conservatism?
posted by orthogonality at 5:16 AM on March 21, 2006
I'm not convinced N. Korea has nukes, either. I think they want them and are close to getting them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they've hit some obstacle in development.
My reasoning? No evidence of a test. North Korea seems to be deliberately trying to convince us they have nukes, possibly as a deterrent, possibly as a negotiating ploy. So if they had them, why wouldn't they want to test one?
Although, if they don't have one, I'm sure they're not far off.
posted by justkevin at 5:17 AM on March 21, 2006
My reasoning? No evidence of a test. North Korea seems to be deliberately trying to convince us they have nukes, possibly as a deterrent, possibly as a negotiating ploy. So if they had them, why wouldn't they want to test one?
Although, if they don't have one, I'm sure they're not far off.
posted by justkevin at 5:17 AM on March 21, 2006
You know, here in the UK, nobody knows who Bill O'Reilly is. He's a bit like Japan's Pocari Sweat - an idea that just doesn't travel well...
posted by runkelfinker at 5:23 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by runkelfinker at 5:23 AM on March 21, 2006
If North Korea does have a detonatable bomb, testing it would be a tremendous escalation in the current diplomatic conflict. They can't afford that.
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:25 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:25 AM on March 21, 2006
You know, here in the UK, nobody knows who Bill O'Reilly is. He's a bit like Japan's Pocari Sweat - an idea that just doesn't travel well...
The difference, of course, is that a lot of vodka makes Pocari Sweat tolerable.
posted by ColdChef at 5:27 AM on March 21, 2006
The difference, of course, is that a lot of vodka makes Pocari Sweat tolerable.
posted by ColdChef at 5:27 AM on March 21, 2006
You're right. I posted this because of the other recent O'Reilly Versus Olbermann posts villifying him. Like him or not, he is watched/listened to by many in power and those who take him on should be prepared. I cite the interview with Benjamin as evidence that he is not as unfair as some have said.
He gave Medea Benjamin a chance. Benjamin is a well-known liberal and I was pleased to see her on the show and thought that O'Reilly treated her with respect. The whole mistake above came out of a discussion on what to do regarding Iran, with Benjamin insisting that sanctions only harmed the little people and that "international pressure" would work. O'Reilly gave her a chance to elaborate on what she really meant by "international pressure" and she just repeated herself, whereupon he started to ask her about whether or not international pressure had worked on North Korea and the exchange above took place.
We liberals need to offer well thought out alternatives to war. I personally would attempt sanctions. Sanctions do seem to have had some effect on Iraq's ability to acquire WMD, whether or not some or most of the aid money went into Saddam's bank.
I congratulate Medea Benjamin for having the courage to go on his show. I believe that other liberals should take the chance whenever it is available. I only hope that they will be better prepared (or at least more cautious about making categorical statements).
posted by notmtwain at 5:34 AM on March 21, 2006
He gave Medea Benjamin a chance. Benjamin is a well-known liberal and I was pleased to see her on the show and thought that O'Reilly treated her with respect. The whole mistake above came out of a discussion on what to do regarding Iran, with Benjamin insisting that sanctions only harmed the little people and that "international pressure" would work. O'Reilly gave her a chance to elaborate on what she really meant by "international pressure" and she just repeated herself, whereupon he started to ask her about whether or not international pressure had worked on North Korea and the exchange above took place.
We liberals need to offer well thought out alternatives to war. I personally would attempt sanctions. Sanctions do seem to have had some effect on Iraq's ability to acquire WMD, whether or not some or most of the aid money went into Saddam's bank.
I congratulate Medea Benjamin for having the courage to go on his show. I believe that other liberals should take the chance whenever it is available. I only hope that they will be better prepared (or at least more cautious about making categorical statements).
posted by notmtwain at 5:34 AM on March 21, 2006
they were at least contained and we had inspectors on the ground until asshat and his minions got going.
posted by specialk420 at 5:34 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by specialk420 at 5:34 AM on March 21, 2006
On O'Reilly, Code Pink's Benjamin Claimed North Korea Has No Nukes This is embarassing. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink insisted that North Korea has no nukes to Bill O'Reilly. You can't blame Bill for this one.
So, let me get this straight. Somebody named Benjamin told somebody else named O'Reilly that North Korea has no nukes. Have I got that right? Whew! Good thing you told me twice!
[statement] [editorializiing] [repeat of statement] [more editorializing] = great post!
posted by languagehat at 5:39 AM on March 21, 2006
So, let me get this straight. Somebody named Benjamin told somebody else named O'Reilly that North Korea has no nukes. Have I got that right? Whew! Good thing you told me twice!
[statement] [editorializiing] [repeat of statement] [more editorializing] = great post!
posted by languagehat at 5:39 AM on March 21, 2006
« Older sweet, sweet nectar | Tom Judd's Everyday Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:54 AM on March 21, 2006