On the O'Reilly Factor, Phil Donahue leads a compelling
September 26, 2001 8:36 PM   Subscribe

On the O'Reilly Factor, Phil Donahue leads a compelling argument for why bombing Afghanistan may NOT be the best course of action. It's obvious how the conservative O'Reilly feels about this and although the transcript hardly does the interview justice, Bill O'Reilly finally gets out-interrupted and is verbally handled by his own guest. (more)
posted by edwardko (9 comments total)
I saw Donahue on the "Factor" and was pleased to see someone giving O'Reilly a taste of his own medicine.

What I find more pleasing, however, is that the administration seems to be taking the route advocated by Phil (whom I remember fondly from the Green party rally in in Chicago). While I'm certain more blood will be spilled before this is over, I've taken a certain consolation in the fact that it's been more than two weeks, and we've yet to play our hand.

It means we're taking the time to organize and act in a rational fashion.

That said, you might want to keep your front page posts a bit more concise, and save your commentary for the thread itself. Lots of people use the "more inside" convention for this very reason.

Not a big deal though, so don't sweat it.
posted by aladfar at 8:48 PM on September 26, 2001

I think Donahue is no pacifist sissy, but rather someone who is thinking unconventionally and with great wisdom. Terrorism is NOT a stand up fight. As I said in a comment to a post a few weeks ago, the punch we throw in return for the 9-11 bombing will be answered not with another punch, but with a knee to the groin. We cannot expect as in previous wars, to bear arms and rally to defeat the enemy. Terrorists are like roaches. They are small, scatter quickly, are immune to most threats and will linger like a germ -- only requiring a small remnant to infect again and do great damage.

The claims that the 9-11 attack was an "attack on our very freedom" honors the terrorists in some unholy cause. These are not honorable freedom fighters -- these are malcontents that break a window and run.

An attack on a great nation has been made. Let a great nation retain its greatness by NOT attacking. Let a great nation use its greatness in the forms of influence and worldwide unity to extinguish rather than destroy.
posted by edwardko at 8:38 PM on September 26, 2001 [1 favorite]

Woah, I just watched Matt move the comment from the frontpage to inside the post. That was cool.

I fully concur with this view. My fear, in the days after the attack, was that we would start dropping bombs all over Afghanistan and the mid-East, and find ourselves embroiled in a war gainst Islam (precisely as bin Laden and his cohorts no-doubt intended). I've been very impressed with the restraint our president has shown since then.

Which isn't to say I don't think we should bomb anybody. I just want us (the U.S.) to be sure we're punishing the innocent, and not the guilty.
posted by Loudmax at 9:16 PM on September 26, 2001

That's pretty harsh, Loudmax. I say we let the innocent off with a warning this time.
posted by Yogurt at 10:02 PM on September 26, 2001

I see the calm hand of Colin Powell in the restraint being used by our government right now. He is a good advisor. IMOO
posted by bjgeiger at 10:39 PM on September 26, 2001

Yep, that's pretty much the funniest MeTypo today... :)

Fucking innocent people, ruining our American Way of Life! Those bastards!
posted by hincandenza at 10:40 PM on September 26, 2001

i really like oreilly.. i watched that interview.. and i agree with oreilly when he says that no matter whether we have that coalition or not.. we should still go fight.. we cant keep letting them do this to us.. they keep hittin us and we keep slappin em on the wrist... now its time to hit back.... hard.
posted by KimmishKim at 1:06 AM on September 27, 2001

There's a very relevant article in today's Wash Post:

Military Strike Not Imminent, Officials Say

"I think it can't be stressed enough that everybody who is waiting for military action . . . needs to rethink this thing," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told reporters after briefing NATO in Brussels.

Wolfowitz is widely regarded as a hawk, whose first and foremost goal upon entering this administration was the conversion of Iraq to a molten field of glass. This tells me one of two things are happening:

1. We don't have the foggiest idea how to strike the roach where he lives, because don't know where he is; or,

2. We are minutes away from launching a major military strike on a spot we believe the roach is hiding and this is just disinformation.

I suspect #1 is more likely right now.
posted by mikewas at 7:13 AM on September 27, 2001

These are the best parts:

DONAHUE: If we bomb, I am here to say I believe we have a growing number of people in this country, one of whom appeared with you last night and was interrupted throughout the whole undertaking, I finally found out why -- you are so clear. I admire you. You are clear as a bell, and one reason is that nobody ever interrupts you. So I'm almost finished, Bill.

O'REILLY: All right. Let me stop you.
DONAHUE: ... over to that hot spot. It isn't fair...
O'REILLY: Now you've had a lot of air...
DONAHUE: ... isn't fair...
O'REILLY: All right. Now you've had a lot of air time. Now you -- you just said...
DONAHUE: On your show, that's true.
posted by Witold at 8:56 AM on September 27, 2001

« Older An Exhibit on Campus Celebrates Grisly Deed.   |   Breast-feeding increases babies' IQ Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments