Crooks & Liars (9/26/12) notes Bill O’Reilly is proposing a naval blockade of Iraq:
Says O’Reilly:
We’re going to block it, nothing in, nothing out. OK? That’s what we’re going to do. And if you challenge the blockade, we’ll do what we have to do like the Cuban missile crisis, same thing—not gonna do it, not gonna let your nukes in Cuba. Kennedy did that. Not gonna let your nukes in Iran. BANG! That’s what we’re gonna do. So you’ve either got to stop now and not force us to do it, because if you force us to do it, we’re gonna do it, and then it’s going to be really, really bad for you.
By “BANG!,” O’Reilly apparently means that the U.S. should threaten to use nuclear weapons, as Kennedy did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
O’Reilly’s suggestion has a remarkable justification:
I would draw up a naval blockade of Iran and I would make those plans public and I would say to the world if they don’t let the UN inspectors in at a certain time, in whatever time it may be.
UN inspectors, of course, frequently visit Iran—they’ve spent a total of 4,000 person-days there. O’Reilly is, of course, following the proud tradition of pretending that the enemy state brought on war brought war on itself by refusing to submit to required inspections—though usually you wait until the inspections are no longer ongoing before rewriting history.
(It’s true that the UN’s IAEA seeks access to sites that Iran is not obligated to open to inspection—sites that have no demonstrable connection to Iran’s nuclear energy program—and when Iran has allowed inspectors into such areas in the past, they’ve found nothing. The strategy of insisting that a country under the threat of armed attack open up all its secret military facilities to inspection by forces aligned with the countries threatening to bomb those same facilities was, of course, used to great effect in the run-up to the Iraq War.)
Even Fox News analyst Ralph Peters—who, as Crooks & Liars has noted, is deranged—thought this was a bad idea, telling O’Reilly: “Iran’s not Cuba, it’s not an island. Most of its weaponry and black market supplies come from Russia.”
O’Reilly had a comeback to that: “Yeah, but you starve ’em.”
Which is, for the record, something he’s advocated before, when he advised that the people of Libya should be forced to suffer after the 9/11 attacks:
And we mine the harbor in Tripoli. Nothing goes in, nothing goes out. We also destroy all the airports in Libya. Let them eat sand.
A blast from the past(2000) :
…Bill O’Reilly of Fox’s the O’Reilly Factor is another particularly unpleasant media specimen. O’Reilly, who worked for CBS and ABC for several decades before coming to Fox, is a bully and a sanctimonious lecturer, who proclaims his hatred for “partisanship” even as he proceeds to present a right-wing line on virtually every political question. His technique involves inviting opponents to air their views and then, with great self-satisfaction and unconvincing aplomb, dismissing anything that might contradict his reactionary assertions. In O’Reilly one can see something of Joe McCarthy and Pat Buchanan…
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/dec2000/med2-d07.shtml
We really should have “reality checks” for the folks in the media. Ever since Limburger did his ‘This is the way things should be so I can sound smart” we have had the rest of the morons in the media trying to be even more stupid. James P. Hogan was right, America has become the major leading producer of artificial stupidity. And one of the natural sources is O’Reilly.
I just hope that if Israel bombs Iran that the President and the American people let them know that they will stand alone in that disastrous decision. Israel (Netanyahu) pushed us into the Iraq war, and I hope that Americans will storm the streets in protest of an involvement with Iran. DON’T IRAQ IRAN.
I just can’t watch O’Reilly anymore. I simply cannot believe that such a monumentally stupid man is permitted to be on TV without being part of some sort of bloopers show or a celebration of the utter stupidity of Americans. The man is closed-minded, derraged, and either totally misinformed or else is trying to actively present fraudulent ideas in a very stupid way. The fact that the Right actually buys this feculent garbage is nothing short of mystifying.
Why is no one here talking about” Ah ma needs a jobs “speech at the UN?Did it not sound like it could of been written by people on this sight?Peter Hart what did you think of it?Agree…disagree?
Ok back to Bill o Rielly saying Iran should be blockaded.Guess he is one of those guys who believes the president and his national security people on the intel they have on Iran.Then he starts spouting off on military actions we should undertake if this or that happens.Yeah I have to admit that is dumb.He simply does not have the expertise for such talk.Of course from the quoted piece proffered, I would like a better look at context.
I just got to watch the film(thanks for that and sorry I did not watch it before I commented)Um yea Bill was shooting from the hip.Needs to re think that idea.Stopping Russian and Chinese ships on the high seas?Jesus what if we sink a Chinese ship loaded with Niki sneakers?What will happen to the price of my shoes?
The general…scared the hell out of me.The young lady is right.I think Obama has tried everything with the Iranians.To no avail.I believe they will get the bomb,and or GPS targeting systems that will make their weapons that much more effective.And so it goes.The only other way is war.And we are broke.We have no funds for such a thing.So get real.Israel is on their own if they go ahead(they wont if that is the case)This game of chess moves forward.If Iran uses the bomb they will be destroyed.Remember THAT game?Horrible horrible horrible
“I think Obama has tried everything with the Iranians.To no avail.”
On the contrary; Obama has tried nothing but threats and intimidation. He’s offered Iran nothing in return, such as a relaxation of the crippling sanctions, so, naturally, negotiations have failed. They were designed to fail, just as “negotiations” with Iraq ten years ago were designed to fail; every time Saddam Hussein made a concession, the U.S. government made a new round of stringent demands. In spite of that, a recent IAEA report reveals that in recent months Iran has actually reduced, not increased, the amount of 20-percent enriched uranium available for possible greater enrichment later on and fabrication into nuclear weapons. It would be more correct to say that Iran has tried nearly everything, short of abject capitulation to Western demands, but the U.S. has refused any diplomatic solution.
Hmmmm, oh I have a better idea. Since misquotes and rewriting history are so in style……maybe this is what Mr. O’Reilly should have said:
I would draw up a COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER blockade, and I would make the plans public, and I would say to Rupert that if he doesn’t let real reporters in at a certain time…then then….oh shoot, let’s just starve FOX.
michael_e: FAIR’s purpose is not to evaluate what positions POLITICIANS take. If Obama said this or if Obama said that, it is not the concern of FAIR or any other media watchdog. FAIR is here to evaluate and analyze how the PRESS is reporting on (amongst other things and people) politicians, business people, etc. If the press left out something of note in Obama’s speech, or photoshopped his words, etc., then shame on the press.
Now, you could be right that Obama’s speech at the UN was not covered thoroughly, or that the ANALYSIS of what he said was not thorough enough by the MSM. (I don’t actually know; I’ve stopped watching the MSM these days. I only watch The Real News anymore.)
But my position is to let FAIR perform its single purpose, and that is to monitor the press. (FAIR = fairness and ACCURACY in reporting.) I hope they never even think to take sides politically. So far they have not, based on my own following of this site for years. If you see examples of when FAIR has exceeded their stated purpose, please give a link and state how they have done so.
I watch all this wordy mumbo jumbo, on and on, and ask myself “Why doesnt it get through to Americans …every day the people of more and more countries are rising up and saying “America IS the problem.” (It may not be clear to some of them, what they are rising up against is CAPITALISM – and America is the dominant example of that rot).
Also the ugly American attitude – everyone but an American is expendable. The abuse of drones, killing indiscriminently hundreds and thousands of unimportant people everywhere. But if one American is killed the nation rises up for revenge. And to top it all the US has excuded Americans from the World Court. So there is no accountability.
My suggestion, several years ago, was that if the West genuinely wanted the Iranians to stop developing nuclear energy we should offer to foot the bill for them to install start-of-the-art Concentrating Solar Power technology in their deserts. It would be a win-win-win situation. The bill would be a hell of a lot less for the West than paying for yet another disastrous war and its aftermath, so the West would gain. Iran not only would have an inexhaustible source of clean electricity but could in theory then become world leaders in installing and running CSP plants, so they would gain. And the Earth and all its inhabitants would gain from not having yet more dangerous and vulnerable nuclear power stations to cope with.
I’ve just watched the clip, and I was amazed when the ex-Army man said, “Bill, I rarely disagree with you.” Here in Britain, I think it would be inconceivable that any supposed expert witness or analyst invited onto a current-affairs show would tell the presenter, “I rarely disagree with you.” If he did, the credibility of the programme would be destroyed.
No difference
That may be FAIRS “stated” purpose.It is not what they do.They do not have a conservative bone in their body.If you monitored a thousand articles by fair, and graded them fairly,you would see that 98% of them are leaning hard left -and attacking “conservative” thought in the press.They see nothing wrong with a liberal press.
Correction…….They do see something wrong with a liberal press, that does not admit they are “Right” about everything …..in a full blooded way.