On September 17, 2001, Fox host Bill O’Reilly gave his list of countries the United States should attack, including Libya:
Target three is Libya and Qaddafi. Again, he either quits and goes into exile or we bomb his oil facilities, all of them. 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 decade later, O’Reilly supports the airstrikes on Libya because Qaddafi is attacking civilians (3/21/11):
O’REILLY: But Qaddafi’s carpet bombing guys who are driving around in old Chevys with pistols, he’s killing them. You know he’s going to wipe out the opposition. So you’re not willing to go in even on that basis and stop Qaddafi from doing that?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a disaster. This intervention in Libya is not going to turn out the way you think it will. It’ll be another disaster. We have to stop spending the treasure of the United States in these military adventures and start taking care of things here at home, Bill.
O’REILLY: So you are willing to be—to sit by and watch Qaddafi slaughter his opposition and you know he would.
So Qaddafi has killed people—and could have killed other people—that O’Reilly wanted to starve a decade ago.
No hypocrisy is too grotesque for Mr. Bill, is it?
But Kucinich fails the humanity test in his own way, in couching his arguments purely in terms of “mission failure” and cost, rather than in the deaths of civilians and the manipulation of a revolt for imperial ends.
In that, he’s in bad company with all those other “progressives” who employ the same spiel to oppose War, Inc.
“Pragmatism” has its place as an adjunct, but the supremely paramount factor for anyone with a working conscience has to be that human beings are dying for power and treasure, and if you can’t put yourself in the place of the parents of a child decapitated by shrapnel from a missile strike, and see these wars through their eyes, you’re not giving your heart the workout it needs to sustain a determined struggle against these crimes, are you?
Doug: People who aren’t already solidly on our side on humanitarian and anti-imperial grounds won’t be swayed by such arguments. It’s a given in the field of rhetoric that you convince those who don’t yet agree with you by speaking in terms that matter to them. Attorneys convince juries by giving them a way to acquit/convict that aligns not necessarily with the evidence, but with what they (the jurors) already believe.
On the other hand, Kucinich might have listed the several ways imposing the U.S. military machine on the people of Libya stinks: the people (who “we” are ostensibly protecting) would be harmed far more than Qadaffi’s forces, let alone Qaddafi himself; it’s a land grab for resources and geopolitical position; the money it will cost is sorely needed here/let’s get our own house in order, first; etc.
But it’s well known by savvy consumers of media and those who have to deal with it as part of their job that the requisite “concision” demands that one’s message be pared down the most fundamental basics. This especially true for messages that counter the current media drive.
Onewhoreads, I consider myself a fairly “savvy consumer of media”. I’m been doing it for decades.
And it’s for precisely that reason that I reject this “paring”. All “pragmatism” does is keep the debate within acceptable limits, and ultimately doesn’t lead to a just result, only deja vu all over again.
I think that’s what Dr. King realized – that playing the game with the power structure wasn’t going to lead to the world he knew needed to come into being. So he began to speak real truth to power.
And they killed him.
But his courage inspired many here and around the world, and I think we’d be in even worse shape than we are if he had “pared” his message, lived, and become a “revered civil rights leader” who could be propped up next to politicians seeking votes from “liberals”.
I understand what you’re saying, and again, there’s a place for these points secondary to the principal principle, but if we don’t begin to appeal to folks’ sense of humanity, of empathy, we’ll never create that world of justice and peace that, if there’s any reason we’re here, we’re here to work for.
It’s extremely unlikely to occur, but it sure as hell won’t happen if we don’t give it a damn good shot, will it?
Hmm. Just because Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Kucinich are taking turns talking, doesn’t mean that they are having a conversation. In fact, neither are talking to, much less listening to, the other. So it’s not an argument, either. It’s just posturing, of course, for the sake of a television show and the people who don’t know better than to watch it. Only certain things can be said.
So onewhoreads is correct, I believe, in saying that Kucinich, under the circumstances, could not say much more than he did. But I agree with Mr. Latimer that it is not enough, nor will it ever be. In fact it may do real harm to even appear on O’Reilly’s show as a foil to O’Reilly’s perspective. You can be sure that if it’s on Fox it serves the purposes of Fox.
Of course, given that awareness, it’s good to remember that Kucinich may have said much much more than what Fox decided to air. It would be unfair to judge anyone based on what Fox claimed they said.
Doug, to take your point about appearing on FOX in a slightly different direction, just what purpose is served by doing so?
What would you hope to gain? You’re not likely to change anyone’s mind who might be watching, are you?
I’d like to see someone agree to come on, but with the stipulation that they be allowed to say right off the bat that they know precisely why they’ve been asked to appear, and that they won’t play that game.
And then don’t. State your case, respond to any, if there are any, legitimate comments, and refuse to be put on the defensive.
I realize there’s no way in hell that demand would be agreed to, but just letting folks know of the abortive exchange might be of benefit, further exposing the farce of “Fair and Balanced” ™.
Well, that’s my fantasy, anyway.
Back to the real world …
I remember John Stewart once, a couple of years ago maybe, doing a guest appearance on one of those shows, and not sticking to the script at all. He turned the tables on his two interlocutors and asked them point blank why they did such a poor job of covering the news… It was good — while it lasted.