Obama Goes to War Zones

Bill O'Reilly's July 22nd Talking Points Memo

It's time for a baseball infusion into Mr. O'Reilly's world. He's got Obama batting .500 and McCain batting .750 with regard to the whole Iraq war situation. Of course, McCain got an extra at-bat. Obama was correct about entering Iraq, but wrong about the surge. McCain was wrong about entering Iraq, correct that the war was fought ineptly, and correct about the surge. Why Obama doesn't get credit for claiming the war was fought ineptly is beyond me, but I will speculate that Mr. O'Reilly couldn't stand McCain and Obama having the same batting average, so he had to give McCain something else to be correct about. Also, Mr. O'Reilly is willing to give McCain a pass on his one "strikeout" because it was a "strikeout" for "most of us." Of course, this is subjective nonsense because I could give Obama a few more at-bats and he could have a higher batting average. At the very least, I suggest that Obama would also agree that the war has been fought ineptly. But that would just ruin the insightful message that Mr. O'Reilly is bringing to so many Americans.

It's amazing how many times Mr. O'Reilly can harp on the same points. Even more amazing is that he can harp on points that are so incredibly biased and flat wrong. Once again Mr. O'Reilly is claiming that the "far-left loons" and "America haters" "want us to lose in [Iraq]." How he comes up with these conclusions is a mystery to me. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq does not, and never will, imply a desire for the United States to lose in Iraq. Let me say that again. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq does not, and never will, imply a desire for the United States to lose in Iraq. It actually doesn't matter how many times I say it, Mr. O'Reilly will continue with his deluded thinking. After all, what better way to make a point than to smear the opposition with lies? Mr. O'Reilly probably figures if he says something enough times, it will become true. Unfortunately, with media in America today, that may not be far from the truth. Just look at the stats of FOX viewers who thought WMDs were found in Iraq. If memory serves, it was more than half.

I am particularly interested in one statement Mr. O'Reilly makes. "The truth is that much of the world...doesn't care how many brutal dictators commit mass murder." Obviously this remark is meant to highlight the humanitarian mission that the war in Iraq is. Mr. O'Reilly is making reference to murders and atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. I believe that was excuse number two or three for entering Iraq back in the days that George W. Bush was attempting to justify his actions. Never mind that at the time we entered Iraq there were far more mass murders and atrocities taking place on the African continent. I would wager that Mr. O'Reilly has spent far more time talking about Iraq than about Africa. I would also wager that Mr. O'Reilly has spent far more time talking about terrorism associated with Iraq than atrocities committed in Iraq. But it's nice to know that Mr. O'Reilly is willing to bring up human rights issues when it suits his agenda.

At this point I thought Mr. O'Reilly had pushed the envelope enough, but he was not yet finished. "Just this weekend, [far-left loons] gathered in Texas for a hate America convention. And guess who showed up? Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi." First of all, what Mr. O'Reilly is calling a "hate America convention" is actually Netroots Nation 2008. I guess he didn't want people to know that because they might actually look up what it's all about. It is a group of bloggers, progressive activists, elected officials, and candidates for office who meet once a year to discuss current issues facing the world. How this turns in to a "hate America convention" defies logic. Having looked at the convention agenda, I wonder how such topics as "Energizing America: Setting an Agenda for Progress", "Growing the American Dream Movement", or "Netroots for the Troops Care Package Creation" could be considered hateful towards America. Sure, there are topics that criticize the government of the United States, but dissension is an American privilege. So when Mr. O'Reilly twists a well-meaning convention, a convention encouraging citizen participation in government, I am appalled.

Finally, Mr. O'Reilly drives home the point he is trying to make none too subtly. Come election time we need to consider what he's said and choose the candidate that will fight in Iraq and Iran and anywhere else terrorism exists (unfortunately this encompasses the globe, including the US). Now he doesn't suggest that everyone go out and vote for John McCain. That would not be his place. Never mind that O'Reilly suggests McCain is batting .750 while Obama is batting .500 with regard to Iraq. Never mind that O'Reilly suggests Obama is a part of a party that holds "hate America" conventions. He wants everyone to make up their own minds, and that's why he's not taking any chances by providing accurate information to the voters.

I really don't know why Mr. O'Reilly doesn't just wave a "vote for John McCain" sign.

And that's "The CounterPoints Memo."