Anybody catch O’reilly crying about how the media is to blame for the public’s waning approval of the war this week? He went on and on about how in WWII the press had a lot stricter rules to follow and if they violated them, they’d get kicked out of the battle areas and have to stop reporting. It sure sounded like he felt we’d be better off if WWII rules restricting the press existed today. And what about the advances in technology that allow instant reports from around the world... should we revert to WWII technology too? What the hell Bill? Are you suggesting the American taxpayers shouldn’t get to see what they’re getting for their billion per week? Yeah, that’s Billion with a B... tax money.... why shouldn’t we get to see up to date images and hear reports about how that money is being spent? If that changes the opinions of those footing the bill for it, so be it. It’s too bad we’d all forgotten what war looked like BEFORE the election. Now we decide we don’t like it anymore? Is that what bothers you Bill? That it’s still looking more and more like a bad move? (To be fair, Mr. O'reilly also criticized the White House for not putting out better explanations for the war... on that we totally agree.)
The best part of this particular segment was that as soon as O’reilly got done arguing for more media restraint in covering that billion per week operation, he then turned around and lambasted Aruban authorities for not providing more details about their investigation of the missing girl down there. The Aruban law enforcement rep told Bill that they didn’t want to jeopardize the investigation, but Bill wanted MORE coverage.
What’s it gonna be Bill, more press or less press? Let me see if I get this... when it’s a billion a week of U.S. taxpayer money, we should have less coverage, but when it’s another country’s law enforcement agency doing their job with a few borrowed FBI agents, we need more press coverage. Billion per week - less, salaries of a couple of FBI agents assisting foriegn law enforcement authorities - more. Hmmm.
I get that it’s the conservative’s job to declare the entire world black and white, while the liberals argue that there’s gray in between, but it sure sounds like ol’ Bill wants the black AND the white AND maybe even some gray in this case. Make up your mind Bill? I heard a wise man say once, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” So are you standing for more media coverage or less? More as long as it doesn’t put down the president’s bad decisions? Less if it does? What’s the guiding principle behind this segment? I really want to like you Bill, but you’ll have to help me understand you first.
2 comments:
I have always felt that ol' Billy had an implied ellipsis after his most recent catch phrase:
"We're looking out for you..."
The phrase that completes it is, of course, borrowed from the scrubbing bubbles:
"...so you don't have toooooooooo!"
Aptly named
With President Bush creating debt my grandchildren have little chance of paying off, and $215 million in worker's compensation money disappearing on Gov. Bob Taft's watch, I now have a new understanding of what it means to live in a ``red'' state: It's all that red ink.
Post a Comment