more nattering

This is from Bill O’Reilly’s column on Foxnews:

“All loyal Americans should be hoping
that Iraq will stabilize and that
democracy will take root there. Even
if you don’t support the war, the
goal of a free Iraq is noble. And
Americans are the good guys in Iraq.
And there’s no other honest way to
see it. The situation could go either
way. Unfortunately, pray the good
guys win.”

To use the phrase “loyal Americans” is to make yourself sound like an ass. It’s as if you think we should be bowing and scraping and saying “Yes sir!” to whoever has more money or power, a king for instance. An American is a proud individual with a glorious history of defying those who would subject him or her. Americans are loyal to themselves and those things we hold dear, not to some nebulous ideal that’s been woven from whole cloth and spun by pundits for mass consumption. Make no mistake: dissent is patriotic.

What if the Iraqis democratically vote to install a theocracy? Will those that support this war be satisfied? Or will the bombing continue until Iraqis vote the way they’re told?

“Americans are the good guys in Iraq.” This phrase desperately needs repeating. What with the growing number of starving children Washington Post, and over 15,000 civilians dead iraqbodycount.net, we need to repeat this one over and over and as loudly as we can if we expect anyone to ever believe it. Fortunately, as Foxnews proves, that’s all it takes to convince many these days. They so effectively fabricated a connection between the guy that actually did the towers and Saddam that people actually thought attacking Iraq was a response to 911, and were pacified when George let Osama get away latimes.com.

“Unfortunately, pray the good guys win.” This sentence is ironic. Is praying for the good guys to win really unfortunate? I’m going to assume that O’Reilly’s poor grasp of English is at fault here. Or maybe the transcriber messed up the punctuation and what he really meant was: “The situation could go either way, unfortunately.” But that doesn’t make much sense either. Saying it could go either way sounds optimistic to me.

“Just today, ‘The Boston Globe’
took two quotations from me
completely out of context. And that
aggressively secular newspaper will
do that all day long.”

“Aggressively secular?” So, if The Boston Globe is a “secular” newspaper, is Bill implying that Foxnews is overtly religious? I can see religious people watching and listening and perhaps secretly masturbating to Foxnews, but I really hope people don’t see it as a good source for spiritual guidance. That would be a tragedy of epic proportions. Although, I’m sure O’Reilly would enjoy playing the part of Father Bill (just keep the children away).

Or maybe Bill is making a reference to the Washington Times. Now, there’s a religious newspaper. Owned and staffed by Moonies, it has no credibility, but the good Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s paper is well loved by Foxnews Google.com. They quote it all the time. And it most certainly is a source of spiritual guidance for many, perhaps even Bill. Perhaps Bill even refers to the reverend as “Father,” like all his followers do.

There’s a picture: imagine O’Reilly being bounced on Reverend Moon’s knee, big shit-eating grins on each of their faces. “Goo goo goo, Billy. Here’s your copy for today’s talking points. Be sure to throw in a few ‘We are definitely not lying to you.’ lines. Everybody loves it when you say stuff like that. It’s so, hmm…, what’s the word I’m looking for? Oh yeah: incredible.” he says, laughing as he jabs Billy’s fat, little tummy with his finger. “Now go get your daddy’s crown.”

gorenfeld.net

Advertisements

About this entry