What's Bush Supposed to Do--Invade a Sovereign Nation?
Unfortunately, there's no transcript or video available yet of the discussion subsequent to last night's Talking Points yet. But I remember what took place well enough watching it late last night. Last night, Bill O'Reilly jammed his foot down his throat--and all any Democratic guest who goes on his show from now on has to do is choke him with it.
The context was this: O'Reilly was doing a hit piece on Bill Clinton with respect to his Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, claiming that Clinton's outburst was all about politics (uhhhh...duh. Your show isn't?).
Then he had two guests on. According to Bill O'Reilly's own site, here is the basic summary of what happened:
The Factor was joined by two women with differing views of the Clinton interview. Nancy Pfotenhauer of the conservative Independent Women's Forum claimed Clinton was trying to score political points. "There's been an orchestrated effort on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign to get Bill Clinton in the news recently. They're trying to position him as an elder statesman. But in his specific reaction to that question he was thin-skinned and defensive. Clinton hit the gas too hard and ran smack into his ego." Democratic strategist Sascha Burns argued that the ex-president was truly angry. "I think it was partly calculated, but he was also angry. If you put President Bush in the same situation and Chris Wallace asked why he hasn't done more to keep his promise to get Osama Bin Laden, I don't think he'd be happy either." The Factor remained puzzled by Clinton's over-the-top reaction. "Bill Clinton was genuinely angry after this interview and I can not understand why. Clinton has been in public life forever and should have been easily prepared to deal with these questions."
So far, so good, Loofah-man. Straightforward right-wing propaganda.
But what Mr. Falafel failed to post was this telling exchange that should get him in a LOAD of hot water:
Sascha Burns did her job, turning the conversation had to what Bush had done to get Bin Laden. She said something to the effect that Bush hadn't done much of anything to get Bin Laden lately. That's when O'Reilly stuck his foot in it.
Now, I don't remember exactly what Ms. Burns said, but O'Reilly's response is clear as crystal in my memory:
O'REILLY: What is Bush supposed to do? INVADE A SOVEREIGN NATION?
Yes, folks. Bill O'Reilly actually asked--incredulously--whether Bush was supposed to actually take the disastrous step of invading a sovreign nation to get Bin Laden.
Unfortunately, Ms. Burns wasn't astute enough to destroy O'Reilly:
BURNS: Well, we invaded Afghanistan...
O'REILLY: He's in Pakistan. Pakistan. There's a difference
Yes, Pakistan is different. You see, back when we invaded Afghanistan, it was a country of muslim extremists that habored terrorists, including Bin Laden. Today, western Pakistan is a country of muslim extremists that habors terrorists, including Bin Laden.
There's a difference between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The difference is three years, and the GOP's corrupt ass in the political hotseat.
We've got him by the balls, people. Bill O'Reilly--the biggest cheerleader of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq to get <strike>oil</strike> Saddam Hussein--thinks it would be an unthinkable idea for America to invade a sovereign nation to get Bin Laden.
You heard that right. Invading countries to get terrorists is wrong, according to O'Reilly. Invading countries at the cost of over a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to get two-bit <strike>oil</strike> dictators that never threatened you is apparently another story.
Find the clip. YouTube the clip. And let's shove it in his ugly, smarmy face every chance we get.
And let's show the American people not just how how hypocritical these ratfuckers are, but how Soft on Terror they are as well.