Blood in the Water

Blood in the Water By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, May 19, 2005 http://billoreilly.com/currentarticle

The Newsweek and Dan Rather situations are so similar it's eerie. Both got snookered because they bought scenarios that, if true, would have made President Bush look bad. Both ran with said scenarios. Both crashed and burned.

Whenever you want anything in this world too much, it is unlikely to happen. Desperately desiring a person, a job or a lifestyle just about ensures disaster. All of us must pursue our goals with our eyes wide open or else we will hit the rocks.

What is it about President Bush that causes such anger in the press that they are salivating for a story that will hurt him? Wait, I can answer that question. It's the same emotion that drove right-wingers crazy whenever they saw President Clinton acting as Commander-in-Chief: partisans just don't believe these guys deserve the title.

The left-wing print press has rallied around Newsweek, blaming the whole debacle on the Bush administration for its systematic "abuse" of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. If the abuse had not happened, the papers wailed, then Newsweek wouldn't be in this fix. From the Los Angeles Times to the Minneapolis Tribune to the Baltimore Sun to the Oregonian in Portland, the editorials were almost exactly the same. Talk about group-think!

To be fair, Newsweek Magazine is not even close to being the biggest Bush-basher in town. That publication is far less ideological than most of the leftwing newspapers. It also does excellent reporting on a regular basis. But its Achilles heel is the politically correct germ that infects most New York City-based media. Newsweek has a tendency to be very PC, and displays far more secular tendencies than traditional ones. It is Newsweek's prerogative to do that, but it is also risky these days. Most Americans believe the press is unfair and unfit, and if you make a mistake that is perceived to be anti-American, you will pay a big price.

Ever since Woodward and Bernstein used an anonymous source (the so called "Deep Throat") to bring down the Nixon administration, the American press has been comfortable hiding behind phantom leakers who often hurt people for revenge. That has got to stop. Newsweek's anonymous source burned it, and what the magazine should do is put that person's picture on next week's cover. That would stop these cowardly weasels from spreading false stories. But Newsweek will not do that, and now must rebuild its reputation. That's not going to be easy, as Dan Rather is finding out. Americans are jittery these days in the face of killer terrorists, and we are in no mood for bogus news reports that inflame our enemies. The left-wing media ignores that fact at its peril. As with Dan Rather, I do not believe Newsweek knew what it put out there was false. It was duped. But that happened because the magazine was comfortable with a sensational item that would make the Bush administration look bad. As the old adage says: Be careful what you wish for.

i think my favorite line in all this newsweek debacle is "the story is fake,but still true?"

these people are soooooo angry because they are seeing their liberal ideas and philosophies falling by the wayside.the libertarians should make a move and put the democrats even further behind the rest of the world.

I like how everyone Right-Winger called for Newsweek's Dimese when they did EXACTLY what Bush did. Under their ideology, they should also want Bush to be Fired.

Journalism Ethics by Bill O'Reilly.

Priceless.

it sure appears the wmd blunder is paying off??women voting in kuwait,2 party voting in egypt,ukraine,afghanistan,,iraq,lebanon,etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

it sure appears the wmd blunder is paying off??women voting in kuwait,2 party voting in egypt,ukraine,afghanistan,,iraq,lebanon,etc.

---

Those are nothing but "perks" for blood for Oil. We didn't care what Saddam was doing to his people Pre 9/11 and We didn't care what Saddam was doing to his people Post 9/11. 9/11 was just a scapegoat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

it sure appears the wmd blunder is paying off??women voting in kuwait,2 party voting in egypt,ukraine,afghanistan,,iraq,lebanon,etc.

---

Howdy amsterdam,

That's a big 10-4 ! It must be awfully frustratin,for the Bush bashers,that there are such indisputable successes..lol.

Have a good one !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTC

Those are nothing but "perks" for blood for Oil. We didn't care what Saddam was doing to his people Pre 9/11 and We didn't care what Saddam was doing to his people Post 9/11. 9/11 was just a scapegoat.

---

you call those PERKS??you must be joking?

those were what we call amazing!i am glad i got to see something like that in my life.

Yes, It is good to see the Iraqi people somewhat free now, but it's nothing but a Marketing scheme to sell this invansion. Like I said, the American Government could give two shits what Saddam was doing to his people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XTC

Those are nothing but "perks" for blood for Oil. We didn't care what Saddam was doing to his people Pre 9/11 and We didn't care what Saddam was doing to his people Post 9/11. 9/11 was just a scapegoat.

---

Howdy XTC,

Only a liberal mind-set,would percieve the spread of Freedom,Liberty and Equality,as little more than a 'perk'..and yes,there are many who cared about what saddam and sons,were doing to the Iraqi people,both before and after 9/11.

their mindset is priceless!

Listen, It is a good thing that Iraqi people are no longer under a dictorship. IBut like I said it is nothing but a marketing scheme to distract people what is really going on and What Bush was really aiming for. OIL! Sheep.

oil huh?thanks for the deep thought jack handy.

we are gonna drill in anwar for that.

You conservatives really crack me up. Just the plain ignorance you guys portray is sickening. You think just because iraq holds some kind of sham election where you "empower" women makes up for all the bloodshed? Bush and rumsfeld and colin powell all ran into war touting freedom but what kind of freedom are we talking about? That must be some kind of freedom going to sleep and wondering if you'll even know you're dying if a bomb hits during the night. It must be a great freedom surviving the night and contemplating walking down the street during the day time wondering if when you get hit if it's from a suicide bomber or an american mortar shell.
All i hear is "bush did this for freedom, bush did that for liberty". Anyone actually stop and say "wait a minute...i've been duped". There have been probably a little less than two thousand american soldier casualites (im not that sure about the figure). You multiply that by four and there you have the iraqi civilian casualties. Of course we'll never know because america isn't bothering to keep accurate tabs. In fact, any reports on civilian casualties they group families as ONE casualty each. Why would they do this if everything was peachy keen? Why does the US refuse to dignify their troops by restricting filming of coffins coming home? Please dont insult me by saying its to piss off iraqi insurgents. It's terribly sad that people died during the 9/11 crisis. Canadians wept right along with Americans and we pledged our support. And so what if you conservative assholes dont like people from other countries criticizing what america does? America has a hand in pretty much almost every country worth investing in and so we all have a right to say what we feel because the actions of the american government affect our lives too.

8.5 million people is no sham kiddo.more people risked their lives voting than voted in america in the rain.

iraqi civilian casualties??are you kidding?while even one death is sad,more iraqis have been killed by foreign terrorists than americans.your facts are bs.

I guess conservatives are just ok being lied to. That's all I can make of it.

whatever makes you feel better.conservatives are just happier people than liberals.they will come up with anything to make someone else feel stupid.thats the way they work.always good for a chuckle.

No one is trying to make anyone feel stupid. I mean, if that happens as a consequence of being exposed to the truth, well...

It comes down to this for me on Iraq: good things are happening there that would not have happened without the American public being lied to. It's that simple.

No liberal I know is sad about the pleasant changes being made in Iraq. We're just upset that we were lied to in order for that change to occur. And apparently we're the only ones upset over this, leaving be to believe that lies are ok with conservatives.

I really would've supported the president had he said first, "We're going in to stop this brutal dictator from killing his own people and to spread democracy." And at the end of that, I would've suggested that our military make a few stops around the globe on the way back, if that was in fact the rationale for war.

Instead, we went to war under false pretenses that still don't add up, regardless of the outcome. I think that's dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

No one is trying to make anyone feel stupid. I mean, if that happens as a consequence of being exposed to the truth, well...

It comes down to this for me on Iraq: good things are happening there that would not have happened without the American public being lied to. It's that simple.

No liberal I know is sad about the pleasant changes being made in Iraq. We're just upset that we were lied to in order for that change to occur. And apparently we're the only ones upset over this, leaving be to believe that lies are ok with conservatives.

I really would've supported the president had he said first, "We're going in to stop this brutal dictator from killing his own people and to spread democracy." And at the end of that, I would've suggested that our military make a few stops around the globe on the way back, if that was in fact the rationale for war.

Instead, we went to war under false pretenses that still don't add up, regardless of the outcome. I think that's dangerous.

---

the liberals are MORE upset than the iraqis?

i am with you on the wmd blunder.

people need to move on though,freedom is on a roll.dominoes.

not to mention that the war has gone better than anyone thought it would.i think before the war the dems were predicting 100,000 dead soldiers.lol.

war solves problems.

amsterdam you must be some guy in the Presidential office getting electro-shocked into writing this. I can't believe that you're actually saying that the war is going better than anyone predicted. OF COURSE IT IS! of course if you take america into a less developed country with limited resources the war's going to go better for you guys. you'd probably have a risk of 100,000 dead IF iraq actually had weapons that were reasonably considered inflict some kind of semi-mass destruction. War solves all kind of problems huh? Its doing wonders for your ever-growing deficit and your reputation in the international community. Jesus, I was really going to hold my tongue but you guys are so frustrating and you're really reinforcing the stereotype that weed fries your brain. Im a firm believer that it doesnt but damn...you're really making me wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicholasstanko

amsterdam you must be some guy in the Presidential office getting electro-shocked into writing this. I can't believe that you're actually saying that the war is going better than anyone predicted. OF COURSE IT IS! of course if you take america into a less developed country with limited resources the war's going to go better for you guys. you'd probably have a risk of 100,000 dead IF iraq actually had weapons that were reasonably considered inflict some kind of semi-mass destruction. War solves all kind of problems huh? Its doing wonders for your ever-growing deficit and your reputation in the international community. Jesus, I was really going to hold my tongue but you guys are so frustrating and you're really reinforcing the stereotype that weed fries your brain. Im a firm believer that it doesnt but damn...you're really making me wonder.

---

war solves lots of things.

War solves nothing. It just ends things. Huge difference.

no,it solves things for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

War solves nothing. It just ends things. Huge difference.

---

TYPICAL liberal shibboleth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhallg2k

War solves nothing. It just ends things. Huge difference.

---

this is manifestly not true.violence ended the regimes of adolf hitler and benito mussolini.violence also proved equally effective against the taliban.

"But you cant impose democracy at gunpoint>" more bullshit!in reality,at the end of world war II ,america imposed democracy at gunpoint on japan and germany,and it proved a resounding success in both countries.

all you have to do is ,give guns a chance!!

i found your post with the thumbnail to be plain ridiculous. In fact it was funny to imagine you grinning to yourself thinking you had some amazing point. Well you don't. War didn't end nazism fascism or communism. All three are still regularly practiced today around the world. Any war that was ever started on this precedence had been started to supress its SPREAD. Let's not forget that america was quite content to let jews get exterminated all over the place until japan showed up. And as for slavery, you must be super high on paint fumes to think the union forces started an entire war JUST to end slavery. It was for control of the south and their agriculture. It was a nice consequence though.

hahahahahah,what the hell are you talking about?sure those things are still around,but they sure as hell arent a driving force??jesus!

violence took care of that.