Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

September 10, 2007

Bill O’Reilly vs Ron Paul

by Kevin Boyd

Ron Paul and Bill O’Reilly had a lively debate about foreign policy. I think that O’Reilly, while granted he kept interrupting Paul, got the best of him in this debate. In the final minute or so, while O’Reilly did falsely accuse Ron Paul of opposing the Afghan war from the beginning, Paul did come back and call for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Afghanistan. O’Reilly also got Paul when O’Reilly made the basic distinction between Saudi and Iranian policy toward terrorism. While it is true that Al-Qaeda consists largely of Saudis, the Saudi government does not sponsor terrorism, unlike Iran. Also around 3 minutes or so left, didn’t Ron Paul condone the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by Iranian surrogates as “logical and defensive”?

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon1Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/09/10/bill-oreilly-vs-ron-paul/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • http://www.rogelsview.com Rogel

    Debating with O’Reilly is such a waste of time. How can you debate intelligently with someone who doesn’t want to discuss the historical facts?
    Ron Paul need to choose more accommodating arenas – not friendly but the kind that let you finish a sentence and that have at least half brain:)

  • rich

    what country provided the 9/11 hi-jackers?
    Hint – it wasn’t Iran..

  • http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com David McClain

    How can you have a reasonable debate on issues like these in 1 minute or less? That’s why I hate these shows. 20-second soundbite answers don’t do it, but it would help if O’Reilly would ask the question and then shut up and let the guest take the rest of the time to give an intelligent reply.

    Bill said if we leave the Iranians will be able to build a weapon. We’ve been in Korea, and that didn’t stop the North. So how is our presence in Iraq going to stop Iran from trying? Guess we’ll have to invade them too.

    Iran’s neighbors, including Israel, can contain it just fine without us.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Kevin,

    Your assessment of the interview is spot-on, which is why I thought it was a bad idea for the campaign to pursue it to begin with.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Iran’s neighbors, including Israel, can contain it just fine without us.

    Other than Israel, which of Iran’s neighbors has a military capable of containing Iran ?

    I’ll give you ten seconds, because the answer begins with N, has four letters, and ends with E.

    None.

  • Buckwheat

    Kevin,

    Simple question:

    If Osama bin Laden is dead, as Michael Ledeen asserts, why should we not remove all US troops from Afghanistan immediately?

    Answer: because our reason for going into Afghanistan in the first place was not to get Osama bin Laden, it was to control 1) Afghanistan’s huge natural gas deposits and 2) you’re not gonna like this, but to control Afghanistan’s drug trade (poppy/opium). No shit — we went in, in part, to deal drugs.

    Which was also a major reason we went into Southeast Asia in the 1970s.

    Flame away, but I’m right. Anyone who disagrees has some serious paradigm shifts coming in the Google/YouTube era, where truth talks and bullshit walks.

  • UCrawford

    O’Reilly doesn’t care about debate, his job is to bash the guests and sell books based on whatever the hell it is he believes. David has it right, soundbite forums are horrible places to discuss policy because it’s just about throwing out the most clever lines or pushing the right buttons before the other guy can do the same. News McNuggets.

    Paul did fine considering the hostile format…O’Reilly didn’t make him look like a complete idiot and Paul got most of his points across without getting too sucked into O’Reilly’s yelling match.

  • Buckwheat

    Mataconis:

    Pakistan. Has nuclear weapons, which Iran doesn’t.

  • http://loveinatrashcan.journalspace.com/ Glenn

    There is no point talking with Bill in Bill’s arena. He is rude, disrespectful and quick for acquisation and misquotes. Bill cut off the history lesson simply because Bill knows that history defends RP’s message.

    Take away the home field advantage of Bill and he can’t behave as he does. I don’t understand America and how he gets such high rating shouting, being rude and disrespectful. Our country, the people of this country are in sad state if this is what entertains us. Forget a lively honest, truth finding debate. Let’s just shout over each other like we are a bickering couple in public. It is much more productive

  • Buckwheat

    Oh, and Mataconis:

    There’s a second answer to your question, which is “Iraq.” Saddam contained Iran pretty well, with the 4th largest amry in the world, until we destroyed his army.

    And Doug — why does the United States need to “contain” Iran? They have oil, Iraq has oil, they need to sell it to us on the open market for it to have any value, so there’s no reason for us to concern ourselves with the geopolitics of the region beyond making oil purchases.

    The real reason we “had” to hit Iraq is because Saddam was in the process of demanding non-dollar currencies (specifically euros) for his oil, which is why he had to be whacked, since it would have led to the crash of the dollar. The dollar has been a fiat currency since Nixon cut the link to gold in 1971, backed by nothing but our ability to militarily threaten countries who refuse to sell their oil in dollars. And want to know why we’re suddenly so hot to go after Iran? Because Ahmedinejad recently asked the Japanese, and is a bout to ask the Chinese, to pay for their oil in Yen and Yuan. Which the Japanese have already agreed to do and the Chinese will.

    We’ve become a thug, bully nation, our foreign policy centered around artificially inflating the value of our crappy petrodollar with military threats. Thomas Jefferson would kick Dick Cheney’s ass all over Pennsylvania Avenue for it if he were alive today, and I’d YouTube that shit.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    No, you’re wrong. Afghanistan’s been more or less completely ignored since Iraq became Bush’s obsession. We went in for bin Laden, we were justified for going in, the Europeans are the ones doing most of the drug interdiction (since that’s where most of the heroin is ending up), as long as bin Laden and the Taliban are still in Pakistan there’s a legitimate reason to maintain a presence in Afghanistan (at least as long as that presence is limited to training the national army and seeking al-Qaeda along the AFPAK border). As for the natural gas exploitation, there’s been little to none of it in the area because of the security situation and the Afghani government (who are recognized by the people as legitimate and are not operationally bound to us) actually have control of the licensing anyway.

    Stick to the Ron Paul stuff, or crack a few books on Afghanistan before sounding off so you know what the hell you’re talking about. You’re out of your depth here.

  • Robert Micheal of the Saints

    What I think is an important but forgoten point is, didnt we supply and encourage Al queda to fight and kill Russians much like Iran arms others,,hmm,,, I guess it’s ok when we do it,,

  • null and void

    If Iran is supporting terrorism in the middle east it is because they see what is going on. They know that the US is drooling to come in to their country. They live right next to a country that has met that fate already. Put yourself in their position. Heck, let us use the United State’s policy to evaluate the situation. Hey, there is this country that is sponsoring terrorisim (the US training its terrorist agents/soldiers) to come in and attack our country. We should pre-empetively strike them because they pose a potential threat to us.

    Of course Iran is going to be on the defensive and look for ways to attack our country if we are threatening to wipe them off the face of the planet. They do not want foriegn countries to meddle in their affairs. Much the same way our country does not want other countries to meddle in our affairs.

  • Andy

    If we keeping attacking people, they will all hate us and then we can go bomb them all because they will all become threats to us. It’s a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy isn’t it?.

  • http://republicanrenaissance.blogspot.com David McClain

    I think the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council can handle them too, Doug. They have a smaller standing army but military spending in Saudi Arabia alone is now 5 times that of Iran. They are much more advanced and are not terribly worried about the threat from what is really a third-rate power.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford,

    My brother in law just spent 3 years in Afghanistan maintaining bases there. We are not there to get Osama, who is DEAD and who was last seen in PAKISTAN anyway. If we wanted to get Osama, we wouldn’t have 15,000 troops and fuckloads of civilian contractors like my b-i-l there, we’d sign a Ron Paul-esque letter of marque and reprisal and OBL would be dead for a billion dollars in a week, courtesy fo some local warlord. But it’s all moot, you can’t kill someone who’s already dead.

    We are building pipelines to exploit their natural gas deposits, and we are dealing opium, the two natural resource Stone Age Afghanistan is good for.

    Fuck, I’m ready to give up and just join the New World Order, if they’ll have me. Even people with a U in their handle are so naive and undereducated I can’t stand to be associated with them.

    If the CIA or David Rockefeller is monitoring this board, please kill me or recruit me. I can’t take it any more.

  • Clovis

    I think if O’Reilly would have let congressman Paul finish answering instead of pulling the HannityLite talking over him routine as soon as he said something O’Reilly didn’t want to hear I would have enjoyed watching the debate much more.

    I enjoy a great debate but when these “media personalities” do not let the person answer the questions they ask but instead interrupting or talk over them I feel it really lowers their, the hosts, credibility (and my tolerance for watching the program).

    I would have loved to have seen a true exchange of alternate viewpoints as opposed to what I saw here.

    Regardless, I think more people will be looking up Ron Paul to learn about him and that’s a good thing.

    I think I share this view with many other Americans when I say, browbeating your guest only makes you look like a bad host and sympathy goes to the mistreated guest. It is one thing to ask tough questions, and I think that is good journalism to do so, it is another to ask questions you aren’t willing to allow your guest to fully answer if you don’t like what they are saying. Content aside, O’Reilly once again pushed an agenda rather than a true debate.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Pakistan. Has nuclear weapons, which Iran doesn’t.

    And the prize for picking the least stable nation in the world with the power to blow it up goes to….
    .

    Buckwheat

  • aaron

    I thought he did fine.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Clovis,

    I would have loved to have seen a true exchange of alternate viewpoints as opposed to what I saw here.

    That would have only occurred in the Bizzaro Universe with the Bizzaro O’Reilly.

  • John Galt

    Which of Iran’s Neighbors, other than Israel, can contain it ? Well Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi, Probably Jordan.

    The Iranian Military is not that good. Their Air force has a few 1980’s era planes, F-14 and mirage, but the rest are F-4s or similar aged Migs, (the plane that John McCain flew), Their navy is mostly patrol boats. They are a ground threat to no one, at best they could close the Strait of Hormuz for a few weeks.

    O’Reilly appeared to win that part of the debate, because he refused to listen to any history about thesubject. Further, he dismissed the argument about moderate Iranians, which is a really important point.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Buckwheat,

    Your evidence that Osama is dead comes from ??????

  • Buckwheat

    Mataconis,

    You asked for a neighbor of Iran that could contain it militarily. I gave you two good answers. Dispute them with facts if you can: Pakistan has nukes and Iran doesn’t, besides having twice as many people as Iran; and Iraq held Iran at bay for 8 years in the 1980s.

    Hmmm?

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    David,

    I think the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council can handle them too, Doug. They have a smaller standing army but military spending in Saudi Arabia alone is now 5 times that of Iran. They are much more advanced and are not terribly worried about the threat from what is really a third-rate power.

    Ah yes, that’s just what the world needs is a bunch of in-bred Arab princes with nuclear weapons

  • Victoria

    Recent history tells us that Gov’ts don’t need to sponser terror to be invaded by the U.S. The Bush Admin and O’Reilly can find a convenient Bogeyman in hundreds of nations around the Globe when it serves the neo-con interests.

    We aren’t free or safe here and we won’t make it free or safe anywhere else either – so what are we trying to accomplish over there???

  • Buckwheat

    Mataconis —

    Besides the latest obviously fake video, which even Rush Limbaugh mocked, here’s Michael Ledeen, who has no earthyl reason to want OBL dead:

    “Third, is it really Osama? As you know, I was reliably told something like two years ago that Osama had died. Nothing in this speech sounds at all like the “old” OBL. That man knew how to give a stemwinder, he used elegant language, his threats were blood-curdling, his calls to the faithful inspiring. This man talks like, well, a high school dropout. In fact it reads like an “Onion” spoof. And the sound is bizarre, at least on my IBM desktop. It sounds almost as if there was enough garble in it to make it difficult to match with voice prints of the “real” guy. I’m not convinced.”

    Third, is it really Osama? As you know, I was reliably told something like two years ago that Osama had died. Nothing in this speech sounds at all like the “old” OBL. That man knew how to give a stemwinder, he used elegant language, his threats were blood-curdling, his calls to the faithful inspiring. This man talks like, well, a high school dropout. In fact it reads like an “Onion” spoof. And the sound is bizarre, at least on my IBM desktop. It sounds almost as if there was enough garble in it to make it difficult to match with voice prints of the “real” guy. I’m not convinced.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/ (no permalink, scroll down)

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Buckwheat,

    Why does Iran need to be contained ?

    Have you ever heard of an organization called Hezbollah ?

    Or another one called Hamas ?

    One is in Lebanon, the other in the West Bank.

    They are terrorists, and they are both funded by the Mullahs in Iran.

    I have nothing against the Iranian people, it’s their government I fear.

  • Buckwheat

    PS Mataconis, Iran spends about $ 7 billion a year on their military. That is pathetic. We can control their world with one aircraft carrier. Stop acting like Iran has a real military.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran

  • Robert Micheal of the Saints

    Also,I think it is an important point that is made when stating, Iran is more cohesive now then before we invaded Iraq. This was known by the CIA that there was dissent there. Especially by students wanting better ties with the west.
    Also about Saudi not being able to contain the border and have Suadi men cross the border, is it because they can’t or because they just don’t care? I feel that deep down inside every Arab feels unified in some way. They have an unusual way of feeding you lunch, running out the backdoor, then mortaring your Humveee as you drive away. Like Veitnam who is really friend and foe?

  • http://www.garyksmithlaw.com C. Wesley Fowler
  • Alexl

    Bill O’reilly, once again, displays his primary characteristics: hubris and ignorance. It’s so evident that BO wasn’t even listening or comteplating what RP was saying. Contrast that with Tucker who listens and engages in the debate.

  • Travis

    The answer to which other nations can contain iran besides Isreal? India and Pakistan are two that could and would contain them if needed.

  • Mike Robinson

    Ron Paul did okay. Everyone knows O’Rielly is a bully, which is why he is watched – it’s entertaining. I am a Dr. Paul supporter and I think he needs to be on as many shows as possible. It takes guts to sit opposite O’Rielly and he held his own.

  • Buckwheat

    Give me break, Mataconis. Those are pathetically weak Palestinian terrorist organizations, not existential threats to the US or even to Israel.

    If that’s your Exhibit A, pack it in, pal. Admit we’ve got not good reason to be in Iraq or Iran except to steal oil.

    Another two-word phrase we might mention here is Peak Oil, which no one talks or knows about but which added extra temptation to Cheney to snatch the Mideast Oil fields.

    Whether it’s fruit in Central America, drugs in Colombia and Afghanistan, or oil in the Middle East, the US always finds a humanitarian reason to invade foreign countries and take their natural resources. Always for “democracy” or “liberation” or some such bullshit.

    Hey CIA or David Rockefeller, forget it, I’m going to throw myself out of my apartment window myself, don’t even bother. Mataconis and UCrawford are *educated* Americans, you don’t want to know how naive the rest of them are.

    Let me just finish this beer.

  • Clovis

    Doug forgive my ignorance but I have no idea what you mean by that comment about the Bizarro O’Reilly.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    Alright, you want to get in a pissing contest, Buckwheat? I’ll match up against your brother who “maintained bases” in Afghanistan.

    I did a combat tour there from 2003-2004 working intel support and oding actual missions. My job as a SIGINT analyst was to track high and medium value Taliban targets and determine their actions and historical movements as well as fusing all sources of intelligence to build target packages for the elimination and tracking of said HVTs and MVTs. I worked intel support for three major brigade-level combat ops. I helped prioritize intel target taskings. I personally hunted targets with the Navy SEALs in the mountains of central Afghanistan for a month. I’ve read every major book about the Afghan-Soviet war to study mujaheddin tactics, including one written by the former chief of the Pakistani ISID who is now working with the Taliban (“The Bear Trap”) and the complete works of Lester Grau (who interviewed every major mujaheddin commander who fought the Soviets and are now active against us with the Taliban). I held a security clearance better than Top Secret and had access to all relevant information on that conflict.

    You want to be taken seriously on this topic? Fine…come up with documentation to support your allegations besides conspiracy theories and random crap from Google and YouTube. Because if you want to start throwing around accusations about naivete or lack of credibility, I’ve got a lot more cred than you or your maintenance guru brother, who for all I know did nothing but service air conditioners or dish out food in a chow hall for KBR for three years.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Buckwheat,

    I never said Iran has a real military.

    We could destroy them with conventional forces within a few days.

    But they have proven adept, from the start of the regime, at the use of unconventional tactics a/k/a terrorism. They have allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas who do their bidding. They are closely tied to the regime of the Asad Family in Syria.

    Do you really think that war against Iran would be easy ? Because that’s what you seem to be suggesting.

  • John

    I agree with Mike R. Ron Paul’s performance in this interview was average (not bad considering this venue and interviewer). But the exposure is good. It demonstrates Paul’s willingness to go anywhere and everywhere to spread his message. I hope he won over a few neocons with his appearance…

  • Justin

    I am banning fox network. I can’t stand Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. I’m giving up my beloved 24 show here. That’s how much i hate these guys.

  • Thomas

    We might as well tell the world that as long as they’re doing something we don’t like we have the right to invade and occupy indefinitely since that is now our policy. Ignore that it is that policy which leads to Imperialism and the inevitable fall of the Empire. The only reason people are even talking about invading Iran is because of the precedent of pre-emptive attack set by the Iraq War. If we don’t reverse that policy now it will be a long journey back.

  • Pingback: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Bill O’Reilly vs. Ron Paul()

  • Ward Ciac

    No way Jose!
    Ron Paul did brilliantly as always. Rude O’Reilly wouldn’t let Dr Paul, ever the gentleman, answer most of the time. Because Ron Paul is smarter than Rude O’Reilly. But when he did get a word in edgewise Dr Paul was spot on. He called Iran’s posture ‘logical and defensive’, not that soldiers are being killed in Iraq. Dr Paul is a veteran he has every respect for the military. And that is why the military contributed to his campaign more than any other candidate.

  • http://www.garyksmithlaw.com C. Wesley Fowler

    Did I mention UCrawford was a massive tool?

    You respond to links to multiple articles by asking for …. ? … well, you don’t say what you want. Apparently motive, disgusting amounts of circumstantial evidence and a continued unexplained occupation of a soverign nation that we would never tolerate (even on a neighbors soil … much less our own), just isn’t enough to even raise a question in your mind as to why the hell we are there.

    I’m not an Afgan vet, but I am a lawyer and I can tell you, motive, circumstantial evidence and outcome are enough to convict of first degree murder … it should be enough to make any rational man question his government.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford,

    Impressive creds. Simple questions:

    1) you think we’re not dealing poppy?

    2) you think OBL is still alive?

    Please be honest.

  • UCrawford

    Doug,

    Q: Why does Iran need to be contained?

    A: It is contained. It’s surrounded by hostile Sunni states. There used to be more of them but we overthrew one and installed a Shi’a government friendly to Iran.

    Q: Have you ever heard of an organization called Hezbollah ?

    A: Yes, heard of them. They aren’t targeting us, they’re targeting Israel. Israel is more than capable of handling them.

    Q: Or another one called Hamas ?

    A: Yes, they’re also targeting Israel, not us. Plus, they’re a Sunni organization who are only allying with Hezbollah for short-term gain. Long-term they’re incompatible with Hezbollah ideologically.

    Comment: One is in Lebanon, the other in the West Bank.

    Rebuttal: Neither of which were anywhere near us last time I checked a map.

    Comment: They are terrorists, and they are both funded by the Mullahs in Iran.

    Rebuttal: So? They aren’t targeting us. The only reason they’re even a miniscule threat to target us is because we’re on Iran’s borders and we support Israel.

    Comment: I have nothing against the Iranian people, it’s their government I fear.

    Rebuttal: Great, they hate their government too. The only problem is that they fear us invading more which gives them a reason for solidarity with their government. Nobody wants to be a slave to a foreign invader, after all…particularly not one whose incompetent policies turned a neighboring country into a bloodbath.

  • http://ericsundwall.com Eric Sundwall

    This is where the tact of accepting a foreign policy based on realism can trump the blanket non-interventionist points which Paul had to scramble around. By recognizing that Iran’s rational interests include obtaining a nuclear weapon, it’s not clear why or if they would risk giving these terrorist groups such hard fought technology or devices.

    O’Reilly simply lumps the higher command functions and decisions with all the irrational actors in the region and Paul attempts to counter with historical interventionist problematics. It can’t be done fast enough in such a format. Charlie Rose perhaps, but you have to roll quicker with a thug like Bill to catch him in his own dastardly logic. Paul makes the point in the last debate that Israel can defend itself, but O’Reilly counters with the ‘fear factor’ of madmen and mushroom clouds.

    It’s precisely that audience which loves him so much. Paul gets nowhere with them anyway, but the persistent attack on the neocon perspective is what matters for the next 4 months. It goes away when Hillary and Rudy get the microphones after Feb. 5th.

  • http://lnn.amigopark.com brian

    Your wrong. Paul is right, and your wrong. period.

  • Buckwheat

    Mataconis,

    I’m saying war with Iraq was unnecessary and motivated by a desire to avoid the crash of the dollar by punishing the person (Saddam) who was trying to sell his oil in euros. You dispute that was the real reason for going into Iraq?

    And you dispute the reason we’re going after A-jad is the same?

    Chavez is on Cheney’s shit list for the same reason. You dispute that or no? You think it’s his “humanitarian” transgressions? Notice how the only humanitarians we go after have a natural resource we want? Por ejemplo, North Korea doesn’t have anything natural resources, so…we haven’t hit them.

  • Buckwheat

    Brian —

    Ron Paul is right about every god damn thing. If we don’t elect him, we don’t deserve him.

    Fortunately, we’re going to elect him.

  • ABoe31

    I think Ron did fine too. He got Bill to say “We don’t need a history lesson.” When it’s clear that Bill and most Americans do.

    Bill’s basic offence was “Please don’t give us facts, please let me know if you are affraid.” That’s all Bill does is spread fear and hate. If there ever was an American terrorist it is Billy O.

    I think Ron does need to start talking from a “When I am president, this is what I will do.” standpoint. He’s starting to get caught rehashing all the same stuff from a defensive point of view. That keeps him from looking like he’s confident that he can win. We need to start hearing formulated plans of action from him. He’s got a whole lot work to do as President before he can downsize the government enough to go on auto pilot.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    Valid points all around, but I was addressing Buckwheat’s comments, and the assertions that Congressman Paul was making in the O’Reilly interview that, somehow, Iran isn’t a nation we at least need to be concerned about.

    I’m not saying we should go to war tomorrow, or ever.

    I do think, though, that, at times, American national interests extend beyond the borders of the United States.

  • AGGOZZUR

    It’s time all of you people woke up and stopped bickering about why our millitary is anywhere doing whatever it is they are doing.
    FACT is, Bush, his father & Grandpa Prescott-Who was Nikola Tesla’s “Accountant/Secretary” & “Most Trusted Financial Advisor” are Nazi’s, Goerge H. Sherff was his name way back then. Look it up and you will have a better understand of what Bush is REALLY trying to do.
    My American Brethren, Please, the time is at hand for us to come together and oppose tyranny & slavery. Pull your heads out of the sand and face what is before us because this generation is the one that decides if there will ever be another Free American Nation Generation.
    Foreign bankers, CFR, the Illuminati, Free Masons, NEOCONS, Skull & Bones society, These people are crazed, precise, RICH, pychopathic, liars, minipulators.
    Bill O’, Hannity & Colmes, George Stephanopoulos and many many others are just puppets good at trying to derail any opposition and burying the truth which is is far more stranger then fiction.
    Don’t listen to the lies on the TV. Don’t fight amongst eachother. Instead, spread this info, research adn education your minds and ready yourselves for the worst possible outcome of this election. Education is the first and most important ingredient to make a success rise. Get on YOUTUBE!!!

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    1) I know we’re not dealing poppy. There’s no way that wouldn’t leak out over there if our troops were involved (which they’d have to be for it to work logistically). Besides which, it’s the only major cash crop for Afghanistan. That’s part of the reason we’re not trying to destroy it. Doing so would cause the complete collapse of Afghanistan’s economy because they have no other way to produce income.

    2) I honestly don’t know. I suspected that he had died awhile ago, but that was just my opinion and it was speculative and based on the dearth of tapes. We’ve gotten reports that he had died before I left the Army (all unconfirmed). The NSA (who I frequently worked with) has said it’s Bin Laden’s voice on the tape, so that seems to lend credibility to the idea that he’s still alive. It’s possible that the tape is faked (by al-Qaeda) but it’s just as likely that it isn’t. In any case, there’s little doubt that if he’s alive he’s in Pakistan and will remain there until either we catch him or we leave (in which case the Pakistani government can again fund the Taliban to help overthrow the Afghani government and reinstall the Taliban…as they did in 1996).

  • Josh Purinton

    Doug, I’m with you. I respect Paul for going into the lion’s den, but I don’t think he acquitted himself all that well. Mainly, he started out a little long-winded in this interview, which made it look less bad when O’Reilly cut him off. I hate to accuse him of being long-winded, because he’s not just repeating talking points, he’s actually answering the question. But he needed to do more than just answer the question here: he needed to find a way to turn it around briefly and incisively in a soundbite, like he did during the debate. (“No, we should take our marching orders from the Constitution!”)

  • hogieohno

    “I held a security clearance better than Top Secret and had access to all relevant information on that conflict.”

    Anyone else smell bullshit?

  • http://www.garyksmithlaw.com C. Wesley Fowler

    @UCrawford:

    Why do I care of OBL is alive or if “we” are dealing drugs?

    We are occupying a soverign country. I direct you to a smarter man than you (or me):

    http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html

  • AGGOZZUR

    It’s time all of you people woke up and stopped bickering about why our millitary is anywhere doing whatever it is they are doing.
    FACT is, Bush, his father & Grandpa Prescott-Who was Nikola Tesla’s “Accountant/Secretary” & “Most Trusted Financial Advisor” are Nazi’s, Goerge H. Sherff was his name way back then. Look it up and you will have a better understand of what Bush is REALLY trying to do.
    My American Brethren, Please, the time is at hand for us to come together and oppose tyranny & slavery. Pull your heads out of the sand and face what is before us because this generation is the one that decides if there will ever be another Free American Nation Generation.
    Foreign bankers, CFR, the Illuminati, Free Masons, NEOCONS, Skull & Bones society, These people are crazed, precise, RICH, pychopathic, liars, minipulators.
    Bill O’, Hannity & Colmes, George Stephanopoulos and many many others are just puppets good at trying to derail any opposition and burying the truth which is is far more stranger then fiction.
    Don’t listen to the lies on the TV. Don’t fight amongst eachother. Instead, spread this info, research adn education your minds and ready yourselves for the worst possible outcome of this election. Education is the first and most important ingredient to make a success rise. Get on YOUTUBE!!!

  • AGGOZZUR
  • http://www.thesparsematrix.com rho

    I enjoy a great debate but when these “media personalities” do not let the person answer the questions they ask but instead interrupting or talk over them I feel it really lowers their, the hosts, credibility (and my tolerance for watching the program).

    You must be kidding. It’s a juvenile tactic that is incredibly effective at making the media personality sound smarter than they are. Hannity loves to do this too, but he does it in such a blatantly partisan manner–liberals get walked all over and asked “when did you stop beating your wife” questions, neo-cons are granted extensive leeway to bloviate–that it’s nakedly obvious he’s playing retard games.

    Bill O’Reilly’s job is to make Bill O’Reilly look good. Nothing else. Dr. Paul was in the lion’s den. He did well enough. I wish he could do better, but I reserve those hopes for his long-form speeches, which are better vehicles for a complicated, non-sound-bite-oriented platform.

    I’m not a fan of Giuliani, but as I reckon it, only he and Ron Paul have anything like public long-form foreign policy positions. From either party.

  • Paul voter

    Fox seems to be having something of a “problem” lately of deliberately misquoting Ron & then making him correct the misquote for the little time alloted him to answer the “question.”

    We’ll call this Chris Ah’Spinly method of delivering, “we report, you decide” news.

    In other words, bullshit.

  • Buckwheat

    I agree with everything in UCrawford’s 10:21 post.

  • UCrawford

    Doug,

    The only time our interests extend beyond our borders is when there’s a direct threat to our borders. Iran is not likely to pose that threat in our lifetimes (even if they get a couple of nukes).

    C. Wesley Fowler,

    I question my government all the time. I also balance that questioning with research, personal experience, and the presumption of innocence (until proven guilty). I don’t accuse my government of evil-doing and malice simply because I hate government. I look for solid proof before I accuse. I’m kind of surprised that a lawyer doesn’t. Well, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if they were actually a shitty lawyer.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford:

    “I know we’re not dealing poppy. There’s no way that wouldn’t leak out over there if our troops were involved (which they’d have to be for it to work logistically).”

    It’s not the military that’s doing it.

  • Clovis

    Rho,

    No I”m not kidding. I do hate watching that stuff and I won’t. I read and research on the internet and rarely watch tv. I did’nt watch o’reilly on tv tonight I watched the part with Dr. Paul on youtube later so I wouldn’t have to get through the rest of Mr. O’Reilly’s tripe.

    And I agree with everything you stated. It IS a juvenile tactic but I don’t see how me wishing for something better is wrong :)

  • Thomas

    Doug,

    Paul said he was concerned about Iran. The difference is he applies a measured and thoughtful evaluation on deciding when or if we need to go to war with them. Look back at history and try to understand the reasons we’ve gone to war in every instance. The wars we’ve won are the ones where you could actually understand the motivations of our involvement and where avoiding war was almost impossible. What I want to see is a return to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” style of justifying a war. War should always be the last resort.

  • Buckwheat

    “I do think, though, that, at times, American national interests extend beyond the borders of the United States.”

    Don’t be fey now, Doug, it’s getting late. What are you talking about? Drugs in Afghanistan and the Golden Triangle? United Fruit Company in Central America? Oil in Iraq and Iran?

    I’m curious to know exactly where you think “American interests” lie. I think American companies should have to compete with Chinese, European, etc. countries to extract natural resources from countries that don’t have the intellectual capacity to do it themselves. Our historic policy, continued to this day, says we don’t compete, we keep potential competitors out with the barrels of our guns. Is this your idea of “American interests” or not? Sure sounds like it.

  • Clovis

    Oh, Rho, I DO disagree on one point. Giuliani. I do not believe that man has any comprehension of foreign policy. I mean, he was calling Dr. Paul out on the blowback theory and if you read his article a month or two ago in The Wall Street Journal (I think that was the publication, forgive my poor memory I’d have to look that up again and will if you’d like a link to that particular article) .. he was making statements that were unbelieveably misinformed and erroneous and rambling. I was not impressed. No, I think Giuliani is best out of government like most top tier candidates.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford,

    If OBL is dead and can be shown to be dead, should be not get ALL US troops out of Afghanistan pronto? Yes, we should, but we won’t…is that because the “humanitarian” mission must continue, or because we’re making too much $$ of natural gas and OPIATES?

  • UCrawford

    C. Wesley Fowler,

    We are occupying a sovereign country in Iraq. I’m actually opposed to that. Afghanistan’s government is actually sovereign in reality as well as in name. Their security forces are also not thoroughly infiltrated by militias, the population is not as violently polarized as in Iraq (largely a factor of demographics and geography), and Hamid Karzai is not sponsoring ethnic cleansing like al-Maliki. Besides which, the Afghans actually got to draw up their own constitution through their loya jirga…unlike Iraq where Bush dictated how their government would be set up.

    As for the Afghanistan “occupation” I’m all for restricting our nation-building to a) building roads (repaving the Ring Road and building a few secondary roads should do wonders), and b) training the national army. The roads are relatively low-cost and enable them to provide for their own security (and build their infrastructure on their own) and the national army can provide security (they’re actually not that far off from doing so). Only thing we need to be interested in beyond that is direct action missions against the Taliban…who usually oblige by attacking us directly.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford, are you talking about me in 10:35? I’m not a lawyer.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    If UBL and al-Zawahiri were captured or proven to be dead, I’d have a different opinion on Afghanistan.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    Nope…Fowler.

  • Randy

    Ron Paul spoke of a factual depiction of how a history of intervention by the United States in Middle Eastern conflicts ** presidents os both parties** has helped create an environment for the development of homicidal islamic fundamentalists & extremists. ( For you hayseeds, kidding – he is not blaming the american people for 911, he is stating the fact that american intervention in Mid East politics over the past 50 years has help fuel the irrational, homicidal and completely dispicable Islamic fundamentalists…including the nutjobs that atttacked us on 9/11.)
    Bill O’Reilly is no more than a Current Affair flunky who decided to stop attacking the Leona Hemlsey’s of the world on his tabloid show – to become a ignorant, one sided ideologue, who is poisioning discorse in American politics.

  • Clovis

    Here is the link to Giuliani’s “foreign policy” and the article was posted in Foreign Affairs.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2172285/nav/navoa/

  • martin

    UCrawford:
    it kind of all makes sense now that you say you were in the military.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford,

    Well, I don’t see how you can look at the history of US “interventionism” and “looking after US Interests” and not conclude that we always find a reason to invade where there’s a natural resource we want to exploit. Follow the money, to Kabul too. It’s a corrupt policy and our Founders would be pissed off by it.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    They’d need military air to pull it off in any kind of quantity. And it’s unlikely that they could do it without attracting attention. Most of the opium crops are actually controlled by regional strongmen or warlords anyway…they’re not keen on sharing with the infidels.

    What would be the point for the CIA to smuggle anyway? They don’t need cash, and government has not been stingy in the Bush years for anything “national security” related. There are other places to get access to that stuff without having to deal with warlords in a war zone. If the CIA was that sneaky, they’re more than capable of setting up their own fields in the U.S. or some friendlier nation. Most of the CIA drug stories seem to link back to the old CIA/crack cocaine rumor that circulated in 1986, and that was debunked. The costs and risks of exposure far outweigh any potential gains.

  • 4 Ron Paul

    Ron Paul is far more intelligent than Swill O’Wrongly and could stomp him in a factual even-handed debate any day.

    His stance to end the war and the points he manged to get across will resonate with those who are just learning about him.
    Ron Paul is the ONLY common sense person running for office and our last hope for America to truly “Save Face.”

  • Clovis

    I truly believe we need to get out of Iraq and out of that region entirely. I agree with those of you that have suggested our being there is only creating more. This is a link to a man that has alot more indepth knowledge in regards to terrorism and I encourage you to read it, no matter which side you are on.

    http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

  • Buckwheat

    I didn’t say CIA!!!! I didnt’!! I meant someone else!!! Not CIA!!! I swear!!!! Why did you think I meant CIA??? That’s so WEIRD!!!! HAHAHA!!!

    Oh my god…there’s a knock at my door…

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    Our founders would be fine with Afghanistan as long as the president stuck to his mandate…catch or kill bin Laden. They’d probably be okay with deposing the Taliban. They wouldn’t be okay with a lot of the other things going on there and they certainly wouldn’t be okay with Iraq, or Vietnam, or possibly Korea. But that’s fine, because I thought those were shitty wars too. My support for the GWOT is limited only to Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.

  • UCrawford

    And Ron Paul even voted for the invasion of Afghanistan in case you forgot. I agreed with his assessment of it.

  • james

    It is quite clear that O’Reilly is pushing an agenda, as the facts, which can be found by reviewing HISTORY, support Ron Paul’s ideas. I don’t know why one would not want to consider history since those of us who fail to take heed of of the mistakes of the past, are doomed to relive them. I feel sorry for Bill, becuase his duping of American society in such a shameless way will one day fall back on him. If he cared about the people of this country, and for LIFE in general, he would not condone this undending war and sure as hell not rant about how we should be taking pre-emtive measures against another nation. Fortunately for RP and for many of us, the facts do not lie, nor does history, and we know why we’re over there and where we’re going. There is only one way to change that, and that is to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States in 2008, FOR A FREE AND SAFE COUNTRY. THE WAY THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED.

  • Buckwheat

    “And Ron Paul even voted for the invasion of Afghanistan in case you forgot. I agreed with his assessment of it.”

    I didn’t. One of the few blots on his record. 9/11 was not what we think it was.

  • Buckwheat

    “and they certainly wouldn’t be okay with Iraq, or Vietnam, or possibly Korea. But that’s fine, because I thought those were shitty wars too.”

    Shitty and, more importantly, undeclared and therefore unconstitutional.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    You know I don’t like that “truther” bullshit. Do I need to keep repeating that 9/11 Debunked link for you?

    Agreed on your 11:00. I could see a case, sort of, for Korea, but basically I thought it ended up being a waste. Communism would have collapsed even without our involvement there or Vietnam.

    We’ll agree to disagree on Afghanistan. I take Ron Paul’s side on it…he had the sanest opinion.

  • Robert N.

    It’s the best you can hope for on the No Spin Zone. O’Reilly does have problems with the administration’s handling of the war, but he doesn’t have any great solutions either. In the introduction before the interview, he was lumping Ron Paul in with the far left crazies like Rosie. BO’R was looking for gaps in logic that he could use later in his show. Mr. Paul called him on that vote on Afganistan. O’Reilly will probably verify and expound on that vote in tomorrow’s show. Overall, it seemed pretty informative for 5 minutes.

    I don’t think having even 1 million US soldiers in Iraq is going to keep Iran from making fissile material. Iran needs electricity and wants nuclear power to make it. It’s more efficient than oil or natural gas-based generation. And doesn’t generate greenhouse gases!

    Before committing another 100 American lives per month and another $100 Billion per year in a new war, I want to be really careful that we’re getting our money’s worth. I’d rather see the money spent on taking care of our veterans who have given so much so far, and asking for so little in return.

  • UCrawford

    Robert,

    I agree. On the subject of VA benefits and funding it’s the only situation in which I take a pro-socialized medicine line.

  • Christine

    Ron Paul has unique ideas from the other canidates on so many issues, yet all he gets asked about is war. He knows his Middle Eastern history better than any of the canidates or hosts or interveiwers and answers very well. But honestly, I’m very bored by it now. Ron needs more questions on sound money, medicine (he is an OB/GYN and yet he gets no questions on medicine or his stance on abortion), taxes, economics, the roll of the federal government, the constitution… the list goes on.

    As far as the clip is concerned: O’Reilly was predictable, but isn’t he always? Ron Paul is just too polite to be a guest on Bill’s show. He did get more forceful as he went, and strongly corrected O’Reilly when he said that Paul never wanted to go to Afghanistan. I think Paul finished the interveiw very well.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford,

    It’s too late for us to get into this in detail, but…19 Arab dumbfucks didn’t make NORAD stand down for 80 minutes.

    Here’s one possibility:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford —

    I don’t mean to provoke you with my last post.

    But…look into the site I linked to.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    And here’s the realities:

    http://www.debunking911.com/

    I seriously suggest you read through the site…it addresses all the popular conspiracy theories about 9/11, including the condescendingly racist “19 Arabs couldn’t possibly have done this” load.

  • UCrawford

    Buckwheat,

    Fair enough…I’ll look at it. But you honestly need to check out the one I sent you too.

  • Buckwheat

    UCrawford,

    I have looked at that site, many hours.

    I became a truther this summer, and it surprised the hell out of me. Spent about 250 hours on it. No kidding.

    The reality is so depressing. No shit, mack. So depressing. The normalization of treason on steroids.

  • Buckwheat

    I’m so fucking cynical after this summer. Part of the reason I hate the treasonous bastards is that they made me irretrievably cynical about the world and my country. I’m 34 and I’m a cynical old fuck.

  • tony

    I cannot find this video on youtube by doing a search.
    NeoCons reached youtube already.

  • Anthony

    I thought Ron did allright considering the rude, uninformed, simplistic blowhard he was dealing with.

    Personally, considering the audience, and the aforementioned “soundbite debating”, why not go simpler rather than discussing complex Middle East politics? For example,

    “Every convervative understands blowback, Bill: The government creates welfare to help the poor, the problem of poverty gets worse. If this process occurs in domestic policy, is it that hard to understand that it could happen in the foreign policy arena as well? Is it that hard to understand how the process of trying to prevent Iran from getting nukes might (especially in light of the casualties, cost, and ongoing mess in Iraq) cause more problems than the problem of Iran getting nukes in the first place?”

    At least that might get them thinking. You aren’t going to change their minds in a night.

  • William

    Yeah… Weren’t all those pundits saying that if we FEAR them that the terrorists win?

    Now they’re saying that we should FEAR them.
    Are they saying that the terrorists already won because we should be afraid?

  • AB

    O’R reminds me of Jon Lovitz’ old Sat Live character, ‘Mr. Annoying.’

    Dr. P did v. well; I’m glad he appeared there.

  • mike

    How can Ron Paul debate with bill about Iran when most of what bill presents is fake. There is no connection between terrorism and Iran (according to pentagon admissions) But the Pentagon has been funding terrorists in Iran (AP).

    The Saudi and Pakistani governments do support terrorists. In fact “our enemies” don’t have terrorist problems until neocons show up and give them a new home. Even the State Department website details how the CIA funneled money to the Saudi and Pakistani Governments to create Al-Qaeda. Ironically the article is titled “the myth of how the US created Osama bin Laden”. Then it details how they did.

    O’reilly is just a NWO propaganda spewing gas bag. The most basic research will show that most of his claims are outright lies. People who still take him seriously(or anyone on Fox and most on CNN with the exception of Lou Dobbs) are the lowest grade of morons and really don’t matter in the final picture.

  • Mark

    I just watched Ron Paul on O’Reilly and, expecting the worst, was quite pleased with how he did, especially when he pointed his finger at O’Reilly for misstating that Paul opposed invading Afghanistan.

    I agree with the idea the Paul needs to begin taking a more “When I am President this is what I will do” posture.

  • Robert Standard

    Ron Paul why the history lesson? We don’t need it. Next time just answer the question that the media person poses to you. Is that so hard?

    And why the slouching?

    Ron Paul needs a serious lesson in how to appear on TV. He looked horrible.

  • kujo76

    Overall this was an OK interview. Dr. Paul knew he was playing an away game in the Lion’s Den. There’s no way to prepare for this type of interview and O’Reilly purposely kept the debate concise and forced the conversation to go towards his talking points. True, Paul probably didn’t win over to many Factorheads, but he sounded reasonable, and even the BO’s audience might ask themselves the question, “Are we emboldening Iran?” Certainly, Paul didn’t bring his A game, but it’s very hard to bring the A game in this circumstance. He doesn’t know what will be asked or how BO will steer the interview and what BO will take offense to. What happened here is that RP went on O’Reilly and kept rolling with his No-Fear campaign. O’Reilly didn’t nail him to the wall or anything. Any points he had could be easily rebuked given a fair, non-slanted, less-pressurized forum.

  • marlow

    Not Ron’s best performance, but then how could it be? O’Reilly followed the script: interrupting, lecturing, not allowing Paul to complete his answers. Under those circumstances it was an OK performance by RP.

    My concern is why did the RP campaign even bother to appear? A retarded idiot could have predicted O’Reilly’s loud-mouthed,overbearing rudeness. In those circumstances Ron was sure to be unable to make his points. Therefore, not likely to sway the undecideds.

    In the future the RP campaign ought to bypass these “journalists” known mostly for being hostile smear artists.

  • http://doublethinkblog.blogspot.com Jono

    I think there were some reasonable points raised by O’Reilly, like when he asked R.P about “fearing” Iran with nuclear weapons. R.P showed he is not a complete isolationist by replying in a very moderate manner that he is deeply concerned and worried about it, but thats as far as it extends.

    And I think R.P could have scored a home run if he’d simply asked O’Reilly how on earth a U.S presence in Iraq could do anything to stop or slow Iran’s nuclear program ?

    And he could have hit a double home run by comparing to North Korea, who managed to pursue nuclear technology with American troops on the Korean peninsula all along.

    And he could have hit a triple home run if he’d mentioned that in the leadup to the 2002 Iraq war, not a single person, including Bill O’Reilly himself, even hinted at containment of Iran, as a reason for invading Iraq.

  • http://doublethinkblog.blogspot.com Jono

    I meant to say that O’Reilly was also unreasonable at times, like when he assumed that the US presence actually has any effect on the Iranian nuclear development.

    I wouldn’t really hint that the US presence is harmful as Ron Paul did… I don’t think Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons just because of the US presence in Iraq. They are pretty mad theocratic regime bent on destroying Israel and dominating Iraq and Lebanon.

  • Brent

    How is the Saudi government not responsible for terrorist organizations operating within their territory? Kevin? O’Reilly? Anyone? They have always played both sides — one face for western governments and one face for the domestic citizenry — to stay in power.

    That the war-mongering neoconservatives choose to ignore the actions and inactions of the Saudi government proves they act hypocritically from using their own “strategic” considerations and not from principles.

  • mike

    I’d also like to comment about the opium in Afghanistan. According the the BBC, reported in 1999 and 2000, The taliban banned opium production and by the time we invaded they had eliminated it. Now Opium production is higher than ever.

    It is admitted that Air America was created by the CIA to ship Opium from Berma to Laos. It doesn’t take many in the know to run such an operation; only a few bad apples willing to follow any order. Most would never be directly involved. Think about the f-22. An aircraft under development for decades. Many engineers, from aerospace to electical to mechanical to computer engineers working on various components. I doubt many knew the total project.

    When My father flew C-141’s for the Air Force in Vietnam, based out of Travis AFB CA, They had a neighbor who was a medical transcriber at the base. In 1971 she told my mother about the bags of heroin they were pulling out of the bodies of dead soldiers. My father flew many of those soldiers back, but he never would have known their bodies were loaded with smack.

    Opium is how the CIA/NSA fund their black op’s that couldn’t be justified on official budgets. The Afghan opium probably funds all of those secret torture prisons we have throughout Europe, as well as the terrorist groups we have been funding in Iran.

  • http://http:www.combslaw.cc Tidewise

    O’Reilly lacked foundation for virtually all of his war-mongering statements and attempted to force Ron Paul to defend against his ludicrous statements. But Paul, relying on principle and history, did well.

    O’Reilly’s most telling Freudian slip was when he cut Paul off saying, “We don’t need a history lesson.”

    We all need a history lesson. Our country’s future depends upon it.

  • Stohn

    I like how Bill O’Reilly thinks he knows more about how U.S. foreign relations work than the Congressman who sits on the Foreign Affairs committee.

  • Glen

    Why doesn’t anyone realize this: 1. Our government has never defined what it wants in Iraq. Our leaders talk in terms of Victory and Improvement and Success. Yet, none of them have ever really outline defense. They use terms like our surge is working or in a year we will have the region contained.

    2. We are spending over 3 million dollars a day in Iraq and over 120 billion dollars a year there. Yet, we have not raised taxes or had Americans pay for the war like done in past war like WWII. Who is going to pay for this war, when our government is facing a 9 trillion dollar deficit and foreign lenders are getting rich off of borrowing to fight this war (China and Japan).

    3. What makes you think Bush is competent of anything he does? He has not done on damn thing in office. He took us to war over weapons of mass destruction that were not there. School systems are worse. Health care is worse. How can you trust him to lead?

    4. If we had used all of the money we have spent in Iraq here in the USA we could have fixed Social Security, provided health care to millions of Americans to poor to afford it, and implemented a ports and border system that would have increased are safety here in this country.

    5. Going to war in Iran has been a goal of this administration for some time.

    You people need to wake the F up!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Glen

    Correction to above post.

    What I meant to say in #1 is this:

    Why doesn’t anyone realize this: 1. Our government has never defined what it wants in Iraq. Our leaders talk in terms of Victory and Improvement and Success. Yet, none of them have ever really outline Victory, Improvement, success. The leaders speak in broad phrases. They use terms like our surge is working or in a year we will have the region contained. Even if we are making any gains militarily, the people in Iraq are no where close to having a democracy that run itself.

  • Mike

    Actually Saudi Arabia DOES actively fund Sunni groups in Iraq. This is complete bullshit. Furthermore Saudi Arabia funds Hamas.

    Anyway, the only reason Iran is hostile to the US is because the US is sponsoring insurgents in Iran (in the north west, and the south east) and openly trying to destabilize the nation. The only reason the US is taking the policy it’s taking vis-a-vis Iran is to protect nuclear armed Israel.

    O’Reilly jumps when the Israeli lobby says jump because Rupert Murdoch is a right-wing pro-Israeli Jew.

  • nick

    1. hezbollah is not a terrorist group…the US blames hezbollah for the Beirut bombings but they didn’t even exist at that time nor have any evidence to support that. They are a militant group that fights against the Zionist government of Israel because the Lebanese army won’t. They do go to far sometimes and have caused civil unrest in Lebanon because of this – but they do FAR less damage to civilians than Israel.
    2. Iran called for a wiping off the map of the state of Israel as in the Zionist government. It is against shia belief to use any weapon of mass destruction. They could have gassed Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war but didn’t because it is against their ethos. Orthodox jews in Israel do not even support the Zionist government and the crimes they commit against palestinians.
    3. Iran would have nothing to do with Al-queda, EVER! Al-queda is a SUNNI/WAHABI group. Iran is non-arab (persian) and SHIA MUSLIM. Wahabi followers hate shias more than they even hate the western world.
    4. Jews live peacefully in Iran and even hold parliament seats. This is not an antisemitism war. The reason lebanon, palestine, iran, etc all hate israel is because of the oppression from the elitest zionists.
    5. This is ALL about or FOREIGN POLICY as Ron Paul states. We are being used as a war proxy by the Zionist Israelis. They insight our support by saying this is about antisemitism – it’s not – it’s about zionist policy. The Israeli government oppresses orthodox jews who are against the holding of the war-gained territories every day. The Zionists are the true antisemitic people.

  • Tonewah

    Dr. Paul did a great job of defending. That’s what he does best. He doesn’t pre-emptively strike someone with as few mental weapons as O’reilly.

    What really caught me was this:
    Earlier in his show, O’reilly called for a troop withdrawal in a year, saying something like, “Give the general a year, then pull the troops out.” Now, lets look at chronology… With the elections over a year away, O’reilly actually wants troops out BEFORE Dr. Paul would be able to get them out. This sorta makes Bill’s argument a moot one. Am I the only one to catch that glaring hypocrisy? Maybe Bill just can’t do calendar math.

  • http://www.thesparsematrix.com rho

    Clovis:
    I was not impressed. No, I think Giuliani is best out of government like most top tier candidates.

    Oh, I don’t disagree. My point is that only Dr. Paul and Giuliani have even given us something to debate. Huckabee’s made some noises, but nothing of substance. Giuliani has his Foreign Affairs article and Dr. Paul has his book plus multiple speeches.

    Everybody else just says stuff about “keeping us safe”, “defending freedom” and other empty platitudes.

  • John Nowlin

    Dr. Paul looked flustered; maybe he thought that BillO would not exhibit his normal rude, bloviating and illusory behaviors. Despite this Dr. Paul’s arguments as always were point on.

    I think FOX made a tactical error in hoping to make Rep Paul look bad Mano E Mano on BillO. FOX has now introduced Ron Paul to many people prevented from discovering him because previously FOX tried to censor all mention of Ron Paul. In a 4th generation war the smaller force will give up some tactical victories in order to win the war.

    And by winning this war to become president, Ron Paul can help prevent another illegal, unnecessary war of aggression promoted by FOX news, this time against Iran.

  • Kurt

    Remember the Giuliani debate confrontation? Remember how Paul looked a little awkward and agitated and bumbly there? Remember how Giuliani got all the applause? Who won? Paul won, decisively, and ended up with an incredible surge of support.

    There is desperation by neocons not to allow historical context into the argument. It was a tough moment for O’Reilly when Paul started recounting US Middle East involvement and the blowback from it. If O’Reilly had let Paul go on, coming up with an effective response would have been very difficult. Instead O’Reilly conceded with the “We don’t need a history lesson” interruption. This concession strengthens Paul and won’t be forgotten.

  • http://brushfires2008.com/ Fielding J. Hurst

    Bill not having “time for a history lesson” pretty much sums up the big difference here. He doesn’t get it for sure.

    Maybe we all need a history lesson from our president from time to time. Something other than fiction would be nice. FJH

  • John

    In my opinion:

    O Reilly never gave Paul a chance. O Reilly said “We don’t need a history lesson”. Besides, you forget the part where O Reilly called the US “good guys” and the people in the middle east the “bad guys”. Moreover, O Reilly asks loaded questions: “So, how long have you beat your wife?”

    As far as Iran is concerned, that country is not a little backwater, and I for one don’t want to blow it up. Although Americans think Iranians grind bones all day, and burn flags all day, that simply isn’t true. Many Iranians think they have a dumb government. However, when the US gets involved all Iranians unite to face a common enemy. Give the Iranians time and they will sort their mess out themselves.

  • Justin

    Wow. And I quote:

    “We don’t need a history lesson.”

    How can Boob O’Reilly possibly expect to illustrate any kind of problem in the ME without taking the time to explain our involvement in that region throughout the last 200 years? If he didn’t want to have an actual debate, why didn’t he just stick to questions about Ron Paul’s favorite cookie? Asking for an answer to an extremely complicated question that will take no longer than 5 seconds to give is ridiculous. I never watch FNC and I can’t understand why anybody else does (aside from the stupid people, that is).

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    The one thing to keep in mind on this appearance is that O’Reilly’s viewers are already true believers for the most part. They’re unlikely to be persuaded by an opposing viewpoint like Paul’s, and they like Bill because he entertains them.

    Congressman Paul would have about as much success changing minds if he went on NPR and talked about free market health care.

  • Bones

    I’m wondering what the world would look like if the U.S. got out of other countries. It wouldn’t be the gum drop rainbow smiles Sean Penn seems to think it would be, but it would be a helluva lot better than we have now.

    Iran’s government would probably be overthrown by moderates, peacefully. Iraq would probably break into 3 separate countries. Turkey would be upset for a little while but the Kurds aren’t going to attack them or anything, they’ll have a defended border and maybe even some Kurds in Turkey will defect, not a big deal. The Sunnis will be a pain in the ass because they’ll be pissed at us for overthrowing Saddam, so we’d still have to keep an intelligent eye trained on them and any factions they produce just as we would with Syria or any other terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Israel will defend themselves as they have done in the past. Pakistan is always guarded by India and has their own internal problems. North Korea would be emboldened if we vacated the peninsula, but I think the South Koreans should be responsible for defending themselves and we can talk to China about mutual benefits of keeping the North in check. I just don’t see much bad happening if we mind our own business. Markets will open up, ideas will spread, everybody wins in the long run. You can say it’s a naive position, but it makes more sense than being at constant war and aggravating people that want to be left alone. Ron Paul’s best argument in any speech or debate is when he says “we’d be upset if China or anyone else had bases and troops here or tried to control our internal affiars.” That’s the whole point, live and let live. If someone messes with us DIRECTLY, stick it to ‘em hard and fast, game over.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Bones,

    I don’t think that’s a naive position. I think it’s an optimistic position balanced by a realistic assessment and you stated it well. It won’t be gumdrops and smiles if we leave, but we won’t be adding to the list of people who hate us. Adding to our enemies list is what eventually bites us. And I wouldn’t worry too much about North Korea. That country’s not a match militarily for the South any more…haven’t been for awhile.

  • Childers

    Regarding O’Reilly’s exchange with Ron Paul, it was a net gain for Paul.

    Let’s say you partition the people who watch the interview into 3 camps:

    1) Supporters of Paul

    2) Die-hard fans of O’Reilly and those already against Dr. Paul

    3) Those who don’t know who Ron Paul is, and those who know him but haven’t made up their mind.

    Congressman Paul probably didn’t lose anybody from group #1, and probably didn’t gain anybody from group #2. And he probably didn’t gain EVERYBODY from group #3, but he almost certainly gained SOME fans from group #3.

    Paul is doing fine. As for Bill O’Reilly, he isn’t going to change his tactics for our guy. He made his living being the way he is; unless he finds another way to make a living, we can’t expect him to act civil towards politicians with opposing viewpoints.

  • Bob

    Childers,
    Good point, well said!

  • http://ronpaul2008.com Bill Moore

    It was a win-win for both of them. O’Reilly benefited from the huge amount of Ron Paul supporters watching his show. And Ron Paul benefited from the million or so people who watch O’Reilly.

  • Bubba

    Ron Paul did great. He was superb in my opinion.

  • Scott Harmon

    Bogus analysis. No one who is serious about addressing foreign policy can ignore history. If one can suddenly ignore the past, or conveniently omit events, then a lot of the discussion becomes meaningless. Thus, O’Reilly lost the argument when he said he didn’t have time for a history discussion.

    But that’s the problem with US foreign policy–nicely highlighted by O’Reilly: as history is conveniently dismissed, the whole “argument” just devolves into jingoism. In fact, that is the unspoken “ideology” of U.S. foreign policy.

    Contrary to your analysis, the Paul-O’Reilly debate only exposed why intellectual and emotional support for the Iraq occupation is collapsing like a bad souffle.

  • http://www.ontopofacloud.com Leland Thomas Faegre

    It would appear that a ‘delay’ affected this exchange from Congressman Paul’s side of the satellite.

    However, Dr. Paul’s polite and scholarly responses reveal O’Reilly for the swamp animal that he is. Paul helped himself yet again in my opinion…

  • cc

    I’d have to agree with Bill Moore. It didn’t seem that either of them got the better of each other.

  • Jonny

    Exposure, Exposure, Exposure. The brainless will not care about Ron Paul. People with brains will realize Billo has no argument, which is why he flippantly dismisses history and gets to his point:
    Iran is scary, Iran will kill us, must kill Iran first. Ron made some great points, Bill looked foolish to anyone that isn’t brainwashed.

    Go Ron!

  • Cascadian

    Irans position is internally consistent from there perspective. How can you make good judgments without understanding the motivations and positions of the other side. It is this lack of thought and understanding that has lead us into this position.

    Yes, Iran is dangerous and will continue to be for some time. However, I fail to see how the Saudis are less dangerous or less commited to Islamic dominance. They do not need to be beligerant. They fund the core of Sunni extremism through education at home and abroad. Iran rattles its saber, while the Saudis infiltrate both Iraq and the West.

    Playing the enemy of my enemy game in the Middle East will never end in anything other than blood and misery.

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org LibertyPaperBot

    1) Profess love of liberty

    2) Review candidate who is the best realistic (even if quite a long-shot) hope of promoting liberty in the past 40+ years.

    3) Rather than aggressively attack said candidate, offer mealy-mouthed faint praise full of “yes, buts” and other such nonsense.

    4) Repeat steps 1-3 ad infinitum until mid-summer 2008.

    5) Come November 2008, proudly pull the lever for Hillary Clinton.

  • Jeremy

    At least Iran has the balls to come out and let it be known that their state sponsors terrorism. Does anyone actually beleive that not one single Saudi Government official knows anything of the insurgent plots hatched by their people? CMON, some of these guys have to be playing both sides. Some of them are most likely, quietly, working with insurgents. It happens in the US all the time; not working with insurgents, but the whole “Sound bytes are not sworn testimony” attitude. Say one thing, do another…I’d say the Saudi’s are rapidly becoming more and more like America. Nation bulding does work!

  • Jeremy

    Vote for Hillary…It will take a mother to convince Mothers that their kids will be better off with RFID tags implanted in them.

  • Jeremy

    BONES-
    Perfectly stated.

  • JL

    that was a somewhat fair assessment of the segment, but claiming iran funds terrorism and providing evidence are two different things. bill did not provide evidence.

    and claiming iranian are acting logically and defensively does not necessarily imply that it is justified. that is a huge leap. what he was saying was that there is a reason for their actions: it’s a direct response to our actions.

  • Carlitos

    Bill O’Reilly has high ratings,… either the public is a fat group of morons or these ratings are just an invention of the same administration controlling all media in the US. I think is the second one,… Ron Paul should’ve never talked to that clown O’Reilly,.. it’s never productive to speak to him.

  • Senor Boardhead

    There is no sure foundation set on blood,
    No certain life achieved by others’ death.

    (Shakespere – King John 4.2.104)

  • Julian

    Ignoring all relevant history and inventing quotes and positions the candidate never took is “winning” in a short policy debate with them?

    I guess were operating on the Sean Hannity brand of logic…the kind where our own poll conducted after a 3.2million call-in debate audience doesnt count for anything because we didnt like the result- but a show of some 50 hands in a waffle house down the street will determine our “official debate winner.”

    Its getting to the point where people arent even making any sense anymore.

    O’Reilly WAVED OFF and talked over all historical, intellectual, and intelligence-derived bases that Paul gave for his positions; Huckabee “won” a similar exchange with Paul by insisting that adhering to provably failed policy was “honor” in flowery language.

    Republicans dont seem to realize how doomed they really are in 08 unless they start using common sense, accept the fact that our foreign policy is flawed, do what they SAY they will once elected, and STOP trying to undermine the one conservative running who is doing all the above- not to mention the first conservative in DECADES to get young people excited.

    I hate to break it to everybody but your favorite Law and Order star that- despite not even explaining his policies, plans, or candidacy until last week- has all you all in a titter with your skirts blown up can NOT beat Hillary or Obama in 08. PERIOD. Anyone aping Bush’s foreign policy at this point will lose miserably next year.

    Why not support the MOST conservative candidate running who STILL manages to excite and draw support from both sides and from a demographic conservatives grudgingly conceded to liberals a long time ago? He has the right (and winning) position on the war, favors small government, is a TRUE conservative, and has done what no Republican has been able to or even tried to do in at least two decades in energizing and exciting large numbers of young independent, liberal, and undecided voters.

  • Jimmy Eisenhower

    It’s time to stop debating the merits of war, and just embrace war in general. I say we start as many wars as possible so as to destroy our military, bankrupt the government, and end this military empire.

    It won’t be pretty, but it’s the only way to destroy the military-industrial complex and restore our republic.

    WAR! WAR! WAR!

  • http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/09/10/bill-oreilly-vs-ron-paul/ johnballs

    Congressman Paul was asked questions by O’Reilly. Paul started with the spin and he was cut off by O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s job is to get straight answers to questions in each segment of his program. If you go off on a tangent he will put a stop to it

  • brody

    “Also around 3 minutes or so left, didn’t Ron Paul condone the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by Iranian surrogates as “logical and defensive”?”

    That’s like saying RP takes his marching orders from Al-Qaida, pure slander.

    “While it is true that Al-Qaeda consists largely of Saudis, the Saudi government does not sponsor terrorism, unlike Iran.”

    This is bogus, obviously the Iranians don’t consider themselves, or who they support “terrorists”. Ron Paul actually nailed O’Reilly because he pointed out that the real terrorists are the Saudi’s.

    Who wrote this debate analysis, it reads like a classic Mataconis hit piece.

  • Bo

    There is a reason that Bill O’Reilly’s rating for the coveted 18-50 demographics are down and behind Olbermann. Intelligent people are tired of listening to a guy yell at his guests and hide the truth. I saw this debate and Ron Paul clearly won.

  • Tom G

    I think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that our government is controlled by the military/oil industry. I have been surprised to hear so many people in my area speak ill of the Pentagon and the defense industry. I think something very big is happening under the radar in this country. It’s the reason why Ron Paul’s advocacy of “non-interventionist” foreign policy is generating so much excitement.

    I have no idea how it will play out, but one way or another, I think the days of the US playing global cop are coming to an end.

  • Bob

    Some questions demand more than a yes or no answer. When discussing foreign policy its often best to start out by explaining the history behind the problem. As the saying goes “Those that refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it”. O’Reilly would rather America makes the same mistakes over and over again. Rep. Paul would rather learn from our mistakes. That’s one of the reasons I support Ron Paul.

  • Mark

    all our wars are to keep our dollar from crashing. The Fed (an illegal entity) has spent us blind and the politicians have allowed it. We are out to steal resources from third world countries for christ sake.

    Extreme middle east terrorism really kicked in with Reagan. He was really the first to start bombing Arab countries and killing innocent civilians. His policy of imtimidation has led to what we have today and Bush has escalated it to another level.

    We need to completely remove ALL troops from around the world and bring them home. Until we do so, there will always be terrorism.

  • Buckwheat

    “it reads like a classic Mataconis hit piece.”

    Doug Mataconis argues in bad faith here ALL THE TIME. He claims to be a Ron Paul supporter, then adopts a constant concern troll “I wish Ron Paul could win, but…” line.

    He doesn’t know much about foreign policy, either.

  • Barney

    Dr Paul has consistently been against Nation Building, and that includes Afghanistan. He voted for the authority to get the 9/11 perpetraters in Afghanistan, not to build permanent US bases there.

    And “condone the killing of American soldiers”?! Really?! Man, and I thought O’Reilly/Coulter/Hannity were hacks. Boy, they have nothing on you.

    Dr Paul says Iranian reaction to our threat to nuke ‘em was “logical and defensive”.

    Let me give it a go, pass me the hatchet. O’Reilly in refusing to address the point that MORE THAN HALF of the suicide terrorists in Iraq are SAUDI’s is in fact “condoning the killing of American soldiers”. Shit that was pretty easy, when you are not burdened by facts.

  • Rusticle

    Like Buckwheat, I agree with everything in UCrawford’s 1021 post. I would add only this: the article asserts that the Saudis do not sponsor terrorism. This is unfortunately not exactly correct, as detailed in Robert Baer’s book “Sleeping with the Devil.” The Saudi government doesn’t officially sponsor terrorist groups, like Iran, but it does contribute massive amounts of funding to madrassas and jihadist clerics both within S.Arabia and without; it does so in order to control the extremists within its own border, but of course that support ultimately filters out to the international jihadists. Also, the bulk of Saudi “military” spending is on the personal military guard of the royal family.

  • Kurt

    “Congressman Paul was asked questions by O’Reilly. Paul started with the spin and he was cut off by O’Reilly. O’Reilly’s job is to get straight answers to questions in each segment of his program. If you go off on a tangent he will put a stop to it”

    O’Reilly’s questions were built on hypotheticals and false alternatives. Answering those questions directly is like answering someone who asks “Do you still beat your wife?” Answering “I have never beat my wife” isn’t spin.

  • http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/ Stephen Littau

    I think O’Reilly actually did Ron Paul a favor by questioning him about Afghanistan. After the last debate, I was confused about whether or not he supported that miltary action. This question gave him a chance to clarify his position.

    I would also like for him to clarify what he intends to do with the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Dept, etc. If he means that he intends maybe restructuring and making one of these more efficient and scrapping the other two, I could support that. If he means we shouldn’t have any sort of intelligence agency (which I don’t think he means), I couldn’t support that.

  • Kurt

    “what he intends to do with the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security Dept, etc.”

    You may have gleaned that from a mischievously framed question by a hostile debate moderator. Paul’s point is that the intelligence prior to 9/11 was excellent. Bureaucracy prevented its proper analysis (ever see “Tora Tora Tora”?). The administration’s “solution” was to create Homeland Security, another enormous bureaucracy. Consolidation and restructuring to increase efficiency would definitely have been a better direction.

  • http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/ Stephen Littau

    I think that’s probably his position but it would be good to hear that from him. We definatley could use less bureacracy rather than more.

  • Kurt

    Here’s a relevant article about the Department of Homeland Security.

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=512

    He’s also not a big fan of the CIA because of what he feels have been damaging effects of its destructive manipulation of foreign politics. Rolling its functions back into the DOD for better oversight has been mentioned here –

    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=378

    Although he’s expressed dismay at the FBI’s involvement with IRS harassment and abuses of Patriot Act provisions, I haven’t heard him indicating anything more than constitutional restraint of that bureau.

  • http://travistube.com Travis

    We don;t mess with Saudi Arabia because they are friendly with the oil and other (can’t tell the peasantry) types of needs.

    Watch this clip. O’Reilly is a joke:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8

  • A. Magnus

    UCrawford, if I wanted to hear Pravda-type disinformation, I’d watch Fox News. The Vichy government installed in Kabul has virtually NO jurisdiction beyond the city limits. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in how the Vichy Kabul government was established that gives it any more credibility than the puppet regime the Soviets installed in the 1980s – both were established under the gun of foreign occupation, and thus are destined to fail. Human nature doesn’t change just because your commie hero Bush makes a proclamation.

  • Craig

    There is no such thing as a bad nationally televised interview. Remember the old saying, any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right?

    Names don’t get much easier to spell than “Ron Paul”.

    Even if 80% of the audience for a show doesn’t like Ron Paul’s ideas, the other 20% represents a lot of people who are hearing his message and thinking, “this guy knows what he is talking about, and he’s not your run-of-the-mill politician….”

  • http://pier-23.tripod.com Pier Johnson

    Ron Paul = experienced U.S. Congressman with access to serious government intelligence reports.

    Bill O’Reilly = TV entertainer, a talking head who is on record wanting to snort cocaine and engage in anal sex with his co-workers.

    To whom should you listen?

  • shortie

    O’Reily is a bozo not to mention all the other things said about him. I can’t stand to watch him. He is such a blow-hard he never lets anyone speak or at least finish what they are trying to say.

    Bill and Rush Limbaugh would make a good team of blow-hards. I wonder if Limbaugh’s cigars are big enough to plug Bill’s mouth?

  • G .Stark

    Ron Paul handled himself extremely well with this blow-hard. He proves time and again how he can keep his cool when he’s under attack.

    Of course, the fact is the Bin Laden family ties to the Bush family are notorious, so the whole thing about go after Osama in Afghanistan is just a bad joke.

    Dr. Paul doesn’t go in for 911 Truth, but he does speak the truth in general – and what’s better, he’s so plucky and charming that the evil elite can’t figure out how to slap him down!

  • AGGOZZUR

    Here… Let me put it this way… Fuck Bill O’ becuz he is nothing but the voice box for the Illuminati News Channel.
    The fact is that our millitary has been Hi-Jacked, our Government was Hi-Jacked back in 1913, our people have been blindly & subtley poisoned into a state of fear, obesity, apathy, passiveness. We have been tricked out of our rights and are being hypnotized away from our Constitution. America is just a name for a country now. It means nothing. We are no longer brave or free. For those who are truly awake like myself it is was that see what america truly has become and we see the invisible bars of this currupt, vile prison formed out of our own ignorance & apathy.
    My comments are ignored. No one replies to them. I understand why. If you tell me I sound ridiculous for anything I have said it is you who are truly blind and walking with the sheeple into a meaningless destination set for you by Rich, Evil, Psychotic (demented even), Bankers-lawyers. The ONLY weapon you have is that you have a human mind that is capable of critical thinking & feeling anger. People stop talking about this nonsense and do something about it!

  • Ken, NC

    I think Paul should have not lent his credibility to Fox (in-the-hen-house) News. Fox is a propaganda machine, not a news outlet. I will admit that Paul has courage that go with his principles to even believe the Fox/O’Reilly machine is capable of a fair debate. Debating O’Reilly on his closed format show is like visiting someone who ties you up and stuffs a rag in your mouth and then does all the talking. The “No Spin Room” must be the oxymoron of the decade. Fox is ALL spin and should be remanded to the junk heap of yellow journalism, IMOHO. I believe I am a conservative in thought. I have trouble, however, identifying the thoughts coming from Fox as having any ties to conservatism.

  • Rod Polisher

    Let’s get some PERSPECTIVE here…

    In EVERY country in the whole world (with the possible exception of Iraq), you are far more likely and far more people ARE killed in road traffic accidents than by terrorism – FACT!

    How much does the US government spend on the War On Terror and how much does it spend on the crumbling infrastructure? (Think bridge in Minnesota).

    Who is benefitting (cui bono) from all of this spending on the War On Terror? Halliburton, IsraOIL etc.

    The American sheeple need to wake up and say no to Operation Iran Liberation (OIL) – Let private profiteering corporations and the Zionists fight their own wars….

  • oilnwater

    Ok, enough sheeple mentionings. It’s good enough to remember RP stands for capability, knowledge and strength. O’reilly’s interview was a smashing success. Bill almost threw Paul softballs IMO.

  • dddienst

    If you want to know the truth about recent American history I recommend the book “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”.

  • http://www.mormonsforpeace.com Doug Bayless

    Kevin,

    Thank you for posting that clip. I disagree that it would even seem like O’Reilly got the best of RP during any part of it unless the listeners didn’t know the facts of recent history. I thought the best part of the interview, in fact, was where Paul tried to discuss Pakistan when O’Reilly asked about a nuclear Iran [and O’Reilly cut him off of course…]. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic that violated sanctions to develop a nuke just four years before 9/11. Then just two years before 9/11 they overthrew the democratically elected government in a military coup — and yet in FOXNews’ strange logic the Osama-shielding, WMD possessing Pakistanis are our *allies* and every *Iranian* man, woman, and child needs to be pre-emptively bombed with time running out. The neo-con worldview-sham only works if you don’t know history: past or current. Ron Paul studies his history and learns from it. I want to vote for a man like that.

  • Steve

    What inspires men to commit suicide? It is not our freedom or our women in bikinis. They don’t hate us because we are good and they are evil. That is nonsense.

    It is the fact that we’ve been dropping bombs on Arabs’ heads for years. Eventually someone is going to get pissed off and lash out.

    Iran and Armadidajad have acted logically. Armadidajad has never threatened anybody. Yes, he says that if attacked he will fight back. Makes sense to me. He sees no reason why anybody would want to attack him, so any attacker would be morally unjustified. He says that unjustified immoral attackers go against God’s will and get their just deserts. That makes sense to me too. That is not a threat. Just stating the facts. He says Israel is immoral in the way it treats the Palestinians. He has a point. He says that God will eventually straighten this out. I don’t know if this is true, but from his perspective this makes sense. We all believe that God will even things out and good will triumph over evil. But, he doesn’t identify himself or Iran as setting itself up to be instrument of God’s retribution. He has no death wish. Iran has no death wish. As far as I can tell they only wish to be left alone. Logical.

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    “Forget a lively honest, truth finding debate. Let’s just shout over each other like we are a bickering couple in public.

    And isn’t it ironic that on the same program he decried the “cultural low point” represented by Madonna’s pathetic little act!

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    “why does the United States need to “contain” Iran? They have oil, Iraq has oil, they need to sell it to us on the open market for it to have any value, so there’s no reason for us to concern ourselves with the geopolitics of the region beyond making oil purchases.”

    Which is why it would be counterproductive for them to provide terrorists with nukes to cripple the country that is their best customer!

  • jfrchitect

    I don’t own a TV and did not watch the program. O’Riley does have a radio program that is aired in my area however. If the TV O’Riley personna is the anything like the radio O’Riley personna, the program’s inspiration came more from the World Federation of Wrestling. O’Riley is absolutely obnoxious–so full of himself. I am surprised and disappointed the such baldedash enjoys a wide following.

    I am disappointed the Ron Paul chose this forum and did not exercise better judgement. Anything that comes near O’Riley leaves soiled.

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    The Iranians are our cousins, if not brothers. Islam was forced on them, and that kind of a primitive bullshit “religion” doesn’t resonate with their fundamentally non-Semitic genetic endowment. We should be encouraging them to throw off that yoke so they can flower as a beacon of rationality and benevolence in a saprogenic sea of putrescent easternity.

  • Chepe Noyon

    Mr. Brodie, I object to such uncivilized comments as yours.

  • UCrawford

    A. Magnus,

    Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to anything else I’ve written or you’d know how much I despise Bush.

    The Afghani constitution was built by a constitutional loya jirga, comprised of tribal elders and officials from all regions of the country. You’re correct in that the central government has limited authority outside of Kabul…that was the intent of the drafters. Bush pushed for a strong executive authority placd in the hands of Hamid Karzai, along the lines of what he’s trying to do here. The loya jirga chose to go another route, decentralized power…similar in many ways to our own Constitution because they feared the surrender of local autonomy to the political machinations of Kabul politics (a wise decision, considering the history of the country…their most peaceful and prosperous period came in the 20th century under Zahir Shah, who generally respected regional sovereignty and ran a weak central government as well, until he was overthrown by a Soviet-backed palace coup in 1973). Frankly, I thought it wasn’t badly written, except for their unfortunate decision to declare themselves an Islamic republic, which will eventually cause problems reconciling Islamic collectivism with their constitution’s implied respect for individual rights.

    I fail to see how anything I said can be compared to Pravda or Soviet-style socialism. That’s based on centralized authoritarianism and I’m for decentralized power. If anything your arguments for a stronger Afghani central government place you a lot closer to the commies and Bush than me.

  • rob

    Hasn’t Saudi Arabia been funneling arms to the Sunni insurgents in Iraq? And haven’t those insurgents killed far more of our troops than anyone else there?

    When is a terrorist group a terrorist group and when are they patriots. Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, but those “terrorist” groups are mostly just defending their own territory as the Sunnis claim to be doing in Iraq.

    We’re really pretty selective of about who we brand as terrorists.

  • rob

    Now you’re really engaging in propaganda.

    “Also around 3 minutes or so left, didn’t Ron Paul condone the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by Iranian surrogates as “logical and defensive”?”

    I think it is reasonable to conclude that the term “Iranian surrogates” does not refer to Iranians since one is not a surrogate for oneself. It must therefore refer to Iraqis. So the real question is, “Is it logical and defensive for Iraqis to be killing American soldiers who are occupying their country?” Of course it is.

    Use of the term “Iranian surrogates” is just a use of the old bogyman tactic to try to conjure up some unrealistic scare.

  • rob

    “Other than Israel, which of Iran’s neighbors has a military capable of containing Iran ?

    I’ll give you ten seconds, because the answer begins with N, has four letters, and ends with E.

    None.”

    You’re dead wrong on this one too. Turkey’s armed forces are at least as strong as Iran’s and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The other neighbors are weaker but Iran could not attack them without risking offense to Turkey or Pakistan.

    Does Russia share a border with Iran? Certainly, she isn’t very far away.

  • rob

    “I am disappointed the Ron Paul chose this forum and did not exercise better judgement. Anything that comes near O’Riley leaves soiled.”

    The simple fact is that O’Reilly has a much bigger audience than Ron Paul is likely to find in most other situations, and you can’t win any converts if you don’t go into the Lion’s Den.

    Even if O’Reilly did get the better of Ron Paul as Doug claims, it doesn’t matter. O’Reilly has to get the better of his opponents. That’s why he allows himself to interrupt an shout down his opposition. But Ron Paul doesn’t have to win over the entire audience. He only has to win over some of them. This is enemy-held territory and any gains there are a double bonus because they come at the expense of someone else.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    I think it is reasonable to conclude that the term “Iranian surrogates” does not refer to Iranians since one is not a surrogate for oneself. It must therefore refer to Iraqis. So the real question is, “Is it logical and defensive for Iraqis to be killing American soldiers who are occupying their country?” Of course it is.

    Use of the term “Iranian surrogates” is just a use of the old bogyman tactic to try to conjure up some unrealistic scare.

    An Iranian surrogate is someone under the payroll, the control of, or has the support of the Iranian regime. In Iraq, they are mostly the Shi’ite militas.

    As for the “occupation”, the occupation ended when the Iraqi government became sovereign on June 30, 2004 when the Iraqi government was restored. The American and other foreign soldiers in Iraq are there upon the request of the Iraqi government.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Stephen,

    I think O’Reilly actually did Ron Paul a favor by questioning him about Afghanistan. After the last debate, I was confused about whether or not he supported that miltary action. This question gave him a chance to clarify his position.

    It doesn’t matter if Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan originally, it matters that he opposes the war now. He hung himself Monday.

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    “Mr. Brodie, I object to such uncivilized comments as yours”

    Mr. Noyon, the original lack of civilized behavior was when the disciples of Mohammed force-converted a peaceable Zoroastrian folk, and turned their country into just one more Muslim shithole to plague human society.

  • Chepe Noyon

    And so you have decided to be uncivilized to prove your moral superiority?

  • OswaldSpengler

    I was a little bit disappointed about Paul.Bill O’Reilly states that Iran is building a nuclear device for war.This is utter nonsense.There is no single proof whatsoever that the iranians are about to do so.O´Reilly is therefore lying deliberatly.There is also not a single proof that the iranians support the shiite anti US insurgery let alone the idea that the iranians deliver Heatexplosives to their enemy , the sunni resistance.Likewise the USA is staging terror inside Iran in the khuzestan southern province and in the belutschistan frontier area next to pakistan.In Libanon the USA betrayed the libanese ppl by supporting the minority pro us government and allowed israel to do perform a terror air campaign.for gods sake Israel lost the war.Hizballah itself is a resistance movement.

  • http://www.125.com Richard Brodie

    Condemning REAL uncivilized behavior is not BEING uncivilized. I think what you want is for uncivilized behavior to be granted immunity from criticism, as long as it hides behind a religious mask.

    As is often the case with people like you, you unwittingly condemn yourself with your own words. For if it is “uncivilized” of me to express what *I* object to about Islam’s murderous uncivilized ACTIONS, then what is it but uncivilized (according to your own muddled notion of what that word means) when YOU express yourself by saying that you “object” to MY “uncivilized” mere COMMENTS?

  • Chepe Noyon

    No, Mr. Brodie, it is right and proper to criticize uncivilized behavior. It is NOT right and proper to do so in an uncivilized manner, for then you are no better than what you criticize. Referring to Islam as a “bullshit religion” is uncivilized. Suggesting that the genetic endowment of one nationality is somehow superior to that of another nationality is uncivilized.

    If you have serious criticisms to make, please make them. The notions above are not serious criticisms, they are irrational prejudice.

  • http://none Lila Roberts

    Why can’t everyone see the elephant in the living room. Israel. Quit picking on OBL. The Mossad with our knowledge did 911. israel is the enemy and is running the US through the International Banking System who has members in the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission etc. We ned to get rid of AIPAC and the ADL here in the U.S.

  • http://www.125.com Richard Brodie

    Mr. Noyon, I have no use for your political correctness. I have concluded, based on my study of Mohamedanism’s origin, “scripture”, and history, that it is an ideological abomination exceedingly dangerous to the continued evolution of humanity towards a peaceable, tolerant world community.

    Among other things it is the only major world religion from which is lacking that most fundamental of principles underlying all truly civilized behavior, the Golden Rule. Thus my reference to Islam is the truth.

    You want to protect it by labelling my criticism “uncivilized,” merely because it is long established and big. I doubt that you would have any objection to calling the koolaid cult of Jim Jones a “bullshit religion,” and the only difference is that his movement was brief and small.

    I also am unwilling to ignore the established truths about the differing genetic endowments of different peoples, just so I can avoid stupid accusations of incivility by those who only use such terms as meaningless epithets.

  • Chepe Noyon

    Mr. Brodie, perhaps your study of Islam would profit from a broader range of readings. For example, would you conclude from your study that Islam rejects terrorism? If not, perhaps you would profit from perusing these statements by Muslim clerics denouncing terrorism as un-Islamic. (I earlier posted them in another topic.) Here’s a sample quote regarding 9/11, signed by more than 40 Islamic leaders and clerics, including Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas):

    We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents.

    And here’s another collection of fatwahs condemning Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

    And just in case you think this is all a bunch of lies, how about this item from the US embassy in Jakarta, quoting the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar in Egypt, who is about as close to a Pope as Islam will ever have:

    The Grand Imam said that the Koran specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of. He said the jihad Usama bin Laden has called for against America is invalid and not binding on Muslims. He said that “Islam rejects all of these acts.” He called terrorism un-Islamic. In fact, he says, “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve.”

    But you knew all this stuff already, didn’t you? ;-)

    I’d also like to inquire into this peculiar statement of yours:

    I also am unwilling to ignore the established truths about the differing genetic endowments of different peoples

    Would you mind providing the scientific evidence for these “established truths”? I’m familiar with some of the recent genetic studies but I can’t recall anything that even begins to justify your wild claims. Could you cite the scientific paper on which you base these claims? Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the work of Dr. Cavalli-Sforza, which pretty well blasted into atoms all notions that there are behaviorally significant genetic differences among various races.

  • TanGeng

    I am of the opinion that there are two conflicting imperatives in Islam and that the Suras that assert those imperatives can be grouped by the time and location that they were revealed.

    The Mecca version of Islam is peace and coexistence. The Medina version of Islam is aggressive and imposing. Since the Medina version came chronologically after the Mecca version, we can surmise that the Medina version was meant to supplant the Mecca version.

    To some, the Mecca and Medina transition serves as an example. It is the strategy of to humbly co-exist when one is weak and to be domineering when one is strong.

    Regardlessly, most Muslims are relatively unconcerned about asserting their religion and conquering foreign lands. It is more about living a prosperous life and maintaining personal piety rather than aggressively imposing one’s religion on others. This is the disconnect between religion – which can be used as a political tool – and actual people.

    However, the significant part of the population of Muslims in Europe are highly radicalize. But that result is partially due to the policies in Europe that marginalize Muslims. Europe has created its own Muslim problem.

  • Chepe Noyon

    Good points, TanGeng. The Islamic religious literature is gigantic, no smaller than the Christian literature, and its final interpretation is far, far beyond my comprehension. I place most weight on interpretations provided by their religious scholars.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Why can’t everyone see the elephant in the living room. Israel. Quit picking on OBL. The Mossad with our knowledge did 911. israel is the enemy and is running the US through the International Banking System who has members in the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission etc. We ned to get rid of AIPAC and the ADL here in the U.S.

    I suppose your solution is gas chambers, right.

  • js290

    It doesn’t matter if Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan originally, it matters that he opposes the war now. He hung himself Monday.

    Huh? Ron Paul supported going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Are we still going after bin Laden in Afghanistan?

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Ron Paul supported going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Are we still going after bin Laden in Afghanistan?

    The mission is to go after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. That mission is still ongoing. Osama bin Laden is irrelevant and has been since early 2002.

  • Thomas

    If Osama bin Laden is irrelevant then why is the entire world listening to what he has to say… and why do more people in Pakistan support him than they do their own government?

  • Pingback: Bill O’Reilly vs Ron Paul : Celebrity News Corner()

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com