Let’s not get too carried away with Mr. O’Reilly. Like Trump, O’Reilly is congenitally unable to explain that Assad is a very popular SECULAR ruler of what was a SECULAR Arab county where one could be a Christian and drink booze without fear of the authorities. They are unable or unwilling to explain that the rebels have always been jihadists and have always been supported by the U.S. and/or its local satraps. O’Reilly was saying this nonsense in 2014, that Obama was a weenie because he refused to help the “good” Syrian rebels in their heroic fight against ISIS:
http://tinyurl.com/mg6nyld
O’Reilly was right about the moderators of the second debate being biased, but without explaining exactly why. Much of Aleppo has already “fallen” to the head-chopping rebels, but Martha Raddatz and Hillary used the term to describe the event of the Syrian government (with Russian help) ultimately kicking out the head choppers, which caused me to start throwing things at the TV. Justin Raimondo wrote:
“Raddatz: What are do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?” [Trump relied that it had already fallen]
It was as if Raddatz had taken Hillary’s place, and was joining the debate as her surrogate. One had to look on the spectacle and wonder if Raddatz knew how brazenly her sympathies were being put on display for millions of viewers to see: Trump’s answer was that Aleppo has already fallen.
The focus then turned to Hillary, who was asked by Raddatz what would she do if and when Aleppo does fall [to the Syrian government]: would she put US troops on the ground? Hillary then showed what a “two-faced” policy analysis really looks like by saying no – and then saying she’d put “special forces” in there. Are not Special Forces ground troops – or would they be walking on air? Raddatz, of course, didn’t call her out on this.
That was the extent to which foreign policy was discussed at the second debate: after all, don’t we have more important things to talk about – like Trump’s off-color comments made in private eleven years ago?
Neither the MSM, O’Reilly nor Trump are going to give you the simple and obvious explanation of what is going on in Syria. Or Ukraine. Or with Russia. Or with the Fed. Or with anything.
Let’s not get too carried away with Mr. O’Reilly. Like Trump, O’Reilly is congenitally unable to explain that Assad is a very popular SECULAR ruler of what was a SECULAR Arab county where one could be a Christian and drink booze without fear of the authorities. They are unable or unwilling to explain that the rebels have always been jihadists and have always been supported by the U.S. and/or its local satraps. O’Reilly was saying this nonsense in 2014, that Obama was a weenie because he refused to help the “good” Syrian rebels in their heroic fight against ISIS:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/mg6nyld
O’Reilly was right about the moderators of the second debate being biased, but without explaining exactly why. Much of Aleppo has already “fallen” to the head-chopping rebels, but Martha Raddatz and Hillary used the term to describe the event of the Syrian government (with Russian help) ultimately kicking out the head choppers, which caused me to start throwing things at the TV. Justin Raimondo wrote:
“Raddatz: What are do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?”
[Trump relied that it had already fallen]
It was as if Raddatz had taken Hillary’s place, and was joining the debate as her surrogate. One had to look on the spectacle and wonder if Raddatz knew how brazenly her sympathies were being put on display for millions of viewers to see: Trump’s answer was that Aleppo has already fallen.
The focus then turned to Hillary, who was asked by Raddatz what would she do if and when Aleppo does fall [to the Syrian government]: would she put US troops on the ground? Hillary then showed what a “two-faced” policy analysis really looks like by saying no – and then saying she’d put “special forces” in there. Are not Special Forces ground troops – or would they be walking on air? Raddatz, of course, didn’t call her out on this.
That was the extent to which foreign policy was discussed at the second debate: after all, don’t we have more important things to talk about – like Trump’s off-color comments made in private eleven years ago?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/10/11/second-debate-radatz-moment/
Lefty Robert Parry had a similar take on Raddatz
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/11/debate-moderator-distorted-syrian-reality/
Neither the MSM, O’Reilly nor Trump are going to give you the simple and obvious explanation of what is going on in Syria. Or Ukraine. Or with Russia. Or with the Fed. Or with anything.
I can't believe I missed it before but when Bill asked Trump: "Why would I [O'Reilley] do that?
ReplyDeleteDonald replied: "I don't know, why don't you ask your psychologist?"
Bam! That's why people love Trump.
Didn't Trump say last week to O'Reilly something like: Yeah, well even I have put up with you for the past 20 years"??? I'm too lazy to hunt it down.
DeleteHere is what a "takedown" looks like when done by a pro...
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MXTWNeLjMjg
Scatterbrained. In this episode Lucy Ricardo goes to work for the Washington Post.
ReplyDelete