Bill O'Reilly... Expert on Middle East affairs!

[dedhed]

A bit of lunacy from Bill O'Really, regarding hiring a former henchman of Saddam to run the new Fallujah Protection Force...

Talking Points believes that's worth trying. President Bush must now put the protection of our forces above all else. It may be a brutal point, but the welfare of an ungrateful and ill-informed Iraqi population is no longer worth American lives.

So the Iraqi strategy must change somewhat. The U.S. cannot allow a pro-terrorist dictator to emerge, but we also can't control the population. If they want some fanatical Islamist in charge, that's the way it'll have to be. Order is what America and Great Britain should demand. Leave all the rest to the Iraqis.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118630,00.html

I... I don't even know where to begin with this.

1. "President Bush must now put the protection of our forces above all else." What was formerly "above all else?" Apparently, Bill thinks it was the welfare of the Iraqi people. But they've turned out to be "ungrateful" and "ill-informed"... so to Hell with them.

2. "The U.S. cannot allow a pro-terrorist dictator to emerge..." but if the Iraqi people "want some fanatical Islamist in charge, that's the way it'll have to be." Historically, Bill has never drawn a distinction between "pro-terrorist dictator" and a "fanatical Islamist in charge," because to him, they're synonymous. So what he's saying here is that the U.S. can't allow a fanatical Islamist dictator, but if the Iraqis elect one, then it's OK.

3. "Order is what America and Great Britain should demand. Leave all the rest to the Iraqis." What does he mean by "order?" I thought America and Great Britain were demanding order, with things like troops and a puppet government! But it hasn't been working out, thanks to the "ungrateful" and "ill-informed" Iraqis.

To sum it up, O'Really believes that since our troops are unable to maintain order without getting hurt and killed, we should pull them out, and replace them with one or more of Saddam's former goons... who are the very people the forces were sent in to depose in the first place! It's OK to elect a fanatical Islamist to office in the new Iraq... as long as that fanatic is not pro-terrorist. And America has every right to expect and demand "order" from said fanatical Islamist... order over the very same "ungrateful" people that O'Really doesn't give a crap about anyway.

With the one exception of the elected fanatic (as opposed to one that just takes power,) wouldn't that scenario just put Iraq - and America's relationship with Iraq - right back where it was before America invaded?

Just wondering, Bill.

:bounce:

edit: spelling