Bill O'Reilly is an asshole
But he's more interesting than anyone in the liberal media, which is the secret of his success. I am, however, tired of him not publishing my emails on his show. He's messed with the wrong blogger so, I'm publishing the text right here.
O'Reilly, if you're reading this, have the guts to debate me. You know you fear it, bitch.
You maintain that showing more Abu Ghraib pictures will put our troops in additional danger. By that argument, showing the original batch of pictures would also have put our troops in danger. Would you then have suppressed the original pictures? The war in Iraq is dangerous regardless of the release any new pictures. The insurgents do not need any additional motivation. Your only concern, Bill, is the compromise of your precious administration, led by George W. Bush.
Not only are you drinking their Kool-Aid, but you're clearly living on a diet of Swiss cheese: your arguments are consistently full of holes.
Your argument for not releasing the additional Abu Ghraib pictures is ludicrous: the story has been broken? There's nothing more to be gained by showing more of these pictures? Troop safety would be compromised? Principles are not important?
1. If there are additional pictures, then the whole story has NOT broken.
2. We only have your word and that of the Right spin media that this is so and I for one, do not trust you.
3. Have you got proof that troop safety would be compromised? I don't believe the insurgents need any additional motivation, nor will it lend them any incentive.
4. Principles, sir, are what this country was founded on.
I like your show very much: it's hard hitting and somewhat balanced. Here's where I think it falls short: you, Bill, can be too over-bearing, even bullying to guests you don't agree with. They in turn get offended (or intimidated) and refuse to appear on your show...which impacts the quality of the debate. Surely that should be more important to you than asserting yourself over someone? Tone it down, Mr. O. Your show will get better when that happens.
I don't agree with Cindy Sheehan's views but do understand her desire for peace. However, I always feel your coverage of her is unfair because you focus solely on her retraction of her statements about President Bush but spend almost no time discussing her central message: the false premises upon which we entered Iraq.
While the US (understandably) only looks after US interests, I believe it's wrong to condemn the UN for choosing to uphold the interests of all nations, including the US. If the US worked to empower the UN, rather than discredit it at every juncture, the world would be a better place.
You defined terrorism, in your interview with David Rivkin regarding the perceived impotence of the UN, as "...killing civilians, unarmed civilians, by anyone...is wrong". I wonder how you'd care to explain Hiroshima and Nagasaki?