Pointing Out the Spin in the "No Spin Zone"

A very close, trusted friend was so moved by O'Reilly's Talking Points on "Iraq 3 years later" the other night, that this person sent him an e-mail. There was, of course, no response, so this person asked me, knowing I post to this site, if I would be willing to share the response. I am more than willing, I am honored to spread the truth. Bloviating Bill's points are inserted as external sources.

Mr. O'Reilly,

My respect to you for your efforts to provide fair and balanced news. I watched your "Talking Points" last night on the 3rd anniversary of the War in Iraq, and would like to share my comments.

After three years of blood, sweat and tears, I cannot report to you anything definite about Iraq's future.

That's right, in all fairness, you can't. It is a 'known unknown'.

What is vitally important is that the coalition succeed in giving the Iraqis a chance to build a decent country.

This is the justification now being used to keep us there. My question is; did they have a decent country before? Have they ever had a decent country? How are we supposed to go about providing them an opportunity to have one? Sounds dangerously like hubris run amok to me.

But are we the smart guys? Will the Iraqis respond to the challenge and defend themselves in the foreseeable future? Again, I don't know.

Another known unknown. We don't look too smart right now, and with Allawi declaring a de facto civil war, it looks more like the Iraqis, rather than defending themselves, are attacking each other as well as us.

What I do know is that if the effort fails in Iraq, Iran will dominate that country. And it will turn into an anti-American state that will enable worldwide terrorism, just as Iran is doing within its borders right now.
Another terrorist-friendly country puts America and the world in even more danger. We will have traded the despicable Saddam for the despicable mullahs.

Hey, I thought this was the 'no spin zone'. That is spin, plain and simple fearmongering, and it sets up 'the mullahs' as the next target of our military. Also implicit in the statement above is a point that goes back to "But are we the smart guys?" Taking out the 'despicable Saddam' has created a power vacuum in a key state in the most strategic region of the world, a state that has traditionally had a dictatorial strongman at the head of a totalitarian regime in order to keep the deep animous of its various religious factions in check. What are we putting into that power vacuum? Like you said "I don't know." I know what we say we are trying to put there, that's the 'noble' part, the stated intent. The outcome, however, belies the stated intent. And Iraq won't "turn into" an anti American state, it already has been one for a long time now, if you have been paying attention at all. Occupying it and overthrowing Saddam hasn't changed that. in fact, it very well may have made things worse.

What is 'the effort' that cannot fail else Iran dominates? The effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? That, if it is allowed to succeed, will almost surely, in my opinion, result in a Shia dominated state with close ties to Iran, just what you say can't happen.

the patience of the American people is not unlimited.

Neither is their gullibility. Regardless of the stated aims and the 'noble' intent, the invasion of Iraq is looking more and more like a stepping-stone to war with Iran and Syria, and an attempt at US and Western hegemony and domination of mid-east oil supplies and the region. That, to me, is the 'unknown unknown'.

Again, with my respect for your efforts, but not necessarily the outcomes.

I say bravo to the one brave enough to point out the spin, and to give up anonymity by providing his e-mail address to the conservative portal that is Fox News.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Icarus Rising]

This only points out "one spin" and it's not even spin.

Spin is when you take a truism and over-look it by either changing the subject or by pointing to some other fact that on the surface seems to bury the discussion...but in reality it doesn't.

Iran will dominate Iraq if Iraq is not made into a successful nation with both Sunnis and Shiites and the Kurds.

Because Iran is the Shiite power-house of the world.

And Iran does have its eyes set on the territory.

There was no spin there...just a statement of fact.

I think you missed the point. It is spin on 'the effort in Iraq'. What exactly is 'the effort in Iraq'? From the looks of things, the way this administration conducts itself, and how it tries to portray 'the effort in Iraq' as a 'noble' attempt to 'bring democracy to the Iraqi people', that's the spin. The real outcome, hidden in the spin, looks like a de facto push to get us into a position where war with Iran, and probably Syria too, is a foregone conclusion.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I think you missed the point. It is spin on 'the effort in Iraq'. What exactly is 'the effort in Iraq'? From the looks of things, the way this administration conducts itself, and how it tries to portray 'the effort in Iraq' as a 'noble' attempt to 'bring democracy to the Iraqi people', that's the spin. The real outcome, hidden in the spin, looks like a de facto push to get us into a position where war with Iran, and probably Syria too, is a foregone conclusion.

If the result is the Iraqis having a Democracy...then what's the rest matter?

Do you have any proof of the Bush Administration not wanting to turn Iraq over to an Iraqi Democratic Government?

A very close, trusted friend was so moved by O'Reilly's Talking Points on "Iraq 3 years later" the other night, that this person sent him an e-mail. There was, of course, no response, so this person asked me, knowing I post to this site, if I would be willing to share the response. I am more than willing, I am honored to spread the truth. Bloviating Bill's points are inserted as external sources.

I'm confused. Who is this person, your friend? how can you share a response when you say there was no response? I think I understand though.
Anyway Bill O'Rielly is an ass. Saying "the spin stops here" is spin itself IMO. Since when was Iran a "terrorist-friendly country"? I suspect that he's just another one of the many religious racists thriving in the USA today.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Xeros]

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I think you missed the point. It is spin on 'the effort in Iraq'. What exactly is 'the effort in Iraq'? From the looks of things, the way this administration conducts itself, and how it tries to portray 'the effort in Iraq' as a 'noble' attempt to 'bring democracy to the Iraqi people', that's the spin. The real outcome, hidden in the spin, looks like a de facto push to get us into a position where war with Iran, and probably Syria too, is a foregone conclusion.

If the result is the Iraqis having a Democracy...then what's the rest matter?

Do you have any proof of the Bush Administration not wanting to turn Iraq over to an Iraqi Democratic Government?

That is just laughable.

I guess you mean a democracy like we have, right? Homey, you should look into what kind of a government we actually have.

o.p. by Xeros
how can you share a response when you say there was no response?

The inserted external quotes come, I believe, directly from the "Talking Points" portion of Bill's show.

link

o.p. by Stratrf_Rus
If the result is the Iraqis having a Democracy...then what's the rest matter?

Looks more to me like the result will be an Iraqi Civil War. Of course there is no proof, other than the day to day escalating carnage over there. The proof will be in the outcome, and by then it will be too late.

The rest matters because our best and brightest young people are over there getting maimed and dying for what appears to me to be a false motive.