« Power | Main | Power, Part II »
October 28, 2006
Letterman vs. O'Reilly
Shakes here...
Crooks and Liars has the video of Letterman's and O'Reilly's latest go-round.
What I love most about this is that O'Reilly seems to think that he has something to tell Letterman about global politics because he's the host of a political talk show and Letterman's only the host of a variety show. The difference between them is not the content of their shows, but that Letterman knows he's only an entertainer and O'Reilly likes to pretend he isn't.
October 28, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Another difference is that one has a quicker wit sharpened by a handful more of IQ points.
Posted by: Keith G | Oct 28, 2006 5:16:27 PM
I'm not a big O'Reilly fan, he is pretty arrogant, but he made Dave look a little silly. Dave obviously couldn't handle O'Reilly in a debate on global issues(on Dave's own show mind you, where he should have control) because Dave isn't that knowledgable. He tried to argue with emotion instead of facts, the way so many liberals do.
Two examples:
Dave tried to insinuate more people are dying in Iraq now than under Saddam. O'Reilly needed to remind Dave of the hundreds of thousands of his own people Saddam had killed, and O'Reilly didn't even mention the Iran/Iraq war.
Dave tried to insinuate there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq before we invaded. O'Reilly had to inform Dave of the group Ansar al Islam that operated in northern Iraq with Saddam's OK. O'Reilly didn't even mention the fact that Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi sought medical treatment in Baghdad after being injured while fighting Americans in Afghanistan. Or the other connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Entertainers should just shut up and entertain. When a clown tries to talk about world affairs, he just looks foolish (and not in a clownish/funny sort of way).
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 6:16:36 PM
I loved the comment about how Letterman thought that Orielly's book was about sailing or something.
I had the same reaction when I saw the cover - "Culture Warrior"? The guys wearing a wind breaker and smiling?!
Posted by: Chuck | Oct 28, 2006 6:19:12 PM
Toker,
Say what you want about Letterman, but it is undeniable that O'Rielly is splotchy.
Posted by: Chuck | Oct 28, 2006 6:27:06 PM
O'Reilly had to inform Dave of the group Ansar al Islam that operated in northern Iraq with Saddam's OK. O'Reilly didn't even mention the fact that Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi sought medical treatment in Baghdad after being injured while fighting Americans in Afghanistan. Or the other connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
This is very weak stuff. Letterman was substantially correct on this point. I think it's silly to pretend that O'Reilly's gig doesn't make him more familiar with the issues than Letterman's does, but O'Reilly's still an arrogant twit.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 28, 2006 6:40:49 PM
"Letterman was substantially correct on this point."
How do you figure?
Dave said there was no connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq and I just pointed out a second besides the one O'Reilly pointed out.
Here's another:
In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.
And another:
In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
And another:
The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.
That is at least 5 connections by my count, sanpete.
Dave wasn't substantially right or partially right. He was wrong.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 7:09:57 PM
So far for the 5 "connections", there is one supposed OK from Saddam for the Ansar al Islam group to operate in an area outside Saddam's and four contacts, some with speculation regarding what was discussed.
Obviously "had absolutely no contacts with" and "was strongly connected to" is a false dichotomy, with so many other possible states of affairs that disproving "had absolutely no contacts with" does not prove much of anything. Which goes to show that David Letterman's lack of experience is lack of experience wading through O'Reilly's BS ... a lack of experience that the majority of the population, thankfully, shares.
However, what are we to make of the idea that we should get our benchmark for deaths in Iraq from the Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam was a Republican darling and the US government was encouraging him to develop WMD's to make up for Iran's numerical advantage? If we are using Iraq at war with its neighbor as our benchmark, then clearly, since Iraq is not engaged in a border war, Iraq must be engaged in a Civil War, and the argument is over how severe the Civil War is compared with previous conflicts.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 28, 2006 7:56:53 PM
Bruce,
You don't think Saddam knew about Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi being medically treated in Baghdad? Or that his intelligence officers were meeting with Al Qaeda?
You are on Dave's level of comprehension of world affairs, I guess.
Let's forget about the hundreds of thousands of Iranians Saddam killed. Consider the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that Saddam killed during his reign.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 8:03:55 PM
Toke, there were no substantial connections between Saddam and al Qaeda. That's why Letterman was substantially correct. You can bury the al Qaeda/Saddam axis with the WMD. No one who understood the politics of the region ever took that supposed connection seriously.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 28, 2006 8:19:37 PM
Captain Tool,
Ansar al Islam operated out of northern Iraq, in an area not under Saddam's control. Your other "proofs" amount to nothing more than uncorroborated assertions.
Our own government has had more than five corroborated ties with Saddam since the 1980's. Does that make us allies? Perhaps you should ask Donald Rumsfeld if he is still doing Saddam's bidding, since he was actually photographed shaking the monster's hand.
Posted by: zeke | Oct 28, 2006 8:26:27 PM
"Toke, there were no substantial connections between Saddam and al Qaeda."
Here's another:
Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.
And another:
Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."
And another: (This one is especially for zeke)
In 1998, for example, when the Clinton Justice Department indicted bin Laden, the writ read: "In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
Is that one corroborated, zeke? Why don't you refute them? The sources are right there.
Correcting liberals with half my brain wrapped around a big, fat, giant doobie, just to make it fair.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 8:45:40 PM
a big, fat, giant doobie, just to make it fair.
That explains why you confuse all this hogwash that's been put in proper perspective by the rest of us with some kind of substantial connection. Don't confuse "loyal to" with "under the real control of." These people were going to do what they wanted no matter what Saddam wanted. Clinton's folks didn't have any good evidence to back up any real connection either. Get back to us when you're less cloudy.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 28, 2006 9:03:23 PM
"Don't confuse "loyal to" with "under the real control of."
So they were loyal to someone with whom they had no connection?
You're flailing.
"Clinton's folks didn't have any good evidence to back up any real connection either."
Then why would they even mention it?
You're flailing.
"These people were going to do what they wanted no matter what Saddam wanted."
Here's another:
one of the masterminds of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad to find sanctuary with Saddam after the attack.
sanpete,
So you think all these things were going on in Iraq and in Saddam's gov't without Saddam's knowledge?
You are flailing or you are not to bright about world affairs.
If it is the latter then you and Dave and Bruce need to hang out and talk world affairs. You're all on the same level.
The sad thing is sanpete, I can out think you while I am stoned. It helps when the facts are on my side.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 9:17:32 PM
You're mixing things up. We can get back to this tomorrow.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 28, 2006 9:33:42 PM
Why don't you just say I'm a liar and stomp off.
That's the liberal way.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 9:36:09 PM
I used to smoke that shit too, Cap'n. Then I grew up.
Your lack of brain cells goes a long way toward explaining why you do nothing but parrot GOP talking points. Smokin' weed is easy. Thinking for yourself is hard.
Posted by: Anthony Cartouche | Oct 28, 2006 10:50:35 PM
"Smokin' weed is easy. Thinking for yourself is hard."
I read articles, watch the news and research all the facts that I cite, without the help of the GOP. Just cuz I'm interested in politics and world affairs.
Oh and anthony, could point me to the pro weed GOP talking point?
I have probably burnt more brain cells than you'll ever have, and I can still out think you.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 28, 2006 11:07:11 PM
Captain Toke
Where would you be without copy and paste and Richard Miniter?
Actually I've gone through much of your so-called hard evidence. I've never seen such a echo chamber all coming back to one article in the New York Post.
I can - maybe I will - go through some of the individual claims. But it would take a tremendous amount of time to disprove something even the Bushies aren't claiming any more. Instead I'll just paste a few things here.
(and stop talking about thinking for yourself. You're clearly not. You haven't done ANY of this research. You're just reregurgitating ALL of Miniter's silly claims.
But so you do not rant on about how no one addresses specific claims...here are a couple of things to mull over.
"According to the State Department's annual report on the general subject, titled Patterns of Global Terrorism, Baghdad had no ties to al Qaeda or, for that matter, to any of the "al Qaeda–type organizations" operating in the Middle East and Africa. Although the report finds that Iraq has assisted "numerous terrorist groups," those outfits are all secular and "Marxist" or "socialist" in ideology—in other words, "infidels," the insult used by bin Laden to describe Saddam. That same report, released last year, notes that the "main focus" of Saddam's terror expenditures has been on "dissident Iraqi activity overseas."
"A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.
Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said."
"The Boston Globe reported, "Indeed, intelligence agencies tracked contacts between Iraqi agents and Al Qaeda agents in the '90s in Sudan and Afghanistan, where bin Laden is believed to have met with Farouk Hijazi, head of Iraqi intelligence. But current and former intelligence specialists caution that such meetings occur just as often between enemies as friends. Spies frequently make contact with rogue groups to size up their intentions, gauge their strength, or try to infiltrate their ranks, they said." (3 August 2003). According to The Guardian, "Most analysts believe, however, that the ideological differences between the Iraqis and the terrorists were insurmountable. The talks are thought to have ended disastrously for the Iraqis, as bin Laden rejected any kind of alliance, preferring to pursue his own policy of global jihad, or holy war."
"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter."
"The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
" The Claim: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured in 2001, was the source of intelligence that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. This information was used extensively by Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech to the UN.
What We Know Now: As early as February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency circulated a report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, saying that it was "likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers." Link. This assessment was hidden from the public until after the war."
And that Salah Suleiman reference is particularly indicative of the inaneness of the wingnut echo chamber.
There are dozens of claims exactly as you cite, and they all can be traced back to Jane's report - and all they do is quote Isreali intelligence speculation that Saddam was behind 9/11 - not very credible there. They don't claim it themselves. In reality Suleiman was Zarqawi's man, not Saddam's and apparently was not held after his arrest in Pakistan because he was recaptured in January 2005 as there is nothing more about him. Look it up.(and try to find something, anything, about him that doesn't originate with the one very dubious source)
"Salah Suleiman al-Loheibi headed the operations of his group in Baghdad. He was apprehended by Iraqi security forces in mid-January 2005, and is reported to have met with terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi over 40 times in the past number of months. Al-Lohebi’s arrest occurred at a time when American and Iraqi troops were focused on rounding up militants before the January 30th elections"
And then there is this - the proverbial nail in the coffin.
"Courtesy of the State Department, circa November 2001, when Iraq was fairly unique among countries in the Middle East for not having al Qaeda operate there:
Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated
Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen"
I can go on and on and on and on. But it's not worth it. You look into the Uganda claim and you find nothing but that one reference you cite repeated over and over. You look into the Allied Democratic Forces and you find nothing about ties to or being funded by Iraq (besides your one recycled note)
There were common spy contacts that exist all over the world in the early and mid 90s They tapered off in the late 90s and 2000s. They had no working relationship and operated completely independently.
Just give it up, fuck.
Posted by: brian | Oct 29, 2006 12:28:08 AM
Note you can google the above citations to find the links -not difficult. and there is much much more, but I've wasted enough time on this.
Posted by: brian | Oct 29, 2006 12:32:05 AM
Exhibit A:
When a clown tries to talk about world affairs, he just looks foolish (and not in a clownish/funny sort of way).
Exhibit B:
Correcting liberals with half my brain wrapped around a big, fat, giant doobie, just to make it fair.
There is a reason I don't engage this guy.
Posted by: Jon O. | Oct 29, 2006 12:33:41 AM
"President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter."
Show me where I claim Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.
"The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment......little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
It was the CIA that said Saddam had WMD. Yet you are going to use the CIA as a souce to debunk links between Saddam and Al Qaeda?
If Saddam was so averse to aiding terrorist, why did he harbor Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas both in Baghdad before we invaded? Why did Saddam give the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each for killing Jews? Why did Abdul Rahman Yasin flee to Baghdad after the first WTC attack?
And why did the Clinton Justice Department write:"In addition, al-Qaida reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
Saddam didn't give a fuck if those who wanted to attack America were religious radicals as long as they wanted to attack America!
But if we are going to use the CIA as a source:
"Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."
And one more little nugget for you, this is from the congressional authorization to go to war:
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Refute the numerous other examples (none of which come from the Miniter article, which by the way you haven't refuted) put up there before you put any 'proverbial nails in the coffin'. And then try and use a little logic.
Or maybe you and Bruce and sanpete and Dave can talk some global affairs.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2006 1:40:51 AM
The difference bewteen what he and O'reilly "know"is miniscule.
But Dave doesn't pretent to know more than he does: in fact, his inital support for the wars was quite simple: "we had to do something", and he now is (rightly!) concerned that what WE have done has made the situation worse.
I thought Letterman's was honest, at least.
Posted by: jon | Oct 29, 2006 9:59:15 AM
Captain Toke blames Saddam for hundreds of thousands of deaths -- conveniently forgetting that most of the killings linked to Saddam took place in the war with Iran.
In that war Iraq was armed by the United States, and encouraged to fight as America's proxy against the Ayatollah and crew.
Note that the only "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that Iraq had *at any time* were five Hughes helicopters supplied by the United States armed with spraying equipment and loaded with "agricultural chemicals," also supplied by the US. These are the weapons used in the genocidal attacks on Iraq's Kurds, and in the war-crime attacks on Iranian soldiers.
There may also have been many tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, killed in the suppression of the Southern Iraqi rebellion encouraged by Bushlet's father. Here I think there's enough blame to go around. I don't think Bush the Geriatric gets a free pass for encouraging people to run into machine guns. The gunners may or may not have been acting in legal ways, defending the "legal" state.
Certainly there is something putrid about a family which encourages others to sacrifice themselves in a rebellion they are capable of assisting, but unwilling to support in any way that mattered.
That this whole aspect of the "hundreds of thousands" killed by Saddam goes unmentioned in the US press is yet one more aspect of how badly brainwashed the American people find themselves.
Posted by: David Lloyd-Jones | Oct 29, 2006 11:06:26 AM
So they were loyal to someone with whom they had no connection?
You're mixing this up. The Iraqis in this remote area were ostensibly loyal to Saddam. They also found it useful to get help from folks from over the border who wanted to fight the Kurds, and those other folks had ties to al Qaeda. Saddam agreed to that arrangement, but he didn't make a deal with al Qaeda. He made a deal with people who had ties to al Qaeda. I hope you can see the difference. The US has made deals with many who have ties to al Qaeda.
Then why would they even mention it?
Indictments typically throw in whatever the government thinks they might have a good chance of proving, plus some things they know they probably won't be able to prove but find it useful to bring up to make their case seem strong, to influence the public, and so on.
That a few people with ties to al Qaeda passed through Iraq or even stayed there doesn't show much, Toke. There's never been more than just a little smoke to this idea that Iraq and al Qaeda were scheming against us. Every well informed nonpartisan analysis has rejected this idea.
"Then in October 2002, George Tenet, the Clinton-appointed CIA director, warned the Senate in similar terms: "We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade."
Yeah, it was a slam dunk.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 29, 2006 12:28:20 PM
Ansar al Islam did not operate with Saddam's OK. Saddam was an enemy of al Qaeda. Ansar al Islam operated in an area where Saddam had no military control. The U.S. did have military air control of the area where the Ansar base was located so it would be more accurate to state that they operated with the O.K. of the U.S.. Saddam was in no position to give an OK, supposed or otherwise and was in no position to expell the Ansar camp. If he had tried his troops would have been bombed by the U.S.. Ironic no?
The al Qaeda 9/11 hijackes were living, training, and planning in the U.S. and some probably even got medical treatment there. That does not mean that the U.S. govt was working with them or was in cahoots with al Qaeda.
Bill O'Reilly said Saddam had killed 300,000 to 400,000 Iraqis. He was in power for about 30 years. America has been there about 4 years and around 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. I don't see how that makes a very good case for O'Reilly's claim that there is less violence now than under Saddam.
Posted by: Paul | Oct 29, 2006 4:50:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
