DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,913
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 16, 2009 19:35:02 GMT -5
Frank Rich is not exactly objective in this opinion. I didn't see him go after the netroots people for those arguing that GW Bush should be arrested and stand before a war crimes tribunal, or excoriate the anarchists who appear at every World Bank conference or WTO gathering.
There are reactionaries and hate-mongers on both sides of the fence, and the best thing to do is not to push them into a corner and hope they go away, but shine the light of truth on them and watch them whither.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Jun 16, 2009 19:57:45 GMT -5
The drivers mentioned are economic hardship, illegal immigration, gun legislation, the rise of other countries, disgruntled veterans, and the election of Obama. None of these were reasons for either shooting - in both cases, these were people with established grievances. To be fair, the Pittsburgh shooting was driven by A, B, C, D, E, and F. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 17, 2009 1:39:40 GMT -5
Frank Rich is not exactly objective in this opinion. I didn't see him go after the netroots people for those arguing that GW Bush should be arrested and stand before a war crimes tribunal, or excoriate the anarchists who appear at every World Bank conference or WTO gathering. There are reactionaries and hate-mongers on both sides of the fence, and the best thing to do is not to push them into a corner and hope they go away, but shine the light of truth on them and watch them whither. You are correct DFW that Frank Rich did not go after the folks you cited. But they did not have leaders of the Republican or Democratic party espousing and endorsing the same views, nor did they have what purports to be a major, 24 hour cable "news" outlet spewing the hate filled outrages that Rich did cite. They did not have the Republican demigod of the radio airwaves speaking out for them either. This is not the first time you have dismissed a column by Frank Rich, not because of his content or views, but because he: 1. Lives in NYC 2. Writes for the NY Times 3. Formerly covered arts But the comments in his column were well presented and supported, as were those by Paul Krugman in a similar NY Times Column a few days earlier. There are reactionaries and hate mongers on many issues, but the point of these two articles was to draw attention to the direct and outrageous participation from people such as Mitch McConnell, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Only John McCain and Sheppard Smith were cited as people who were acting responsibly to quell the firestorm being ignited and fanned by the others... including Dick Cheney who previously said if the Democrats win the Terrorists win, and now is sounding the totally unfounded alarm that the country is somehow "less safe" without him calling the shots. And blaming President Obama personally. Is it unreasonable to expect that Republicans and their spokespeople can disagree on policy issues without resorting to inciting violence, accusing people of being un-American and "palling around with terrorists", and being "false prophets"? If the leadership of the Democratic party or any of the mainstream news organizations in this country conducted themselves in a similar manner during the previous 8 years please enlighten us, because I missed it. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 8:38:53 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure -- in fact I know -- that John Murtha, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry all called our military terrorists and murderers at one or several points during the last 8 years. And yes, they said vile things about the Bush administration, just as hateful as what you are hearing today.
You want to blame Bill O'Reilly for Tiller's murder? That's ridiculous, but fine, if you want to do that, then please indict Mssrs. Murtha, Kennedy and Kerry for the murder of William Long while you are at it.
The sooner people realize that talk, while sometimes offensive and grotesque and deserving of condemnation -- no matter where it comes from -- is never an excuse for violent behavior, the happier I'll be.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 17, 2009 11:23:17 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure -- in fact I know -- that John Murtha, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry all called our military terrorists and murderers at one or several points during the last 8 years. And yes, they said vile things about the Bush administration, just as hateful as what you are hearing today. You want to blame Bill O'Reilly for Tiller's murder? That's ridiculous, but fine, if you want to do that, then please indict Mssrs. Murtha, Kennedy and Kerry for the murder of William Long while you are at it. The sooner people realize that talk, while sometimes offensive and grotesque and deserving of condemnation -- no matter where it comes from -- is never an excuse for violent behavior, the happier I'll be. This is an absurd claim to make. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 11:30:32 GMT -5
Well, with reasoning like that, how can I possibly make a counter argument?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jun 17, 2009 13:13:27 GMT -5
When did those guys call our military terrorists and murderers? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just missed it if it did.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 14:21:23 GMT -5
Murtha accused the Marines of murdering civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha. An incident in which most of the charges, and ALL charges of anything that serious in nature, were dropped, I would add.
Kerry was on Face the Nation and accused the military of "Terrorizing women and children in the dead of night." (OK, he said terrorize, not terrorist, but it's still pretty bad.)
You can Google them. I'm not making it up.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jun 17, 2009 16:35:26 GMT -5
I think there's a MASSIVE difference between calling out a select group of troops who were accused of crimes and "calling our military terrorists and murderers." The way you said it it sounded like they had made a blanket statement that ALL US troops were murderers and terrorists.
O'Reilly called out Tiller by name, and Tiller got murdered. If Murtha had said "William Long murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha" and Long got murdered, then it would be the same. But I think you're really stretching to compare their respective involvement these two tragedies.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Jun 17, 2009 16:58:27 GMT -5
This is more of a philosophical question than a comment (as I don't really know how I feel about it), but is it better or worse that Kerry and Murtha criticize the troops when they are highly decorated veterans who volunteered to serve our country for several years - I believe Murtha left the reserves in the 1990s? I can see both sides of the argument, it hurts troop moral more because it comes from one of their own. But, it is also hard to call them unpatriotic considering the cost of serving our nation - they have five purple hearts between the two of them.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 18:23:48 GMT -5
I think there's a MASSIVE difference between calling out a select group of troops who were accused of crimes and "calling our military terrorists and murderers." The way you said it it sounded like they had made a blanket statement that ALL US troops were murderers and terrorists. O'Reilly called out Tiller by name, and Tiller got murdered. If Murtha had said "William Long murdered civilians in cold blood in Haditha" and Long got murdered, then it would be the same. But I think you're really stretching to compare their respective involvement these two tragedies. I don't think it's as much of a stretch when you listen to Long's murderer explaining his motivations. But that is not my point. My point is not to say that Kerry or Murtha or Kennedy should be indicted as an accessory to the crime. I think that's preposterous. I was saying before that if one is responsible, so its the other, but my view is that neither is. I think it is equally preposterous for someone, either here or in the New York Times (which is really what started the whole thing) to begin to blame Bill O'Reilly for Tiller's murder. O'Reilly was a fierce enemy of Tiller because he is vehemently opposed to the practice the doctor engaged in. So am I, by the way. O'Reilly pointed out the horrible, often unreported, aspects of many of these late term abortions. And yes, he came up with a puerile, taunting name for the doctor (though technically, not an entirely inaccurate name). What O'Reilly NEVER did (now, I don't listen to him on the radio and I only catch him once in a while on TV, so if you have evidence to the contrary, you can show it to me and I'll take back everything I've said), was advocate, excuse or even morally justify any type of violence against the doctor. Nor did he ever make any direct or indirect threat of violence to the doctor. He wanted him to stop what he was doing, he wanted him prosecuted legally (and, yes, he wanted credit if the doctor was forced to stop). Never violence, EVER (again, to the best of my knowledge, but I would be 100% shocked if I was wrong on this). To say that he is responsible for the murder in any way is, in my opinion, insane. And yes, I do feel the same way about Kerry and Murtha. They are not responsible for terrorist or other vigilante violence against our military because of things they say. I was pointing them out as a basis of comparison, not because I actually think they are guilty of anything (except poor judgment). That's ludicrous. Should they be saying those things? In my opinion, hell no. Just as many may think that O'Reilly shouldn't be saying the things he says. But to call them complicit or even inciting of violence or murder is -- if you will pardon my hyperbole -- one of the first steps we take on the road to not having free speech in this country anymore. (It comes as no surprise to anyone here that I am also opposed to hate crimes legislation, right?) |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jun 17, 2009 23:34:40 GMT -5
I think it would indeed be going too far to blame O'Reilly for Tiller's murder. As you said, he never called for violence.
At worst, O'Reilly was irresponsible for using language that he had to know was inflammatory. Given the history of violence by pro-lifers, it probably would have been wise for him to make very clear in his rants that he wanted to shut down Tiller's operations through legal means. That previous history wasn't there for Long's murder.
But I think it's wrong to single out O'Reilly, since he's just one voice in a very large chorus. Tiller's murderer would have done what he did without O'Reilly, just like Long's murderer would have done what he did without Kerry and Murtha.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jun 17, 2009 23:44:33 GMT -5
To answer your actual question, this is probably the closest O'Reilly got: "And if I could get my hands on Tiller -- well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."
I agree Bill O'Reilly most likely was not responsible in any way, shape, or form for the murder of Dr. Tiller. But one instance is accusations made by a public figure against a select group of servicemen, and some other soldier gets killed. The other situation involves one reporter with a national daily show, who leads a crusade against one man, comparing him to al-Qaida, Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany (mentioning Nazis in the context of Tiller more than once)... then someone kills that one guy. You're saying that Murtha/Long is equivalent to O'Reilly/Tiller? This isn't a serious argument, is it?
|
|
