Bill O'Reilly's "holiday" vacation is apparently over, as a new
"essay" has appeared at billoreilly.com. Fresh from the apocryphal "War on Christmas", BORe now tackles the equally fictitious "Hate Bush Syndrome". The piece would be brilliant satire, except it's neither brilliant nor satire. In fact, it's another sad rant on the mythical "liberal media". The man's mental acuity certainly was not improved by his vacation. To him, the chief lesson to be learned from Katrina is "a metaphor for life: Get smart and depend on yourself. No bureaucracy can protect you from crisis or disaster". Does that include terrorist attacks, too, Bill?
More...
Iraq taught us that well intentioned theory can be trumped by unpredictable behavior. Before the invasion, the Bush administration was convinced the Iraqi people would be so thrilled by the prospective of a life free from tyranny, that they would embrace coalition forces and a chance for democracy. It turns out that some Iraqis are addicted to tyranny and enjoy inflicting terror on anyone who opposes it. Should the USA have known that before it began nation building in a chaotic land? Probably.
If I try to parse this statement too thoroughly, my head might explode so let me just state the obvious: If the US "probably" should have known that there would be an insurgency, then it's not "unpredictable", is it?
Bill finally gets to the point of his rant: The "liberal" press hates George Bush:
There was one important story this year that went largely unreported, and that is the full-blown emergence of the "hate Bush media." This phenomenon is unlike anything the country has seen since the final days of Richard Nixon. Liberals will tell you that Bill Clinton was vilified in the media, but compared to the loathing directed at President Bush, Clinton's press plight was a foot massage.
Led by the increasingly vitriolic New York Times, the mainstream media spins negative and attempts to undermine just about everything President Bush does. Almost every anti-terror strategy is opposed. The press, in general, doesn't like the Patriot Act, the CIA Rendition program, or phone monitoring by the NSA. The mainstream media is disgusted by coerced interrogation, appalled by military detention for terror suspects, and outraged by the denial of Geneva Convention rights for terrorists captured in civilian clothing. As for the fighting in Iraq, well, don't ask.
I guess the lack of reporting proves Bill's point. If the press didn't hate George Bush, they'd report that the press hates George Bush. Got that?
"Increasingly vitriolic New York Times"? The New York Times that acted as a conduit for Ahmed Chalabi's lies through Judy Miller? The New York Times that suppressed the NSA spying story? Are they vitriolic because they finally reported the truth?
"Almost every anti-terror strategy is opposed". What anti-terror strategy? Fighting them over there...? Illegal wiretaps? Stripping Americans of their rights? That's a strategy? I got news for you, Bill. It's not just the press that doesn't like certain provisions of the Patriot Act, sending uncharged suspects to countries that will commit torture, and illegal wiretapping. It's not just the press that's disgusted, appalled and outraged by "coerced interrogation" (torture), "miltary detention of terror suspects" (no habeus corpus), and "the denial of Geneva Convention rights for terrorists captured in civilian clothing". (You mean the ones captured on the battlefield, Bill?) Americans are finally waking up to the fact that Bush is making this country less free.
So how exactly would the press fight the war on terror? Perhaps by treating all captured foreign terrorists as criminals and providing them with Constitutional protections, including civilian lawyers. This, of course, would make the terror fight impossible to win, but hey, that doesn't seem to concern the Bush haters.
You mean the press would fight it exactly the way the Clinton Administration did in thwarting the Millenium plot? Well, OK!
The genesis of that hatred is the feeling that President Bush was illegally elected in 2000, and subsequently put forth calculated lies about WMD's in Iraq. Those beliefs are deeply ingrained in the media power centers and so Mr. Bush has completely lost the benefit of the doubt. To many editors and their acolytes, he's bad, dumb, dishonest, a holy roller, a fascist, a human rights violator, a violator of the Constitution, and the final straw - he takes too much vacation.
And I have a "feeling" that the sky is blue. I really can't disagree with the characterization put forth in the above paragraph.
Bill, stop being a baby. Quit whining. There's no "Hate Bush Syndrome" anymore than there is a "War on Christmas". The Emperor has no clothes and you are among the last "pundits" to admire his beautiful golden robes. Don't be a sore loser.