Posted on 07/29/2004 7:03:36 PM PDT by skyman
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm going to do next, I seldom -- I mean seldom -- do if ever. It is a professional, philosophical belief I have to not comment on what others who do what I do, say or do. I know many of you get frustrated by this, because you'll hear things on other programs say, "Rush, you've got to get a tape of that and you've got to nuke it," and I don't, because I've never commented on what other people say or do on similar programs such as this, people who do what I do. It's just a professional, philosophical belief that goes back to when I was 16, and the way the business was conducted then. It's just something I don't do, and there's multitudinous reasons for it and I won't go into it. But I'm going to violate the rule today, because of particular subject matter. I didn't see this, but I read a transcript of it. Apparently Michael Moore appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox show, the O'Reilly Factor.
I read the transcript of it and hen I finished reading the transcript, I was um...unsatisfied. I was disappointed, and I was disappointed in the whole flavor of the interview and the way it went. I thought, I mean, if Moore is going to agree to come in then there's an opportunity there to really expose some of the myths and the lies and the distortions and the outright danger that is posed, particularly to young servicemen in this movie. You know, they're showing this movie around the world and 18-, 19-, 20-year-old servicemen are being very dispirited by it, because they don't understand the context, the political context. They're neophytes, they're kids -- but they've joined, which is the point ultimately that I'm going to get to. So what happened instead was that the interview was descended into a false premise, and it was frustrating to me that Mr. O'Reilly accepted a false premise and attempted to argue it.
Now it's easy. One of the reasons I don't review and comment on things, is because it's easy in hindsight to be critical of the way somebody else does something, and that's one of the reasons I have not done it. I mean, a lot of people have probably found disagreement with the way things I've done over the years, and once they're done they're done, and all the criticism in the world isn't going to change what happened. But in this case, the false premise that was put forth that was accepted and thereby shaped the entire interview, was, "Bush sends kids to die." Bush sends no one to die. The Palestinians send their kids to die. The Palestinians strap bombs on their kids and send them into civilian areas in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with the express purpose of having those explosives blow up and kill not only the kids, but as many innocent civilians as possible nearby. That is "sending your kids off to die."
George Bush sends no one off to die -- kids, adults, anyone. Yet the interview descended into, "Would you die for your country? Would you die for Fallujah?" and that's not at all an acceptable premise to me. Here's why. We have in this country a volunteer army. Since 2000, particularly 2001, everybody joining the Army knows exactly where they're going. The odds are they're going to go to combat. As such, most of them joining do so willingly. This notion that in this day and age, given the present circumstances, that there are people joining the Army simply to get a college education or to escape poor, dire economic circumstances, while it may be true, it denigrates those who are signing up. It denigrates the intentions and honor of those joining. This is not a generation of 1960s, blue-jeaned, tie-dye clad, long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking protesters.
This generation of people joining the U.S. military, you can talk to their parents, are going to defend their country. They're going precisely because of what happened on 9/11. They are making the decision on their own. They are not "being sent to die." They are willingly, and thank God for them, joining various branches of the armed service to go defend their country. It is a lost concept to many on the left who think it's up to the French and the U.N. to defend us. But this really galls me, because what it ultimately is, is a cut and a denigration at those joining. It's making them out to be victims. They are not victims. They are heroic people. They're heroic young people who are doing what they want to do of their own volition, choosing to go, knowing full well the likelihood they'll end up in a combat zone at some point in their service -- and yet they join, and throughout the course of this period since the Iraq war started, I have marveled at the stories they tell when they come back and call this program.
I have marveled at the stories I've heard reading newspapers from local communities about the people who join and why, and I don't hear where anybody's forcing them to because it's a volunteer army. I don't hear where George Bush is rounding people up under cover of darkness in various communities around the country and saying, "Here kid, I'm sending you to die." The whole premise of this interview, therefore, was false. Yet it was accepted and got argued, and it was just disappointing because there was no ground gained in this, and yet the premise was allowed to stand when the debate began, "Would you send your kid to Fallujah? Would you die for Fallujah?"
This is not about Fallujah! This is not about Basra. This is not about Iraq. It's not about one place. It's about the defense of the United States of America. It's about ensuring that another 9/11 doesn't happen. It's about taking whatever steps we can to see to it that there's as peaceful a life, day to day, in this country, as there is -- and there are people, young people, who are willing to risk their lives, signing up for the military, and the last thing we need is for some overweight, bloated bigot moviemaker to start denigrating them, and then have this premise accepted all over the media.
It's even worse when a major political party seeks to denigrate the armed forces and uniform-wearing men and women of this country, by accepting the same false premise and bracing an entire presidential campaign around it. It just offends me to no end. I've also exercised considerable restraint in talking about this stupid, foolish movie. One of the reasons for that is, Why talk about it and give it even more attention? You know, I'm not sitting here with chump change as an audience. You are the largest audience in talk radio in this country. When I talk about it, people who haven't heard about something, hear about it.
Well, in this case everybody's heard about this stupid movie. But I also know that when you start criticizing and ripping something, all you do is generate curiosity about it. Well, the curiosity factor is sated. Everybody who wants to see this movie, has. Everybody who's heard about it, has. So I'm safe to talk about it and not fear that I'm going to unwittingly promote this stupid thing. But the premise that any U.S. president in this day and age is "sending kids off to die" is insulting. It is banal. It is infantile. It is puerile. It is insane. It is lunatic. It is absolutely degenerate -- especially in this day and age. Now, people are free to say what they want to say, free to make a movie, do whatever they want to do, and anybody's free to glom on to it and sign on to it and say whatever they want. But when this kind of thing is taken up by an out-of-power, scared-to-eath, filled-with-fear-and-rage political party that used to once be great, and seeks to build its own identity around the lies and distortions and the efforts to ridicule and impugn fine people, then it's worthy of concern and discussion.
And I just felt like I had eaten a meal but never swallowed anything, after reading the transcript of this interview, because the whole thing took place under a false premise. I know you're saying, "Why don't you get Moore on?" It's not what I do. If I ran into him, it's not what I do -- and that's why it's difficult to comment about this, because I didn't interview him, and it's after the fact. So please don't interpret this as a criticism Mr. O'Reilly. It is not that. It's a criticism of Mr. Moore. It's a criticism of a premise that ends up being accepted, because there is a genuine desire to discredit this man by people who feel he's being grossly inaccurate and unfair to some really honorable people.
So I'm not being critical of Mr. O'Reilly here, and I don't want anybody to think this, but I think it is just a shame. It's just an absolute shame that this kind of whatever you call this -- docudrama, propaganda, whatever it is -- is being accepted and transmitted as some sort of factual, relevant bit of news that people need to shape their lives by or grow up or get up and learn to smell the roses and the coffee, because there's some so-called new profound truth in this movie when it's nothing but distortion and lies -- and this premise that Bush is sending kids off to die, when we have a volunteer force, we have great young people who bear no resemblance to the rabble-rousers of the 1960s, their age then, who are doing this for their genuine desire to defend the country.
I just react in a very negative way when their efforts are besmirched, and when efforts made to impugn their honor, integrity, sense of purpose, and to make them out to be victims, because we are not victims in this country unless we want to be made victims. I think what is happening is the whole Democratic Party is beginning to look itself as a victim. They are the ones that instituted victimology. They're the ones that started making groups and groups of people victims. "You're a victim of this. You're a victim of that. We're going to fix it for you." They now look at themselves as all being victims, and they have no ability, it seems, to understand what is relevant in the country today and what's important to a lot of people.
And instead they want to try to lie to people and use whatever class B actors and directors and people they can to further this charade; this picture of America that is untrue -- only for one reason: to advance their own power in their quest to reacquire it. So that's that. I had to make this brief departure from my policy and philosophy this one time. And there are many of these false premises out there, that are being advanced and discussed as "genuine fact" on the left. It's not the way to argue these things, is to accept the premise. If you're going to do this, don't allow the premise. Dispute it; argue that, rather than accept it -- and move on from there, because there's no gaining at all when you accept the false premise and then begin to argue it. Remember undeniable truths of life. "The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things." The purpose of armies is not to die. Therefore, our United States military is sent by no one "to die." The United States military is sent to kill and win -- and we love them.
END TRANSCRIPT
bttt
Last Wed we were in Colo Springs for the AF Academy graduation; featured speaker was George W Bush. A little long winded, but the speech was punctuated with a lot of applauses, which suggested that a lot of the military brass in attendance support him. However, what was more impressive to me was the fact that he personally saluted and congratulated every single cadet that crossed the stage, my son included.
There were nearly 1000 cadets and this process took 1 hour, 40 minutes. I watched him through my zoom, and he displayed the personal touch all the way through: every cadet was saluted; the men were then given a hand shake and often a pat on the shoulder with his left hand or some other personal words; the women were all given a hug and some of the women cadets also gave him a kiss on the check. Occasionally a cadet would ask for a "wave to my parents" and then the cadet and the president would turn to the crowd and wave in the correct direction. He showed as much enthusiasm to the middle and last cadets as to the first ones -- in fact, he looked like he was enjoying himself!
At the Academy graduation, the "top 10%" are noted as Distinguished Graduates (known as "DG's" -- the Academy doesn't have summa, magna cum laude, etc.) and they graduate first. The rest of the graduates walk across by squadron (36 squadrons). 5 years ago when Clinton was there, he only personally congratulated the DG's (takes about 10 minutes) and then he sat down.
Bush was offered the same option, but refused - said he wanted to recognize every single graduate.
This is the stuff about what the man does that never makes the news....
Rush should complete class while rising in defense of our men and women in service.
O'Reilly owes them an apology.
Rush really hit this one right out of the ballpark. Well done.
He does read FR. I daw it on the DittoCam one day. He had FR up briefly diring a commercial.
ping
should=showed
LOL! What a difference a word makes! I thought you were knocking Old El Rushbo. "He needs to go back to school!"
Thanks skyman. I'm sure wives and husbands and parents didn't send their loved ones to work on 911 to die either. Same goes for all of our citizens who have died at the hands of terrorists around the world. This article says it all. At least W is actively trying to keep this from happening again......more than I can say for,ahem, the previous administration and I'm sure that every precious soldier that dies for this cause affects him deeply.
I emailed O'Reilly this very thing before Rush ever said it. I think Rush said it because it was so OBVIOUS. O'Reilly screwed up bigtime.
TALKING POINTS SAYS O'REILLY CAN'T INTERVIEW WITHOUT SCRIPTED NOTES.
As always Rush hits a grand slam when it is most needed. Way to go Rush.
The classic reply to this question comes from a paraphrase of Gen. Patton:
I, Pres. Bush, Bill O. doesn't send my sons , your sons or anybody's sons into battle in Iraq, or anywhere to die or sacrifice their lives for their country or any other cause no matter how just. We send them into battle to make the enemy sacrifice THEIR lives and the lives of THEIR sons for their principles. Our military trains and fights to kill and destroy the enemy; NOT to die and sacrifice their lives.
I'd love to see that blowhard Moore go head-to-head with Rush. I don't think Rush would be caught off guard like O'Reilly was during that interview.
Moore's allegation is that President Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq. His proof of this is that before the invasion President Bush claimed that Iraq had WMD's but since then we have not found any therefore Bush lied. Pretty silly argument and I think O'reilly could have argued much more effectively against this sort nonsense:
1) One of Moore's main claims in F911 is that the Saudis control Bush - that Bush wakes up in the morning thinking of how he can serve his Saudis masters. If this is the case then one must wonder why on Earth Bush would make up lies about WMD's in Iraq in order to justify the invasion since the Saudis strongly opposed said invasion.
2) The UN, CIA and most other major intelligence agencies all agreed that Iraq possesed WMDs.
3) Recent reports, both stateside and from Europe, indicate that President Bush's statement about Iraq attempts to purchase yellowcake were indeed well founded.
4) Senate investigation report into Iraq intelligence concluded that there even though the intelligence was flawed there was no effort to distort that information. Similar conclusion were made concerning British intelligence.
5) Isaac Newton discovered and presented his theory of gravity/force/motion to the world. Of course Albert Einstien found that Newton overlooked a very important aspect of the theory. Yes, what Newton stated was untrue, but it was the best that he knew at that time. Can we conclude therefore that Isaac Newton was a liar?
I'd love to see that blowhard Moore go head-to-head with Ann Coulter. She'd rip him a new one!
As for O'Reilly, he's so busy trying to prove to everyone that he's not a conservative, he only hits softballs to libs these days. I've just about quit watching him.
O'Reilly really blew the MM interview.
Fantastic. God Bless you Rush Limbaugh!
ping
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.