Letterman to O’Reilly: 60% of what you say is crap

This was great! I watched it last night and after all of O’Reilly’s “red and green war,” I was glad that Letterman finally got him to change the subject. Loved his comments about Cindy Sheehan too. By tomorrow’s No Spin Zone, Letterman will be villified and will be accused of personal attacks and uninvited to ever appear! I actually watch O’Reilly out of self-defense, just to see how the dark side thinks, so I was aware of how much he blathered on about were just BS and was glad that Letterman made him answer some real questions. O’Reilly is easier to shut up when it’s not his microphone.

Letterman stirs O’Reilley’s water with his filthy pencil before O Reilley is introduced, and then laughs when he unknowingly drinks the dirty water.

Letterman is a dirtbag, no question about that.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2006/01/04/oreillyletterman/#comments

Letterman hurt his credibility when he admitted to not watching O’Reilly’s show, but the damage done wasn’t very extremem. Letterman doesn’t need a lot of credibility, he is a comedian. O’Reilly has no credibility and is in a position where it should be a requirement as a talking head on a “news” network. What O’Reilly demonstrated last night is that he is in no way a journalist and makes a living being nothing more than an opportunistic attention whore.

That was the most refreshing bit of TV I’ve seen in a long time. Bill O’Reilly is a blowhard, and thanks Dave for saying it publicly.

*watched

Two of O’Reilly’s “war on Christmas” examples have been shown to be major spin, if not outright lies. The song was part of a play that was published years ago. It was not changed to placate Bill’s Christmas enemies, it fit the story of a fictional Christmas tree. The prohibition on wearing “Christmas colors” is also bogus and was debunked when O’Reilly first said it.
Letterman should watch O’Reilly’s show like I do, to find out who advertises and then boycott the companies supporting a blowhard.

Well Bryan, my personal opinion hardly matters, especially considering that I am not a “big-L” Libertarian, but when it comes to issues of war and peace, if you don’t agree with the basic libertarian principals then you aren’t a libertarian. Agreeing with such an offensive and some would argue, imperialistic, war as the war in Iraq is anti-libertarian.

As for whether Lettermen is closer to libertarian ideals than O’Reilly…who cares? Lettermen is not a pundit who lies and runs his mouth constantly defending government like O’Reilly.

No matter his politics, Letterman hates phony gas-bags, be they actors, celebrities or pompous blowhards like O’Reilly. Anyone who’s ever watched him eviscerate actors who think too much of themselves could see this one coming a mile away.

And it was beautiful.

I’m miffed that someone can claim O’Reilly was brought down a couple of pegs from watching the same clip I did. Letterman presented no facts whatsoever to back up his assertions in what was an ambush (though I’m sure O’Reilly wasn’t too surprised). I don’t always agree with O’Reilly but at least he has substance to his arguments. Letterman pandered and got the obligatory cheap applause from a biased audience. Schooled? How about Letterman coming across as a total dope and lackey of the loony left. What an absolute farce. I’d like to see a Democrat put on the spot like that and keep his poise.

By the way, Coulter would not only refute and quash an annoyance like Letterman with facts and reason but she would deride him and bring the laughs that he lacks.

I am a conservative and consider both O’Reilly and Hannity to be blowhards (disagree on Rush, he’s not a bully to those who disagree with him).

As for last night’s exchange, two things:

1) If you are looking to David Letterman for analysis of political and international issues, you are looking in the wrong place. He’s a comedian who sometimes injects some social commentary. He is entitled to his opinion and point of view, but you should be wary in citing him as a source in support of your beliefs.

2) Why must those on the left believe there were (and are) sinister motives regarding Iraq? They believe Bush is an idiot, yet credit him with political intrigue of Machiavellian proportions. Contrary to their greatest of hopes, Bush did not lie to get us into Iraq. Bad intel all the way around. Would Iraq been my first choice? No. iran and North Korea have proved to be the more troublesome members of the “Axis of Evil.”

Perspective…some here could use some.

Letterman came off like an angry, uninformed twit. O’Reilly, who I do not like, handled Letterman’s ambush with grace and class. Letterman should stick to writing skits for Pea Boy.

http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/

Based on the information available, I can see why the US took the action that it did (despite the Monday morning 20/20 hindsight regarding the intel). However, I believed at the time that North Korea and the Iran posed the bigger threats. NK has a non-existent economy, a starving population, an insane leader, and a need for hard currency…ripe for selling their WMD technology. Iran was and is an overt supporter of international terrorism and similarly would be more inclined to sel WMD technology to unfriendly people. Iraq was the least of the three in my mind.

My own opinion.

BTW, as for those who believe that Bush was spoiling for a fight with Iraq and could not wait to get in there after 9/11 (the Michael Moore theory), bear in mind that Bush had sufficient justifcation to attack Iraq prior to 9/11 based upon the repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire (specifically, the “illuminating” of US and UK planes and incursions into the “no fly” zones) prior to 9/11.

Warmongers, get a clue…

“Even if the United States spent the trillions of dollars needed to depose — directly or indirectly — the remaining tyrants in the world (and there are a lot of them left), the voracious security bureaucracies would think up new threats to justify an interventionist foreign policy and to maintain defense spending at levels exceeding Cold War averages. Deposing the world’s tyrants is only the first of many difficult steps to utopia. As the United States keeps rediscovering in the developing world — for example, in Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Iraq — even after the despots’ rule has been removed, rebuilding societies that have little experience with freedom into republics has not been very successful. The accomplishments in Japan and Germany were achieved by industrial societies with much human capital, a strong sense of national identity, and (in the case of Germany) some experience with representative government.” – Ivan Eland

Letterman was of course on target for criticizing Fox when in claims to be “fair-and-balanced” — it is obviously a sustained political commercial for the Republican party, and the fact that it claims to be “balanced” is an immediate signal that they are willing to be dishonest and distort language. It’s so biased and one-sided it’s almost as if it were owned by Rupert Murdoch and managed by Roger Ailes…. The argument about why Bush invaded Iraq has to be shaped by the overwhelming evidence that the Cheney/Wolfowitz crowd (and W) wanted to do it MONTHS BEFORE 9/11…. they simply leveraged 9/11 to justify their preconceived goal… why would they want to? For my money, the neoconservatives, certainly Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, were pursuing the objectives and interests of Likud-defined Zionist revisionism…. History will tell us how costly this hijacking of American national security policy will be…. O’Reilly et al are just shils and we all know it…

“I think Bush is a dim-witted sociopathic puppet. I credit the political intrigue to Rove and the PNAC.”

Well then, I guess it must really sting when he continues to succeed despite the best efforts of his opponents.

Believe what you will, but they don’t just give away MBAs from Harvard (remember, Daddy and “Dubya” were Yale men, so the Crimson owed them nothing). Bush haters continue to believe the man is dumb and as long as they do so, he will continue to prevail.

Ivan Eland is some kind of genuius! So, the 9/11 hijackers carried out their attacks (planned years before), because the US was going to go into Iraq?

Contrary to popular belief, the US’ role in the Middle East has been far from “interventionist” in the last 20 years. Other than supporting Israel, the 1991 Gulf War (precipitated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait), and Clinton’s repeated pole-puffing of Araft, the US has been pretty much out of the picture.

But, if that helps you sleep better at night, go for it.

O’Reilly has become full of himself over the years. Having said that, he gets credit (wheather ot not you call it news) for some things like exposing the cancer of the judiciary in this Country. As far as Letterman goes, juxtaposing these two is pointless. I’d say more but I didn’t see it.

“Bush may have had the same justification for invading Iraq before 9/11, but what he lacked was the political capital that the WTC attacks provided. They (the Neocon cabal) wanted to do it before they even got into the White House. Bin Laden just provided the opportunity.”

While not accepting your hyperbole, I will grant that 9/11 did create a climate in the public (and in the halls of Congress [remember, many Dems voted for the war as well]) that would be supportive of proactive military action. I, for one, do not disagree with the concept and support the idea that if you can kill the threat in the crib, you are derelict in your duty if you fail to do so.

I guess that makes me a neo-con warmonger around these parts.

Vinzago, Clinton was impeached not for a “little white lie” but for 1) Grand Jury Perjury, and 2) Obstruction of Justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him.

Is this another Clinton “white lie”?

“In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Since 100% of what Letterman says is known to be crap, he’s hardly in a position to criticize an actual journalist.

Bill O’Reilly is a blubbering idiot…just another mouthpiece for the neo-cons. Do you really think that this clown has your best interests at heart?

If I had to take a trust exercise, I’d say the safe money would be on Letterman.

Go Dave.

Tigerfan:

“they don’t just give away MBAs from Harvard (remember, Daddy and “Dubya” were Yale men, so the Crimson owed them nothing).”

You have absolutely no idea how the old boy network works. The Bushes know hundreds of people who could tip their dimwit son into Harvard. And, more importantly, Harvard knows them.

And, yes, the only hard part about business school — even Harvard Business School — is getting in.

Tigerfan wrote:

“remember, many Dems voted for the war as well”

Indeed, here are all the US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq (including John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Max Cleland, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, etc):

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

The House also overwhelmingly supported the authorization of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

Perhaps Letterman didn’t get the memo…

It’s about time someone in the mainstream took one of these blowhards to task. Fox “News” provides 24 hours of uninterupted, unsubstantiated, neocon views and presents it as journalism. O’Reilly is a punk who won’t even tell the truth when you ask him what town he grew up in. He’s the new Morton Downey Jr. I think 60% was giving him more credit than he deserves.

Theo wrote:

“The Bushes know hundreds of people who could tip their dimwit son into Harvard.”

Actually, George W Bush had higher grades in college than John Kerry:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

I would really love it if those of you using the terms “neo-con” or “neo-conservative” could provide me with a defintion. You throw it into your posts with regularity (and, in some cases, a startling lack of context).

Thank you in advance.

o’reily implies that the intelligence agencies of several agencies all agreed that saddam had wmd, then how in the hell did such a huge number of leftie publications know otherwise? How come I and a number of regular joes here knew better than these intelligence agencies. It is straight bullshit, just like 63% of what b.o says. When Letterman says 60% it is a JOKE, with an element of truth in it. (that makes for a funny joke)

“I shouldn’t be that suprised though as the last election proved that at least 51% of the country is retarded.”

Operating on the assumption that you equate a vote for Bush as being retarded, I would respectfully disagree.

This business about comparing Bush and Kerry’s grades is juvenile. Bush eeked out slightly ahead of Kerry, but let’s face it, neither were stellar students. The media would have one believe that there are only two choices on the ballot and this is what they give us? Two guys who either didn’t care enough or were too dumb to do well. Have fun splitting hairs. I gotta go check out this Letterman/O’Reilly thing now.

O’Reilly’s a bum. Read his review of his 2001 Letterman appearance:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21855

“The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

That’s because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down…

I told David Letterman, we need to start holding our leaders accountable for what they do. The audience applauded. I’ve never heard a sweeter sound.”

The last thing O’Reilly wants to do now in 2006 is hold our leaders accountable!

I have seen a number of reports on FoxNews which were less than favorable to the Bush Administration. The number of those reports far outstrips the number of “favorable” stories reported by “mainstream” media sources.

Tigerfan:

I’m not sure what “hyperbole” you were talking about. I admit, that is a good online chatroom word, though. “Neocon” does have a definition. They are those people primarily in the Republican party who follow the policies of Democrat Scoop Jackson who advocated a proactive foreign policy in the 50′s and 60′s to aggressively promote Democracy and Capitalism overseas. It was considered progressive in the Cold War atmosphere of at the time, but led to a few minor disasters- Korea and Vietnam, for example.

Letterman is a fool. Always has been and always will be. As always he’s full of feel-good prognostications and not an ounce of understanding how the world works in real-time. Instead it is the mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep Liberal 20-20 hindsight analysis that all starts with “Bush=Bad” and ends with Bush=Impeachment.

“Operating on the assumption that you equate a vote for Bush as being retarded, I would respectfully disagree.”

Okay, I apologize:

I should have said “lacking the mental capacity to understand the world around them”.

At least 20% of that 51% no longer supports Bush (see approval ratings) and anybody defending his actions in office at this time is clearly blinded by political beliefs…or retarded.

++++++++++++++++++++++

My BA, MA and Juris Doctorate say otherwise.

I am fully congnizant of the world around me and while I do not agree with everything this Administration does, it does have my support generally.

The inclination among liberals/progressives (or whatever the word of the day is) to attack the intellect of conservatives or those that support the Bush Administration is the surest sign of a weak argument. if you wish to substantively challenge the precepts of a particular political POV, have at it.

In response to #58, are you really that stupid to buy into the “liberal media” myth?

The media is not concerned about red or blue. They are concerned about green, and I ain’t talking about the political party either.

Indeed, according to the “progressive” playbook, all facts which refute baseless accusations are “juvenile.”

Morris do you realize how delusional you sound when you call Michelle, who is a Libertarian, a “progressive”?

Do yourself a favor and bow out while you still can.

IRT: Disenfranchised…

“Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of “new conservatives” in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the “small government” principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.”

Thank you.

granted, Letterman didn’t sound like he knew any more than O’Reilley, they both seemed to be about the same level. Letterman is indeed a good judge of character and has great instincts about celebrities who are full of shit. the man probably knows 10 times more people than billy o. plus he doesn’t seem to have an agenda like O’Reilley obviously does. I’d like to see O’Reilley debate someone like Chomsky who really knows what they are talking about

michelle shinghal wrote:

“This is a Libertarian site and as a Libertarian, I know that there is no difference in the Republican and Democrat parties.”

Does “Libertarian” mean “willfully blind”?

I think your claim would stand up somewhat better a decade ago, but today if you cannot tell the difference between the mindset of George Bush and John Kerry, you need serious help.

I love the way that O’Reilly makes the libtards heads spin.

The libbys cannot win anything :D

Morris:

I’m not interested in getting into a love/hate conversation about Clinton, here. I was just trying to illustrate the difference- in a real world way- between spinning and lying. Yes, it was Grand Jury perjury. But it was about a blowjob! Not war, corruption, treason, or murder. Oral sex! Kind of falls under the category of little white lie in my book.

Just checked out your “site” Morris.

I actually have two quotes you that can, and should, add to that list…

Colin Powell – February 2001

“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

Condoleezza Rice – July 2001

“We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

You’re welcome.

I’ll never watch Letterman again. I’m not a partisan on either side, but that was a blindsided attack without giving any attention to reason. Letterman doesn’t have the first clue about what’s what in the world and he barks like he’s the Lord’s authority.

If 60% of what O’Reilly says is crap, name 100 more. The voter registration was a mistake.

For kooky liberals who only know right and wrong in shades of gray, it’s amazing how often you call mistakes flat out lies.

If you take literally the coment I threw out about 51% of the country actually being retarded…well…thats funny. Im sure with all your degrees you are very smart.

The republicans I have run into that voted for him in the last election were either very ignorant about world issues or crazily religious. I mean our President had never left the continent prior to being elected in his first term!

I dont disagree with all Republican platforms but taking our country to war on a false premise and turning the entire world against America kinda did it for me. It took until last month for him to admit he made an intelligence mistake.

Very depressing.

>>The prohibition on wearing “Christmas colors” is also bogus and was debunked when O’Reilly first said it.
Comment by Everbody

That was a different story, jackass, and he corrected it on air. I’m sure you know since you said you watch the show.

Tigerfan,

The US had been heavily involved in the Middle East in the last 20 years

The US sent marines to Beruit in the 80′s until the Mossad oops Hezbollah bombed the compound. They then fired at Beruit with ship born missiles which at that time was the largest conventional bombardment in the world since WWII

They blatenly sided with Iraq in the Iran Iraq war by sending a fleet to the Persian Gulf that mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, they also destroyed many Iranian oil facilities.

This was all before the Gulf War of 1991

“If you take literally the coment I threw out about 51% of the country actually being retarded…well…thats funny.”

I did not. I was merely pointing out that such generalities detract from the effectiveness of your argument.

“The republicans I have run into that voted for him in the last election were either very ignorant about world issues or crazily religious.”

I am neither.

“I mean our President had never left the continent prior to being elected in his first term!”

Acquaint yourself with US History. There are plenty of Presidents who share this distinction.

“I dont disagree with all Republican platforms but taking our country to war on a false premise and turning the entire world against America kinda did it for me. It took until last month for him to admit he made an intelligence mistake.”

I disagree with the contention it was a “false” pretense. Mistaken (with plenty of substantiation), certainly. What would the press have said if he said this in 10/2004?

The saddest thing about this whole thread is that all of you idiots on both sides politically are doing exactly what both parties want you to; getting distracted in the infighting an ignoring the bigger picture.

Do you really think things would be different if Kerry won? You really think your “choice” of which Skull & Bonesman runs the country makes a damn bit of difference? Shit.

If you all weren’t so stupid and ideologically driven in your wrong conclusions, you might just see that the only dog Bill O’Reilly has in this fight is us, the people.

Tigerfan –
to say that the US has not been interventionist in the middle east for 20 years is to display EXACTLY why there is such a problem with the average american not understanding why people are so mad at us – some people actually believe this is true!
US foreign policy directly and indirectly affects the middle east. we’ve funded both sides of the iran/iraq war, supported the building/destruction of regimes in iran and iraq, went through iran/contra, supported the palestinians diplomatically while holding a big stick next to the isrealis at bargaining tables….all withing the last 20-30 years.
it’s just not possible to say that we haven’t been messing with the whole area regularly and continuously.

1986-2006

US activities in Lebanon occurred in the early 1980s (the bombing of the barracks occurred in 1983).

US support of Iraq in the war was not unique. Most western countries supported Hussein (and, as has been discovered, continued to do so after 1991 [Oil for food]). I don’t recall too many attacks on these countries from the late 80s until prior to 9/11. Certainly nothing on the scale of the 1st WTC attack in 1993, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombings and the Cole…all of which happened BEFORE the 2003 Iraq War.

“US foreign policy directly and indirectly affects the middle east.”

Considering the US is the lone superpower as of 1991 (China may disagree), this statement is applicable to any part of the world.

“we’ve funded both sides of the iran/iraq war, supported the building/destruction of regimes in iran and iraq,”

This was discussed in a previous post. The US is not alone in this.

“iran/contra”

Pre-dated the Iran/Iraq war. Hard to believe this was “interventionist” considering the concept (arms for hostages…taken in the early 80s

“supported the palestinians diplomatically while holding a big stick next to the isrealis at bargaining tables….all withing the last 20-30 years.”

Discussed previously.

it’s just not possible to say that we haven’t been messing with the whole area regularly and continuously.”

Diplomacy does not equal intervention.

The only thing that amazes me about this thread is that there are people defending the Democtrats OR the Republicans. A true libertarian would understand that both are flip sides of the same coin.

As for the war, I, as a Libertarian, would like to point out that America’s actions are in direct violation of one of the very tenants that I hold to be true: Spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq does absolutely nothing to rebuild the U.S. Iraq was NOT any more of a threat to the U.S. than other nations like Iran or North Korea and any actions taken against Iraq should not have come at the expense of U.S. tax dollars.

Bush should have used the soldiers to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, find and kill Osama bin Laden and then come home. Period.

If you want to be a “conservative” or a “liberal” I shall not stop you. But I would like to point out that John Kerry cares as much about you individually as does George Bush, which is to say not at all.

“Tiger fan, have you left the country recently to see how people in the world view us recently or have you been studing to get more BA, MA’s? Wake up and smell the ignorance that is the confederate flag waving, jesus freaking, hay bailing middle “Red State” America!!!!!!!!”

I am fully aware of how “the world” views the US. Since WWII, when the United States has seen fit to exercise power in the pursuit of, or defense of, its national interests, “the world” (mainly Europe) has had nothing but disdain for this country. The only time in the last half century that the US was “accepted” by the world community was when Carter and Clinton were in office and pursued policies that made it readily apparent that the US would subvert its own interests in favor of the desires of the “international community”.

Let’s be honest…what national interest of the US was (and is) served by our presence in Bosnia? Yet to prosecute a war deposing another genocidal leader makes us a pariah? Please..

Say it with me now”

Tigerfan is a repub plant!

Tigerfan is a repub plant!

Show your face Sean Hannity! I know your under there!

Not a plant. In fact, I left the republican party in January 2005 (although, that has not stopped them from continuing to beg me fore money).

damnit!

*think=this

“But please continue to put to good use that hard earned BA, MBA and J.D.! You know, spending time blathering on an internet post board. I surmise you must be working on your Phd in anonymous internet postboard tripe.”

your concern for my time management is flattering; however, if you must know, I am at home “under the weather” today.

“I am fully aware of how “the world” views the US. Since WWII, when the United States has seen fit to exercise power in the pursuit of, or defense of, its national interests, “the world” (mainly Europe) has had nothing but disdain for this country. The only time in the last half century that the US was “accepted” by the world community was when Carter and Clinton were in office and pursued policies that made it readily apparent that the US would subvert its own interests in favor of the desires of the “international community”.

Oh please, we have done exponentially more to damage our International reputation in the last 5 years than in the last 40 years combined.

“Oh please, we have done exponentially more to damage our International reputation in the last 5 years than in the last 40 years combined.”

Did you even read the post? Who was President over 5 years ago?

I do not know how old you are, but you need to look back at the opinion “the world” had of the US during the Reagan years. All was well with “the worlds” view of the US until Reagan “bowed up” to the USSR in the 1980s. The vitriol that was aimed at this country (and its leader) was equal to, if not worse, than what is happening today.

Oh, yeah. People really hated and feared “Ronny Raygun”. He gets a ton of good press now, but in the 80′s a lot of people (myself included) thought he was going to push us into WWIII. I think Gorbachev should get more credit for ending the Cold War, by the way.

UN resolution 688, in the wake of the first Gulf War, reads as follows:

>

Nothing in there indicating a “no-fly zone”.

Ugg…I am trying to quote UN resolution 688. Let me try it once more:

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area

Tigerfan,

Hindsight is 20/20 and also viewed often through rose-tinted lenses. Just because we didn’t actually get into a shooting war with the Soviet Union doesn’t mean that Reagan wasn’t pushing us in that direction. His administration launched illegal wars, attempted to militarize space, sent the US into unprecedented debt, and promoted fiscal policies that widened the gap between the rich and poor. Sounds bloody familiar. Reagan, the former McCarthy stoolie, took the opportunities given him by Gorbachev, the real man of peace, who orchestrated to dissolution of the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. I belive that he will go down in history as one of the Great Men of the 20th Century. But Reagan was funnier.

“Reagan, the former McCarthy stoolie, took the opportunities given him by Gorbachev, the real man of peace, who orchestrated to dissolution of the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. I belive that he will go down in history as one of the Great Men of the 20th Century. But Reagan was funnier.”

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Reagan’s role. And you obviously never heard gorbachev tell the story of the three soldiers and the farmer’s daughter in Minsk.

I use my parental controls to block FOX – so that I don’t accidentally even come across Mr. O’Reilly or any of those morons at Fox. They manufactured a “war on Christmas” to sell a book! Even with all the hype the sales for their book is dismal. Have you read any excerpts? Fox declares that only Christmas is a legal holiday and that if you are not Christian you are going to hell. Hell’s going to be quite packed with all my Buddhist, Jewish and Muslim friends. Kind of funny, don’t you think, that Christ was born and lived in the mid-east yet EVERYONE over there is Muslim or Jewish???

Walter:

May I suggest picking up the Oh Really? Factor if you want evidence that about 60% of what Bill O’Reilly says is crap.

“Sure, technically you would be correct, but realistically, you’re just talking out of your ass.”

Excellent!

Take a look at the US versus the USSR in 1979/80. The US had 52 hostages in Iran and was, by all appearances, a paper tiger (hard on the heels of Vietnam). The USSR was, to hear the handwringers of the time describe it, a leviathan that the US could not hope to defeat. They had just swept into Afghanistan and outnumbered our missles by more than 3-1. Reagan came in and changed the mindset. Juiced up defense spending, destablizing the fragile Soviet economy as they tried to keep up.

Did he do it alone? No. The groundwork had been laid by other adherents to the “containment” policy (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon). Plus, Gorbachev did play a significant role. However, Reagan’s policies “sealed the deal” in bringing about the defeat of the USSR.

Gentlemen (and ladies), it has been a pleasure. With a few exceptions, this has been a refreshing discussion. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to drop by again.

Have a nice day.

Degraw,

Letterman doesn’t pretend to be a news analyst. He’s a comedian. He doesn’t have to put together a point by point rebuttal of everything BO has said to prove he’s “60%” full of crap. All he has to do is call a spade a spade and bust out BO for the a-hole he really is.

Juiced up defense spending, destablizing the fragile Soviet economy as they tried to keep up.

Actually, the argument can be made that Reagan’s juicing up of defense spending actually prolonged the war since it did little to destablize the Soviet economy, as they didn’t react that much to it, and in fact, the increased defense spending by Reagan gave the KGB ammo to challenge Gorby as to the threat America posed.

Walter:

Read post #139, it sums up my feelings about your complaints.

“STOP SUCKING REPUBLICAN DICK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, THEY COULD GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOU CUM-GUZZLING ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK NEOCONS (ixnay your vote of course).”

Typical Left attitude, if you can’t win, or don’t like what someone is saying spat worthless hate toward them, and all the left will applaud.
_________________________________________________________

THIS ISN’T ABOUT LEFT/RIGHT YOU NUMBNUT, I’m a libertarian. “You mean to tell me there’s more than 2 parties in this country and that Republicans have more enemies than just Democrats?” Yes Daniel Son, that is what I’m saying.

It’s about partisan hackery by both Republicans AND Democrats, with an eager willingness to concede power over to far-away beauracrats so long as their party label wins. “Yayyyy, we won”. You won shit. Stick to sports if you like the horse race, politics isn’t a game. It shouldn’t be about which party can rule over my life the best, sorry.