Bill's Talking Point

[kimster]

Friday, July 28, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

A new CBS News/New York Times poll asks should the USA take the lead in solving international crises? Fifty-nine percent said no. The U.N. and other countries should do it. Thirty-one percent believe the USA should be the primary player.

But there's one big problem: The U.N. is not capable of controlling Hezbollah or any other terror group. As for other countries helping out? Good luck.

The latest dispatch from the Al Qaeda killers urges all Islamic fascists to travel to the Middle East and kill Jews. Bin Laden's second in command, Zawahiri, issued that order on videotape yesterday.

"Talking Points" has been telling you all along that these jihadists are joined together by hatred of Jews and Americans. The World War III concept is that Islamic fascism has to be confronted in all its forms.

But many Americans do not yet get that, as the CBS poll demonstrated. If anybody thinks we can sit out the jihad, they're wrong. Right now, Israel is doing us a favor by attacking Hezbollah. We Americans are fortunate we have an ocean between us and the Islamic killers. If we didn't, we'd be facing this in the good old USA.

So bottom line, whoever is fighting the terrorists is our friend. Whoever is helping them is our enemy.

www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html


www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=915#1

[kimster]

Worldwide demonstrations against Israel after about 60 people, including many women and children, were killed by Israeli bombs in southern Lebanon. Of course, these protestors, many of them pro-Hezbollah, also targeted the USA for condemnation.

No question, the Israeli bombing was a mistake and will hurt Israel in the court of public opinion, but mistakes are made in all wars. Abu Ghraib was a huge mistake by the American military in Iraq and the USA has suffered because of it.

However, isn't it interesting that the Islamic fascists never make a mistake?

We rarely see worldwide demonstrations condemning their consistently barbaric behavior. In violation of a U.N. mandate, Hezbollah has fired thousands of missiles targeting civilians into Israeli cities. Have you seen many demonstrations against that?

How about after 9/11? Did you see mass demonstrations condemning Al Qaeda? Did you see protests when those savages beheaded civilians on videotape?

The answer is no. The terrorists can do pretty much anything without the world condemning them. Want more?

Iran is defying the United Nations on nuclear weapons. Any demonstrations? Muslims are slaughtering each other inside Iraq. Any protests?

"Talking Points" could list examples all day long. The truth is that hatred, not compassion for civilians, is driving these hypocritical demonstrations we saw over the weekend. This is not justifying the killing of innocents by Israel. My analysis is addressing a different problem: select outrage to advance the cause of Islamic fascism.

Back in America, the left-wing press counsels negotiation. OK, it's worth it. We're trying. But let's look at the negotiating record. President Clinton and Israel negotiated with Yasser Arafat until every cow in the world came home.

Arafat didn't want peace. Why? Because his terror activities made him millions of dollars. If you don't believe me, speak to his widow, currently living lavishly in Paris.

The U.N. has negotiated with Iran over nukes for years. No result. Iran doesn't want peace, it wants jihad.

North Korea doesn't want peace either. It signed a nuke agreement with the Clinton administration and promptly violated it.

Does Al Qaeda want peace? Even Howard Dean could figure that one out.

So what makes anyone believe Hezbollah would negotiate in good faith? The sad truth is that many in the Muslim world want to kill Jews and Americans.

"Talking Points" does want peace, but also wants to blunt the growing danger of Islamic fascism. Allowing Hezbollah to sit on Israel's southern border with thousands of missiles isn't a peaceful conclusion. It's capitulation, which is exactly what the jihad has won.

And that's "The Memo."
www.billoreilly.com/

[kimster]

The Internet has drastically changed the way news reaches the public, but our leaders have not figured that out yet. When something happens, word almost instantaneously reaches millions of people and the event is defined by bloggers, many of whom have an agenda.

So misinformation and false analysis is instantly out there and sometimes widely accepted by Americans getting their information from machines.

For example, Americans have turned against the war in Iraq because it is widely perceived as being a losing cause. But is it really? On the Middle East, most Americans have no idea why Hezbollah even exists or who's winning the conflict. And why are we paying almost a buck more for a gallon of gas this year than we did last year? What exactly made that happen?

Unless you watch cable news or read a good newspaper, and those are rare, you'll have a hard time figuring out this dangerous and complicated world. That's where an effective leader comes in. Not only do our elected officials have to make policy, they now have to clearly explain it themselves. And they must do it over and over and over, because we're a distracted bunch.

Long gone are the days when FDR could reach most of the nation on the radio with his fireside chats. Gone are the days when Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley could nightly define the world for the American public.
Now if a president wants the folks to support him, he must be a teacher, a persuader. He must sell his policies to a public that's often confused. In other words, our leaders must fight the machines.

That is a daunting task, but it is Leadership 101 in the Internet age.

And that's "The Memo.

[guentherdorfmann]

Hallo I am Günther form Germany and I am big fan of Bill too.

[kimster]

Over the weekend, I was up in northern Minnesota, the International Falls area — great place. And I talked with a lot of folks up there, many of whom are very concerned about Iraq.

And who can blame them? The chaos there is tragic. Now the USA has made big mistakes. The question is what should we do now? What's best for the country?

The Bush-haters want to leave and blame the president for the debacle. Many on the right want to tough it out, but that will only work if there's a realistic strategy for success. An impending civil war would negate any success in Iraq. Pray that doesn't happen.

What most people don't understand is that Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Israel are all tied together. Iran is the main player. That country's now threatening the world. It wants Israel destroyed and has enabled Hezbollah to amass thousands of rockets. It supports Shia terrorism in Iraq and is defying the world over nukes.

Iran is America's most dangerous enemy and is the force behind Islamic-fascism. If the USA and Britain pull out of Iraq, Iran will make that country a sphere of influence. It will dominate the chaotic government and control much of the world's oil flow.

Iran will also train and fund terrorists based inside Iraq -- like Saddam did -- in effect setting up another Taliban situation. A loss for the USA in Iraq would dramatically increase Iran's power to spread terrorism worldwide.

And if Iran manages to get nuclear weapons, all bets are off. Low-level dirty bombs could be produced and handed off to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. The danger to Israel, America and the rest of the world would be through the roof.

Thus, a confrontation between the USA, Britain, Israel versus Iran and its terror acolytes would make Iraq look like a weekend on Cape Cod.

The far left in America and the United Nations simply don't want to acknowledge the menace. They want to negotiate. They want to grant Iran and the terrorists concessions. If history is any judge, that is naive and dangerous and will lead to millions of people dying in the streets.

The Islamic-fascist jihad led by Iran is here and it is not going away.

And that's "The Memo."

[kimster]

The anti-Semitic stuff directed at Joe Lieberman is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

As you may know, some radical left Americans have been vilifying Lieberman for his support of the Iraq war. The usual suspects on the Net have smeared the man. And now Lieberman's campaign is accusing radical bloggers of hacking into their Web site and damaging it.

But far worse are the anti-Semitic rants. This was posted on the far left Daily Kos Web site: "As everybody knows, Jews ONLY care about the welfare of other Jews. We might better ignore all that Jewish propaganda about participating in the civil rights movement."

And this was allowed on the Huffington blog: "Leiberman [sic] cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover."

Nice. But the media has generally ignored the far-left hatred directed towards the senator and his family. I wonder how Mel Gibson feels about that.

Writing today in The Wall Street Journal, former counsel to President Clinton, Lanny Davis says: "I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. Now in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong."

Well, Lanny Davis has learned what Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen learned, what Hillary Clinton has experienced, and what those of us who see things clearly have known for years. The far left in America is dominated by haters, people who despise their own country and want to injure those with whom they disagree.

The smear merchants are now all over the mainstream media and have spread like lice on the Net. They are truly misguided and in some cases emotionally disturbed human beings.

So how do you combat them? Exposition is the best way. My upcoming book "Culture Warrior" does that. It documents who these people are and what they're doing behind the scenes.

Secondly, condemn their behavior as Lanny Davis did today. This isn't satire or a free speech exercise. This is speech meant to injure, to defame, to demean.

As I wrote in my newspaper column a few months ago, Joseph Lieberman is a good man. He's honest, loves his country and obeys his conscience. You may disagree with his politics, but he's a man of respect.

You can't say that for those who have smeared and slurred him. There's no place for their tactics in a country as great as America. And that's "The Memo."

[pumba]

good points thx for posting
can we start a discussion?

[kimster]

The arrests of the terrorists in England yesterday has once again brought home the danger we all face from fanatical Muslim killers. Now an intense debate over your security has broken out between the left and the right in the USA.

The left wing New York Times editorialized today: "We want to understand as much as possible about what the terrorists were planning. It would be a blessed moment in modern American history if we could do that without turning this into a political game plan."

It is understandable why The Times doesn't want to get into a partisan debate over the issue, because that newspaper and the left in general opposes most information gathering techniques used by the Bush administration. Things like spontaneous phone surveillance by the NSA of suspected overseas calls, and coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects.

Indeed, the right wing editorial page at The Wall Street Journal said this, "The [London terror] plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or The New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs."

That sarcastic reference is, of course, about The Times exposing an entirely legal financial terror monitoring program the Bush administration had in place. That controversial decision by The Times has badly damaged the paper in the court of public opinion. Because of things like that, the left is with a decision. Either change its policies on terror or go on the attack against the Bush administration. Guess what [DNC Chair] Howard Dean has decided to do?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD DEAN, DNC CHAIRMAN: The president, his team out there, Karl Rove and all those folks, they're trying to scare people again. They're trying -- you know, you hear what they said about [Conneticut Senate candidate] Ned Lamont's [primary] win? Oh, well, that's a good thing for Al Qaeda. That's what thingy Cheney said. I'll tell you what the best recruiting tool for Al Qaeda has been, and you know who that is. If you want a real change in this country, we have to stop trying to scare people in order to win elections.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Now there is no question that Iraq remains the weakest part of the Bush anti-terror strategy, leaving Americans with the same old question, which party will protect us best against the Islamic fascists?

And that's "The Memo."

[pumba]

Without telephone and internet control by the NSA no chance against the terrorists.
Btw thx very much for all the posts here mate!

[fred]

I am disagree with Bill and you because we have also civil rights and i don’t like this NSA thing.

[pumba]

fred ok but do you see any alternatives?

[fred]

do you hear that from the federal cord about the laws from bush and his friends? the judge disagrees in my opinion very good.
look the administration shall fight against the terror but in the civil rights not out of them.

[pumba]

fred yes i have heard good point thx!
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206879,00.html
great stuff

[pumba]

interesting stuff:
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216297,00.html

[thewicked]

I think the American government has no money of its own to lead or fight .. where the money for this going to come from? the way it works in the real world if you owe money you don't borrow any more until you get your old debt paid..