|
|
| November 23, 2009 |
| The O'Quiz: Test your current events knowledge! |
Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was down approximately half a point to 4.39 questions correct out of 10, compared to the previous week's average of 4.97 out of 10.
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 12:12 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 17, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Tuesday, November 17 |
PALIN ATTACKS
As Sarah Palin gets ready to roll out her new book, the far-left continues to viciously attack her. Now some are even comparing her to the beloved former first lady of Argentina, Eva Peron.
"I believe that Sarah Palin is a feminine version of Ronald Reagan."
Earl Miller
San Diego, CA
"The left's description of Palin as a populist shallow demagogue fits Obama better."
Nancy Breshears
Carrollton, TX
"It appears that Naomi Wolf's expensive private school didn't tell her that Eva Peron was a socialist. Sarah Palin is no socialist."
Tom Quigan
Oxnard, CA
"I don't hate Palin. I'm sure she'd make a fine neighbor. But I fear the country would end up in the hands of another George W. Bush with her."
Linda Schwartz
Rocklin, CA
"Palin is not a viable candidate for 2012. A strong resume will be required to defeat Barack Obama -- maybe someone like Mitt Romney."
Dennis Warner
Seattle, WA
"The media's attempt to degrade Sarah Palin is only making her stronger, in my opinion. When I look at Newsweek, I see a confident, intelligent and successful working mother who takes care of herself."
Ryan Tetting
Appleton, WI
"I like Mrs. Palin because she is not a Washington insider and represents the same values I believe in, so if she runs I will vote for her."
Charles Graves
Jackson, MS
TERROR ON TRIAL
The debate continues about whether the Obama administration is making a mistake by trying 9/11 terror suspects in civilian court in NYC.
"You got it wrong. Obama doesn't want to try the terrorists, he wants to try the Bush administration."
Rafael Gutierrez
Kimberly, ID
"People express the puzzlement about the motive of having terror trials in New York. It seems probably this is a device to diminish media attention on health care reform."
Jim Kennedy
Bellevue, WA
"The Obama administration thinks this three-ring circus will take the media attention off from all the mistakes its making."
Linda Allen
Brookfield, WI
"Obama wants the terror trials in NYC civilian court so there is less of a chance of the death penalty. He doesn't need to give terrorists more of a reason to attack us."
Mike Vize
Poughkeepsie, NY
"Eric Holder's argument that the guy is guilty is prejudicial. If they want to give KSM a fair trial, they're off to a rotten start."
Dennis & Elise Carr
Charlotte, NC
"Since KSM was picked up overseas and held overseas, I assume he never set foot on U.S. soil. Wasn't his crime, while committed in the U.S., planned in Afghanistan and Pakistan?"
Kim Brown
Kansas City, MO
"Declaring war on an unlawful and non-sovereign group like al Qaeda would be like declaring war on a flock of seagulls. It makes absolutely no sense."
Shane Parker
Maumelle, AR
"Eric Holder wants these trials in the U.S. in order to bring down the CIA."
Paul Cappello
Boca Raton, FL
SO LONG, LOU!
The Southern Poverty Law Center claims responsibility for getting Lou Dobbs fired from CNN for his controversial take on illegal immigration.
"Why didn't you ask Mr. Cohen why he hasn't formed a group to shut down those on MSNBC who spew lies and hatred every single day?"
David Peterson
Middletown, OH
"It seems to be a common tactic of far-left organizations like the SPLC to attempt winning debates by silencing the opposition."
Chris Fausett
East Hampton, NY
"The Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, not freedom from the consequences of our speech. Lou Dobbs is suffering the consequences of what he's said."
Luke Fox
Manhattan, KS
"Typical lefty mentality by Mr. Cohen -- Lou Dobbs can only be on CNN if he says what Mr. Cohen wants to hear."
Larry Veasman, Jr.
Ann Arbor, MI
PLEDGE PROTEST
An Alabama kid says he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance at school until gay couples are allowed to marry.
"The boy's parents should strive to educate him better. Parsing the Pledge is yet another step down a slippery slope."
Dan LaChance
Sierra Vista, AZ
"Before the little tyke interns at the ACLU, he should spend a year in Somalia, where he will most certainly learn the meaning of liberty and justice."
Barbara Thornberry
Middletown, NJ
"The kid refusing to say the Pledge doesn't understand it. Our country does indeed stand for liberty and justice for all."
Elaine Wolfe
Atascadero, CA
"I think the boy who refuses to say the Pledge was encouraged by his parents to be rebellious. He should show more respect for his country."
Angelika Swantek
Farmingdale, NY
"I have to admit, I think the 5th grade boy is right. We no longer strive for liberty and justice for all."
Janice Lasley
Grapevine, TX
"This is not some declaration for political purposes. It is a citizens pledge to support liberty and justice for all. You can't take from this country without giving anything back."
Richard Winn
Carbondale, CO
"Not only do many students refuse to pledge to the flag, but they delight in the disrupting those who do say the pledge. We are losing this generation."
Linda Grubb
Martingsburg, WV
"If the government can't compel a kid to say the Pledge of Allegiance, how can they think about compelling us to buy health insurance?"
Mort Melhouse
St. Petersburg, FL |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 1:23 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 17, 2009 |
| Stratfor.com: Deciphering the Mohammed Trial |
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in federal court in New York. Holder's decision was driven by the need for the U.S. government to decide how to dispose of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. Naval base outside the boundaries of the United States selected as the camp in which to hold suspected al Qaeda members.
We very carefully use the word "camp" rather than prison or prisoner of war camp. This is because of an ongoing and profound ambiguity not only in U.S. government perceptions of how to define those held there, but also due to uncertainties in international law, particularly with regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Were the U.S. facility at Guantanamo a prison, then its residents would be criminals. If it were a POW camp, then they would be enemy soldiers being held under the rules of war. It has never really been decided which these men are, and therefore their legal standing has remained unclear.
War vs. Criminal Justice
The ambiguity began shortly after 9/11, when then-U.S. President George W. Bush defined two missions: waging a war on terror, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice. Both made for good rhetoric. But they also were fundamentally contradictory. A war is not a judicial inquiry, and a criminal investigation is not part of war.
An analogy might be drawn from Pearl Harbor. Imagine that in addition to stating that the United States was at war with Japan, Franklin Roosevelt also called for bringing the individual Japanese pilots who struck Hawaii to justice under American law. This would make no sense. As an act of war, the Japanese action fell under the rules of war as provided for in international law, the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Japanese pilots could not be held individually responsible for the lawful order they received. In the same sense, trying to bring soldiers to trial in a civilian court in the United States would make no sense. Creating a mission in which individual Japanese airmen would be hunted down and tried under the rules of evidence not only would make no sense, it would be impossible. Building a case against them individually also would be impossible. Judges would rule on evidence, on whether an unprejudiced jury could be found, and so on. None of this happened, of course-World War II was a war, not a judicial inquiry.
It is important to consider how wars are conducted. Enemy soldiers are not shot or captured because of what they have done; they are shot and captured because of who they are-members of an enemy military force. War, once launched, is pre-emptive. Soldiers are killed or captured in the course of fighting enemy forces, or even before they have carried out hostile acts. Soldiers are not held responsible for their actions, but neither are they immune to attack just because they have not done anything. Guilt and innocence do not enter into the equation. Certainly, if war crimes are in question, charges may be brought; the UCMJ determines how they will be tried by U.S. forces. Soldiers are tried by courts-martial, not by civilian courts, because of their status as soldiers. Soldiers are tried by a jury of their peers, and their peers are held to be other soldiers.
International law is actually not particularly ambiguous about the status of the members of al Qaeda. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them because they have not adhered to a fundamental requirement of the Geneva Conventions, namely, identifying themselves as soldiers of an army. Doing so does not mean they must wear a uniform. The postwar Geneva Conventions make room for partisans, something older versions of the conventions did not. A partisan is not a uniformed fighter, but he must wear some form of insignia identifying himself as a soldier to enjoy the conventions' protections. As Article 4.1.6 puts it, prisoners of war include "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 does not mention, nor provide protection to, civilians attacking foreign countries without openly carrying arms.
The reasoning behind this is important. During the Franco-Prussian war, French franc-tireurs fired on Prussian soldiers. Un-uniformed and without insignia, they melded into the crowd. It was impossible for the Prussians to distinguish between civilians and soldiers, so they fired on both, and civilian casualties resulted. The framers of the Geneva Conventions held the franc-tireurs, not the Prussian soldiers, responsible for the casualties. Their failure to be in uniform forced the Prussians to defend themselves at the cost of civilian lives. The franc-tireurs were seen as using civilians as camouflage. This was regarded as outside the rules of war, and those who carried out such acts were seen as not protected by the conventions. They were not soldiers, and were not to be treated as such.
An Ambiguous Status
Extending protections to partisans following World War II was seen as a major concession. It was done with concerns that it not be extended so far that combatants of irregular forces could legally operate using their ability to blend in with surrounding civilians, and hence a requirement of wearing armbands. The status of purely covert operatives remained unchanged: They were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. Their status remained ambiguous.
During World War II, it was U.S. Army practice to hold perfunctory trials followed by executions. During the Battle of the Bulge, German commandos captured wearing U.S. uniforms-in violation of the Geneva Conventions-were summarily tried in field courts-martial and executed. The idea that such individuals were to be handed over to civilian courts was never considered. The actions of al Qaeda simply were not anticipated in the Geneva Conventions. And to the extent they were expected, they violated the conventions.
Holder's decision to transfer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to federal court makes it clear that Mohammed was not a soldier acting in time of war, but a criminal. While during times of war spies are tried as criminals, their status is precarious, particularly if they are members of an enemy army. Enemy soldiers out of uniform carrying out reconnaissance or espionage are subject to military, not civilian, justice, and frequently are executed. A spy captured in the course of collecting information is a civilian, particularly in peacetime, and normally is tried as a criminal with rules of evidence.
Which was Mohammed? Under the Geneva Conventions, his actions in organizing the Sept. 11 attacks, which were carried out without uniforms or other badges of a combatant, denies him status and protection as a POW. Logically, he is therefore a criminal, but if he is, consider the consequences.
Criminal law is focused on punishments meted out after the fact. They rarely have been preventive measures. In either case, they follow strict rules of evidence, require certain treatments of prisoners and so on. For example, prisoners have to be read the Miranda warning. Soldiers are not policeman. They are not trained or expected to protect the legal rights of captives save as POWs under the UCMJ, nor protect the chain of custody of evidence nor countless other things that are required in a civilian court. In criminal law, it is assumed that law enforcement has captured the prisoner and is well-versed in these rules. In this case, the capture was made without any consideration of these matters, nor would one expect such consideration.
Consider further the role of U.S. covert operations in these captures. The United States conducts covert operations in which operatives work out of uniform and are generally not members of the military. Operating outside the United States, they are not protected by U.S. law although they do operate under the laws and regulations promulgated by the U.S. government. Much of their operations run counter to international and national law. At the same time, their operations are accepted as best practices by the international system. Some operate under cover of diplomatic immunity but carry out operations incompatible with their status as diplomats. Others operate without official cover. Should those under unofficial cover be captured, their treatment falls under local law, if such exists. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to them, nor was it intended to.
Spies, saboteurs and terrorists fall outside the realm of international law. This class of actors falls under the category of national law, leaving open the question of their liability if they conduct acts inimical to a third country. Who has jurisdiction? The United States is claiming that Mohammed is to be tried under the criminal code of the United States for actions planned in Afghanistan but carried out by others in the United States. It is a defensible position, but where does this leave American intelligence planners working at CIA headquarters for actions carried out by others in a third country? Are they subject to prosecution in the third country? Those captured in the third country clearly are, but the claim here is that Mohammed is subject to prosecution under U.S. laws for actions carried out by others in the United States. And that creates an interesting reciprocal liability.
A Failure to Evolve
The fact is that international law has not evolved to deal with persons like Mohammed. Or more precisely, most legal discussion under international law is moving counter to the Geneva Conventions' intent, which was to treat the franc-tireurs as unworthy of legal protection because they were not soldiers and were violating the rules of war. International law wants to push Mohammed into a category where he doesn't fit, providing protections that are not apparent under the Geneva Conventions. The United States has shoved him into U.S. criminal law, where he doesn't fit either, unless the United States is prepared to accept reciprocal liability for CIA personnel based in the United States planning and supporting operations in third countries. The United States has never claimed, for example, that the KGB planners who operated agents in the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union were themselves subject to criminal prosecution.
A new variety of warfare has emerged in which treatment as a traditional POW doesn't apply and criminal law doesn't work. Criminal law creates liabilities the United States doesn't want to incur, and it is not geared to deal with a terrorist like Mohammed. U.S. criminal law assumes that capture is in the hands of law enforcement officials. Rights are prescribed and demanded, including having lawyers present and so forth. Such protections are practically and theoretically absurd in this case: Mohammed is not a soldier and he is not a suspected criminal presumed innocent until proven guilty. Law enforcement is not a practical counter to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A nation cannot move from the rules of counterterrorism to an American courtroom; they are incompatible modes of operation. Nor can a nation use the code of criminal procedures against a terrorist organization operating transnationally. Instead, they must be stopped before they commit their action, and issuing search warrants and allowing attorneys present at questioning is not an option.
Therefore-and now we move to the political reality-it is difficult to imagine how the evidence accumulated against Mohammed could enter a courtroom. Ignoring the methods of questioning, which is a separate issue, how can one prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without compromising sources and methods, and why should one? Mohammed was on a battlefield but not operating as a soldier. Imagine doing criminal forensics on a battlefield to prove the criminal liability of German commandos wearing American uniforms.
In our mind, there is a very real possibility that Mohammed could be found not guilty in a courtroom. The cases of O.J. Simpson and of Jewish Defense League head Rabbi Meir Kahane's killer, El Sayyid Nosair-both found not guilty despite overwhelming evidence-come to mind. Juries do strange things, particularly amid what will be the greatest media circus imaginable in the media capital of the world.
But it may not be the jury that is the problem. A federal judge will have to ask the question of whether prejudicial publicity of such magnitude has occurred that Mohammed can't receive a fair trial. (This is probably true.) Questions will be raised about whether he has received proper legal counsel, which undoubtedly he hasn't. Issues about the chain of custody of evidence will be raised; given that he was held by troops and agents, and not by law enforcement, the chances of compromised evidence is likely. The issue of torture will, of course, also be raised but that really isn't the main problem. How do you try a man under U.S. legal procedures who was captured in a third country by non-law enforcement personnel, and who has been in military custody for seven years?
There is a nontrivial possibility that he will be acquitted or have his case thrown out of court, which would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. Some might view it as a sign of American adherence to the rule of law and be impressed, others might be convinced that Mohammed was not guilty in more than a legal sense and was held unjustly, and others might think the United States has bungled another matter.
The real problem here is international law, which does not address acts of war committed by non-state actors out of uniform. Or more precisely, it does, but leaves them deliberately in a state of legal limbo, with captors left free to deal with them as they wish. If the international legal community does not like the latter, it is time they did the hard work of defining precisely how a nation deals with an act of war carried out under these circumstances.
The international legal community has been quite vocal in condemning American treatment of POWs after 9/11, but it hasn't evolved international law, even theoretically, to cope with this. Sept. 11 is not a crime in the proper sense of the term, and prosecuting the guilty is not the goal. Instead, it was an act of war carried out outside the confines of the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. goal is destroying al Qaeda so that it can no longer function, not punishing those who have acted. Similarly the goal in 1941 was not punishing the Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor but destroying the Japanese Empire, and any Japanese soldier was a target who could be killed without trial in the course of combat. If it wishes to solve this problem, international law will have to recognize that al Qaeda committed an act of war, and its destruction has legal sanction without judicial review. And if some sort of protection is to be provided al Qaeda operatives out of uniform, then the Geneva Conventions must be changed, and with it the status of spies and saboteurs of all countries.
Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder's duty to ensure Mohammed's prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can.
Whatever the politics of this decision-and all such decisions have political dimensions-the real problem faced by both the Obama and Bush administrations has been the failure of international law to evolve to provide guidance on dealing with combatants such as al Qaeda. International law has clung to a model of law governing a very different type of warfare despite new realities. International law must therefore either reaffirm the doctrine that combatants who do not distinguish themselves from noncombatants are not due the protections of international law, or it must clearly define what those protections are. Otherwise, international law discredits itself.
Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.
Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers. |
| Posted by George Friedman, Stratfor.com at 12:28 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 16, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Monday, November 16 |
FACTOR EXCLUSIVE
Long-time CNN anchor Lou Dobbs enters the no spin zone to explain his sudden departure from the competition.
"Thanks for having Lou Dobbs on your show and asking him to return periodically. Mr. Dobbs is a great American, and CNN is lesser for losing him."
Mary Garatti
Willits, CA
"There is only one word to describe Mr. Dobbs: class. It would have been very easy for him to throw CNN under the bus on a competing network."
Justin Scheinholtz
Newark, DE
"Wouldn't it be a thing of wonder if some of our gutless politicians had the courage of Lou Dobbs to step up to the plate and deal with the illegal immigration problem?"
Dwight Schwab, Jr.
Belmont, CA
"Lou Dobbs is the only reason I ever watched CNN. Now I look forward to seeing him on the Factor."
John McCorkle
Thomasville, NC
TERROR ON TRIAL
Judge Napolitano defends the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind and others in NYC civilian courts.
"The Constitution intended us to be a nation of laws, not of individual opinion. Judge Napolitano is legally correct."
Barbara Saifman
Painesville, OH
"The judge is wrong to say our Constitution applies to a foreigner. KSM was not invited here, and therefore has no claim to these privileges."
Wesley Southerland
Dover, AR
"The judge's position is that a military tribunal can only be used if war is declared. I think a better measure is if the U.S. has to deploy its armed forces."
David Tortora
Carmel, IN
"Judge Napolitano stated that we are not at war with the terrorists because they're not part of a government. But the British were at war with the IRA."
Rev. Michael Brady
Whittier, CA
"We are at war with al Qaeda because, whether we like it or not, al Qaeda declared war on us on 9/11."
Paul Boquet
New Orleans, LA
FEAR FACTOR
Why does the liberal media continue to hammer Sarah Palin, even after she's left the political stage and is selling a book?
"If Sarah Palin is so unqualified for higher office, why does the establishment fear her?"
David Wilson
Loretto, TN
"Is Newsweek so broke it can't afford a disposable camera to take its own, more appropriate photo of Sarah Palin?"
Bill Spidahl
Spokane, WA
"What liberals hate about Mrs. Palin is that she's a conservative, normal American woman who is quite happy. That's the ultimate insult to liberalism."
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, AL
"Sarah Palin resonates with the common folk. The left attacks her because of her potential to succeed."
Michael Imbrunetti
Stockton, CA
"The lamestream media despises Palin because she doesn't come from their elite lineage. She's just a plain Jane making headlines."
Pat Corbat
Avilla, IN
"Liberals are scared to death of Sarah Palin. They hate middle America, and that's exactly who she represents."
Eugene Leigh
Baton Rouge, LA
"She's ordinary, so she can't possibly be worthy in the minds of the intellectual elites."
Van Atkins
Pahrump, NV
"In my opinion, some people feel Sarah Palin is a pretender, trying to be something she is not. She's pretending she's ready for the majors."
John Tatura
Victoria, Australia
MEET THE EMPEROR!
Months after causing controversy by bowing to the Saudi King, President Obama is back at it, bowing to the Emperor of Japan during his Asian trip.
"If the Japanese took vitamins to grow taller, President Obama's bows wouldn't be so noticeable."
Barbara Fleming
Hershey, PA
"I have no problem with Obama bowing to world leaders, as long as he doesn't hold the office of President of the United States."
Abel Flores
Houston, TX
"President Obama bowed to the Emperor of Japan to apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Lorraine Steadman
Mansfield, MA
"Obama's bowing was a deliberate thumbing of his nose at his American critics. His constant display of arrogance illustrates he believes he is beneath no one."
Keith Mouser
Bountiful, UT
"Obama bowed in Japan? Never! He was obviously checking to see if his shoe lace was tied."
Paul Sandvick
Racine, WI
"The administration was trying to claim bowing is custom, but it is not. What an embarrassment to this country."
Jim Bergeron
Divide, CO
"A possible reason for President Obama's elaborate bow to the Japanese Emperor may have been a tactical desire to balance out his bow to the Saudi King."
John Reid
Dublin, Ireland |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 1:35 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 16, 2009 |
| The O'Quiz: Test your current events knowledge! |
Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was up just under a full point to 4.97 questions correct out of 10 from the previous week's average of 4.20 out of 10. Keep that upward trend going this week!
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 11:45 AM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 13, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Friday, November 13 |
TERROR ON TRIAL
Attorney General Eric Holder announces that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other al Qaeda thugs will be tried in New York City in civilian courts.
"The public trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will do great damage to the U.S. I'd rather they just take him back to Afghanistan and let him go."
Steve Denny
Meadow Vista, CA
"Now that he has the same rights as all U.S. citizens, don't be surprised if KSM's charges are thrown out based on a coerced confession. If that happens, they'll be great political consequences for President Obama."
Jeff Kitto
Bozeman, MT
"Every news minute devoted to the trial circus is a news minute diverted away from getting the truth out about health care, cap and trade, immigration, etc."
Ron Frey
Delanson, NY
"This trial should be under federal jurisdiction. It wasn't just New York City that was targeted."
Ted Peluso
Arlington, MA
"This is pure madness! With that kind of logic, our military will have to be trained on how to properly Mirandize enemy soldiers on the battlefield."
Joe Mussoline
Mt. Dora, FL
"I'm so worried about KSM. We're not doing enough for this poor chap. Can't we put him up at the Waldorf with some down pillows?"
Ellen Carmichael
Scottsdale, AZ
"As a New Yorker who lives six blocks away from the World Trade Center, I want to see this terrorist tried not in a secret military court but publicly by New Yorkers."
Virginia Stewart
New York, NY
"Any presiding judge's life will be at risk, before, during and after the trials."
Pat Grainger
Cottage Grove, WI
"Bringing Gitmo prisoners to the U.S. for trial shows that the Obama administration is interested in feeding the trial lawyers at the expense of the taxpayers and the safety of this nation."
Tom Hoesly
Creston, NE
"I'm disappointed that Geraldo is so wrapped up in his liberal ideology that he is willing to hurt the families of the 9/11 victims or possibly put New York at further risk."
Dave Robertson
Vernon, AL
"Nazis, like Hermann Goering, were tried by a military tribunal to show the Germans what justice really is. If it was good enough for the Nazis, why isn't it good enough for Islamic terrorists?"
John Lartz
Winnetka, IL
"Geraldo is letting his emotions override reason. Eric Holder's decision is yet another slap in the face of the American people by this administration."
John Chandler
Phoenix, AZ
"Someone needs to remind Geraldo to Hermann Goering faced death camp survivors at Nuremberg, something he would not have been able to do if he were tried in New York."
Henry Bailey
Gastonia, NC
"Conservative Americans want justice. Liberals want political correctness."
Wesley Southerland
Dover, AR
"The fact that this terrorist is going to have the same rights as you and I when he sets foot on American soil is an outrage."
Phil Grooms
Redmond, OR
"The liberal Congressmen proved your point: you said the KSM trial would be a circus and they launched into a diatribe about waterboarding."
Tol Williams
Macon, GA
"Have the Congressmen forgotten that Mohammed confessed to the 9/11 attacks?"
David Peterson
Middletown, OH
"Democrats do themselves no electoral favors by advocating a civilian trial for KSM. It may endear them to the very far left, but that is it."
Fred Schwartz
Burlington, NJ
"The tens of millions of dollars that will be spent on this trial will go to lining the pockets of trial attorneys. They'll be the only winners in this spectacle."
JC Lydon
Indialantic, FL
"The true danger of these trials is the precedence it establishes, granting Constitutional rights to non-citizens."
Michael Flanigam
Elgin, IL
BOLD FRESH TOUR
O'Reilly and Glenn Beck announce they'll be going on tour together. For details, please visit BoldFreshTour.com.
"Maybe you should get Glenn Beck the Hawaii chair for Christmas to help him get into shape for the tour."
Shawn Meyer
Petersburg, OH
"When you and Beck go on the road, it should be called the 'Arguing with the Bold Fresh Idiot' tour. It's only fair."
Kevin Sheerin
Chesapeake, VA
"You should have called it the BoldBeck tour. Why are you always picking on poor Glenn?"
Jo Lynn Greaves
San Bernardino, CA
"But when are you coming to California? My two favorite guys together and you're not coming out here?"
Robin Stevens
Rosamond, CA |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:43 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 12, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Thursday, November 12 |
FORT HOOD PC COVERAGE
Why are so many in the American media hesitant to call Maj. Hasan's shooting spree a terrorist act?
"I just wonder what kind of therapy this Hasan guy was giving our American soldiers coming back from the battlefield."
Kathryn Buhrer
Belpre, KS
"Hasan is a terrorist! Many liberals weren't so hesitant to put the terrorist label on the man who murdered Dr. Tiller."
Ryan Krafft
Port Huron, MI
"Why aren't the people who are calling Hasan's act a crime, not tacking on the hate crime label? They'll do it for everything else."
Janice Childe
Modesto, CA
"If a mentally impaired person commits murder, he's still considered a murderer. The same should apply to an act of terrorism."
Gerry Brody
Jackson, NJ
"I'm worried. If this administration has trouble identifying Hasan as a terrorist, how will they protect us from future attacks?"
Steve Lindsoe
Kenner, LA
"The fact that the shooter is a Muslim man is inconvenient to the media and Obama administration. They would have preferred if he were a white Christian."
Carol Black
Hutchinson, KS
"The media won't label Hasan a terrorist because they don't want to admit Obama's actions have undermined the CIA and the intelligence community."
Marie Greene
Sandy, UT
"I very rarely hear any Muslim groups standing up and denouncing attacks in the name of Islam. That's why I have little respect for them."
Ben Modica
Staten Island, NY
"The question is not whether Hasan is a terrorist, but whether he was part of an organized terror group."
Jim Curry
San Diego, CA
"The media is a bunch of cowards, that's why they won't call Hasan a terrorist. So much for honest straightforward journalism."
Mark Feather
Edmond, OK
SELLING HEALTH CARE REFORM
Laura Ingraham wades into some controversy when she says Nancy Pelosi did everything except sell her body to pass the health care reform bill.
"It's a good thing for Ms. Pelosi's ego that she didn't try to sell her body for health care reform. Nobody would have taken her up on it."
Joe Viera
Glendale, AZ
"I'm a straight male. I would still rather sleep with Dennis Hastert than Nancy Pelosi."
Paul Amedee
Kenner, LA
"Nancy Pelosi did whatever it took to pass the health care bill. Unfortunately, it was for her to hoodwink the Republicans into passing the Stupak amendment."
Mark Phillips
Edgewater, MD
"She may not have sold her body, but she definitely sold her soul."
Marissa Guillory
Cypress, TX
"I only hope Speaker Pelosi gets all the attention she craves in the coverage of her handing the gavel over to a Republican in 2010."
Tom Brode
Bradenton, FL
"The people in Washington are doing a lot worse than selling their bodies to pass health care. They are selling this country down the toilet."
Ralph Duddles
Petersburg, AK
OFFENSIVE AD?
Carl's Jr. had to pull this ad after some Italian-American groups complained that it was ethnically insensitive.
"My wife is 100% pure Sicilian. She thought that commercial was hilarious."
John Geiger
Red Bluff, CA
"As a native of Italy, I was given the opportunity to prosper in the greatest country in the world. I laughed at the Carl's Jr. ad because I know all Americans, regardless of nationality, are awarded for hard work."
Fabrizio Balestri
San Diego, CA
"My husband and I are both Italian. We found the ad more jocose than offensive."
Joanne Maggio
Long Beach, CA
"As the son of Italian immigrants, I think Carl's Jr. got it right on the money!"
Andrew Vaccaro
Melbourne, Australia
"Would you be laughing if it were black men stereotyped in that ad instead of Italians?"
Jerome Biondolillo
Deerfield Beach, FL
MISCELLANEOUS
"This holiday season I plan on giving the gift of 'Bold Fresh' on each of the eight days of Hanukkah."
Gordon Kaplan
Astoria, NY |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:41 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 12, 2009 |
| Salt Lake City event postponed |
Due to circumstances beyond their control and a recent outbreak of the flu amongst the organizers, the program originally scheduled for Saturday, November 14th featuring Bill O'Reilly at the Huntsman Center at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City is being postponed.
A new date will be announced shortly for 2010. The promoters wish to apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Ticket holders should contact the University of Utah box office at 801-581-8849 (choose option 1) for refunds, or email Utah Tickets. |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 10:46 AM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 11, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Wednesday, November 11 |
WARNING SIGNS
Did the military ignore red flags when it came to the terrorist-sympathizer within their ranks?
"Fort Hood was a manmade disaster. It was manmade by President Obama, who has terrorized the intelligence community and military into inaction."
Glen Cook
Margate, FL
"Please don't call Mr. Hasan disturbed. He is a radical Islamic terrorist. He killed those people because his religion told him to."
Marlene McMillan
Portland, OR
"We have been taking our shoes off at airports and putting shampoo in little baggies, while Hasan gets a pass for his alarming behavior because he's a Muslim."
Geoff Hill
San Diego, CA
"You can't be a terrorist without being mentally insane first."
Ben Gentle
Pelham, AL
"Why didn't Major Hasan just leave the Army? The only explanation was for nefarious reasons."
Steve Berry, M.D.
Gainesville, GA
"Regarding Hasan, the Army chose tolerance over security."
Kathryn Iandoli
Wilmington, NC
"Dick Morris is wrong when he says Hasan's motivations were political, not religious. In Islam, there is no separation between church and state."
Tom Wilson
Springfield, OR
"If this had happened under a Republican president, the leftists would be wanting to tar and feather him. He would be toast."
Jean Jones
Spring, TX
"If a radical Christian soldier had behaved in the Army the way Hasan the radical Muslim did, he would be discharged in a New York minute."
Laura Smythe
Carrollton, TX
"You fail to acknowledge this was both a terrorist act and an act of a deranged individual. It doesn't need to be either-or."
Shawn Kelly
Oxnard, Ca
"Does Sally Quinn of the Washington Post acknowledge the sky is blue or does she say it might be blue? A terrorist is a terrorist."
Kristin Reed
Macon, MS
"Way to go! Sally Quinn simply couldn't argue with you on the facts as you presented them."
Marc Mangen
Palm Beach Gardens, FL
"Sally Quinn is suffering from the same disease as the military: political correctness run amok."
Carol Bruce
Jordan Valley, OR
"Ms. Quinn insists on looking through the telescope from the wrong end. Does she know any Islamic terrorists who aren't emotionally disturbed?"
Kenneth Filipski
Bakersfield, CA
"It was like pulling teeth to get Sally Quinn to admit Hasan was a terrorist."
Nancy Swartz
Liberty Township, OH
"Does Sally Quinn think labeling Hasan a terrorist is humorous or something? This guy was a cold-blooded killer: a crazy terrorist."
Gunnar Anderson
Bellevue, WA
"Ms. Quinn's inexplicable reluctance to admit the obvious fact that Hasan is a terrorist speaks volumes about the motivations of the left-wing media."
Brent George
Simi Valley, CA
NO SPIN INTERVIEW
Ralph Nader enters the no spin zone to promote his new book, but he seems reluctant to answer direct questions about Fort Hood and terrorism.
"You showed extreme patience with Ralph Nader when he avoided your questions in an adversarial way. I used to respect Mr. Nader, but he's rapidly becoming a pinhead."
Chip Snyder
Allentown, PA
"I believe Nader is wrong and you are capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time."
Dave Poirier
Taunton, MA
"Ralph Nader shouldn't be able to pick and choice what controversial topics he'll discuss. I voted for him once, but never again."
Jeremy Racca
Seattle, WA
"Ralph's solution to the jihad problem is obvious: he'd make them all drive Corvairs."
Bruce Neumann
Tampa, FL
"You guys are great to watch. You both have no problem getting right into it. Your exchange with Ralph Nader was fascinating."
Mark Davis
Canby, OR
CONTROVERSIAL REMARK
Pat Robertson says on the 700 Club that Islam is not a religion; it's a political ideology.
"I'm no Pat Robertson fan, but I agree with him on this one. No Muslim will refute the fact that the Koran calls for the death of infidels."
Sandy Brasili
Chester, VA
"In light of your criticism of Mr. Robertson, I would be very interested to hear how you would define Islam."
Vern Pollema
Bakersfield, CA
"Until the moderates start reporting the radical fringe elements of Islam, they are part of the problem."
Frank VanHaelst
Sanford, NC |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:39 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 11, 2009 |
| Stratfor.com: Twenty Years After the Fall |
We are now at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. We are also nearing the 18th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet Union itself. This is more than simply a moment for reflection-it is a moment to consider the current state of the region and of Russia versus that whose passing we are now commemorating. To do that, we must re-examine why the Soviet empire collapsed, and the current status of the same forces that caused that collapse.
Russia's Two-Part Foundation
The Russian empire-both the Czarist and Communist versions-was a vast, multinational entity. At its greatest extent, it stretched into the heart of Central Europe; at other times, it was smaller. But it was always an empire whose constituent parts were diverse, hostile to each other and restless. Two things tied the empire together.
One was economic backwardness. Economic backwardness gave the constituent parts a single common characteristic and interest. None of them could effectively compete with the more dynamic economies of Western Europe and the rest of the world, but each could find a niche within the empire. Economic interests thus bound each part to the rest: They needed a wall to protect themselves from Western interests, and an arena in which their own economic interests, however stunted, could be protected. The empire provided that space and that opportunity.
The second thing tying the empire together was the power of the security apparatus. Where economic interest was insufficient to hold the constituent parts together, the apparatus held the structure together. In a vast empire with poor transportation and communication, the security apparatus-from Czarist times to the Soviet period-was the single unifying institution. It unified in the sense that it could compel what economic interest couldn't motivate. The most sophisticated part of the Russian state was the security services. They were provided with the resources they needed to control the empire, report status to the center and impose the center's decisions through terror, or more frequently, through the mere knowledge that terror would be the consequence of disobedience.
It was therefore no surprise that it was the security apparatus of the Soviet Union-the KGB under Yuri Andropov-which first recognized in the early 1980s that the Soviet Union's economy not only was slipping further and further behind the West, but that its internal cohesion was threatened because the economy was performing so poorly that the minimal needs of the constituent parts were no longer being fulfilled. In Andropov's mind, the imposition of even greater terror, like Josef Stalin had applied, would not solve the underlying problem. Thus, the two elements holding the Soviet Union together were no longer working. The self-enclosed economy was failing and the security apparatus could not hold the system together.
It is vital to remember that in Russia, domestic economic health and national power do not go hand in hand. Russia historically has had a dysfunctional economy. By contrast, its military power has always been disproportionately strong. During World War II, the Soviets crushed the Wehrmacht in spite of their extraordinary economic weakness. Later, during the Cold War, they challenged and sometimes even beat the United States despite an incomparably weaker economy. The Russian security apparatus made this possible. Russia could devote far more of its economy to military power than other countries could because Moscow could control its population successfully. It could impose far greater austerities than other countries could. Therefore, Russia was a major power in spite of its economic weakness. And this gave it room to maneuver in an unexpected way.
Andropov's Gamble
Andropov proposed a strategy he knew was risky, but which he saw as unavoidable. One element involved a dramatic restructuring of the Soviet economy and society to enhance efficiency. The second involved increased openness, not just domestically to facilitate innovation, but also in foreign affairs. Enclosure was no longer working: The Soviet Union needed foreign capital and investment to make restructuring work.
Andropov knew that the West, and particularly the United States, would not provide help so long as the Soviet Union threatened its geopolitical interests even if doing so would be economically profitable. For this opening to the West to work, the Soviet Union needed to reduce Cold War tensions dramatically. In effect, the Soviets needed to trade geopolitical interests to secure their economic interests. Since securing economic interests was essential for Communist Party survival, Andropov was proposing to follow the lead of Vladimir Lenin, another leader who sacrificed space for time. In the Brest-Litovsk Treaty that ended Russian participation in World War I, Lenin had conceded vast amounts of territory to Germany to buy time for the regime to consolidate itself. Andropov was suggesting the same thing.
It is essential to understand that Andropov was a Party man and a Chekist-a Communist and KGBer-through and through. He was not proposing the dismantling of the Party; rather, he sought to preserve the Party by executing a strategic retreat on the geopolitical front while the Soviet Union regained its economic balance. Undoubtedly he understood the risk that restructuring and openness would create enormous pressures at a time of economic hardship, possibly causing regime collapse under the strain. Andropov clearly thought the risk was worth running.
After Leonid Brezhnev died, Andropov took his place. He became ill almost immediately and died. He was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko, who died within a year. Then came Mikhail Gorbachev-the true heir to Andropov's thinking-who implemented Andropov's two principles. He pursued openness, or glasnost. He also pursued restructuring, or perestroika. He traded geopolitical interests, hard-won by the Red Army, for economic benefits. Contrary to his reputation in the West, Gorbachev was no liberal. He actually sought to preserve the Communist Party, and was prepared to restructure and open the system to do so.
As the security apparatus loosened its grip to facilitate openness and restructuring, the empire's underlying tensions quickly went on display. When unrest in East Germany threatened to undermine Soviet control, Gorbachev had to make a strategic decision. If he used military force to suppress the uprising, probably restructuring and certainly openness would be dead, and the crisis Andropov foresaw would be upon him. Following Lenin's principle, Gorbachev decided to trade space for time, and he accepted retreat from East Germany to maintain and strengthen his economic relations with the West.
After Gorbachev made that decision, the rest followed. If Germany were not to be defended, what would be defended? Applying his strategy rigorously, Gorbachev allowed the unwinding of the Eastern European empire without intervention. The decision he had made about Germany amounted to relinquishing most of Moscow's World War II gains. But if regime survival required it, the price had to be paid.
The Crisis
The crisis came very simply. The degree of restructuring required to prevent the Soviet Union's constituent republics from having an overarching interest in economic relations with the West rather than with Russia was enormous. There was no way to achieve it quickly. Given that the Soviet Union now had an official policy of ending its self-imposed enclosure, the apparent advantages to the constituent parts of protecting their economies from Western competition declined-and with them, the rationale for the Soviet Union. The security apparatus, the KGB, had been the engine driving glasnost and perestroika from the beginning; the advocates of the plan were not going to shift into reverse and suppress glasnost. But glasnost overwhelmed the system. The Soviet Union, unable to buy the time it needed to protect the Party, imploded. It broke apart into its constituent republics, and even parts of the Russian Federation seemed likely to break away.
What followed was liberalization only in the eyes of Westerners. It is easy to confuse liberalism with collapse, since both provide openness. But the former Soviet Union (FSU) wasn't liberalizing, it was collapsing in every sense. What remained administratively was the KGB, now without a mission. The KGB was the most sophisticated part of the Soviet apparatus, and its members were the best and brightest. As privatization went into action, absent clear rules or principles, KGB members had the knowledge and sophistication to take advantage of it. As individuals and in factions, they built structures and relationships to take advantage of privatization, forming the factions that dominated the FSU throughout the 1990s until today. It is not reasonable to refer to organized crime in Russia, because Russia was lawless. In fact, the law enforcement apparatus was at the forefront of exploiting the chaos. Organized crime, business and the KGB became interconnected, and frequently identical.
The 1990s were a catastrophic period for most Russians. The economy collapsed. Property was appropriated in a systematic looting of all of the former Russian republics, with Western interests also rushing in to do quick deals on tremendously favorable terms. The new economic interests crossed the new national borders. (It is important to bear in mind that the boundaries that had separated Soviet republics were very real.) The financial cartels, named for the oligarchs who putatively controlled them (control was much more complex; many oligarchs were front men for more powerful and discreet figures), spread beyond the borders of the countries in which they originated, although the Russian cartels spread the most effectively.
Had the West-more specifically the United States-wanted to finish Russia off, this was the time. Russia had no effective government, poverty was extraordinary, the army was broken and the KGB was in a civil war over property. Very little pressure could well have finished off the Russian Federation.
The Bush and Clinton administrations made a strategic decision to treat Russia as the successor regime of the FSU, however, and refused to destabilize it further. Washington played an aggressive role in expanding NATO, but it did not try to break up the Russian Federation for several reasons. First, it feared nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of dangerous factions. Second, it did not imagine that Russia could ever be a viable country again. And third, it believed that if Russia did become viable, it would be a liberal democracy. (The idea that liberal democracies never threaten other liberal democracies was implanted in American minds.) What later became known as a neoconservative doctrine actually lay at the heart of the Clinton administration's thinking.
Russia Regroups-and Faces the Same Crisis
Russia's heart was the security apparatus. Whether holding it together or tearing it apart, the KGB-renamed the FSB after the Soviet collapse-remained the single viable part of the Russian state. It was therefore logical that when it became essential to end the chaos, the FSB would be the one to end it. Vladimir Putin, whom the KGB trained during Andropov's tenure and who participated in the privatization frenzy in St. Petersburg, emerged as the force to recentralize Russia. The FSB realized that the Russian Federation itself faced collapse, and that excessive power had fallen out of its hands as FSB operatives had fought one another during the period of privatization.
Putin sought to restore the center in two ways. First, he worked to restore the central apparatus of the state. Second, he worked to strip power from oligarchs unaligned with the apparatus. It was a slow process, requiring infinite care so that the FSB not start tearing itself apart again, but Putin is a patient and careful man.
Putin realized that Andropov's gamble had failed catastrophically. He also knew that the process could not simply be reversed; there was no going back to the Soviet Union. At the same time, it was possible to go back to the basic principles of the Soviet Union. First, there could be a union of the region, bound together by both economic weakness and the advantage of natural resource collaboration. Second, there was the reality of a transnational intelligence apparatus that could both stabilize the region and create the infrastructure for military power. And third, there was the reversal of the policy of trading geopolitical interests for financial benefits from the West. Putin's view-and the average Russian's view-was that the financial benefits of the West were more harmful than beneficial.
By 2008, when Russia defeated America's ally, Georgia, in a war, the process of reassertion was well under way. Then, the financial crisis struck along with fluctuations in energy prices. The disparity between Russia's politico-military aspirations, its military capability and its economic structure re-emerged. The Russians once again faced their classic situation: If they abandoned geopolitical interests, they would be physically at risk. But if they pursued their geopolitical interests, they would need a military force capable of assuming the task. Expanding the military would make the public unhappy as it would see resources diverted from public consumption to military production, and this could only be managed by increasing the power of the state and the security apparatus to manage the unhappiness. But this still left the risk of a massive divergence between military and economic power that could not be bridged by repression. This risk re-created the situation that emerged in the 1970s, had to be dealt with in the 1980s and turned into chaos in the 1990s.
The current decisions the Russians face can only be understood in the context of events that transpired 20 years ago. The same issues are being played out, and the generation that now governs Russia was forged in that crucible. The Russian leadership is trying to balance the possible outcomes to find a solution. They cannot trade national security for promised economic benefits that may not materialize or may not be usable. And they cannot simply use the security apparatus to manage increased military spending-there are limits to that.
As a generation ago, Russia is caught between the things that it must do to survive in the short run and the things it cannot do if they are to survive in the long run. There is no permanent solution for Russia, and that is what makes it such an unpredictable player in the international system. The closest Russia has come to a stable solution to its strategic problem was under Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, and even those could not hold for more than a generation.
The West must understand that Russia is never at peace with itself internally, and is therefore constantly shifting its external relationships in an endless, spasmodic cycle. Things go along for awhile, and then suddenly change. We saw a massive change 20 years ago, but the forces that generated that change had built up quietly in the generation before. The generation since has been trying to pull the pieces back together. But in Russia, every solution is merely the preface to the next problem-something built into the Russian reality.
Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.
Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers. |
| Posted by George Friedman, Stratfor.com at 4:29 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 10, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Tuesday, November 10 |
FORT HOOD MEMORIAL
President Obama speaks at the ceremony honoring the victims of Fort Hood, but is his administration doing enough to speak out about the Muslim element in this tragedy?
"I wonder why nobody has mention this guy's objection to the war because he may have to kill Muslims. He obviously had no problem killing Americans."
Darlene Schibly
Ossian, IN
"Let me get this straight - the Army doesn't want gay Americans to join, but they have no problem with jihadists. What's going on here?"
Liz Collins
Holyoke, MA
"Which is more dangerous to this country - an administration which fails to identify an Islamic terror act or a politically-correct Army who won't admit it exists?"
Bo Dostal
Olathe, KS
"The silence of good, peace-loving Muslims is deafening. Why aren't imams speaking out against this atrocity?"
Kevin Lavelle
Secaucus, NJ
"That soldier would have been classified as a terrorist if he'd been a civilian. I'll settle for calling him a traitor and a murderer."
Dave Muth
St. Petersburg, FL
"The PC police and the ACLU have denigrated our right of free speech to the point that citizens can no longer trust that we are being protected from all enemies."
Kim Maginn
Little Rock, AR
"Political correctness has already taken our freedom to a large degree, and now it has taken our troops lives."
Jan Stewart
Cedar, MN
"The biggest issue is not the oversensitivity about the Muslim component of this story. What about the fact that the Obama administration failed to prevent a terrorist attack on the USA?"
John Schulte
Orlando, FL
"If Major Hasan was a white nationalist and not a Muslim, President Obama and the press would have no problem serving this murderer up on a silver platter."
Sean Nugent
Abingdon, MD
"If someone starts shouting Allah Akbar and opens fire on his fellow soldiers, we have a pretty strong clue as to the cause of the carnage."
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, AL
"If Hasan had been wearing a backpack filled with explosives, would Alan Colmes then believe it was a terrorist attack?"
Bob Erhart
Las Vegas, NV
"President Bush kept us safe for almost 8 years after 9/11. Yet 11 months into the Obama administration and we have a jihadist massacre on American soil."
Joseph Czermak
Ridgefield Park, NJ
"The Fort Hood shooting was an act of Islamic terror, even if the killer didn't have an al Qaeda button on his shirt."
Sue Scoggins
Grants Pass, OR
"It was not an act of war, it was a crime. The crime was treason, punishable by death."
Chris Fasano
Floral Park, NY
"If we don't treat this like a terror attack, we will have another 9/11 in the not so distant future. Anyone who can't see this is a pinhead who gives pinheads a bad name."
Dennis Haynes
Beaver, WV
"Kudos to Monica Crowley for shining a light on President Obama's shout-out moment after the Fort Hood tragedy. Someone needs to teach him to set priorities."
Cathy Grant
Houston, TX
"If a Christian were to say that all Muslims need to be converted or executed, they would no doubt be accused of inciting violence or some other hate crime. Why the double standard?"
Russ Yocum
Gulf Breeze, FL
"The left creates victims and forgives them anything. The Fort Hood coverage is a great example of this."
Mimi Ito
Boulder, CO
"Dennis Miller is right. When will good American Muslims stand up against radical terrorists? They are the key to defeating terrorism."
Allen Meadows
Buellton, CA
"Wake up America before it's too late. Miller has it exactly right."
Mary Syron
St. Louis, MO
TAX REVOLT
With tax hikes in a variety of states, will Americans rise up and demand the federal government lower taxes?
"There will definitely be a revolt against taxes. It will make the tea parties look like nothing."
Dawn Olmstead
Newark, DE
"People are being pushed to the limit. But we need somebody like you or John Stossel to lead the charge against high taxes."
Matt Brady
Phoenix, AZ
"How do I enlist in Gen. Stossel's tax revolt army?"
Mike Mahaffey
Austin, TX
POLITICAL POT-SHOT
Congressman Barney Frank's boyfriend is busted for growing marijuana in Maine. He tells a reporter he didn't know the plants were there because he doesn't know what marijuana looks like.
"It's sad that Barney Frank continues to get away with his shenanigans. We deserve more than this sort of representation in Washington."
Mary Syron
St. Louis, MO
"If I were Barney Frank's boyfriend, I would be smoking pot too. Lots of it!"
John Crow
Osterville, MA
"I have to believe Barney Frank when he says he didn't recognize marijuana plants. In fact, I don't think he has a clue about anything."
Joe Cole
Fort Wayne, IN |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:37 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 9, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Monday, November 9 |
FORT HOOD FOLLOWUP
"As a former Marine, I strongly believe it would be a patriotic gesture to honor those Army soldiers who were wounded and killed at Fort Hood with a Purple Heart."
Greg McGinty
South Plainfield, NJ
"I hope we don't become a casualty of diversity and that Obama's fear of jumping to conclusions doesn't prevent us from discovering the truth about this situation."
Sal Mauro
Flushing, NY
"Some in the media want us to believe Maj. Hasan just snapped. That's like suggesting 9/11 was due to pilot error."
Connie Schein
"Any military personnel who knew of Maj. Hasan's statements and disregarded them is in violation of the military rule to defend America against all enemies."
Ken Kasowitz
Brooklyn, NY
"What Maj. Hasan did was clearly terrorism. President Obama can't blame this one on President Bush."
Brian Patrick
Wilmington, DE
"If the Muslim shooter was a Christian, the left-wing would have no problem pointing out his religion."
Seon Ferguson
Canberra, Australia
"If indeed Hasan is a terrorist like he appears to be, why is everyone still referring to him with his military title? He was most certainly not an American soldier."
Jessica Allen
Emporia, VA
"Even before he pulled the trigger, Hasan had unfettered access to the minds of our soldiers as an Army psychiatrist. Heads need to roll for this one."
Paul Jenkins
Hammond, LA
"As a veteran, I'm appalled that the Army is more concerned about being politically correct than it is about protecting our brave soldiers."
Jill Stires
Indianapolis, IN
"I believe Maj. Hasan should be prosecuted under the newly passed hate crimes legislation. He appears to hate all Americans."
Cully Beasley
Merrimack, NH
"This is a terrorist attack and a hate crime. The latter hasn't been explored because apparently only white men can commit hate crimes."
Emery Feteke
Somerville, NJ
"Let's not be too hasty in criticizing the government for not removing Hasan immediately. Fruitful counter-intelligence operations take time."
Jim Mittica
Gonzales, LA
"We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter than the grief of the victims. The misplaced benevolence intended to portray the shooter as a victim too is despicable."
Bob Tryka
Smithtown, NY
TEACHABLE MOMENT
President Obama makes an example of his daughter's efforts to improve a bad grade in a speech about education. Did he do anything wrong?
"Poor Malia - she need not have her grades leaked by her dad. I'd be more interested in the President revealing his own educational history."
Mike Ayers
La Quinta, CA
"I see nothing wrong with the President making his daughter an example of the importance of education."
Jeffrey Sabatini
Redlands, CA
"Pastors often tell stories about their children to accentuate a point during a sermon. President Obama wasn't wrong to tell the story about his daughter, unless it was against her wishes."
Anthony Palagi
Texas Tech University
"It's not wise for the President to intentionally direct media attention towards his daughter, whatever the topic may be."
Bill Fidurski
Clark, NJ
"President Obama's daughter could teach Congress a thing or two. She read an entire chapter to improve her grades. Maybe they should read the entire health care bill."
Barry Heisey
Catonsville, MD
FOX NEWS PARODY
Saturday Night Live pokes some fun at Fox News anchors Greta Van Susteren and Shepard Smith, as well as a variety of contributors.
"The Fox News parody on SNL was hilarious. Now I think they should have you on to host the show one week."
Scott Clase
Winchester, CA
"Just another example of Fox News' success. SNL was using you for ratings."
Robert Walters
St. Johns, FL
"Maybe CNN will boost its ratings by airing a fact-check of the SNL skit of Fox News."
Chris Cusack
Silver Spring, MD
"Fox News should now do a parody of SNL comedians, perhaps on Red Eye."
Lynne Dunne
Staten Island, NY
"The reason SNL did a parody on Fox News is because nobody would have known who they were talking about if they did an MSNBC parody. They were picking on the popular kids."
Paul Ehrler
Newport, NC
20TH ANNIVERSARY
Reality check shows a clip of O'Reilly covering the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 for "Inside Edition."
"'Fess up! That wasn't you covering the Berlin Wall. That was Tom Hanks."
Sharon O'Brien-Lykins
Penn Valley, CA
"When you showed the clip of you at the Berlin Wall, my husband laughed and said he didn't know you were ever young."
Connie Thompson
Athens, OH
"You were very handsome back then. You even looked like a nice guy who would be easy to get along with. What changed you?"
Becky Beck
Washington Court House, OH
"Bill, you haven't aged a day since 1989!"
Joe Perticone
Nicasio, CA
"Was that good-looking young man with the hair you at the Berlin Wall? What happened?"
Jim Madison
Newport Beach, CA |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:36 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 9, 2009 |
| The O'Quiz: Test your current events knowledge! |
Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was down alarmingly to 4.20 questions correct out of 10 from the previous week's average of 5.16 out of 10. Ouch! Try and turn it around this week!
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 2:32 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 6, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Friday, November 6 |
FORT HOOD REACTION
Factor viewers react to the shooting at an Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, where 13 people were killed an American-Muslim Major.
"The Fort Hood shooter was clearly motivated by religion. That doesn't mean all Muslims are bad, but it does shed some light on this guy's intent."
Stan Crader
Marble Hill, MO
"I watched Fox for Fort Hood coverage because the other networks were insanely, irresponsibly politically correct in their coverage."
Jim Cyr
Caribou, ME
"The day after the tragic event, Congress was talking about how to prevent this from happening again. We don't need the government involved in everything."
Tim Schiff
Dublin, OH
"I can't believe President Obama didn't immediately go to Fort Hood to console the victims. Texas is a much more important trip than Asia."
Natalie Miller
Plymouth, MN
"What's next from the blame-stream media: blaming pre-traumatic stress disorder for Hasan's rampage?"
Kent Malinowski
Jupiter, FL
"The mainstream media is blind to the things it doesn't want to see. Their Fort Hood coverage is a perfect example."
Ivan Corneille
Queens, NY
"Obama is cautioning Americans not to rush to judgment in the Fort Hood situation? Yet he rushed to judgment in the Cambridge cop situation. How many times will he be on the wrong side?"
Claire Hughes
Tolland, CT
"Although I'm sure thousands of Muslim Americans serve in the military with honor, they have also become a protected class. The Army has a lot of explaining to do here."
Diane Powers
Centreville, VA
"The Muslim murderer at Fort Hood is a terrorist. He was killing infidels, period."
Lynn Griffith
Attica, NY
"We better wake up to the reality of the Islamic threat. Otherwise, our attempts at political correctness will cost us more innocent lives."
Curtis Golm
Salem, WI
"This is an atrocity and the Obama administration must categorize it as a terrorist attack. I pray for the victims."
Judy Stromme
Destrehan, LA
"I'm the wife of a Ft. Hood soldier. I want to thank you for reporting the real story when it comes to this tragedy."
Brooke Gladwin
Fort Hood, TX
"The Major was a loser and a traitor. He committed an act of war."
Sam Thompson
Tucson, AZ
"The minority class in this country, with the help of President Obama, is seeking to change our heritage, our culture and our rule of law."
Betty Kropack
Templestowe, Australia
"You are right on! Hasan was either a terrorist or a crazy guy. Perhaps both."
Carter Schuld
Granbury, TX
"Obama doesn't want us to jump to conclusions when a Muslim kills a dozen Americans? What if an American had killed a dozen Muslims?"
Barry Cottrell
Montgomery, TX
IN THE SPOTLIGHT
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is about to release her memoir. She's a fascinating political figure in this country, and her book is sure to be a major best-seller.
"Are we going to have a Palin push every night on Fox? Let it go."
Peter Gazzara
Reading, MA
"Sarah Palin not qualified to be President? You've got to be kidding! Obama set the bar so low you could pick the next President out of the phone book at random."
Alexandra Mark
Newport, RI
"Sarah Palin already has my vote in 2012."
Rick Morrow
Phoenix, AZ
"Compared to the current administration in the White House, Sarah Palin is overqualified for the presidency."
Leonard Rescek
Hamilton, OH
MISCELLANEOUS
"I am a bold fresh mom, pregnant with my fifth child. You should have Factor maternity gear!"
Heather Chapman
Stevensville, MI
"I hate to read, but my wife is pestering me to read 'Bold Fresh.'"
Gary Childress
Trussville, AL |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:35 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 5, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Thursday, November 5 |
TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!
Monica Crowley is upset that President Obama won't be speaking at the Berlin Wall ceremony. Alan Colmes thinks he's doing the right thing.
"Watching Alan Colmes debate Monica Crowley is like watching an unarmed man in a gunfight."
Mary Ann Spadafore
Shinnston, WV
"Would you please ask Colmes why the heck our image around the world is more important than the well-being of our country? I couldn't care less what these other countries think of us."
Ron Fillmore
Centerville, TX
"Why is President Obama not going to the Bradenburg Gate? Chancellor Merkel wouldn't let him speak there in 2008 so why should he go now?"
Tony Cosentino
Mobile, AL
"Message to Alan Colmes: As a conservative, I don't get upset when President Obama travels outside the country. I get upset when he comes back."
Ron Bella
Centennial, CO
CHRISTMAS IN KENTUCKY
A change of heart in Kentucky as the Governor there decides the state Christmas tree can still be called a Christmas tree after all! Victory for the Factor!
"I don't get people. If you have a problem with Christmas, don't celebrate it."
Justin Louderbeck
Tulsa, OK
"Strange all these people that have a problem with Christmas don't seem to have a problem getting a paid holiday off or Christmas bonuses."
Mark Yax
Solon, OH
"The folks should decide. We live in a democracy, so let's put the issue of Christmas displays on the ballot."
Mike Rapini
Hemlock, MI
"We Kentuckians are traditionalists. We tend to cling to our guns, our religion, and yes, our Christmas trees. Thanks for sticking up for us."
Gretchen Dolen
Monticello, KY
"Soon I'll begin my Christmas shopping, not my holiday shopping. I'll spend money in establishments that wish me a Merry Christmas, and nowhere else."
Eddie Hernandez
San Bernardino, CA
"I'm an atheist, but I'm not offended by Christmas trees on public property. Our Founding Fathers didn't want our government to be guided by religious beliefs, but a Christmas display is harmless."
Mike Marler
Crescent City, CA
"Christmas has become a traditional holiday. I'm a militant atheist, but I couldn't care less what the tree is called. It's a time for me to spend with my family and friends."
Darren Starck
Dorchester, England
VERMONT: OUT OF CONTROL
A Factor investigation into the stunning lack of punishment for child sex predators in the state of Vermont. And why doesn't the local media defend the children?
"As a grandmother of two young girls, Vermont is the last place I'd take them on a vacation. Unfortunately, it's such a beautiful state, the loss is ours."
Nancy Wood
Springfield, MO
"As a Vermonter, I'm ashamed and embarrassed of the judges who support lenient sentences on men who sexually abuse kids. It's an absolute disgrace to our justice system."
Mike Daly
Burlington, VT
"My husband and I moved to Vermont 15 years ago, and it was not like this. Now Vermont judges catch and release for every offense."
Christine Fayette
West Dover, VT
"Perhaps their thinking is swayed by the maple syrup. It's very sweet."
John Altobello
Nevada
"Not all Vermonters agree with the lenient treatment of disgusting child predators. We want our children protected and cherished."
Anthony O'Rourke
Williston, VT
"Are judges in Vermont so insane they'll put the welfare of predators above the welfare of children? How could the people of that state allow this to happen?"
Richard Tyree
Lake Havasu City, AZ
SESAME SMACKDOWN!
Sesame Street takes a shot at Fox News.
"Oscar the grouch was a notable curmudgeon. Now he is just a pinhead!"
Oscar Frisbey
El Paso, TX
"I was disappointed in the Sesame Street jab at Fox News. My children will never watch that show again."
Mike Wren
Eagle Mountain, UT
"Sesame Street must have meant Fox News is trashy in a good way."
Amanda Bridgeford
Logan Township, NJ
"Sesame Street insulting Fox is despicable. That sort of stuff has no place in a show for children."
Kimberly Dumlao
La Puente, CA
"I thought you were Oscar the grouch!"
John Kramer
Schaumburg, IL |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 5:07 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 4, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Wednesday, November 4 |
ELECTION FALLOUT
What do the Republican victories say about the American voters' current opinion of the Obama administration?
"You don't get it. We, in New Jersey, voted out Jon Corzine. It had nothing to do with President Obama."
Karin Roy
Manalapan, NJ
"Neither candidate in New Jersey was attractive. I voted for Christie to send a message to Washington, end of story."
Jane Racko
Bayville, NJ
"Obama couldn't elevate the Democrats for whom he was campaigning. That doesn't mean Americans didn't consider his policies when voting."
Jeff Rowan
Connellsville, PA
"The changing of governors in New Jersey was not just about Corzine, nor was it just about Obama. It was about both of them."
Michael Raimondi
Trenton, NJ
"The notion that election results in Virginia and New Jersey only reflect on the local government is wrong."
Chris Lilienthal
Brighton, MI
"The referendum on President Obama was evidenced by the people who chose not to vote in Virginia and New Jersey this year."
Steve Hutcherson
Richmond, VA
ADVISOR O'REILLY?
Talking Points thinks the Obama administration should hire Bill as the President's top advisor.
"Senior advisor? I'd rather have you as President. You'd bring a new sense of accountability, morality, responsibility and leadership to the White House."
Audra Warner
Lancaster, PA
"You said if you were picked as President Obama's top advisor you would bring common sense to the White House. I think that would automatically disqualify you from the job."
Ken Prochnow
Campbellsport, WI
"Americans are angry at the government for not listening to us. We're really angry! We're trying to make it clear that we want the massive spending to stop."
Kathy Perez
Mena, AR
"We the people are not afraid that Washington can't get anything done. We're appalled at what they're trying to get done."
Chaz Bosarge
Clinton, MS
"We distrust Washington because they won't leave us alone!"
David Dawson
Greenville, TX
BODY LANGUAGE
Bill appears on the Halloween edition of 'The View' and has it out with Whoopi Goldberg when he teases her that she's jealous of the success of 'Bold Fresh.'
"Whoopi Goldberg's body language was reprehensible when you were on 'The View.' Her disdain was evident in the way she recoiled from you."
Scott Carey
Tampa, FL
"You obviously have a bone to pick with Whoopi. Why not get her on your show and have it out, no spin style?"
John Turnbull
Holtville, CA
"You know I love you, but I have to agree with Whoopi. There's no way she would be jealous of you. Whoopi has been Whoopi for longer than the Factor has been the Factor."
Glen Barbour
Fairfax, VA
"How come you dressed up for Halloween on 'The View' and the ladies just wore their regular witch costumes?"
John Thomas
Windermere, FL
"Tonya Reiman was wrong if she thought Whoopi Goldberg was just playfully upset with you. Goldberg was really ticked off!"
Gary Cheezig
Edina, MN
MILLER TIME
The D-man takes on Nancy Pelosi for saying election night was a win for the Democrats. What was she thinking?
"Why do I get the impression Miller doesn't care for Nancy Pelosi?"
Chuck Waldron
Lakeland, FL
"I disagree with Miller. This country's third in command is not a certified buffoon, she only comes off as one because her life is completely run by emotion."
Butch Higley
Marianna, FL
"Miller is right about Pelosi being empty and vapid. The longer she's in office, the more robotic she becomes."
Susan Joy Durovey-Tuley
Shamrock Lakes, IN
"The only thing Nancy Pelosi's comment proves is that she's living in the land of Oz and doesn't have a staff who can do research for her."
Owen Miller
Lebanon, OR
"I agree with Dennis Miller about Pelosi. Every time I see her, I get the same feeling of disgust I got when I saw Richard Nixon."
Tom Monfort
Columbus, GA
MISCELLANEOUS
"I know this is sappy, but you're the most positive influence on my life. You are making me a better person by your example."
Todd Morris
Hemet, CA
"You should become the Common Sense Czar for the Obama administration!"
Cliff Conti
Paramus, NJ
"Bill, don't be a wisenheimer."
Chris Topple
Oshawa, Canada |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 3:10 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| November 3, 2009 |
| Stratfor.com: Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time |
Making sense of U.S. President Barack Obama's strategy at this moment is difficult. Not only is it a work in progress, but the pending decisions he has to make-on Iran, Afghanistan and Russia-tend to obscure underlying strategy. It is easy to confuse inaction with a lack of strategy. Of course, there may well be a lack of strategic thinking, but that does not mean there is a lack of strategy.
Strategy, as we have argued, is less a matter of choice than a matter of reality imposing itself on presidents. Former U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, rarely had a chance to make strategy. He was caught in a whirlwind after only nine months in office and spent the rest of his presidency responding to events, making choices from a menu of very bad options. Similarly, Obama came into office with a preset menu of limited choices. He seems to be fighting to create new choices, not liking what is on the menu. He may succeed. But it is important to understand the overwhelming forces that shape his choices and to understand the degree to which whatever he chooses is embedded in U.S. grand strategy, a strategy imposed by geopolitical reality.
Empires and Grand Strategy
American grand strategy, as we have argued, is essentially that of the British Empire, save at a global rather than a regional level. The British sought to protect their national security by encouraging Continental powers to engage in land-based conflict, thereby reducing resources available for building a navy. That guaranteed that Britain's core interest, the security of the homeland and sea-lane control, remained intact. Achieving this made the United Kingdom an economic power in the 19th century by sparing it the destruction of war and allowing it to control the patterns of international maritime trade.
On occasion, when the balance of power in Europe tilted toward one side or another, Britain intervened on the Continent with political influence where possible, direct aid when necessary or-when all else failed-the smallest possible direct military intervention. The United Kingdom's preferred strategy consisted of imposing a blockade-e.g., economic sanctions-allowing it to cause pain without incurring costs.
At the same time that it pursued this European policy, London was building a global empire. Here again, the British employed a balance-of-power strategy. In looking at the history of India or Africa during the 19th century, there is a consistent pattern of the United Kingdom forming alliances with factions, whether religious or ethnic groups, to create opportunities for domination. In the end, this was not substantially different from ancient Rome's grand strategy. Rome also ruled indirectly through much of its empire, controlling Mediterranean sea-lanes, but allying with local forces to govern; observing Roman strategy in Egypt is quite instructive in this regard.
Empires are not created by someone deciding one day to build one, or more precisely, lasting empires are not. They emerge over time through a series of decisions having nothing to do with empire building, and frequently at the hands of people far more concerned with domestic issues than foreign policy. Paradoxically, leaders who consciously set out to build empires usually fail. Hitler is a prime example. His failure was that rather than ally with forces in the Soviet Union, he wished to govern directly, something that flowed from his ambitions for direct rule. Particularly at the beginning, the Roman and British empires were far less ambitious and far less conscious of where they were headed. They were primarily taking care of domestic affairs. They became involved in foreign policy as needed, following a strategy of controlling the seas while maintaining substantial ground forces able to prevail anywhere-but not everywhere at once-and a powerful alliance system based on supporting the ambitions of local powers against other local powers.
On the whole, the United States has no interest in empire, and indeed is averse to imperial adventures. Those who might have had explicit inclinations in this direction are mostly out of government, crushed by experience in Iraq. Iraq came in two parts. In the first part, from 2003 to 2007, the U.S. vision was one of direct rule relying on American sea-lane control and overwhelming Iraq with well-supplied American troops.
The results were unsatisfactory. The United States found itself arrayed against all Iraqi factions and wound up in a multipart war in which its forces were merely one faction arrayed against others. The Petraeus strategy to escape this trap was less an innovation in counterinsurgency than a classic British-Roman approach. Rather than attempting direct control of Iraq, Petraeus sought to manipulate the internal balance of power, aligning with Sunni forces against Shiite forces, i.e., allying with the weaker party at that moment against the stronger. The strategy did not yield the outcome that some Bush strategists dreamed of, but it might (with an emphasis on might) yield a useful outcome: a precariously balanced Iraq dependent on the United States to preserve its internal balance of power and national sovereignty against Iran.
Many Americans, perhaps even most, regret the U.S. intervention in Iraq. And there are many, again perhaps most, who view broader U.S. entanglement in the world as harmful to American interests. Similar views were expressed by Roman republicans and English nationalists who felt that protecting the homeland by controlling the sea was the best policy, while letting the rest of the world go its own way. But the Romans and the British lost that option when they achieved the key to their own national security: enough power to protect the homeland. Outsiders inevitably came to see that power as offensive, even though originally its possessors intended it as defensive. Indeed, intent aside, the capability for offensive power was there. So frequently, Rome and Britain threatened the interests of foreign powers simply by being there. Inevitably, both Rome and Britain became the targets of Hannibals and Napoleons, and they were both drawn into the world regardless of their original desires. In short, enough power to be secure is enough power to threaten others. Therefore, that perfect moment of national security always turns offensive, as the power to protect the homeland threatens the security of other countries.
A Question of Size
There are Obama supporters and opponents who also dream of the perfect balance: security for the United States achieved by not interfering in the affairs of others. They see foreign entanglements not as providing homeland security, but as generating threats to it. They do not understand that what they want, American prosperity without international risks, is by definition impossible. The U.S. economy is roughly 25 percent of the world's economy. The American military controls the seas, not all at the same time, but anywhere it wishes at any given time. The United States also controls outer space. It is impossible for the United States not to intrude on the affairs of most countries in the world simply by virtue of its daily operations. The United States is an elephant that affects the world simply by being in the same room with it. The only way to not be an elephant is to shrink in size, and whether the United States would ever want this aside, decreasing power is harder to do than it might appear-and much more painful.
Obama's challenge is managing U.S. power without decreasing its size and without imposing undue costs on it. This sounds like an attractive idea, but it ultimately won't work: The United States cannot be what it is without attracting hostile attention. For some of Obama's supporters, it is American behavior that generates hostility. Actually, it is America's presence-its very size-that intrudes on the world and generates hostility.
On the domestic front, the isolationist-internationalist divide in the United States has always been specious. Isolationists before World War II simply wanted to let the European balance of power manage itself. They wanted to buy time, but had no problem with intervening in China against Japan. The internationalists simply wanted to move from the first to the second stage, arguing that the first stage had failed. There was thus no argument in principle between them; there was simply a debate over how much time to give the process to see if it worked out. Both sides had the same strategy, but simply a different read of the moment. In retrospect, Franklin Roosevelt was right, but only because France collapsed in the face of the Nazi onslaught in a matter of weeks. That aside, the isolationist argument was quite rational.
Like that of Britain or Rome, U.S. grand strategy is driven by the sheer size of the national enterprise, a size achieved less through planning than by geography and history. Having arrived where it has, the United States has three layers to its strategy.
First, the United States must maintain the balance of power in various regions in the world. It does this by supporting a range of powers, usually the weaker against the stronger. Ideally, this balance of power maintains itself without American effort and yields relative stability. But stability is secondary to keeping local powers focused on each other rather than on the United States: Stability is a rhetorical device, not a goal. The real U.S. interest lies in weakening and undermining emergent powers so they don't ultimately rise to challenge American power. This is a strategy of nipping things in the bud.
Second, where emergent powers cannot be maintained through the regional balance of power, the United States has an interest in sharing the burden of containing it with other major powers. The United States will seek to use such coalitions either to intimidate the emerging power via economic power or, in extremis, via military power.
Third, where it is impossible to build a coalition to coerce emerging powers, the United States must decide either to live with the emerging power, forge an alliance with it, or attack it unilaterally.
Obama, as with any president, will first pursue the first layer of the strategy, using as little American power as possible and waiting as long as possible to see whether this works. The key here lies in not taking premature action that could prove more dangerous or costly than necessary. If that fails, his strategy is to create a coalition of powers to share the cost and risk. And only when that fails-which is a function of time and politics-will Obama turn to the third layer, which can range from simply living with the emerging power and making a suitable deal or crushing it militarily.
When al Qaeda attacked what it saw as the leading Christian power on Sept. 11, Bush found himself thrown into the third stage very rapidly. The second phase was illusory; sympathy aside, the quantity of military force allies could and would bring to bear was minimal. Even active allies like Britain and Australia couldn't bring decisive force to bear. Bush was forced into unilateralism not so much by the lack of will among allies as by their lack of power. His choice lay in creating chaos in the Islamic world and then forming alliances out of the debris, or trying to impose a direct solution through military force. He began with the second and shifted to the first.
Obama's Choices
Obama has more room to maneuver than Bush had. In the case of Iran, no regional solution is possible. Israel can only barely reach into the region, and while its air force might suffice to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, and air attacks might be sufficient to destroy them, Israel could not deal with the Iranian response of mining the Strait of Hormuz and/or destabilizing Iraq. The United States must absorb these blows.
Therefore, Obama has tried to build an anti-Iranian coalition to intimidate Tehran. Given the Russian and Chinese positions, this seems to have failed, and Iran has not been intimidated. That leaves Obama with two possible paths. One is the path followed by Nixon in China: ally with Iran against Russian influence, accepting it as a nuclear power and dealing with it through a combination of political alignment and deterrence. The second option is dealing with Iran militarily.
His choice thus lies between entente or war. He is bluffing war in hopes of getting what he wants, in the meantime hoping that internal events in Iran may evolve in a way suitable to U.S. interests or that Russian economic hardship evolves into increased Russian dependence on the United States such that Washington can extract Russian concessions on Iran. Given the state of Iran's nuclear development, which is still not near a weapon, Obama is using time to try to head off the third stage.
In Afghanistan, where Obama is already in the third stage and where he is being urged to go deeper in, he is searching for a way to return to the first stage, wherein an indigenous coalition emerges that neutralizes Afghanistan through its own internal dynamic. Hence, Washington is negotiating with the Taliban, trying to strengthen various factions in Afghanistan and not quite committing to more force. Winter is coming in Afghanistan, and that is the quiet time in that conflict. Obama is clearly buying time.
In that sense, Obama's foreign policy is neither as alien as his critics would argue nor as original as his supporters argue. He is adhering to the basic logic of American grand strategy, minimizing risks over time while seeking ways to impose low-cost solutions. It differs from Bush's policies primarily in that Bush had events forced on him and spent his presidency trying to regain the initiative.
The interesting point from where we sit is not only how deeply embedded Obama is in U.S. grand strategy, but how deeply drawn he is into the unintended imperial enterprise that has dominated American foreign policy since the 1930s-an enterprise neither welcomed nor acknowledged by most Americans. Empires aren't planned, at least not successful empires, as Hitler and Napoleon learned to their regret. Empires happen as the result of the sheer reality of power. The elephant in the room cannot stop being an elephant, nor can the smaller animals ignore him. No matter how courteous the elephant, it is his power-his capabilities-not his intentions that matter.
Obama is now the elephant in the room. He has bought as much time as possible to make decisions, and he is being as amiable as possible to try to build as large a coalition as possible. But the coalition has neither the power nor appetite for the risks involved, so Obama will have to decide whether to live with Iran, form an alliance with Iran or go to war with Iran. In Afghanistan, he must decide whether he can recreate the balance of power by staying longer and whether this will be more effective by sending more troops, or whether it is time to begin withdrawal. In both cases, he can use the art of the bluff to shape the behavior of others, maybe.
He came into the presidency promising to be more amiable than Bush, something not difficult given the circumstances. He is now trying to convert amiability into a coalition, a much harder thing to do. In the end, he will have to make hard decisions. In American foreign policy, however, the ideal strategy is always to buy time so as to let the bribes, bluffs and threats do their work. Obama himself probably doesn't know what he will do; that will depend on circumstances. Letting events flow until they can no longer be tolerated is the essence of American grand strategy, a path Obama is following faithfully.
It should always be remembered that this long-standing American policy has frequently culminated in war, as with Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Bush. It was Clinton's watchful waiting to see how things played out, after all, that allowed al Qaeda the time to build and strike. But this is not a criticism of Clinton-U.S. strategy is to trade time for risk. Over time, the risk might lead to war anyway, but then again, it might not. If war does come, American power is still decisive, if not in creating peace, then certainly in wreaking havoc upon rising powers. And that is the foundation of empire.
Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.
Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers. |
| Posted by George Friedman, Stratfor.com at 4:47 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 3, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Tuesday, November 3 |
ELECTION NIGHT!
With key governor races in Virginia and New Jersey, and a hot battle for a House seat in upstate New York, will voters turn out against the Democratic party and President Obama?
"The election results are a clear indication of the country's growing skepticism towards President Obama. People are beginning to fear the vision he has for America."
Lee Bernardo
Lauderdale by the Sea, FL
"The Republican sweep last night was not the result of Obama-care. It was the result of his administration's egotistic and arrogant obsession with socialistic government control. 2010 will be a bloodbath for the liberals."
Larry McBride
Mt. Vernon, IL
"Of the three races last night, the only Democrat that won was the one Obama didn't stump for!"
Nancy Beyer
Houston, TX
"Does everything Obama touches turn to gold? No."
Ken Coleman
Schenectady, NY
"Obama was more concerned with the war in New Jersey than the one in Afghanistan."
Rev. John Gregorek
Satellite Beach, FL
"You are missing a huge point concerning the Republican wins in Virginia. An enormous military base is located in Norfolk, so a high number of military personnel and veterans live in Virginia."
Scott Ward
Bella Vista, AR
"No one mentioned the fact that Virginia Governor Tom Kaine, the chairman of the Democratic party, had no impact on the election. What does this say about the Democratic leadership?"
Brian Glass
Richmond, VA
"The Virginia election of Obama in 2008 was not a mandate for his radical policies. Rather, people were enthralled with the idea of electing the first black President."
Barbara Morin
Charlottesville, VA
"I predict Obama will throw the losing Democrats in NJ and VA under the bus in an attempt to wipe the political dust from his own shoulders."
Clint Loeffler
Colonial Beach, VA
"People do not have confidence in Barack Obama's performance as president. People don't think he can be trusted."
Jean Stephens
Colorado Springs, CO
"The margin of victory here was meant to send a message to our leaders: reign in spending, stop the socialistic policies and give Gen. McChrystal his troops."
Fred Ridgway
Quinton, VA
"If Doug Hoffman had won in NY, it would have been considered a referendum against Obama. So Bill Owens winning a seat held by Republicans for 150 years is certainly a referendum for the President."
Mary Wallace
Syracuse, NY
"A vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote. If Americans don't vote for the candidate they think will move the country in the right direction, we've lost what makes this a great country."
Nathan Hightman
Concord, NC
STOSSEL MATTERS
The Factor's newest contributor explains how the New York Times criticized him recently for speaking to a conservative gathering.
"My girlfriend thinks John Stossel is cute, so I have to hear about it whenever you pick on him. Please cut him some slack to promote harmony in my household."
Dave Powell
Dunedin, FL
"I love Mr. Stossel's frank style of reporting and the upfront nature of his work. I'm glad to see he's joined the Fox News team."
Michael Connerth
Clarksville, TN
"While at ABC News, John Stossel flew under the New York Times' radar. Now he comes to Fox and he's the devil incarnate? Welcome to smear central!"
Paul Roscelli
Redwood City, CA
MISCELLANEOUS
"While voting for the city's mayor today, my 6-year-old son told me to vote for Abraham Lincoln. He said he's heard he's a pretty good guy."
Sandra Rodriguez Barron
Milford, CT |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 3:09 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 2, 2009 |
| Viewer Mail for Monday, November 2 |
POLITICAL POTPOURRI
Rush Limbaugh says Mr. Obama is intentionally trying to sabotage the economy; and health care reform takes another step forward.
"Obama may not want the economy to completely fail, but he clearly wants to keep it in crisis to help get his radical agenda through."
Sam Jahnske
Chandler, AZ
"What Rush is saying is that Obama is purposely creating a crisis to use as an excuse for his government takeover. He did the same thing with the auto industry and banking."
Mark Etterling
West Chester, OH
"Limbaugh speaks only to the converted and changes few minds, but he teaches the converted how to convince others. This is the sign of a growing movement."
Clifford Andersen
Arvada, CO
"You said you doubted Limbaugh changes minds with his rhetoric. Au contraire. Many liberals call into his show thanking him for enlightening them."
Tom Burley
Alto, MI
"As a McCain Democrat, I despise the Rush Limbaughs on both sides. They divide the country."
Al Sams
Cocoa, FL
"I don't think President Obama cares about being re-elected. He can crush the economy in four years."
Charles Baier
Baltimore, MD
"We agree with you on the health care bill and we agree with Rush Limbaugh."
Joseph Fox
Lancaster, OH
"Brit Hume says the public nor members of Congress are ever able to understand proposed legislation. If he's correct, we're doomed."
Dick West
Washoe Valley, NV
"Neil Cavuto has more credibility on health care than most of your guests. Because of his financial success and medical history, he'll be footing the bill for Obama-care through higher taxes."
Teresa Belmonte
Bensenville, IL
"If the government steals from Medicare to pay for his health care plan, how can we trust them not to steal from health care to pay for some other ill-conceived plan?"
Ray Finley
Page, AZ
"The reason I oppose the health care bill is I can't find in the Constitution where it says the federal government should get involved in such activities."
Robert Megee
Plano, TX
"When the bureaucrats get down with it, the bill will be over 20,000 pages. To think this will help our health care system is ludicrous."
Larry Weaver
Dodge City, KS
"The pro-choice lobby should be screaming bloody murder over the government regulation of their bodies! Where are they?"
Becki Thompson
Forest City, IA
"Perhaps Mr. Obama's agenda doesn't include running for a second term. Could it be that passing health care to bankrupt this country is his entire agenda?"
Suann Patel
Puyallup, WA
"It's taking Nancy Pelosi 2,000 pages to give us a public option for 2% of Americans. It took the Founding Fathers 6 pages to give us the Constitution. What's wrong with this picture?"
Clair Staples
East Stroudsburg, PA
MORMON MUFFINS
Reality Check takes a look at a calendar of Mormon mothers posing provocatively. The calendar raises money for breast cancer awareness.
"For anyone to get upset about the way the Mormon Muffins are dressed in their calendar is absurd. They are raising a lot of money for a great cause."
Darold Schnell
Pyeongtaek, South Korea
"I'm a Mormon mother and I don't think the women who modeled for the calendar care much about raising money for breast cancer. They are silly women, being ridiculous and certainly not doing women any favors."
Brooke Nield
Cedar Hills, UT
"It annoys me that whenever Mormons make the news, it involves questionable behavior. The media never pays attention to the fact the LDS church is one of the world's leading charitable organizations."
MacKenzie Ware
Clovis, CA
"Why does reality check support Mormon women portraying themselves not conducive to their faith? Last time I checked, modesty and chastity were still a good thing."
Chris Brown
Provo, UT
"I'm a Mormon and won't be buying the calendar. My 2010 calendar will have pictures of my family, not someone else's wife in skimpy clothing."
Grant Brimhall
Orem, UT
MISCELLANEOUS
"I bet you a bold fresh piece of steak and lobster dinner that Obama is a radical. Americans have eaten here and choked before."
Tom Belanger
Amelia Island, FL |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 3:08 PM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| November 2, 2009 |
| The O'Quiz: Test your current events knowledge! |
Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score declined slightly to 5.16 questions correct out of 10 from the previous week's average of 5.34 out of 10. See how well you do this week!
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 10:37 AM - Link to this entry Share this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Videos
