O’Reilly vs. Letterman 2: Your Culuture Warrior Is Showing

3:35 am EST October 28th, 2006 | Media | 8 Comments

I have a feeling that if the mainstream media allowed a strong and non-sellout liberal to have a show in prime-time it would look sort of like this confrontation with Bill O’Reilly and David Letterman. It’s funny how the only sort-of liberals the media titans will allow on their air are comedians, isn’t it?

Either way it’s fun to see Bill O’Reilly get a lot of the same treatment he gives all of his guests.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

8 Responses to “O’Reilly vs. Letterman 2: Your Culuture Warrior Is Showing”

  1. Lons says:
    October 28, 2006 at 1:28 pm

    It’s a funny interview (I particularly like Dave’s “Bonehead!” interjection), but he still allows Billy O to frame the debate in a limited and confusing manner.

    The giveaway is Bill’s query: “Do you want America to win in Iraq?” That’s not a serious question. America “winning” something is not even on the table for discussion…Yet Dave persists in answering anyway.

  2. John says:
    October 28, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    Dave isn’t a political commentator. For a non-pro, he did a fantastic job.

  3. Something Polish says:
    October 28, 2006 at 7:44 pm

    And Dave’s also not especially liberal. But he is pretty smart and though not really pro-left, he is anti-dumbass/blowhard (which I would argue is de facto pro-left).

  4. Lons says:
    October 28, 2006 at 8:41 pm

    Hey, this isn’t a crack on Dave. He did a terrific job. It’s a great clip.

    I just don’t think you need to be a political commentator, or a liberal, to take issue with Bill O’Reilly’s question.

    Of course, if there were something to be won, Americans would want to WIN in Iraq. Going on Letterman and asking him if he secretly wants Americans to die and terrorists to triumph is insulting.

  5. Quaker in a Basement says:
    October 28, 2006 at 9:08 pm

    The answer to “Do you want America to win in Iraq?” is:

    “We have already won what can be won militarily.”

    We cannot use our military to end violence by opposing factions operating independent of state support. We could be there for 100 years and kill a million “terrorists” and there would still be people with the will to kill each other and our troops.

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    October 29, 2006 at 12:30 am

    Also, I love how O’Reilly pulls Ansar al-Islam out of his butt as if they had anything to do with our reasons for being in Iraq.

    While there’s strong evidence of bin Laden’s support for Ansar al-Islam, there’s scant evidence that Saddam ever had much to do with them other than cheer them on as they gave the Kurds headaches.

    Of course, O’Reilly wields their name as proof, proof you understand, that Saddam had to be taken out.

  7. Jamison says:
    October 29, 2006 at 7:31 am

    I don’t know Oliver, I think Olbermann does a decent job smacking O’Reilly around. Mind you they won’t let him have more than half a show to do it. But it’s probably the best we can hope for until we get some control and fix the media consolidation problem we have in this country.

  8. Miguel says:
    December 9, 2006 at 12:07 am

    I just can’t respect Dave’s comments that Bill is full of artificial facts if one, Dave has never watched his show and two, he has not read any of his books. Sounds like the only knowledge he has about Bill is from his liberal hollywood friends.