• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

O'Reilly vs. Letterman

Phil said:
They then discuss Bush and Sheehan, and Bill uses the fact that Sheehan called insurgents freedom fighter (which strictly speaking they are, they just happen to be fighting for freedom from Americans) to get some cheap applause.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take issue with this one. I don't think you can call someone a freedom fighter unless net freedoms would increase if those fighters obtained their goals - any other definition so castrates meaning from the word that it becomes completely arbitrary (establishing Bush as a dictator, for example, would "free" us from being controlled by Congress, but that is not a meaningful freedom). Yes, Iraqis might be free from American influence, but is it seriously your contention that the total amount of freedom in Iraq would increase if they won? If not, how is Sheehan's labeling of those fighters anything other than hysterical nonsense at best? Bill's use of that incident may indeed have been just for cheap applause (I'm not aware of Cindy having made any such statement on Letterman's show), but he got applause nonetheless because Sheehan's statement really was deplorable.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'll have to take issue with this one. I don't think you can call someone a freedom fighter unless net freedoms would increase if those fighters obtained their goals . . . .
Click to expand...

Your opinion is duly noted.

Ziggurat said:
. . . . - any other definition so castrates meaning from the word that it becomes completely arbitrary (establishing Bush as a dictator, for example, would "free" us from being controlled by Congress, but that is not a meaningful freedom). . . . .
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but strictly speaking, it is freedom.

Ziggurat said:
. . . . Yes, Iraqis might be free from American influence, but is it seriously your contention that the total amount of freedom in Iraq would increase if they won? . . . .
Click to expand...

No, it's not my contention at all. I don't believe I said anything about the amount of freedom for Iraqis resulting from an insurgent victory --- or American victory for that matter.

Ziggurat said:
. . . If not, how is Sheehan's labeling of those fighters anything other than hysterical nonsense at best? . . .
Click to expand...

It probably is hysterical nonsense, but I'm willing to give Sheehan the benefit of the doubt when it comes to understanding the nuances of the language. I'm also willing to give Bill the benefit of the doubt when it comes to understanding the nuances of the language as well. But Bill understands them so well that he took a statement from Sheehan out of context to make it appear as though she is somehow anti-American.

He said anyone who called the insurgents freedom fighters would never be on his show, implying that Sheehan sympathizes with the enemy, and appealing directly to the sometimes misdirected patriotism of his viewers. He paints Sheehan as a Bush-bashing, America hater, when really she is just a grieving mother who vehemently opposes the war, and who happened at one time to state, quite correctly in one context, that the insurgents and terrorists are freedom fighters.

Ziggurat said:
. . . . Bill's use of that incident may indeed have been just for cheap applause (I'm not aware of Cindy having made any such statement on Letterman's show), but he got applause nonetheless because Sheehan's statement really was deplorable.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of Sheehan appearing on Letterman's show either. I believe the statement was reported by other media outlets, but I could be wrong about that.

And it being deplorable is a matter of your opnion, one that I cannot agree with unless I know and understand the context in which it was made.

If she was rallying support for insurgents and terrorists, and stood up on a soap box praising their glorious mission in hopes of recruiting people or swaying public opinion in favor of terrorism and killing, then yes, I agree the statement is deplorable.

But if it's as I suspect, and she merely said she was afraid many more American soldiers would die because, in a sense, the insurgents simply want freedom from what to them must seem yet another form of tyrany, then no, I don't think it is deplorable at all.
 
Phil said:
But Bill understands them so well that he took a statement from Sheehan out of context to make it appear as though she is somehow anti-American.
Click to expand...

Bill's an a**, you'll get no argument on that point. But I've seen the tape where Sheehan calls terrorists "freedom fighters". I know exactly what the context is. And the context doesn't excuse the statement. She was wrong to label them "freedom fighters" in every meaningful way. The only way to make her statement "correct" is to adopt such a narrow and unworkable definition that adopting that twisted definition is itself an act that damages discourse. Words matter. The definition of words matter. I'm not talking about whether or not she was "anti-American", trying to aid the enemy, or whatever: I mean she was wrong to make that statement, plain and simple.

Oh, and for your reference, the people she was referring to weren't even Iraqis, but terrorists coming into Iraq from other countries.
 
Phil said:
Did Letterman say that he "has a feeling that 60% of what Bill says on the Factor is crap"? Or did he say that he "has a feeling that 60% of what Bill says" is crap?
Click to expand...

What I remember is that he said that he had a feeling that about 60% of what O'Reilly was saying (i.e. right then) was crap, and I think it's a pretty reasonable estimate.
 
I'll have to reprise what I said on another forum.

O'Reilly said something about Sheehan. This was true. It therefore isn't crap. Ed: She said what O'Reilly claimed she said, so in that case what he said isn't crap. Whether or not was Sheehan said was crap is not relevant.

O'Reilly also said something about someone changing words to Silent Night. This was crap. The school was performing a play written by a Presbyterian minister.

He also said something about a school in Plano, Texas forbidding red and green clothing. This was complete crap. It had extra crap on top, because O'Reilly had previously admitted that this was false. (On December 13, if memory serves).

He also mentioned something else about a nativity in a library, but I haven't been able to find out if this is crap or not.

At this point, we can be reasonbly sure that somewhere between 50% and 75% of the points O'Reilly made on that show were crap. 60% is near the bottom of that estimate.
 
Last edited:
Letterman wasn't prepared for a debate because it wasn't a debate. It was a conflict between two self-styled populists, and O'Reilly lost simply by provoking Letterman into letting it happen. He knows better than to fall for Letterman's I'm-no-fancy-city-lawyer rhetoric and proclaim himself the super smart debate team captain who beat the kid everyone likes. Which is why I imagine he didn't go crowing about it once he got back to his vacuum chamber, instead deferring to Letterman and his audience and arguing that he did ok considering.
 
I can't imagine why Letterman even had him as a guest and not be prepared for a discussion. I know he occasionally has political figures and news anchors on the show, but my recollection is the event is mostly to joke around not engage in any meaningful debate.

Just bewildering.
 
epepke said:
What I remember is that he said that he had a feeling that about 60% of what O'Reilly was saying (i.e. right then) was crap, and I think it's a pretty reasonable estimate.
Click to expand...

Kind of doesn't matter. Bill was on Dave's show, not the other way around. The accuracy of the statement on Dave's part doesn't matter. The proper response is not a defense, but a humorous dig back at Dave, something like "Yeah, sorry about that, Dave, I really didn't mean to horn in on your act." The LAST thing Bill should have done is tried to have a real argument on Dave's show, because it simply doesn't matter if Dave tells the truth or not as long as he's funny. It's like that old addage about mud wrestling with pigs: you just end up dirty and the pig likes it. Bill's only good option was to play along like it was all a joke. Bill probably thought he scored a point when Dave said he never watched Bill's show, but he didn't. Dave insulted him, by essentially saying that his show wasn't worth watching. And since this was an entertainment show, the insult matters more than the debating technicality.
 
Ziggurat said:
Bill's an a**, you'll get no argument on that point. But I've seen the tape where Sheehan calls terrorists "freedom fighters". I know exactly what the context is. And the context doesn't excuse the statement. She was wrong to label them "freedom fighters" in every meaningful way. The only way to make her statement "correct" is to adopt such a narrow and unworkable definition that adopting that twisted definition is itself an act that damages discourse. Words matter. The definition of words matter. I'm not talking about whether or not she was "anti-American", trying to aid the enemy, or whatever: I mean she was wrong to make that statement, plain and simple.

Oh, and for your reference, the people she was referring to weren't even Iraqis, but terrorists coming into Iraq from other countries.
Click to expand...

Well, I've searched the Internet and the only video of Sheehan calling anyone freedom fighters that I could find is the one of her being interviewed by a CBS reporter named Mark Knoller near a bus. If there are others, I apologize, but if this is the video containing the statement you think is wrong "plain and simple", I have to whole-heartedly disagree with your contention that it is a deplorable thing to say. To me, it seems innocuous at best.

I am, however, not convinced that my intitial assessment was accurate. I'm no longer confident she meant "freedom fighters" in the sense that insurgents and terrorists are fighting for their own type of freedom. In fact, it wouldn't take much, after watching the video and listening to it a few times closely, to convince me that she actually meant "freedom fighters" in the fighters of freedom sense.

I think she was, in actuality, trying to puntuate the fact that even more enemies of American soldiers were trickling into Iraq, making the climate that much more dangerous for the men and women in the field. She seems to want to get across that insurgents, terrorists, and all manner of fighters of freedom have been motivated by the American presence there.

In the video, one sees the proverbial "media circus" going on around her. Sheehan at times seems very uneasy amid the spectacle and uncomfortable in front of the microphones. Many times while she's being interviewed, she stumbles on her words. It's not difficult to imagine that she was actually referring to people highly opposed to the idea of western liberty, and slipped and called them freedom fighters by mistake. And not being conscious of the error in word choice, simply went on speaking.

There are even a couple of stories on the Web that broke later, wondering why the statement wasn't followed up on thoroughly at the time. Perhaps the media on the scene felt she simply misspoke as well, and let the matter die.

But it's people like Bill O'Reilly who won't hesitate to grasp onto something like this and spin it for ratings, to support their hardline views, or whatever. And I think that's exactly what he's done, and perhaps Letterman was getting a sense of that and called BS in his own way.

Of course, as I said, I could only find the one video. There may be others where Sheehan spews the statements that you deem deplorable and wrong.
 
Phil said:
Well, I've searched the Internet and the only video of Sheehan calling anyone freedom fighters that I could find is the one of her being interviewed by a CBS reporter named Mark Knoller near a bus.
Click to expand...

No, that's the one I'm refering to.

I am, however, not convinced that my intitial assessment was accurate. I'm no longer confident she meant "freedom fighters" in the sense that insurgents and terrorists are fighting for their own type of freedom. In fact, it wouldn't take much, after watching the video and listening to it a few times closely, to convince me that she actually meant "freedom fighters" in the fighters of freedom sense.
Click to expand...

That's a REALLY strange interpretation. I have never heard of anyone ever using the term "freedom fighters" the way we use the term "fire fighters". Given the context, it's very hard for me to accept that she could possibly have meant that, and if she DID mean that, she was still wrong to say it in the sense that it was bound to be interpreted the way people have overwhelmingly used the term in the past, and not in the sense you suggest. It would be like using the term "fire fighter" to mean someone who used fire as a weapon: it's contradictory to standard and accepted usage, and the fault of any misinterpretation is therefore with the speaker and not the listener.

It's not difficult to imagine that she was actually referring to people highly opposed to the idea of western liberty, and slipped and called them freedom fighters by mistake. And not being conscious of the error in word choice, simply went on speaking.
Click to expand...

This statement, more than perhaps any other statement she made, has gotten widespread and public criticism. If your interpretation is correct, she could easily have made a statement to that effect. She has done nothing of the sort. The only conclusion I am left with is that (whatever her intentions in saying it at the time) she has accepted the interpretation of her words as being complimentary to the terrorists. To say that it was a mere slip of the tongue only shifts her responsibility for the mistake from the moment she said it to her current failure to clarify.

There are even a couple of stories on the Web that broke later, wondering why the statement wasn't followed up on thoroughly at the time. Perhaps the media on the scene felt she simply misspoke as well, and let the matter die.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's plenty of conflicting interpretations about THAT.

But it's people like Bill O'Reilly who won't hesitate to grasp onto something like this and spin it for ratings, to support their hardline views, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Bill's an a**. I'm not about to disagree on that point. He thinks far to highly of himself and his imagined importance.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, that's the one I'm refering to.
Click to expand...

That would be this exchange, I presume?

KNOLLER: You know that the president says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don't you believe that?

SHEEHAN: No, because it's not true. You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and [U.S. troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country.

That's a REALLY strange interpretation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. "Freedom fighters" is a term, and it wouldn't be natural for an English speaker to verbally join the words together like that if they meant "Fighters of freedom."

[SNIP]


This statement, more than perhaps any other statement she made, has gotten widespread and public criticism.
Click to expand...

Bit of a storm in a teacup, really; as she in the same breath calls them "car bombers" and "suicide bombers" and what they do as "terrorism." Considering some of the other people who've been called "Freedom Fighters" through the years, her use of it isn't that out of the ordinary.

What would you suggest she had said instead, by the way? "Terrorist" strikes me as just as inaccurate, in that not all the fighters who crossed into Iraq would end up comitting terrorism -- some would commit regular attacks against US armed forces. (Labeling them as "terrorists" would also lessen her argument that these people were not "terrorists by nature", and that the terrorism in Iraq was a result of the US presence.)

"Insurgents" doesn't work as that suggests they are fighting against an established government as opposed to a foreign army.

"Guerillas" suggests a level of organisation and a type of warfare that isn't suitable for all.

"Resistance fighters" is hardly any better than "Freedom Fighters" when it comes to positive connotations.

"Partisans" has the combined problems of both "Guerillas" and "Resistance fighters."

Perhaps the simpler "warriors" would have been better, but that does lose the indications of the irregular nature of their fighting.

Anyway, that aside, isn't it pretty harsh to jump all over a person that's inexperienced at speaking to media and not an expert in matters of military or international politics just because she used a term with some positive connotations to describe people fighting against US forces in a verbal reply. Especially considering that this term has been a) commonly applied to some not-so-nice people in other occasions (back when Bin Laden[/b] was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was considered a "freedom fighter") and when she feels that the US military shouldn't be fighting against these people in the first place? There are not a lot of value neutral words to describe people who're fighting against you.
 
It occurs to me that it would've been funny if Dave had constantly interrupted Bill, twisted his words around not allowed him to clarify, threatend to turn off his mic, etc...that is, it would've been funny if Dave treated Bill like Bill treats his own guests.

It would have been absolutely great if at the end Dave said "Okay, I'll give you the last word" and then after Bill said something Dave rebutted the point and then ended the segment. If I had a dollar for every time O'Reilly did that I'd have...as much money as O'Reilly.
 
Number Six said:
It occurs to me that it would've been funny if Dave had constantly interrupted Bill, twisted his words around not allowed him to clarify, threatend to turn off his mic, etc...that is, it would've been funny if Dave treated Bill like Bill treats his own guests.

It would have been absolutely great if at the end Dave said "Okay, I'll give you the last word" and then after Bill said something Dave rebutted the point and then ended the segment. If I had a dollar for every time O'Reilly did that I'd have...as much money as O'Reilly.
Click to expand...
Oh, please, could we end the segment with Dave yelling "Shut up!" and cutting off Bill's mic?
 
Phil said:
But if it's as I suspect, and she merely said she was afraid many more American soldiers would die because, in a sense, the insurgents simply want freedom from what to them must seem yet another form of tyrany, then no, I don't think it is deplorable at all.
Click to expand...
A large portion of the insurgency is opposing American tyranny not because they are opposed to tyranny, but because it interferes with their plans of imposing their own tyranny.

Leif Roar said:
"Insurgents" doesn't work as that suggests they are fighting against an established government as opposed to a foreign army.
Click to expand...
That's quite a weak suggestion, and hardly makes "freedom fighter" an attractive alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom