Bill O'Reilly opened his show by telling his viewers that the "surge" has worked and now Iraq is probably a non issue for the Democratic candidates in the upcoming election. He was so jazzed about his "talking point memo" that he had on not one, but two Democrats to debate him on this.
[media id=3362] [media id=3363]
Unfortunately for Bill, Rep. Jan Schakowsky would have none of it and made Bill stop and then spin what she said. Any person that has followed the war knows that the surge was sold as hopefully bringing down the sectarian violence in Iraq long enough for the Iraqi government to pas meaningful legislation. Well, as we know the central government has done nothing at all and Schakowsky broke O'Reilly's claim instantly. Notice that in Bill's twisted logic, we have to be "loyal Americans." WTF does he mean? OK, OK, we know what he means. If you have a differing opinion about the war and take a strong position, you're a commie---hippie-freak who's disloyal to the flag so wake the f*&k up or you'll be tazed, bro! O'Reilly gets back on message and says he was right and she was wrong.
Schakowsky: Bill, Bill, you can say that over and over, no, Bill, you can say over and over again 'the surge" has worked,
Schakowsky: ...but defined by Petraeus and Croker at the start of the surge which was to create political reconciliation---we are as far from that as we have ever been.
O'Reilly: You're spinning..
Schakowsky: So you can repeat it and repeat it as often as you want. It's not the case.
O'Reilly: I have to define something because the Congresswoman is spinning the issue.
Can someone please look up the Crocker and Petraeus testimony and post it in the comment section and I'll update the post. To O'Reilly, the Iraqi government are a bunch of clowns anyway. I mean it wasn't like we went over there and invaded Iraq or anything, right? Oh, wait.