Bill O’Reilly thinks Hamed Karzai is an ungrateful little snot, just because Afghan civilians are being killed by US and NATO troops during missions against Taliban fighters.
OREILLY: U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan are risking their lives to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban and al Qaeda. But President Karzai does not seem to get that. Once again, he has condemned American forces after a raid killed some civilians.
In that raid, a top Taliban commander and some of his cronies were also killed, but apparently, Karzai doesn’t understand that in war, collateral damage is constantly present. U.S. military is investigating the situation, but Check believes Karzai is making a political grandstand play, and it is insulting. Without us, his head is on a stick.
Right. Karzai is urging the US to try to minimize or avoid civilian casualties — casualties that even Defense Secty Gates says is doing our interests “enormous harm” — but O’Reilly thinks its all posturing and insults.
Of course, I seem to recall that one of the reasons we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was “to fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here.” I.e., let’s protect our civilian population. Was that sentiment, too, an insult to our American troops and the cause for which we fight? Or is it just that American civilians are more valuable than Afghan civilians.
If suspected terrorists are located in the US, and the Air Force bombs an apartment complex, inadvertently killing innocent people — will protests by political leaders also be an insult? Would that also be collateral damage in a good cause? Or would O’Reilly be there on the front lines of the opposition, lambasting the Obama administration for its callous disregard for human life?
All civilians are equal, but some civilians are more equal than other
-Shorter BillO~
“That bloody Wog Karzai, doesn’t he understand the White Man’s Burdon?”
Bill-O’s opinion on whether or not American lives were worthwhile collateral damage would be entirely based on the political affiliation of the President responsible.
Is your opinion but its true anyway.
The Daily Show has caught him out on vid doing that sort of thing so many times that saying “I think” felt unnecessary.
That applies to his public opinions, of course. Who knows what he really thinks?
I don’t know. I don’t know if O’Reilly would have the balls to claim that American civilian lives — say, in San Diego — were an acceptable and unavoidable collateral damage were it Bush or McCain or some other Republican in the White House.
That said, if the GOP were in the White House and such an event occured, I’m pretty sure he’d find a way to blame such collateral damage on liberals / Democrats who’d allowed the terrorists here in the first place, had prevented the FBI from capturing them before the tragedy with their silly talk of “privacy” and “civil rights,” and who had kept us from wiping them all out in Iraq and Afghanistan while we had the chance.
The audience that Bill preaches to considers all Arabs/ Muslims our enemy so it makes no difference if a few extra are killed. I for one cannot believe that any decent person thinks that way but I’m afraid they do. I think the numbers of these hate mongers is a lot larger then we think.