Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 07/06/06 4:42 pm:
I don't know what all the ACLU stuff is for since I acknowledged that's what O'Reilly meant. As for the rest, I know what he said, I heard the segment on the radio. I don't necessarily agree, but he never once said "Iraq should be run as it was under Saddam Hussein" in the manner you imply.

He is not advocating public torture, totalitarian rule, the 'disappearing' of dissenters and genocide. He is advocating martial law in certain areas for a period of time with zero tolerance for the 'insurgency.' He wants to stop the bad guys and restore peace and order in a democratic Iraq. That was not what Saddam was about.

Even your own quote points that out, "Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher."

You and whoever you got this from is just trying to paint O'Reilly in the most unflattering light you can. That's what this is about. Come on Ronnie, this is a guy who criticized Ann Coulter for her Jersey Girl comments, and does indeed often criticize Bush's handling of Iraq. Agree with his position or not, you and everyone who's running with this knows that O'Reilly is not advocating another Saddam-like regime. Criticize him for an unfortunate choice of words in presenting his position and for his position, just don't misrepresent it for a little self-satisfaction.

And speaking of misrepresentation, you can't seem to get anything right about me, and one of these days the Lord surely will judge between me and thee on it.

>>Put Hitler in the White House and see how you like rigid authoritarian Teutonic rule, which appears to be what you support in place of good old American democracy. Now, THAT’S dangerous to America!<<

Do you feel better now Ronnie? Now that you've had your fix of assumptively, erroneously and maliciously associating me with Hitler?