I like Anne and read her all the time. But these, while amusing, are terrible analogies;
"In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned BOTH Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half."
O'Rilley say's he wasn't there and he's not going to judge the word of either group of decorated vets. I personally think that the evidence leans heavily to the swift vets, but O'rilley doesn't want to call either group liars, particularly in regards to 30 year old memories.
Anne implies that this posture is morally equivalent to refusing to judge the relative merits of genocide over those that fought against genocide.
That's just silly.
Not true. He called their charges dishonest and disgusting the first day the story broke.
"Anne implies that this posture is morally equivalent to refusing to judge the relative merits of genocide over those that fought against genocideThat's just silly."
No, Ann is using an extreme example to make a point, that O'Reilly is simply a pragmatist and does not deal with principles.
Kerry is running for the most important office in the World.
His lack of character in lying about his Vietnam record is a crucial issue in his ability to lead the country.
O'Reilly would have you believe that the facts cannot be learned, but they could if Kerry would sign a form 180
As voters we are going to have weigh the evidence and vote on what evidence is given to us (like jurors)
To say as O'Reilly does, we cannot never REALLY know is simply attempting to avoid doing the research necessary to know.
We elected one President (Clinton) because when conflicting stories came out, the American people held up their hands and said, 'who can tell who is telling the truth'
It is O'Reilly's responsibilty as a journalist to DIG out the facts and present them to the American public so we can know the truth.