The O'Reilly Fracture: How FOXNews' Biggest Big Mouth Hurts America

"You can't root against your country in Iraq and still be a loyal American, period." -- Bill O'Reilly, Dissent or Disloyalty?, FOXNews (December 20, 2004)

Bill O'Reilly (FOXNews) leaves me baffled most of the time. While I sometimes appreciate his POV, on the whole, I can't figure out if he rants to the Right just to be a shit disturber or if he actually believes the stuff he writes.

Take, for example, his winsome and balanced take on Canadian-American relations in an editorial for the Toronto Star:

"Canada needs America. America does not need Canada. As soon as both countries realize this, we can start the healing process. We can, hopefully, forgive Canada for its strange and outrageous behaviour in recent years. . . Look. North Korea and Iran are our new priorities. But Canada needs to proceed with caution. No more whining about softwood lumber. No more diseased cattle. Otherwise, regime change may be our only option."

Yes, O'Reilly's article is meant to be taken lightly. No, he doesn't really feel that way. Or does he?

Judging by similar articles, like "Hating America", or "Why Is Canada So Tiresome?" by fellow FOXNews editorialist John Gibson, I'd say O'Reilly is only half-joking. At best.

Does O'Reilly really think this kind of cocky insult-polemic is going to win the hearts and minds of Canadians? That it will somehow rouse us (with the rest of the world) to an "ah yes, now we get it" acknowledgement of America's rightness?

Is it supposed to bring (or shame) us to our senses, showing us how wrong we've been: that America really doesn't have an attitude problem when it comes to dealing with its enemies, and even with its allies?

Maybe O'Reilly doesn't get how ignorant he sounds.

I mean he can't really believe, like a surprising number of other American political writers, that Canadian mistrust of American leadership is simply the result of envy.

That a majority of nations, polled by the U.N. as having greater concern with George W. Bush's leadership than they had with Saddam Hussein's, are simply jealous or misinformed.

Hey, I'm Canadian. I'm just trying to be polite and give him the benefit of the doubt.

But speaking of Canada, does O'Reilly really not see that millions of Americans share deep misgivings over U.S. domestic and foreign policy all by themselves, completely without the help of their neighbours to the North?

Apparently he does. And such dissent is, in his opinion, tatamount to treason:

"There are some Americans who actually want the USA to lose in Iraq, primarily so that President Bush will look bad. Few will admit that, but it does exist, primarily on the far Left. . .But losing in Iraq means more U.S. casualties, so Americans cannot hold that sentiment and still be called loyal. Let me repeat that. You can't root against your country in Iraq and still be a loyal American, period. If you don't believe me, I will take you to see a double amputee U.S. Marine. And you can tell him to his face that you want the USA to lose in Iraq. Are you willing to do that?"

Now I get his point about supporting U.S. troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and not wishing them ill. Both they and the people of those countries are going through hell on earth, and as much as I strongly object to the war, I believe that simply pulling out or booing their efforts would, at this point, be morally wrong.

But I'm nervous about O'Reilly's (and Gibson's) almost fanatical insistence that having a problem with anything America does is proof of ignorance, international envy, or "Leftist anti-Americanism."

On this basis, John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (and a Republican), must be branded un-American for his excellent and most certainly patriotic editorial in the Union Leader questioning George W. Bush's and the Republican party's policies.

Groups like Iraqi Veterans Against the War, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, and MotherSpeak, comprised of those in the best position to comment on American wars abroad - the soldiers - are nothing more than bands of disaffected traitors, not to be viewed as real Americans, and certainly not to be heard.

What an insult to those O'Reilly would pretend to defend.

In the early stages of the war in Iraq, I shook my head when French Fries became Freedom Fries at the nation's capital. (Come on, guys, how insecure is that?) I was disappointed by the hyper-negative reaction of Americans to Dixie Chick Natalie Maines' anti-Bush comments. And of course, as a Canadian, I've had a growing concern for years about the escalating Canadian-American banter that keeps kicking the crap out of a relationship we all know is important. (Okay, Bill, yes Canada needs America. But get over yourself. Read Fox vs Canada: When Did "Canadian" Become A Dirty Word? @ prettypolitical.com)

But I think what bugs me most is when big players like O'Reilly so completly miss the point and confuse the American public regarding issues on which clarity is so badly needed, chipping away at relationships the U.S. should be building and nourishing. Now is the time for heroic diplomacy, not aimless personal attacks on those who are otherwise deeply committed to what America stands for.

In fact, by his own standard, I'm beginning to question O'Reilly's patriotism. I mean, if he's such an American, why does he keep saying things that only serve to hurt America?

He is is entitle to his opinion, of course. Judging by some of his past articles and interviews, he does, on occasion, have something interesting and constructive to say. But if all he's looking for is a tree to piss on, I'm sure there's one or two in his own backyard that would be happy to oblige. If international support for America is what he's hunting, he's got his gun pointed in the wrong direction.