http://www.sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/119972.shtml
The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Brzenzinski
Rule By Secrecy, by Jim Marrs
Tragedy and Hope, by Carrol Quigley
Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception, by Danny Schechter
Why Government Doesn't Work, by Harry Browne

When O Reilly asked if Letterman wanted the U.S. to win, Letterman should have said "that's not a black and white question, Iraq is a complex situation."

he pretty much turned it around on him. he said something like-"oh, IM the one thats being simplistic?". Leno sucks, Letterman rules. and thats now a common tactic of the rightwing tv tools, asking-"do you want the US to win?". ive heard this question asked a lot recently by many rightwing talkers. funny how they are ALWAYS on the same page with their talking points huh?

Define what winning means?

Or remind them that George W. Bush told us "The War on Terrorism could not be won".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/31/politics/main639709.shtml

;)

It is so infantile, this business about "winning" - it's a kid's worldview, black and white, extended into world politics! America, right or wrong. And then what are "we" "winning"? How can anybody win when everybody else loses? That is the paradigm of the neocons. But still, there's no sense of what it means, because it's entirely simplistic.

Sometimes I think the right-wing throws out questions or statements that are so incredibly outrageous, we don't know where to begin. And not "we" as in 9/11 skeptics or progressives, but any rational, adult person.

This 'winning' question is absolutely ridiculous. Very much a kids worldview indeed. What was the price again? And whats the current score, btw?

A war with Iraq? We invaded Iraq based on Lies, or for the biggest mistake in the history of intelligence (which I seriously doubt). We are not there to win anything. We are there by accident and because the Administration told us and everyone in congress that Saddam was ready to send Nukes to the US. That is it, no other way around it. If it is the War on Terror O'llilly is refferring to winning, then we have to tell him we've given up the Bush and his disastrous and misguided plan to deal with terrorism. Bush has spent 500 Billoion bucks killed hundred of thousands of innocents and thousand of our soldiers because he made a mistake and invaded the wrong country, and al queda is and terrorism is getting larger. Do we "...want the USA to win?" is a joke. At this point we want the USA to survive. Ask Silly Billy O'lilly if he wants the US to win.

Lynn Cheney just asked the same thing of CNN over its "Broken Government" specials.

it's very simple, but apparently too complicated for neocon apologists:
We want Bush to lose, to lose with everything he does, we curse him, we want him and his accomplices in jail, sooner rather than later, jail for life after exposing the truth about him to every single one of earth's inhabitants that was fed the 9/11 lie, that in the words of Bush himself "we must never forget".
Then as far as the U.S. is concerned, we want it to WIN, but not in a war that Bush started and that he would only profit from, no, we want the country to win by becoming cleaner, more honest, more respected, more feared by evildoers, less feared by goodwilling people, more productive. The only way to do this in the mess right now is 9/11 truth, it's the absolute one and only way out of the situation.

It's time the Empire loses. And that's the whole damn "system" under which and through which we must threaten and decimate the world. With our "converging catastrophes", the crash will come and we'll have to pick up the pieces and start re-imagining life as an interdependent, conscious enterprise.

Is Bill O'Reilly a bonehead?
Yes, totally 52%
No, not at all 41%
No, he's just confused 6%
Total Votes: 55,692
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/tv/articles/_a/oreilly-and-letterman-r...