BillOReilly.com Headlines

New crossword: Earl and His Ilk

2010-09-03T20:05:00Z

With Earl moving ominously up the Eastern Seaboard, this week's crossword includes other weather phenomena, from the severe to the benign. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Bill's New Column: Death in Mexico

2010-09-02T20:26:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill puts the ongoing drug violence in Mexico into perspective and questions why the United States hasn't stepped in and intervened.

Go: Bill's latest column

Backstage Conversation: What bankrupted us?

2010-09-02T02:35:00Z

In this week's Backstage Conversation webcast for Premium Members, a PM asks Bill what it was that really bankrupted America. Hear Bill's answer to this question and more!

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Massive executive raises at companies with mass layoffs

2010-09-02T01:30:00Z

...this is to Barack Obama's credit: The 50 U.S. chief executives who laid off the most employees between November 2008 and April 2010, eliminated 500,000 jobs in their own companies. Those guys who did that raised their own pay an average of $12 million. That's unbelievable--that kind of stuff is where Obama gets traction, and he should. Yeah, these companies have a right to do what they want, and their board of directors OK's it, and the federal government doesn't have the right to go in and tell them "You can't do this, you can't do that." But certainly, if you're going to lay off half a million Americans and vote yourself $12 million raises, on average--not raises, salary--its wrong. It's wrong. Obama has a right to say that. He doesn't have a right to change it, but he has a right to point it out and say "This is not the spirit of America." And I agree with that.

Hostage situation ends with suspect fatally shot by police

2010-09-02T01:24:00Z

We didn't do this hostage thing--this guy's dead, he took over the Discovery Channel or something. I mean, we don't really do stuff like that. Nothing I can say about these crazy guys--we let the hard news people do it. Shepard takes it at 7, so it's not necessary for us to do it.

Biden visits Iraq to mark end of combat operations

2010-09-01T01:26:00Z

Biden's in Iraq at the end of combat operations. That's good--the Vice President had a son that I think served in Iraq, if I remember correctly. That's good. All of this stuff is alright. I've got no beef with them.

Obama addresses troops, will address nation

2010-09-01T01:22:00Z

There's really not a lot going on. Barack Obama is trying to get some traction someplace. It doesn't look like that's going to happen for two or three weeks until the middle of September when people start to focus again on what's going on in the country, because everybody's on vacation and the kids are going back to school and all of that, so everybody's distracted...

Stratfor.com: Rethinking American Options on Iran

2010-08-31T21:20:00Z

Public discussion of potential attacks on Iran's nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.

My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn't worked.

The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment
STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.

We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased.

But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real "nuclear option." Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse.

There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.

Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation
Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop-an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.

There is, of course, a massive additional issue. Apart from the direct actions that Iran might make, there is the fact that the destruction of its nuclear capability would not solve the underlying strategic challenge that Iran poses. It has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, absent the United States. The United States is in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, which would further diminish the ability of the United States to contain Iran. Therefore, a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear capability combined with the continuing withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would create a profound strategic crisis in the Persian Gulf.

The country most concerned about Iran is not Israel, but Saudi Arabia. The Saudis recall the result of the last strategic imbalance in the region, when Iraq, following its armistice with Iran, proceeded to invade Kuwait, opening the possibility that its next intention was to seize the northeastern oil fields of Saudi Arabia. In that case, the United States intervened. Given that the United States is now withdrawing from Iraq, intervention following withdrawal would be politically difficult unless the threat to the United States was clear. More important, the Iranians might not give the Saudis the present Saddam Hussein gave them by seizing Kuwait and then halting. They might continue. They certainly have the military capacity to try.

In a real sense, the Iranians would not have to execute such a military operation in order to gain the benefits. The simple imbalance of forces would compel the Saudis and others in the Persian Gulf to seek a political accommodation with the Iranians. Strategic domination of the Persian Gulf does not necessarily require military occupation-as the Americans have abundantly demonstrated over the past 40 years. It merely requires the ability to carry out those operations.

The Saudis, therefore, have been far quieter-and far more urgent-than the Israelis in asking the United States to do something about the Iranians. The Saudis certainly do not want the United States to leave Iraq. They want the Americans there as a blocking force protecting Saudi Arabia but not positioned on Saudi soil. They obviously are not happy about Iran's nuclear efforts, but the Saudis see the conventional and nuclear threat as a single entity. The collapse of the Iran-Iraq balance of power has left the Arabian Peninsula in a precarious position.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia did an interesting thing a few weeks ago. He visited Lebanon personally and in the company of the president of Syria. The Syrian and Saudi regimes are not normally friendly, given different ideologies, Syria's close relationship with Iran and their divergent interests in Lebanon. But there they were together, meeting with the Lebanese government and giving not very subtle warnings to Hezbollah. Saudi influence and money and the threat of Iran jeopardizing the Saudi regime by excessive adventurism seems to have created an anti-Hezbollah dynamic in Lebanon. Hezbollah is suddenly finding many of its supposed allies cooperating with some of its certain enemies. The threat of a Hezbollah response to an airstrike on Iran seems to be mitigated somewhat.

Eliminating Iranian Leverage In Hormuz
I said that there were three counters. One was Hezbollah, which is the least potent of the three from the American perspective. The other two are Iraq and Hormuz. If the Iraqis were able to form a government that boxed in pro-Iranian factions in a manner similar to how Hezbollah is being tentatively contained, then the second Iranian counter would be weakened. That would "just" leave the major issue-Hormuz.

The problem with Hormuz is that the United States cannot tolerate any risk there. The only way to control that risk is to destroy Iranian naval capability before airstrikes on nuclear targets take place. Since many of the Iranian mine layers would be small boats, this would mean an extensive air campaign and special operations forces raids against Iranian ports designed to destroy anything that could lay mines, along with any and all potential mine-storage facilities, anti-ship missile emplacements, submarines and aircraft. Put simply, any piece of infrastructure within a few miles of any port would need to be eliminated. The risk to Hormuz cannot be eliminated after the attack on nuclear sites. It must be eliminated before an attack on the nuclear sites. And the damage must be overwhelming.

There are two benefits to this strategy. First, the nuclear facilities aren't going anywhere. It is the facilities that are producing the enriched uranium and other parts of the weapon that must be destroyed more than any uranium that has already been enriched. And the vast bulk of those facilities will remain where they are even if there is an attack on Iran's maritime capabilities. Key personnel would undoubtedly escape, but considering that within minutes of the first American strike anywhere in Iran a mass evacuation of key scientists would be under way anyway, there is little appreciable difference between a first strike against nuclear sites and a first strike against maritime targets. (U.S. air assets are good, but even the United States cannot strike 100-plus targets simultaneously.)

Second, the counter-nuclear strategy wouldn't deal with the more fundamental problem of Iran's conventional military power. This opening gambit would necessarily attack Iran's command-and-control, air-defense and offensive air capabilities as well as maritime capabilities. This would sequence with an attack on the nuclear capabilities and could be extended into a prolonged air campaign targeting Iran's ground forces.

The United States is very good at gaining command of the air and attacking conventional military capabilities (see Yugoslavia in 1999). Its strategic air capability is massive and, unlike most of the U.S. military, underutilized. The United States also has substantial air forces deployed around Iran, along with special operations forces teams trained in penetration, evasion and targeting, and satellite surveillance. Far from the less-than-rewarding task of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, going after Iran would be the kind of war the United States excels at fighting. No conventional land invasion, no boots-on-the-ground occupation, just a very thorough bombing campaign. If regime change happens as a consequence, great, but that is not the primary goal. Defanging the Iranian state is.

It is also the only type of operation that could destroy the nuclear capabilities (and then some) while preventing an Iranian response. It would devastate Iran's conventional military forces, eliminating the near-term threat to the Arabian Peninsula. Such an attack, properly executed, would be the worst-case scenario for Iran and, in my view, the only way an extended air campaign against nuclear facilities could be safely executed.

Just as Iran's domination of the Persian Gulf rests on its ability to conduct military operations, not on its actually conducting the operations, the reverse is also true. It is the capacity and apparent will to conduct broadened military operations against Iran that can shape Iranian calculations and decision-making. So long as the only threat is to Iran's nuclear facilities, its conventional forces remain intact and its counter options remain viable, Iran will not shift its strategy. Once its counter options are shut down and its conventional forces are put at risk, Iran must draw up another calculus.

In this scenario, Israel is a marginal player. The United States is the only significant actor, and it might not strike Iran simply over the nuclear issue. That's not a major U.S. problem. But the continuing withdrawal from Iraq and Iran's conventional forces are very much an American problem. Destroying Iran's nuclear capability is merely an added benefit.

Given the Saudi intervention in Lebanese politics, this scenario now requires a radical change in Iraq, one in which a government would be quickly formed and Iranian influence quickly curtailed. Interestingly, we have heard recent comments by administration officials asserting that Iranian influence has, in fact, been dramatically reduced. At present, such a reduction is not obvious to us, but the first step of shifting perceptions tends to be propaganda. If such a reduction became real, then the two lesser Iranian counter moves would be blocked and the U.S. offensive option would become more viable.

Internal Tension in Tehran
At this point, we would expect to see the Iranians recalculating their position, with some of the clerical leadership using the shifting sands of Lebanon against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, there have been many indications of internal stress, not between the mythical democratic masses and the elite, but within the elite itself. This past weekend the Iranian speaker of the house attacked Ahmadinejad's handling of special emissaries. For what purpose we don't yet know, but the internal tension is growing.

The Iranians are not concerned about the sanctions. The destruction of their nuclear capacity would, from their point of view, be a pity. But the destruction of large amounts of their conventional forces would threaten not only their goals in the wider Islamic world but also their stability at home. That would be unacceptable and would require a shift in their general strategy.

From the Iranian point of view-and from ours-Washington's intentions are opaque. But when we consider the Obama administration's stated need to withdraw from Iraq, Saudi pressure on the United States not to withdraw while Iran remains a threat, Saudi moves against Hezbollah to split Syria from Iran and Israeli pressure on the United States to deal with nuclear weapons, the pieces for a new American strategy are emerging from the mist. Certainly the Iranians appear to be nervous. And the threat of a new strategy might just be enough to move the Iranians off dead center. If they don't, logic would dictate the consideration of a broader treatment of the military problem posed by Iran.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

The O'Quiz: How much do you know?

2010-08-30T21:34:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was up over a full point to 6.62 questions correct out of 10 compared to the previous week's average of 5.53. Great job, folks!

Go: This week's O'Quiz

New crossword: All About Islam

2010-08-27T21:10:00Z

As Islam and its adherents dominate the news, they also dominate this week's crossword. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Bill's New Column: Scaring White People

2010-08-26T20:04:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill analyzes the claim that the Ground Zero mosque controversy is nothing more than an attempt to "scare white people."

Go: Bill's latest column

Stratfor.com: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Again

2010-08-24T22:11:00Z

The Israeli government and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) have agreed to engage in direct peace talks Sept. 2 in Washington. Neither side has expressed any enthusiasm about the talks. In part, this comes from the fact that entering any negotiations with enthusiasm weakens your bargaining position. But the deeper reason is simply that there have been so many peace talks between the two sides and so many failures that it is difficult for a rational person to see much hope in them. Moreover, the failures have not occurred for trivial reasons. They have occurred because of profound divergences in the interests and outlooks of each side.

These particular talks are further flawed because of their origin. Neither side was eager for the talks. They are taking place because the United States wanted them. Indeed, in a certain sense, both sides are talking because they do not want to alienate the United States and because it is easier to talk and fail than it is to refuse to talk.

The United States has wanted Israeli-Palestinian talks since the Palestinians organized themselves into a distinct national movement in the 1970s. Particularly after the successful negotiations between Egypt and Israel and Israel's implicit long-term understanding with Jordan, an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis appeared to be next on the agenda. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of its support for Fatah and other Palestinian groups, a peace process seemed logical and reasonable.

Over time, peace talks became an end in themselves for the United States. The United States has interests throughout the Islamic world. While U.S.-Israeli relations are not the sole point of friction between the Islamic world and the United States, they are certainly one point of friction, particularly on the level of public diplomacy. Indeed, though most Muslim governments may not regard Israel as critical to their national interests, their publics do regard it that way for ideological and religious reasons.

Many Muslim governments therefore engage in a two-level diplomacy: first, publicly condemning Israel and granting public support for the Palestinians as if it were a major issue and, second, quietly ignoring the issue and focusing on other matters of greater direct interest, which often actually involves collaborating with the Israelis. This accounts for the massive difference between the public stance of many governments and their private actions, which can range from indifference to hostility toward Palestinian interests. Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are all prepared to cooperate deeply with the United States but face hostility from their populations over the matter.

The public pressure on governments is real, and the United States needs to deal with it. The last thing the United States wants to see is relatively cooperative Muslim governments in the region fall due to anti-Israeli or anti-American public sentiment. The issue of Israel and the United States also creates stickiness in the smooth functioning of relations with these countries. The United States wants to minimize this problem.

It should be understood that many Muslim governments would be appalled if the United States broke with Israel and Israel fell. For example, Egypt and Jordan, facing demographic and security issues of their own, are deeply hostile to at least some Palestinian factions. The vast majority of Jordan's population is actually Palestinian. Egypt struggles with an Islamist movement called the Muslim Brotherhood, which has collaborated with like-minded Islamists among the Palestinians for decades. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula are infinitely more interested in the threat from Iran than in the existence of Israel and, indeed, see Israel as one of the buttresses against Iran. Even Iran is less interested in the destruction of Israel than it is in using the issue as a tool in building its own credibility and influence in the region.

In the Islamic world, public opinion, government rhetoric and government policy have long had a distant kinship. If the United States were actually to do what these countries publicly demand, the private response would be deep concern both about the reliability of the United States and about the consequences of a Palestinian state. A wave of euphoric radicalism could threaten all of these regimes. They quite like the status quo, including the part where they get to condemn the United States for maintaining it.

The United States does not see its relationship with Israel as inhibiting functional state-to-state relationships in the Islamic world, because it hasn't. Washington paradoxically sees a break with Israel as destabilizing to the region. At the same time, the American government understands the political problems Muslim governments face in working with the United States, in particular the friction created by the American relationship with Israel. While not representing a fundamental challenge to American interests, this friction does represent an issue that must be taken into account and managed.

Peace talks are the American solution. Peace talks give the United States the appearance of seeking to settle the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The comings and goings of American diplomats, treating Palestinians as equals in negotiations and as being equally important to the United States, and the occasional photo op if some agreement is actually reached, all give the United States and pro-American Muslim governments a tool-even if it is not a very effective one-for managing Muslim public opinion. Peace talks also give the United States the ability, on occasion, to criticize Israel publicly, without changing the basic framework of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Most important, they cost the United States nothing. The United States has many diplomats available for multiple-track discussions and working groups for drawing up position papers. Talks do not solve the political problem in the region, but they do reshape perceptions a bit at very little cost. And they give the added benefit that, at some point in the talks, the United States will be able to ask the Europeans to support any solution-or tentative agreement-financially.

Therefore, the Obama administration has been pressuring the Israelis and the PNA, dominated by Fatah, to renew the peace process. Both have been reluctant because, unlike the United States, these talks pose political challenges to the two sides. Peace talks have the nasty habit of triggering internal political crises. Since neither side expects real success, neither government wants to bear the internal political costs that such talks entail. But since the United States is both a major funder of the PNA and Israel's most significant ally, neither group is in a position to resist the call to talk. And so, after suitable resistance that both sides used for their own ends, the talks begin.

The Israeli problem with the talks is that they force the government to deal with an extraordinarily divided Israeli public. Israel has had weak governments for a generation. These governments are weak because they are formed by coalitions made up of diverse and sometimes opposed parties. In part, this is due to Israel's electoral system, which increases the likelihood that parties that would never enter the parliament of other countries do sit in the Knesset with a handful of members. There are enough of these that the major parties never come close to a ruling majority and the coalition government that has to be created is crippled from the beginning. An Israeli prime minister spends most of his time avoiding dealing with important issues, since his Cabinet would fall apart if he did.

But the major issue is that the Israeli public is deeply divided ethnically and ideologically, with ideology frequently tracking ethnicity. The original European Jews are often still steeped in the original Zionist vision. But Russian Jews who now comprise roughly one-sixth of the population see the original Zionist plan as alien to them. Then there are the American Jews who moved to Israel for ideological reasons. All these splits and others create an Israel that reminds us of the Fourth French Republic between World War II and the rise of Charles de Gaulle. The term applied to it was "immobilism," the inability to decide on anything, so it continued to do whatever it was already doing, however ineffective and harmful that course may have been.

Incidentally, Israel wasn't always this way. After its formation in 1948, Israel's leaders were all part of the leadership that achieved statehood. That cadre is all gone now, and Israel has yet to transition away from its dependence on its "founding fathers." Between less trusted leadership and a maddeningly complex political demography, it is no surprise that Israeli politics can be so caustic and churning.

From the point of view of any Israeli foreign minister, the danger of peace talks is that the United States might actually engineer a solution. Any such solution would by definition involve Israeli concessions that would be opposed by a substantial Israeli bloc-and nearly any Israeli faction could derail any agreement. Israeli prime ministers go to the peace talks terrified that the Palestinians might actually get their house in order and be reasonable-leaving it to Israel to stand against an American solution. Had Ariel Sharon not had his stroke, there might have been a strong leader who could wrestle the Israeli political system to the ground and impose a settlement. But at this point, there has not been an Israeli leader since Menachem Begin who could negotiate with confidence in his position. Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself caught between the United States and his severely fractured Cabinet by peace talks.

Fortunately for Netanyahu, the PNA is even more troubled by talks. The Palestinians are deeply divided between two ideological enemies, Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is generally secular and derives from the Soviet-backed Palestinian movement. Having lost its sponsor, it has drifted toward the United States and Europe by default. Its old antagonist, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is still there and still suspicious. Fatah tried to overthrow the kingdom in 1970, and memories are long.

For its part, Hamas is a religious movement, with roots in Egypt and support from Saudi Arabia. Unlike Fatah, Hamas says it is unwilling to recognize the existence of Israel as a legitimate state, and it appears to be quite serious about this. While there seem to be some elements in Hamas that could consider a shift, this is not the consensus view. Iran also provides support, but the Sunni-Shiite split is real and Iran is mostly fishing in troubled waters. Hamas will take help where it can get it, but Hamas is, to a significant degree, funded by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, so getting too close to Iran would create political problems for Hamas' leadership. In addition, though Cairo has to deal with Hamas because of the Egypt-Gaza border, Cairo is at best deeply suspicions of the group. Egypt sees Hamas as deriving from the same bedrock of forces that gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood and those who killed Anwar Sadat, forces which pose the greatest future challenge to Egyptian stability. As a result, Egypt continues to be Israel's silent partner in the blockade of Gaza.

Therefore, the PNA dominated by Fatah in no way speaks for all Palestinians. While Fatah dominates the West Bank, Hamas controls Gaza. Were Fatah to make the kinds of concessions that might make a peace agreement possible, Hamas would not only oppose them but would have the means of scuttling anything that involved Gaza. Making matters worse for Fatah, Hamas does enjoy considerable-if precisely unknown-levels of support in the West Bank, and Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah and the PNA, is not eager to find out how much in the current super-heated atmosphere.

The most striking agreement between Arabs and Israelis was the Camp David Accords negotiated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Those accords were rooted in the 1973 war in which the Israelis were stunned by their own intelligence failures and the extraordinary capabilities shown by the Egyptian army so soon after its crushing defeat in 1967. All of Israel's comfortable assumptions went out the window. At the same time, Egypt was ultimately defeated, with Israeli troops on the east shore of the Suez Canal.

The Israelis came away with greater respect for Egyptian military power and a decreased confidence in their own. The Egyptians came away with the recognition that however much they had improved, they were defeated in the end. The Israelis weren't certain they would beat Egypt the next time. The Egyptians were doubtful they could ever beat Israel. For both, a negotiated settlement made sense. The mix of severely shaken confidence and morbid admittance to reality was what permitted Carter to negotiate a settlement that both sides wanted-and could sell to their respective publics.

There has been no similar defining moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations. There is no consensus on either side, nor does either side have a government that can speak authoritatively for the people it represents. On both sides, the rejectionists not only are in a blocking position but are actually in governing roles, and no coalition exists to sweep them aside. The Palestinians are divided by ideology and geography, while the Israelis are "merely" divided by ideology and a political system designed for paralysis.

But the United States wants a peace process, preferably a long one designed to put off the day when it fails. This will allow the United States to appear to be deeply committed to peace and to publicly pressure the Israelis, which will be of some minor use in U.S. efforts to manipulate the rest of the region. But it will not solve anything. Nor is it intended to.

The problem is that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are sufficiently unsettled to make peace. Both Egypt and Israel were shocked and afraid after the 1973 war. Mutual fear is the foundation of peace among enemies. The uncertainty of the future sobers both sides. But the fact right now is that all of the players prefer the status quo to the risks of the future. Hamas doesn't want to risk its support by negotiating and implicitly recognizing Israel. The PNA doesn't want to risk a Hamas uprising in the West Bank by making significant concessions. The Israelis don't want to gamble with unreliable negotiating partners on a settlement that wouldn't enjoy broad public support in a domestic political environment where even simple programs can get snarled in a morass of ideology. Until reality or some as-yet-uncommitted force shifts the game, it is easier for them-all of them-to do nothing.

But the Americans want talks, and so the talks will begin.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

The O'Quiz: Test your news knowledge

2010-08-23T20:51:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was up half a point to 5.53 questions correct out of 10 compared to the previous week's average of 5.04. Let's keep that upward improvement going strong!

Go: This week's O'Quiz

New crossword: Sects and the City

2010-08-20T23:00:00Z

The proposed mosque in New York City got our puzzle maven thinking about other religions and their places of worship. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

agog

2010-08-20T03:12:00Z

highly excited by eagerness, curiosity, anticipation

Mexican mayor taken out by drug violence

2010-08-20T00:10:00Z

In Mexico, it's anarchy. The mayor of a fairly large town, Santiago, was kidnapped and shot to death by drug dealers. I mean, nobody's safe in that country except for the president, who has like 200 bodyguards. Anarchy has broken out.

Mexico's mistake is that they have not cooperated with the United States in fighting the drug cartels. They can't do it alone--it's obvious that the Mexican Army can't defeat the cartels for whatever reason. Now, if they partnered up with the USA and we helped them, they could win. But for some reason Calderon won't do that, and so he's losing that war.

The drug cartels may run that country--you remember, Ronald Reagan removed Noriega in Panama because that's exactly what was happening down there. We sent US troops in to remove Noriega, who wound up in a Miami jail, so I'm watching that situation very, very closely down there. We'll have more on that in September as it becomes more evident.

Obama, family begins 10-day vacation

2010-08-20T00:07:00Z

President Obama goes on vacation, and boy does he need it--and boy, do I need it... summer is almost over, it's gone very, very fast--but not well for the president. So when he comes back, it's a late Labor Day, and we're going to be in the middle of September before anything substantial is going to happen. And that is only six weeks before the vote.

So the Democrats are really in trouble--I mean, seriously in trouble. And I don't see how they're going to stem that tide. And this Muslim mosque thing, while not, on its face, a huge story, because of the political implication of it, becomes that... But when we get to the middle of September and the president is still back on his heels and the economy is still bad? I'll tell you what--Morris still says that the Democrats are going to lose both the House and the Senate. That would be stunning if it happens.

Jennifer Aniston still upset with O'Reilly

2010-08-19T23:52:00Z

...I have a really interesting story to tell you. I'm not going to make a big deal out of this on TV--in fact, I'm not even going to mention it tonight... but you may remember the Culture Warriors segment last week when Jennifer Aniston, promoting her new movie, said "Hey, you don't need a man anymore to have kids..." Kind of flippant, and the Warriors and I discussed it, and I said, "Look, young people listen to Jennifer Aniston, and the impression is that she doesn't think it's really that important to have a father around," and I thought that was not good.

So, Aniston goes on Good Morning America... then Aniston goes on to tell a lie... so I'm "insulting women" who are raising children by themselves, according to Jennifer Aniston. Now, here's exactly what I said on the air--I'm quoting now from the transcript:

"I want to be fair about this, because there are many--there are millions--of single mothers who do a great job raising their kids... it's possible, but it's not optimum. And that's where Miss Aniston makes her mistake." ...does that sound like I'm insulting women who are raising their children by themselves? Does it?

Now, I could go out tonight and I could demand an apology, I could do a number of things. But it's not worth it to me, and I'll tell you why. No matter what I said, what I did, what proof I offer--the press in the United States would never report it accurately, and Aniston would never, under any circumstances, acknowledge that she made a misstatement.

Now, why did Jennifer Aniston do this? She did not see the segment--her publicist told her things, so that she went on with Stephanopoulous and said what she said. George did not see the segment, so he couldn't challenge. So my name comes up--neither person saw the segment! And so it was misrepresented to millions of people. I've got to deal with this stuff every single day of my life. Yeah, it tees me off, and most of the time I will go and rectify it if it's at a certain level. But Miss Aniston is not a politician. She has some cultural influence over younger women, which is what I was getting at. But do I want to make a big deal out of this when I know it'll be turned around and injected into an even more negative context if I do? And the answer is no, because it's not that important.

But I thought you would find it interesting, and that's why you guys are Premium Members, and that's why we do the No Spin News.

Bill's New Column: The Best Place to Live

2010-08-19T22:10:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill takes a look at Finland, which Newsweek calls the best place to live in the world.

Go: Bill's latest column

Mother charged after posting pic of baby with bong

2010-08-19T01:16:00Z

I know you saw that picture... of that 11-month-old baby with the little bong thing... the mother puts it on Facebook, and now she's under arrest. I mean, what are these people thinking about? Leave the babies alone, OK?

Blagojevich retrial to cost millions

2010-08-19T01:13:00Z

Blagojevich, as you know, convicted of 1 of 24 [charges], but the feds are going to retry him. It's costing us tens of millions of dollars. Is it worth it? The guy's corrupt--I don't think there's any doubt. You want to see him go to the penitentiary for 20 years? A lot of people do. I haven't been following it that closely--I don't know if Patrick Fitzgerald, the US attorney out there, is blowing it or not, but he's spending a ton of money.

Appeals court rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional

2010-08-19T01:10:00Z

This is crazy--a 3-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to lie about getting medals in the military has been ruled unconstitutional. It's just insane. You can lie about getting medals now? That's OK in our society, that's freedom of speech? Lying? [It was] a panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, of course; 2-to-1 decision, violating free speech. Now, the Supreme Court will overturn that, but this is what I mean--the 9th Circuit... the most liberal people on earth. They don't care about what's right and wrong, about what the Constitution says--at all.

Obama poll numbers at new low for handling of economy

2010-08-19T01:09:00Z

An AP poll--President Obama, new low for handling the economy. No surprise. Economy's not getting better, so the president's going to be blamed. That's the way it goes. That is the way it goes.

Kasich leads Strickland in Ohio governor's race

2010-08-19T01:08:00Z

Our pal John Kasich--it looks like he's going to win the governorship in Ohio, 48-40 right now, according to Rasmussen...

Pelosi wants investigation into funding of anti-mosque groups

2010-08-19T00:59:00Z

I'm starting to think that the Democratic Party has a death wish, and the reason I'm saying that is because this mosque thing is so out of control that you would think that the Democratic Party would just basically not say a word. But then Nancy Pelosi... "Well, we want to investigate the people who are opposed to the mosque." Alright, investigate me, Nancy! Here you go, right here! And investigate 65% of the American population. And you know what you'll find out? We have common sense. This is ridiculous.

So when independent voters see that one party is off-kilter, they obviously go the other way, and that's what's happening. It happened to the Republican Party in the last two years of the Bush administration, and the capper was when the economy collapsed... and all of that. Independent voters said, "You know, the Republicans don't know what they're doing, so we're going to vote for the other guy. We don't know much about him, but he sounds good, and he can't be worse than what we've had here." So the independents voted for Barack Obama.

The exact same thing is happening now among independent voters, who are saying, "You know what? These people are crazy! Pelosi, the president... they don't know what they're doing." It's not about policy so much as appearance. You know, the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed civilian trial thing is insane--they still don't know what to do with the man! He's sitting there in Guantanamo Bay, and they still don't know what to do. They don't know what to do about the economy, they don't know what to do about Afghanistan, they don't know what to do about the mosque, and on and on and on.

And I'm not coming at this as a partisan thing--there are plenty of pinheads in the Republican apparatus. But when you just look at the chaos surrounding the entire Democratic Party, you've got to think they have a death wish. Who's in charge?! I don't know.

Backstage Conversation: Solving illegal immigration

2010-08-19T00:56:00Z

In this week's Backstage Conversation webcast for Premium Members, Bill discusses whether or not he thinks President Obama will offer a fix for illegal immigration before his term is up.

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

18 months later: Has the stimulus bill worked?

2010-08-18T00:33:00Z

Stimulus bill was signed 18 months ago today--obviously hasn't worked. Unemployment was 8.2% then, 9.5% now. Stats are stats--it hasn't worked.

Evaluating both sides of the Ground Zero mosque issue

2010-08-18T00:19:00Z

We've had a tremendous reaction to this mosque story, and it's not just because of the mosque--it's because people are now, I think, fed up--critical mass has been reached. They're fed up with two avenues. The first one is the president and his inability to understand working Americans and what they believe and why they believe it. And that's what the crux of the matter is--I'm not buying that the guy is the Manchurian candidate, he wants to undermine the country and sell us out to the Arabs, or whatever conspiratorial things are floating around on the far-right websites. I don't buy any of that. Yes, he does lean towards the socialistic big government playbook--there's no doubt he does--but we've had people like Jimmy Carter and other presidents do that before.

The difference that I see now... is that the president simply doesn't know how we live, how we think, and what we believe. He doesn't know. And you can see it--born in Hawaii, taken by his crazy mom over to Indonesia, coming back over to the grandparents in Hawaii, then coming into the mainland, Harvard educated, community organizer in the very far-left south side of Chicago--he's never really gotten into working America and how people see their country, so therefore he makes these incredible mistakes... and it just goes on and on, and the people who had elected him, the independents, have basically walked away. They said, "Look, we gave him a shot. It's not working out. The economy's not working out. The big government apparatus is not working out." So politically and socially the president is really up against it.

Now, can he make a comeback? Yeah, it's possible, but the heavy odds are against it at this point. And that's why this mosque story takes on so much importance. It's not just the mosque. It's about the president's refusal to even engage in the debate about the wisdom of it. He just won't do it. Americans don't want that from a leader. Say what's on your mind! Get it out there.

The second part of the story that is unbelievably fascinating is the far left trying to prop up this mosque deal as a freedom of religion thing. When was the last time the far left wanted freedom of religion? They're the people who want to knock out Christmas displays, but now they're all for freedom of religion? I mean, this is just bizarre--and the continual attacks? Bigot, homophobe--you disagree with them, they're going to brand you [with] some really vile name.

How much longer can these people have a platform? How much longer can NBC News, for example, do this kind of garbage? MSNBC--they're almost off the air. They have so few viewers, it's pathetic after 13 years. ...Their top show--TOP show--maybe gets a million viewers, but most shows don't get anything. So that's a failure. But Brian Williams still wins that nightly news race, and I'm saying to myself, "Are people not getting this?" And the Today Show wins the morning race. I look at these people and I go, "This is not a news agency--these people are in business to promote an ideology." They do it cleverly on the Williams program--not so cleverly on the Today Show, we know what that's about. And then on MSNBC it's a rout. It's far-left craziness.

So you have a situation where you have an active news agency... working against what's best for the working people of this country. It's staggering. This whole story is huge, which is why we're spending so much time on it.

Stratfor.com: The U.S. Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq

2010-08-17T20:05:00Z

It is August 2010, which is the month when the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to leave Iraq. It is therefore time to take stock of the situation in Iraq, which has changed places with Afghanistan as the forgotten war. This is all the more important since 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, and while they may not be considered combat troops, a great deal of combat power remains embedded with them. So we are far from the end of the war in Iraq. The question is whether the departure of the last combat units is a significant milestone and, if it is, what it signifies.

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 with three goals: The first was the destruction of the Iraqi army, the second was the destruction of the Baathist regime and the third was the replacement of that regime with a stable, pro-American government in Baghdad. The first two goals were achieved within weeks. Seven years later, however, Iraq still does not yet have a stable government, let alone a pro-American government. The lack of that government is what puts the current strategy in jeopardy.

The fundamental flaw of the invasion of Iraq was not in its execution but in the political expectations that were put in place. As the Americans knew, the Shiite community was anti-Baathist but heavily influenced by Iranian intelligence. The decision to destroy the Baathists put the Sunnis, who were the backbone of Saddam's regime, in a desperate position. Facing a hostile American army and an equally hostile Shiite community backed by Iran, the Sunnis faced disaster. Taking support from where they could get it-from the foreign jihadists that were entering Iraq-they launched an insurgency against both the Americans and the Shia.

The Sunnis simply had nothing to lose. In their view, they faced permanent subjugation at best and annihilation at worst. The United States had the option of creating a Shiite-based government but realized that this government would ultimately be under Iranian control. The political miscalculation placed the United States simultaneously into a war with the Sunnis and a near-war situation with many of the Shia, while the Shia and Sunnis waged a civil war among themselves and the Sunnis occasionally fought the Kurds as well. From late 2003 until 2007, the United States was not so much in a state of war in Iraq as it was in a state of chaos.

The new strategy of Gen. David Petraeus emerged from the realization that the United States could not pacify Iraq and be at war with everyone. After a 2006 defeat in the midterm elections, it was expected that U.S. President George W. Bush would order the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Instead, he announced the surge. The surge was really not much of a surge, but it created psychological surprise-not only were the Americans not leaving, but more were on the way. Anyone who was calculating a position based on the assumption of a U.S. withdrawal had to recalculate.

The Americans understood that the key was reversing the position of the Sunni insurgents. So long as they remained at war with the Americans and Shia, there was no possibility of controlling the situation. Moreover, only the Sunnis could cut the legs out from under the foreign jihadists operating in the Sunni community. These jihadists were challenging the traditional leadership of the Sunni community, so turning this community against the jihadists was not difficult. The Sunnis also were terrified that the United States would withdraw, leaving them at the mercy of the Shia. These considerations, along with substantial sums of money given to Sunni tribal elders, caused the Sunnis to do an about-face. This put the Shia on the defensive, since the Sunni alignment with the Americans enabled the Americans to strike at the Shiite militias.

Petraeus stabilized the situation, but he did not win the war. The war could only be considered won when there was a stable government in Baghdad that actually had the ability to govern Iraq. A government could be formed with people sitting in meetings and talking, but that did not mean that their decisions would have any significance. For that there had to be an Iraqi army to enforce the will of the government and protect the country from its neighbors-particularly Iran (from the American point of view). There also had to be a police force to enforce whatever laws might be made. And from the American perspective, this government did not have to be pro-American (that had long ago disappeared as a viable goal), but it could not be dominated by Iran.

Iraq is not ready to deal with the enforcement of the will of the government because it has no government. Once it has a government, it will be a long time before its military and police forces will be able to enforce its will throughout the country. And it will be much longer before it can block Iranian power by itself. As it stands now, there is no government, so the rest doesn't much matter.

The geopolitical problem the Americans face is that, with the United States gone, Iran would be the most powerful conventional power in the Persian Gulf. The historical balance of power had been between Iraq and Iran. The American invasion destroyed the Iraqi army and government, and the United States was unable to re-create either. Part of this had to do with the fact that the Iranians did not want the Americans to succeed.

For Iran, a strong Iraq is the geopolitical nightmare. Iran once fought a war with Iraq that cost Iran a million casualties (imagine the United States having more than 4 million casualties), and the foundation of Iranian national strategy is to prevent a repeat of that war by making certain that Iraq becomes a puppet to Iran or, failing that, that it remains weak and divided. At this point, the Iranians do not have the ability to impose a government on Iraq. However, they do have the ability to prevent the formation of a government or to destabilize one that is formed. Iranian intelligence has sufficient allies and resources in Iraq to guarantee the failure of any stabilization attempt that doesn't please Tehran.

There are many who are baffled by Iranian confidence and defiance in the face of American pressure on the nuclear issue. This is the reason for that confidence: Should the United States attack Iran's nuclear facilities, or even if the United States does not attack, Iran holds the key to the success of the American strategy in Iraq. Everything done since 2006 fails if the United States must maintain tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in perpetuity. Should the United States leave, Iran has the capability of forcing a new order not only on Iraq but also on the rest of the Persian Gulf. Should the United States stay, Iran has the ability to prevent the stabilization of Iraq, or even to escalate violence to the point that the Americans are drawn back into combat. The Iranians understand the weakness of America's position in Iraq, and they are confident that they can use that to influence American policy elsewhere.

American and Iraqi officials have publicly said that the reason an Iraqi government has not been formed is Iranian interference. To put it more clearly, there are any number of Shiite politicians who are close to Tehran and, for a range of reasons, will take their orders from there. There are not enough of these politicians to create a government, but there are enough to block a government from being formed. Therefore, no government is being formed.

With 50,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, the United States does not yet face a crisis. The current withdrawal milestone is not the measure of the success of the strategy. The threat of a crisis will arise if the United States continues its withdrawal to the point where the Shia feel free to launch a sustained and escalating attack on the Sunnis, possibly supported by Iranian forces, volunteers or covert advisers. At that point, the Iraqi government must be in place, be united and command sufficient forces to control the country and deter Iranian plans.

The problem is, as we have seen, that in order to achieve that government there must be Iranian concurrence, and Iran has no reason to want to allow that to happen. Iran has very little to lose by, and a great deal to gain from, continuing the stability the Petraeus strategy provided. The American problem is that a genuine withdrawal from Iraq requires a shift in Iranian policy, and the United States has little to offer Iran to change the policy.

From the Iranian point of view, they have the Americans in a difficult position. On the one hand, the Americans are trumpeting the success of the Petraeus plan in Iraq and trying to repeat the success in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the secret is that the Petraeus plan has not yet succeeded in Iraq. Certainly, it ended the major fighting involving the Americans and settled down Sunni-Shiite tensions. But it has not taken Iraq anywhere near the end state the original strategy envisioned. Iraq has neither a government nor a functional army-and what is blocking it is Tehran.

One impulse of the Americans is to settle with the Iranians militarily. However, Iran is a mountainous country of 70 million, and an invasion is simply not in the cards. Airstrikes are always possible, but as the United States learned over North Vietnam-or from the Battle of Britain or in the bombing of Germany and Japan before the use of nuclear weapons-air campaigns alone don't usually force nations to capitulate or change their policies. Serbia did give up Kosovo after a three-month air campaign, but we suspect Iran would be a tougher case. In any event, the United States has no appetite for another war while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still under way, let alone a war against Iran in order to extricate itself from Iraq. The impulse to use force against Iran was resisted by President Bush and is now being resisted by President Barack Obama. And even if the Israelis attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran could still wreak havoc in Iraq.

Two strategies follow from this. The first is that the United States will reduce U.S. forces in Iraq somewhat but will not complete the withdrawal until a more distant date (the current Status of Forces Agreement requires all American troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011). The problems with this strategy are that Iran is not going anywhere, destabilizing Iraq is not costing it much and protecting itself from an Iraqi resurgence is Iran's highest foreign-policy priority. That means that the decision really isn't whether the United States will delay its withdrawal but whether the United States will permanently base forces in Iraq-and how vulnerable those forces might be to an upsurge in violence, which is an option that Iran retains.

Another choice for the United States, as we have discussed previously, is to enter into negotiations with Iran. This is a distasteful choice from the American point of view, but surely not more distasteful than negotiating with Stalin or Mao. At the same time, the Iranians' price would be high. At the very least, they would want the "Finlandization" of Iraq, similar to the situation where the Soviets had a degree of control over Finland's government. And it is far from clear that such a situation in Iraq would be sufficient for the Iranians.

The United States cannot withdraw completely without some arrangement, because that would leave Iran in an extremely powerful position in the region. The Iranian strategy seems to be to make the United States sufficiently uncomfortable to see withdrawal as attractive but not to be so threatening as to deter the withdrawal. As clever as that strategy is, however, it does not hide the fact that Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf region after the withdrawal. Thus, the United States has nothing but unpleasant choices in Iraq. It can stay in perpetuity and remain vulnerable to violence. It can withdraw and hand the region over to Iran. It can go to war with yet another Islamic country. Or it can negotiate with a government that it despises-and which despises it right back.

Given all that has been said about the success of the Petraeus strategy, it must be observed that while it broke the cycle of violence and carved out a fragile stability in Iraq, it has not achieved, nor can it alone achieve, the political solution that would end the war. Nor has it precluded a return of violence at some point. The Petraeus strategy has not solved the fundamental reality that has always been the shadow over Iraq: Iran. But that was beyond Petraeus' task and, for now, beyond American capabilities. That is why the Iranians can afford to be so confident.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

D.C. elites rate Congress higher

2010-08-17T00:40:00Z

These polls on the Internet--I don't really trust them, but the current poll says that 11% of Americans give Congress an 'A' or a 'B'--and they're all morons. Because 11% of any population, no matter what country, are totally idiots. They're just fools. They don't know anything. And that's who gives Congress an 'A' or a 'B." But, 11%--I mean, it's really frightening, isn't it? So you're going to see big, big changes in November--there's no doubt.

Al-Qaeda group leader killed in air raid

2010-08-17T00:37:00Z

A good thing that the Obama administration is doing is that they really have put pressure on these terrorists around the [world] through air strikes and other things--commando raids. And much of that doesn't get into the news media because it's top secret. But I know, and I can report to you, that they have been very aggressive in that area, which just makes it all the more confounding that Barack Obama continues to do this crazy stuff in the PR realm when he's actually doing a decent job trying to hunt down and kill these al-Qaedas and other terrorists around the country who enable al-Qaeda--and the world, not just the country.

Dems may suffer thanks to Obama's comments on mosque

2010-08-17T00:25:00Z

...as you know, I gave [the Obama administration] a fair chance, but now the backstory on this mosque thing is just too absurd for any American who is looking at things in an objective way. Why on earth would President Obama inject himself into an emotional controversy about a mosque near Ground Zero? For what reason? I'm waiting for an answer from somebody. There's no political upside here--Americans think this is stupid. Every poll shows it. Why is it stupid? Because it's insensitive to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11. Those people were killed by radical Muslims, so you don't build a mosque two blocks away unless you're going to condemn the radical Muslims--which the imam has not!

And who's building this thing? Who's going to finance it? Nobody knows. I'll tell you what, and I've said this before--no construction company in New York City or New Jersey is going to build this thing, so it's not going to get done. Enter Barack Obama, who makes it a freedom of religion issue--which it isn't. Everybody knows they have the right to build it--you can't stop them from building it, if they acquire the property legally, and you shouldn't.

But it is inappropriate, and then the president says, "Well, I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of it." Why not? Why not? Who do you fear offending with that comment? Outrageous! Big story, because when you add it all up--the speech in Cairo, apologizing for America's mistakes in the past to the Muslim world--when you look at the terror stuff... the reaction to Fort Hood, the reaction to the Christmas bomber? All of it doesn't make any sense. Now, the conspiratorialists will say, "Oh, he's a Muslim, he's a Muslim sympathizer." I don't think so. I don't think he cares or understands the issue. He certainly doesn't understand it from the families' point of view.

I just think the guy lives in a world far beyond the world that most of us live in. I don't know whether it's a theoretical world--I don't know what world it is. I have never explored the world. All I know is that this stuff is crazy, and he's damaging his presidency. He doesn't damage the country; the country already knows it's inappropriate to build a mosque. He doesn't damage the United States with this dopey stuff, he damages himself, and by extension the presidency.

But I'm telling you--it's a message for all of those who voted for Barack Obama, and I don't begrudge that vote, by the way. I mean, the Bush administration did not do a good job the last few years, so I understand why people voted for the new guy who promised a lot of things. I got it. But now we've got to look deeper into our people, because this is just nuts. Is there no one in the entire White House that can inject some sanity into the discourse?

So I'm mad, because it's an insult--it really is an insult to the feelings of the 9/11 families. It really is.

Viewer Mail for Monday, August 16

2010-08-16T20:26:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"If it's legal to build the mosque and the Constitution supports the decision, then that far outweighs my displeasure with where it is being built."
Al Sams
Cocoa, FL

WHITE HOUSE MISTAKE?
President Obama alienates millions of Americans by inserting himself in the Ground Zero mosque controversy. He says that Muslims have a right to build a place of worship in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local ordinances. But then the President says he won't comment on the wisdom of putting a mosque in this specific location.

"The President missed an opportunity to show courage to a group of Muslims. We Americans need a courageous leader. We are saddened that we don't seem to have one."
Phyllis Sparks
Magnolia, DE

"President Obama looks in the mirror and sees a crusader, a defender of any minority group he deems underdog. Mainstream America is evil in his eyes."
Stanley Shifter
Chicago, IL

"The President is once again playing both sides, trying to please everyone in the mosque issue, while conveniently avoiding answering questions about the main point of contention."
Julie Ambolino
Perkasie, PA

"It can't be both ways. A President can't be so completely out of touch with mainstream America and still be considered smart."
Bromley Billmeyer
Shamong, NJ

"Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do."
Carol Duffy
Novi, MI

"Once again, President Obama squandered an opportunity to represent the will of the American people. Instead, he chose to cast a present vote."
James Jurczak
Manchester, ME

"The President's comments on the mosque in New York is just another example of how he will initially try to take the furthest left stance on an issue, then try to backtrack to the center."
John Bartell
Boca Raton, FL

"If the President is duty bound to uphold the law when it comes to building mosques, is he not also duty bound to uphold immigration law?"
Leighsa Windsor
Greensboro, NC

"If the President feels so strongly that everyone has a right to be treated equally, why didn't his administration prosecute the Black Panthers for intimidating white voters?"
Jerry Sabino
Dalzell, SC

"The majority of Americans are not disagreeing with the President: anyone, including Muslims, has a right to build a house of worship wherever they want in the United States under our laws."
Kevin Mischley
Wrentham, MA

"We have been told since 9/11 that we must be more tolerant of Muslims. Well, now it is time for Muslims to show some tolerance and sensitivity towards us."
Sue Danner
Spring, TX

"Three cheers for Bernie Goldberg! It's about time someone had guts enough to challenge Muslims around the world to exercise more consideration of Americans. We bend over backwards to defend freedom around the world."
Ben Notti
Alberton, MT

"Soaking our enemies with pity while misapplying the principle of tolerance only increases their confident perception that we are weak. This makes us ripe for another round of terrorist attacks."
Randy Day
Fort Stockton, TX

"If the colonists were asked to be more sensitive to the British, we'd all be speaking with English accents today."
Judith Kriss
Canby, OR

"Bernie is absolutely right. It is high time Muslims show some sensitivity to American values."
Jeannie Carullo
Media, PA

BEAM ME UP!
Newsman Dan Rather seems to be worried what might happen to the human race if there's an alien invasion.

"I think we should give Dan Rather a break on this space alien thing. After all, he could be their point man."
Frank Panelli
Rosamond, CA

"Aliens will never come to earth, not when greeted by Dan Rather and then being tickled by Congressman Eric Massa."
Tom Vocke
Eastpointe, MI

"I watched with amusement your story on Dan Rther's fears about evil deeds perpetrated by possible aliens from outer space. It's a shame he doesn't have the same attitudes towards very real evil deeds by aliens on the southern border."
Dr. Richard McDonough
Singapore

"The real pinheads are those who care about what Dan Rather is doing."
Ronny Bailey
Madisonville, TX

"I think Dan Rather has an inside line with aliens. I've been waiting for the mother ship to beam him up for some years."
Gail Tompkins
Powhatan, VA

The O'Quiz: Test your news knowledge

2010-08-16T19:09:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was down to 5.04 questions correct out of 10 compared to the previous week's average of 5.74. Try and reverse that trend!

Go: This week's O'Quiz

blooter

2010-08-16T03:14:00Z

a fool; an oaf; a blunderer

New crossword: Transcendent Resplendent Amendments

2010-08-13T20:23:00Z

As some folks talk about altering the 14th Amendment, this week's puzzle tests your knowledge of other changes to the Constitution. A law degree isn't necessary, but probably wouldn't hurt. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Bill's New Column: O and Ro

2010-08-12T19:41:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill examines what, exactly, Oprah Winfrey hopes to accomplish by hiring Rosie O'Donnell for her new cable network, OWN.

Go: Bill's latest column

Conservatives blast Reid for remark on Hispanic voters

2010-08-11T22:59:00Z

...Harry Reid, who is fighting for his life in Nevada against Sharron Angle, says that he doesn't understand how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, trying to demagogue the illegal immigration issue, of which Mr. Reid has not helped at all. So I'm not a big fan of Harry's. I was thinking the other night that if I'd moved to Nevada this time last year, I could have beaten him. I know that sounds egotistical, and I'm sorry, I don't mean it to, but I could've beaten him. I could be the senator from Nevada! Not that I want to--I like Nevada, but I don't want to live there--but somebody needs to beat Reid.

FBI joins hunt for serial killer

2010-08-11T22:57:00Z

This serial killer that Geraldo told us about--that's pretty scary. Pretty scary. So we hope that guy gets taken into custody. Knifing people, nineteen people. Nineteen! Five dead!

Ted Stevens leaves a legacy in Alaska

2010-08-11T22:55:00Z

I didn't cover the plane crash in Alaska--there's nothing I can do. Sympathies to the Ted Stevens family and the other people who died with him. Alaska is a tough place; you've got to take planes from section to section, and the weather is always changing there.

Man sues Massachusetts over health care fine

2010-08-11T22:51:00Z

Guy sues Massachusetts because he was fined $2,000--this is what I've been telling you. Because the states are broke, they're going to try and get you for speeding, for everything they can get you for. All of your fees are going to go up, and any time you turn around there's going to be another fee. This guy Michael Merlina--he was forced to buy health insurance by the state for $800, which is not a lot, but he says he didn't have the money and isn't going to buy it, and they fined him $2,000 and he's not going to pay it. So this stuff is going to happen more and more and more. Individual Americans are getting crazy--you saw it happen on JetBlue the other day--and they're saying "I'm not going to do it..."

Expect more and more of this stuff. As the government starts to tell people what they have to do, people are going to go "I'm not going to do it." And then you're going to have anarchy, and this is one of the first steps. So we're going to follow this case...

Insurgents make headway in Colorado elections

2010-08-11T22:48:00Z

In Colorado there's a bunch of people I don't really know--a guy named Ken Buck running on a Tea Party ticket seems to be making some noise. Colorado's another state that's changed from a conservative state to a liberal state, but in this election in November, it could go back to being a little bit conservative, because people are angry about the economy, about illegal immigration in Colorado. I have a lot of friends there--used to work in Denver--so I know what the mood is there.

McMahon prepared to spend, spend, spend

2010-08-11T22:45:00Z

There were a bunch of votes last night; Linda McMahon, the World Wrestling CEO, is going to run against Blumenthal for the Senate out of Connecticut. Blumenthal will probably beat her; Connecticut people--they're not crazy left, but they're left--McMahon has no experience. She's got a lot of money, but I would assume that Blumenthal, unless he does something more crazy... will win.

Health insurers raise rates (and their salaries)

2010-08-11T22:42:00Z

...this is bad. It's bad. Number one, the federal government had to know this was going to happen, and they didn't tell us. Now, some of this were [suspicious] of Obamacare, and I would assume a lot of you fall into that category. But a lot of Americans thought, "Well, if we support this thing, all of the costs are going to come down," and it's quite the opposite. And they can say, "Well, in 2014 maybe we'll get it under control." Maybe they will and maybe they won't. In the meantime, for four years, we all get hammered, and it's wrong. That's not the way we should be running the show here, so that's why I'm concentrating so much on this.

Backstage Conversation: Amnesty and voting rights

2010-08-11T22:30:00Z

In this week's Backstage Conversation webcast for Premium Members, Bill answers a question about whether or not illegal aliens who are granted amnesty will be able to vote in the fall election.

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Viewer Mail for Wednesday, August 11

2010-08-11T20:25:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"Listening to you and Beck discuss the endangered health of our nation was like observing a medical conference. Dr. O'Reilly acknowledged the symptoms; Dr. beck addressed the causes."
Sandy Everett
Roscoe, IL

FINANCIAL CON?
Americans are getting hoses as health insurance premiums rise. Are insurance companies driving up premiums to stockpile profits before Obama-care kicks in?

"While my health insurance premiums went up only a couple hundred, my benefits were slashed. I'm not getting anything out of Obama-care, but I'm still paying the price."
Joshua Hanover
New York, NY

"The next thing individuals and employers are going to do is drop insurance and opt to pay the fine instead. Get ready for a chain reaction."
Becky Forest
Knob Noster, MO

"Insurance rates have been skyrocketing, causing more people to go without medical insurance. Maybe the hope is there will be more people to support national health care."
John Deahl
Mechanicsville, IA

"The health insurance companies will be out of business in four years. They would be crazy not to make a profit while they can."
Gregg Jones
Colorado Springs, CO

"Stop bashing the health insurance companies. You know that the executive pay packages don't cause premiums to go up."
Renju Ramachandran
Farmington, CT

"Adult 20-somethings are among the healthiest group of Americans. Their premiums will be almost pure profit. Insurance companies must love the provision that says parents can insure them longer."
Philip Cenci
Staten Island, NY

"Obama knows insurance costs are going up. He's opening the door down the road to demonize the insurance companies and reinstate the public option as the only viable solution to the problem."
Jonather Decker
Vienna, VA

"I won't defend the actions of some health insurance companies. However, having once worked in one, I can say that hospitals gouging the payers directly contributes to higher premiums."
Dan Clark
Port Jefferson Station, NY

"It won't be possible to keep our costs down by cutting some coverage, because the government is mandating minimum coverage for all policies."
Michael Biscuiti
North Massapequa, NY

"If only Republicans had not blocked the public option from the health care bill, the private insurance companies wouldn't be increasing premiums like they are now."
Taimur Habib
San Francisco, CA

"I'm an insurance agent and can't get a straight answer on why our family health insurance went up 28% in July. It is a giant money grab."
J. Edward Weinstein
Florissant, MO

PILOT ERROR?
An agitated passenger accuses a Delta pilot of having alcohol on his breath. After the pilot passed the alcohol test, the complaining passenger is removed from the flight, and now she's demanding an apology from Delta.

"How would Megyn Kelly like being accused of being intoxicated while on your show? Put yourself in the captain's position. This woman should be banned from all air travel."
Don Gibbs
Malvern, AR

"You couldn't pay me enough to sit next to Megyn Kelly on a flight!"
Brian Malloy
San Diego, CA

"Delta did the right thing. The passenger was very disruptive. As a former Delta captain, I would have removed her from my flight and recommended a psychiatric evaluation."
Rich Andresen
Dallas, TX

"Pilots can lose their licenses because of false accusations. When that happens, they don't just move to another airline."
Dick Larsen
San Diego, CA

"I'm an airline pilot. If there were no consequences to falsely accusing a pilot of being drunk, airplanes would never get off the ground."
Rick Gosselin
Weston, FL

CALLING ALL CULTURE WARS!
Glenn Beck explains why he avoids topics like gay marriage and abortion, while focusing on big picture political issues.

"I appreciate that Mr. Beck avoids the culture wars. This is just one more thing that separates him from the rest of the commentary programs."
Ralph Duddles
Petersburg, AK

"If Glenn Beck thinks going to church would solve America's problems, he's a pinhead! You can't pray away problems like illegal immigration, a bad economy, and so on."
Matt Obbema
Corona, CA

"Glenn Beck is mistaken if he believes our growing moral depravity is not our main problem. It's at the center of everything."
Kent Veazey
Lake Charles, LA

"Glenn is doing a good job of exposing the left's efforts at undermining America's foundations. In this culture war, he has your back."
Phil Williams
Estacada, OR

"Beck is right. This country was founded with religion as a cornerstone, yet we've strayed too far from it. As a country, we need to get closer to God."
Antonio Vigil
Litchfield Park, AZ

"Devoid of faith in a God who has spoken, a person's views on culture war issues like abortion and gay marriage are simply opinions."
Dave Hills
Elkhart, IN

"I'm glad Glenn Beck avoids issues like gay marriage and abortion. So many conservatives are preoccupied with those issues, but we have bigger problems that impact all Americans."
Joyce Goetz
Thousand Oaks, CA

"The culture war has turned into a clash between those who wish to save our country and those who are pursuing ideology that will bring her to her knees."
Dede Coulter
Desert Hot Springs, CA

"Without strong faith, Commandments, and the teaching of right vs. wrong, it is easy to deceive people into believing that something that is morally wrong can be legally right."
Joan Dantin
Metairie, LA

"I heard you have a major sweet tooth, Bill. If you and Beck bring the Bold Fresh tour to Nashville, I'll make you a cheesecake of your choice."
Amanda Mays
Goodlettsville, TN

Justin Bieber hit by a water bottle during concert

2010-08-11T01:10:00Z

We'll handle this tomorrow night... You know people laugh and all that, but it's no laughing matter. It really isn't. You can get killed. Because I do stage shows, as you know, and we have beaucoup security. Because there's always some kook that can hurt you. And you're not aware. You're concentrating on your show. And all of a sudden somebody throws something at you? I mean, that should be a felony in my opinion. So we'll get into this Bieber stuff tomorrow.

Group complains about "menacing" McDonald's action figures

2010-08-11T01:06:00Z

This is an action figure of some kind. I don't know. I see the action figure and there's some guy with flames on him. Whether he's Flame Man or Match Man... I don't know what he is. BBQ Guy?

But please. Kids see worse than that in their living rooms than this kind of stuff.

Greg Gutfeld says he'll build gay bar next to Ground Zero mosque

2010-08-11T01:03:00Z

This is a pretty funny story. Greg Gutfeld says he's going to open a gay bar right near the Ground Zero mosque if it's built.

It's not going to be built. I told you that it won't be. Trust me on this. I know New York. I was born here in Manhattan, raised on Long Island, I know the city better than anyone -- or as well as anyone. And there's not a construction crew that I know of that's going to build that mosque. So unless they import guys from Saudi Arabia, nobody's going to build it. So there you go.

But anyway Gutfeld, always stirring up the pot, says he'll open a gay bar to cater to gay men, Islamic gay men.

Now I hope Gutfeld is not beheaded. He's pretty provocative.

Win a Trip to see The Factor

2010-08-10T23:37:00Z

St. Vincent de Paul is sponsoring a raffle where you can win a Trip to see the Factor and meet Bill.

GO: St. Vincent de Paul

Stratfor.com: Drought, Fire and Grain in Russia

2010-08-10T20:52:00Z

Three interlocking crises are striking Russia simultaneously: the highest recorded temperatures Russia has seen in 130 years of recordkeeping; the most widespread drought in more than three decades; and massive wildfires that have stretched across seven regions, including Moscow.

The crises threaten the wheat harvest in Russia, which is one of the world's largest wheat exporters. Russia is no stranger to having drought affect its wheat crop, a commodity of critical importance to Moscow's domestic tranquility and foreign policy. Despite the severity of the heat, drought, and wildfires, Moscow's wheat output will cover Russia's domestic needs. Russia will also use the situation to merge its neighbors into a grain cartel.

A History of Drought and Wildfire
Flooding peat bogs appears to be bringing the fires under control. Smoke from the fires has kept Moscow nearly shut down for a week. The larger concern is the effect of the fires - and the continued heat and drought, which has created a state of emergency across 27 regions - on Russia's ordinarily massive grain harvest and exports.

Russia is one of the largest grain producers and exporters in the world, normally producing around 100 million tons of wheat a year, or 10 percent of total global output. It exports 20 percent of this total to markets in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

Cyclical droughts (and wildfires) mean Russian grain production levels fluctuate between 75 and 100 million tons from year to year. The extent of the drought and wildfires this year has prompted Russian officials to revise the country's 2010 estimated grain production to 65 million tons, though Russia holds 24 million tons of wheat in storage - meaning it has enough to comfortably cover domestic demand (which is 75 million tons) even if the drought gets worse.
The larger challenge Moscow has faced in years of drought and wildfire has been transporting grain across Russia's immense territory. Russia's grain belt lies in the southern European part of the country from the Black Sea across the Northern Caucasus to Western Kazakhstan, capped on the north by the Moscow region. This is Russia's most fertile region, which is supported by the Volga River.

(click here to enlarge image)

Though drought and wildfires have struck Russia over the past three years, they have not affected its main grain-producing region. Instead, they struck regions in the Ural area that provide grain for Siberia. Those fires tested Russia's transit infrastructure, one of its fundamental challenges. Russia has no real transportation network uniting its European heartland and its Far East save one railroad, the Trans-Siberian. While its grain belt does have some of the best transportation infrastructure in the country, it is designed for sending grain to the Black Sea or Europe - not to Siberia. The Kremlin began planning for disruptions of grain shipments to Siberia during the droughts and fires of 2007-2009. During that period, Moscow established massive grain storage units in the Urals and in producing regions of Kazakhstan along the Russian border.
This year's drought and fires do not primarily affect Russia's transportation network, but rather the grain-producing regions in the European part of Russia that make up the bulk of Russia's grain exports. These regions lie on the westward distribution network, with the port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea handling more than 50 percent of Russian exports.

Russia has focused largely on being a major grain exporter, raking in more than $4 billion a year for the past three years off the trade. This year, the Kremlin announced Aug. 5 that it would temporarily ban grain exports from Aug. 15 to Dec 31. Two reasons prompted the move. The first is the desire to prevent domestic grain prices from skyrocketing due to feared shortages. Russia's grain market is remarkably volatile. Grain prices inside Russia already have risen nearly 10 percent. (Globally, wheat futures on the Chicago Board of Trade have risen nearly 20 percent in the past month, the largest jump since the early 1970s.)

The second reason is that the Kremlin wants to ensure that its supplies and production will hold up should the winter wheat harvest decline as well. Winter wheat, planted beginning at the end of August, typically fully replenishes Russian grain supplies. Further unseasonable heat, drought or fires could damage the winter wheat harvest, meaning the Kremlin will want to curtail exports to ensure its storage silos remain full.

Russia's conservatism when it comes to ensuring supplies and price stability arises from the reality that adequate grain supplies long have been equated with social stability in Russia. Unlike other commodities, food shortages trigger social and political instability with shocking rapidity in all countries. As do some other countries, Russia relies on grain more than any other foodstuff; other food categories like meat, dairy and vegetables are too perishable for most of Russia to rely on.

Russia's concentration on food volatility has a long history. Lenin called grain Russia's "currency of currencies," and seizing grain stockpiles was one of the Red Army's first moves during the Russian Revolution. In this tradition, the Kremlin will husband its grain before exporting it for monetary gain. And this falls in line with Russia's overall economic strategy of using its resources as a tool in domestic and foreign policy.

Exports and Foreign Policy
Russia is a massive producer and exporter of myriad commodities besides grain. It is the largest natural gas producer in the world and one of the largest oil and timber producers. The Russian government and domestic economy are based on the production and export of all these commodities, making Kremlin control - either direct or indirect - of all of these sectors essential to national security.

Domestically, Russians enjoy access to the necessities of life. Kremlin ownership over the majority of the country's economy and resources gives the government leverage in controlling the country on every level - socially, politically, economically and financially. Thus, a grain crisis is more than just about feeding the people; it strikes at part of Russia's overall domestic economic security.

Russia's use of its resources as a tool is also a major part of Kremlin foreign policy. Its massive natural resource wealth and subsequent relative self-sufficiency allows it to project power effectively into the countries around it. Energy has been the main tool in this tactic. Moscow very publicly has used energy supplies as a political weapon, either by raising prices or by cutting supplies. It is also willing to use non-energy trade policy to effect foreign policy ends, and grain exports fall very easily into Moscow's box of economic tools.

Russia is using the current grain crisis as a foreign policy tool even beyond its own exports, prices and supplies. It has asked both Kazakhstan and Belarus to also temporarily suspend their grain exports. Belarus is a minor grain exporter, with nearly all of its exports going to Russia. But Kazakhstan is one of the top five wheat exporters in the world, traditionally producing 21 million tons of wheat and exporting more than 50 percent of that. The same drought that has struck Russia also has hit Kazakhstan; production there is expected to be slashed by a third, or 7 million tons.

Kazakhstan traditionally exports to southern Siberia, Turkey, Iran and its fellow Central Asian states, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. For the first time, Kazakhstan had planned to send grain exports to Asia. It had contracted to send approximately 3 million tons of grain east, with 2 million of those supplies heading to South Korea and the remainder to be split between China and Japan. The drought has forced Kazakhstan to reassess whether it can fulfill those contracts along with contracts for its immediate region.

Russia's request that Belarus and Kazakhstan cease grain shipments does not seem primarily connected to Russia's concern over supplies, but instead looks to be more political. The three countries formed a customs union in January, something that has caused much political and economic turmoil. Kazakhstan sought to lock in its president's desire to remain beholden to Russia even after he steps down, while Belarus reluctantly joined as Russia already controlled more than half of the Belarusian economy.

For Moscow, however, the union was a key piece of its geopolitical resurgence. The Russian-Kazakh-Belarusian Customs Union was not set up like a Western free trade zone, where the goal is to encourage two-way trade by reducing trade barriers, but as a Russian plan to expand Moscow's economic hold over Belarus and Kazakhstan. Thus far, the Customs Union has undermined Belarus and Kazakhstan's industrial capacity, welding the two states further into the Russian economy.

Since the customs union has been in effect, Russia has quickly turned the club into a political tool, demanding that its fellow members sign onto politically motivated economic targeting of other states. In late July, Russia asked both Kazakhstan and Belarus to join a ban on wine and mineral water from Moldova and Georgia after continued spats with each of the pro-Western countries. Russia has added another level of demands in light of the grain shortages. As of this writing, neither Astana nor Minsk has accepted or declined the demands from Moscow, with grain exporting season just a month away.

Given current Russian production and storage supplies, Russia doesn't actually need Belarus or Kazakhstan to curb their exports. Instead, it is seeking to use the drought and fires to create a regional grain cartel with its new customs union partners.

And this leads to the question of the other former Soviet grain heavyweight, Ukraine. Ukraine, which does not belong to the customs union, is the world's third-largest wheat exporter. In 2009, Ukraine exported 21 million tons of its 46 million-ton production. Also hit by the drought, Ukraine revised its projected production and exports for 2010 down 20 percent, with exports down to 16 million tons. Some fear Ukraine will have to slash its export forecasts even further. Moscow will most likely want to control what its large grain-exporting neighbor does, should it be concerned with supplies or prices. Despite Russia's recent actions with regard to Belarus and Kazakhstan, however, Ukraine has not publicly announced any bans on grain exports.
If Russia is going to exert its political power over the region via grain, it must have Ukraine on board. If Russia can control all of these states' wheat exports, then Moscow will control 15 percent of global production and 16 percent of global exports. Kiev has recently turned its political orientation to lock step with Moscow, as seen in matters of politics, military and regional spats. But this most recent crisis hits at a major national economic piece for Ukraine. Whether Kiev bends its own national will to continue its further entwinement with Moscow remains to be seen.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Viewer Mail for Tuesday, August 10

2010-08-10T20:23:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"Of course Jennifer Aniston thinks there is nothing wrong with single parenthood since that is exactly where she's headed. I'll be taking my advice from someone who has children, not a celebrity who can't stay in a relationship long enough to have a family."
Deborah Henry
Shelby Township, MI

OBAMA-CARE CONSEQUENCES
O'Reilly's health insurance premiums are going up to cover the anticipated costs of the new health care law. But Alan Colmes insists Obama-care is not to blame!

"By saying you could afford your health insurance premium increase, you did the American people a disservice. The far-left wants to hear that people of above-average income can afford redistribution of wealth."
Frank Kovalski
Frisco, CO

"My insurance premiums are going up next year also! This is just the beginning of the disastrous Obama-care. We need it to be repealed."
Jennifer Strickland
Evans, GA

"Your premiums may have gone up, but I lost my insurance altogether. My provider is going out of business because it will not be able to meet the requirements of the new health care bill."
Iris Tjin Djie
Avon Park, FL

"Not only do I believe my premiums will rise, but I understand that I will also be taxed on the difference between my portion and that which is paid by my former employer. I can't afford that."
Marion Barrett
Dunlap, TN

"Obama-care comes at a painful price: increased Medicaid, decreased Medicare, rationing, higher premiums and a loss of jobs."
Dan Jeffs
Apple Valley, CA

"My insurance went up just like yours and I will be among the homeless and uninsured soon. But I'll probably get better health care then."
Marilyn Farrell
Westwood, NJ

"Alan Colmes is the biggest kool-aid drinker out there. The CBO now stands for 'Colmes Babbling On.'"
Antonio Vigil
Litchfield Park, AZ

"I can't believe you let Colmes get away with saying Obama governs as a pragmatist. This administration is the very definition of doctrinaire!"
Thomas Laurita
Livingston, NJ

"Colmes needs to get his head out of the sand and stop looking at this administration through rose-colored glasses. I too received an unexpected bill regarding a health care claim. This is only the beginning."
Deanne Kentz
Westerville, OH

"I've been around people on LSD who made more sense than Colmes. Our health insurance went up 70% the week the health care bill was passed."
William McKinney
Marysville, CA

"Alan Colmes missed his calling. He should have been an infantry general as he fights so bravely to defend an indefensible position."
Howard Wolf
Lake Forest Park, WA

LEGAL PREDICAMENT
The JetBlue flight attendant who made headlines by shooting down the emergency slide after an altercation with a passenger may be in big legal trouble. Does he deserve a heavy fine? Jail time?

"As a former airline pilot, I would like to commend the JetBlue flight attendant. What a way to go!"
Chuck Waldron
Lakeland, FL

"You were a bit too harsh on the JetBlue flight attendant. I've seen you go off the deep end talking to Geraldo and Barney Frank. The poor guy just cracked."
Gary Smith
Santa Maria, CA

"Steven Slater has done what many of us have always wanted to do. For that, I consider him a working class hero."
Scott Moroz
Port Jervis, NY

"Please tell Lis Wiehl, who doesn't think the JetBlue flight attendant should be fined, that it cost over $10,000 to reinstall an emergency slide he used for early retirement."
Tony Lief
Marina del Rey, CA

SINGLE MOTHER FLAP
Actress Jennifer Aniston has a new movie coming out about a 41-year-old single woman who gets pregnant through artificial insemination. During promotion of the film, the actress said men are no longer necessities when it comes to having and raising children.

"And Ms. Aniston's childrearing expertise comes from....?"
Ann Lawson
Asheboro, NC

"Aniston's statement reveals self-centered thinking. Yes, women can raise kids without men, but what child would choose not to have a father."
Bob Duffy
Folsom, CA

"I respectfully disagree with Ms. Aniston's assertion that a single mom can adequately raise a family. I coach single-parent boys and they are desperately looking for father figures."
Alan Aber
Kaneohe, HI

"I have lost all respect for Jennifer Aniston. Children need a mother and a father."
Cheryl Doyle
North Port, FL

"Jennifer Aniston got it wrong. My parents divorced when I was young and I missed out on not having a father in the home. Children need both parents."
Stacey Belnap
Murray, UT

60,000 babies born to illegals in Texas each year

2010-08-10T00:59:00Z

It just puts the problem into perspective, doesn't it? How this got so far out of control worries me. That's what happens when you ignore it. When you ignore a problem it does not get better. It gets worse. And in your life, take that to the bank. You've got something wrong with you, you don't feel good, it's persistent -- check it out. You've got a person bothering you, it doesn't stop, do something. Don't let it go.

ICE only capable of removing 400,000 illegals a year

2010-08-10T00:56:00Z

So even if they were running full throttle they could only get 400,000 people out of here. Couldn't do any more. It makes sense, because it's not easy to deport people. You've got to move them, you've got to put them on planes and trains and buses, the paperwork... So 400,000, 365 days in the year, that's more than 1000 illegal aliens every day getting out of here. That seems to be right. That's how bad the problem is.

Poll: Majority think Afghanistan will get worse

2010-08-10T00:55:00Z

I would say yeah. We're stepping up the fight there, so there's going to be more KIAs, killed in action. No doubt about it.

Michelle Obama criticized for lavish Spain trip

2010-08-10T00:48:00Z

You have two liberal newspaper columnists -- Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, and Kirsten Powers who writes a syndicated column -- basically saying that the White House is tone deaf to what Americans think, and they don't want to see the First Lady running around Europe when we have a big recession here. She should be here cheerleading and helping the economy.

You know, I understand that point of view. But it doesn't offend me very much. If she wants to go to Spain, I don't really care. Wherever you want to go, as long as I'm not paying for it -- and we're not paying for it, according to the White House, so it's okay with me.

But I do understand the other point of view.

New crossword: Wedded Bliss

2010-08-09T23:29:00Z

With same-sex marriage in the news, this week's puzzle focuses on matrimony, holy and otherwise. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

The O'Quiz: Do you know the news?

2010-08-09T22:05:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was up, increasing to 5.74 questions correct out of 10 compared to the previous week's average of 5.13.

Go: This week's O'Quiz

Viewer Mail for Monday, August 9

2010-08-09T20:22:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"For the first time in my adult life, I'm really not proud of my First Lady."
Justin Case
Amarillo, TX

VIVA LA SPAIN!
First Lady Michelle Obama is coming under intense criticism for a lavish vacation in Spain. Critics don't like the fact that taxpayers are funding a massive security detail; they also question why she wouldn't spend money vacationing in the U.S. instead.

"I think it's perfectly fine for people to be upset about Michelle's travel expenses. Remember all the hoopla about Sarah Palin's wardrobe?"
Joe Kowalewski
South Riding, VA

"Why not a trip to Disney World instead of Spain? The kids would have more fun, the money would stay in the USA, and the union workers would make some cash."
Paully Rendinell
Youngstown, OH

"The First Lady taking a trip to Spain on some taxpayer expense when we have 10% unemployment is as macabre as Congress people who vote to raise taxes yet don't pay their own."
Sandy Boone
Camilla, GA

"I think Michelle Obama's new name should be Michelle Antoinette! The money she's spending in Spain could have gone to helping families in the Gulf coast if she had vacationed down there instead."
Debra Hartley
El Dorado, AR

"Michelle's trip to Spain is just another manifestation of the Obamas' contempt for the American people. The Obamas' daughter should definitely see Spain at some point, but this is a matter of principle."
Catherine Murphy
New Port Richey, FL

"With the Obamas vacations in Maine and Martha's Vineyard, and now Michelle in Spain, it seems they've hired the same travel agent as Tony Hayward of BP."
Carl Walker
Orange, CA

"I think Michelle Obama should have taken her vacation in Las Vegas. It would have made up for all the dissing her husband did telling business people to avoid it."
Elizabeth Grossmayer
Fresno, CA

"The Spain trip is a perfect example of the Obama arrogance. I don't believe he suspected for a minute that a backlash would occur."
William King
Sevierville, TN

"I'm not an Obama fan, but I don't begrudge Michelle a trip to Spain. However, I wish she had taken her husband with her. And left him there."
Phil Sherriff
Mill Valley, CA

"Juan Williams defended Michelle Obama's trip to Spain by saying she's under so much stress, she deserves a vacation. What about the fathers standing in the unemployment line? Do they deserve a vacation too?"
Monte Jean Frame
Midwest City, OK

"If Juan Williams thinks that the Spain vacation doesn't make the Obamas out of touch, he's as out of touch as they are."
Ed Hinton
Johnstown, OH

"Juan Williams says the Obama family is under a lot of pressure and deserve vacations. Well, he signed up for the job, so he should start owning it."
Alex Pappas
Houston, TX

LIBERAL VOICES
Oprah Winfrey has partnered up with Rosie O'Donnell on a new cable channel. Can the ultra-far-left O'Donnell attract an audience?

"The reason Oprah is hiring Rosie is to get another liberal show and voice on the air to help Obama get re-elected."
Ted Everett
Blackshear, GA

"Oprah doesn't know the first thing about what American women want to watch on television. She may have had the Midas touch a few years ago, but she has since missed the mark."
Laura Young
La Quinta, CA

"I will never watch Rosie O'Donnell's show or Oprah's for that matter."
Donna Rubli
Spring, TX

"If Bernie Goldberg doesn't think that Oprah ever makes bad business decisions, then he obviously hasn't seen the movie 'Beloved' which tanked miserably at the box office."
Mike Reilly
Fort Wayne, IN

"One doesn't become a billionaire by making bad calls. However, I'd like you to name just one billionaire who never made at least one bad call."
Joe Viera
Glendale, AZ

"Oprah may be a savvy businesswoman, but everything Rosie O'Donnell has been involved in has failed. I think Oprah is making a big mistake."
Barbara Taylor
Boone, NC

TEFLON POLITICIAN
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) continues to avoid accountability in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the Factor has uncovered 2005 video of him saying he's pushing for more home ownership because the housing industry wasn't the type of thing to collapse.

"The reason Barney Frank keeps getting reelected despite his responsibility in the collapse of Fannie and Freddie is that the American people are idiots. This is also why Obama is president."
William Schamroth
Boca Raton, FL

"Barney Frank has made so many inane statements that, at this point, the only thing he could say that could possibly shock me is 'I was wrong.'"
Al Alves
Tucson, AZ

"Barney Frank continues to get reelected and reelected and reelected. So what does that say about the folks voting in his district?"
Jerry Moody
Denton, TX

churlish

2010-08-07T03:15:00Z

boorish; rude

Sean Penn criticizes Wyclef Jean's Haiti Presidential Bid

2010-08-06T23:47:00Z

I'm not going to get involved with this Sean Penn/Wyclef Jean Haitian thing. Mr. Jean has had a lot of trouble in his charities with money. Mr. Jean the problem with Haiti is money disappears. There's a lot of corruption. Is Mr. Jean the person to right the corruption? No. Sean Penn's over three involved with trying to rebuild Haiti. He doesn't like that Wyclef Jean is getting involved. Right now I'm staying on the sidelines. I don't know Wyclef Jean. I've never met him. What I've heard about him is not good. And what I know about Sean Penn is not good. So I really don't want to insert myself in that, but I figured you'd want to know about it.

McConnell to Franken: This isn't SNL

2010-08-06T23:46:00Z

What do expect from that clown? Somebody asked me about the vote in Minnesota and Franken, and what do you think about the people of Minnesota. And my line to that person was "I do not respect that vote." I'm not going to say anything en masse about people who voted for Al Franken. He is a dishonest, crazed ideologue who is not looking out for anybody but himself. And I know that first hand, you guys know.

Lockerbie release flawed

2010-08-06T23:43:00Z

You know this Scotland thing disturbs me. It's hard for me to get involved with it because Scotland is so isolated. But they let this terrorist Al Megrahi, the Liberian, they let him out of jail without any real medical exam or anything... So they just let the guy out. You know, that's wrong.

But what can I do about it? I'm thinking about it. I'm thinking about it. Maybe I'll go over to Scotland and get this guy Kenny McCaskill. He's the Justice Secretary. Maybe I'll chase him around.

Kagan confirmed 63 to 37

2010-08-06T23:42:00Z

We didn't cover it because it was a foregone conclusion... She'll be a liberal. Is she a loon? I don't know. Might be. I think she's more of a moderate liberal. But that's how Sotomayor came off, and she's really been a far left presence so far. But again it's one liberal replacing another, so nothing much is going to change on the court.

Viewer Mail for Friday, August 6

2010-08-06T18:26:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"If Bush drove the economy into a ditch, Obama is mindlessly flooring the gas pedal, uselessly spinning the tires and driving them deeper into the mud."
Dennis Frederick
Stoney Creek, NC

ECONOMIC CHAOS
President Obama claims the economy is improving, but July's disastrous jobs report shows more jobs lost.

"I'm really tired of Obama continually blaming Bush. Reagan inherited a terrible economy from Carter, but it didn't take him long to start turning things around."
Lee Heidel
Signal Mountain, TN

"Leslie Marshall is a typical liberal. She's willing to risk billions of taxpayer dollars on wrong-headed economic ideas, but will only risk $20 of her only money for a good cause."
Paul Bernal
Skillman, NJ

"I must agree with Obama. Bush and the Republicans did drive the country into a ditch, at which point Obama and the Dems jumped into the car and drove it off the cliff."
Bob Perron
Tumon, Guam

"Talking about jobs, you said you hoped Mr. Obama had a good vacation. Which of his many vacations were you referring to?"
Mark Hallauer
Ann Arbor, MI

"Congress was controlled by the Democrats for two years prior to Obama's election, so this is a Democratic recession, not a Bush recession."
Cindy Whitehead
Melrose, MA

"I'm tired of hearing that Obama inherited this economy because as a prior Senator, he helped create it."
Craig Riesch
Orange, CA

HONOR KILLINGS
Fox News investigates honor killings by Muslim men in America. Two teen girls in Texas were killed by their father allegedly for dating non-Muslim boys. Also, a judge in New Jersey refuses to give a woman a restraining order against her husband, citing subjugation in the Muslim faith.

"Muslims should not come to the United States if they can't accept the lifestyle here. Their children must adopt the Western lifestyle and shouldn't be punished for it."
Mike Ma
San Francisco, CA

"Even a Muslim horrified by an honor killing is bound by his religion to protect the perpetrator and aid his escape. The only time the Muslim community is not silent about the subject is when they are in denial."
Ralph Vaughan
Chula Vista, CA

"After 30 years in the military, I can tell you from first-hand experience that in countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, men consider women their property to be beaten, tortured or even killed at their whim."
Danny Prichard
Augusta, GA

"Honor killings are nothing more than planned murder. When someone who does it is sentenced to death for the crime, it may get everyone's attention."
John Ogle
Albuquerque, NM

"Exempting anyone from U.S. laws because of their religion is evil because it violates the God-given rights of their victims."
Dave Lowery
Salem, OR

"Americans find no honor in so-called Muslim honor killings. Let's call them what they are: sharia killings."
Marty Barrack
Hardy, AR

"Geraldo wants to know where all the moderate Muslim imams are. We want to know where NOW and all the women's groups are."
Carol & Stanley Gershbein
Fort Lauderdale, FL

"Islam doesn't have the same sanctity of life beliefs as Christianity. It views women and children as property to be abused."
Jackie Caprio
Camarillo, CA

"Since most honor killings are against daughters, the root cause of this phenomenon seems to be pride run amok."
Stan Bumgardner
Kerrville, TX

GAG ME WITH A SPOON!
Media mogul Ted Turner enters the pinhead zone with an appearance on the Valley Girl Show.

"Give Ted a break! Jane had to rub off on him after all those years."
Sanford Bloom, Ph.D.
Appleton, WI

"You got it right. Ted Turner is definitely a pinhead. But so is the young Valley Girl conducted the interview."
LeeAnn Giles
Cabot, AR

"I would suggest that parents who want to warm their children away from marijuana just show them that clip of Ted Turner on the Valley Girl show. He's the poster boy for the anti-marijuana campaign."
Karen Maris
Sheridan, WY

"If Ted Turner is against bombing, then how does he explain the ratings at CNN?"
Casey Sobhani
Pacific Palisades, CA

Bill's New Column: Panic on the Left

2010-08-05T22:08:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill looks at how the left is trying to blame everyone but The President for his low poll numbers.

Go: Bill's latest column

Viewer Mail for Thursday, August 5

2010-08-05T18:25:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"We expect quality education in our schools. Why shouldn't we expect quality nutrition? Healthy kids learn better."
Ed Kast
Saginaw, MI

NUTRITIOUS AND DELICIOUS!
First Lady Michelle Obama has made childhood obesity her primary cause. She's now lobbying Congress to pass a child nutrition bill that would offer healthy alternatives as school lunches. But is more government intrusion the solution to childhood obesity?

"I don't know if this occurred to you, but people in poor circumstances don't necessarily eat what is good for them. They eat what they can afford. This is what they'll pass on to their kids."
Lawrence Calabro
Northridge, CA

"Government is not the solution. I agree with Laura. Whatever happened to PE in schools? Kids now sit around and play computer games all day."
Pam Reddick
Phoenix, AZ

"The biggest culprit in the explosion of childhood obesity is lack of exercise. Parents are afraid to let their kids play outside due to increased fear of sexual predators."
Joel Thimelll
Hermitage, TN

"As a cafeteria worker and mom, I can tell you that regulating healthy food won't work. Go to any fast food restaurant after school and you will see hoards of teens buying burgers for a dollar."
Debbie Caldwell
New Milford, CT

"If you don't like what the school has on the menu, pack your kid's lunch! The federal government should not be subsidizing school lunches."
Rich Bowyer
Sherwood, AR

"When you talk about a $4.2 billion lunch program being no big deal, please know it's that kind of attitude that got us into this fiscal mess. $4.2 billion here and $4.2 billion there adds up."
Paul Crist
San Angelo, TX

"In tough economic times, wasting billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce childhood obesity seems ridiculous. Better parenting is the solution, not bigger government."
Marco DiMichele
Pennsville, NJ

"As long as schools are under a federal umbrella, any funding that improves the lives of students in impoverished districts will assist in educating them. You can't fill the mind if the belly is empty."
Jason Bowles
Searcy, AR

"Tell Laura Ingraham that if you teach a child to eat mac and cheese, they'll eat once. If you teach a child to grow arugula and tend a garden, they'll eat for a lifetime."
Anna McAlister
Boone, NC

"I agree with you that the First Lady is selling a good message, but I trust parental responsibility over federal nanny laws."
Tanner Fields
Evansville, IN

"I have a 15-year-old son and he goes to school every day with a very nutritious homemade lunch. It's not the government's place to dictate what our children eat."
Gerry Weiss
San Diego, CA

"Kids won't buy tuna, pears and broccoli. They want pizza, French fries, more pizza and more French fries."
Mike Hoover
Port Clinton, OH

"High fructose corn syrup is what's causing obesity in our children. The other culprits are genetically modified foods, growth hormones, nitrites and monosodium glutamate."
Joan Dantin
Metairie, LA

"Being poor is no excuse for obesity. Play sports and avoid fast food. It's not so difficult."
John Downs
Port Orange, FL

"School lunches are generally nutritious and appealing. Responsibility for obesity lies with the parents who let their kids eat breakfast and dinner at fast food restaurants."
Emma Reardon
Alta Loma, CA

"Michelle Obama's crusade to offer more nutritious lunch choices at school is just another government intrusion into people's lives. The approach won't work."
Charles Knapp
Carson City, NV

"Today, many children and some adults live extremely sedentary lives. No matter how healthy the food, if you eat more calories than you burn, you will be fat."
Lauri Slater
Tampa, FL

HOW SCARY!
Author Stephen King takes a shot at Glenn Beck, calling him a crazy guy who says the world is going to end.

"Please tell Glenn Beck not to worry about Stephen King. He is so yesterday. Everyone reads Dean Koontz now."
Gary Koontz
Emmett, ID

"Stephen King is wrong. Glenn Beck may be a little over the top at times, but he almost always puts his ladder in the right place."
Jim Carroll
Clearwater, FL

"Stephen King has said he writes to retain his sanity. His comments about Beck suggest he's been away from his keyboard for too long."
Conrad Gabbard
Tucson, AZ

"Stephen King may know fiction, but Glenn Beck knows reality."
Thomas Peterson
Bay City, MI

"King's books border on perverse. I read some of them and think he is an articulate weirdo."
Gary Babington
Pleasant Prairie, WI

Backstage Conversation: How China buys debt

2010-08-05T02:14:00Z

In this week's Backstage Conversation webcast for Premium Members, Bill answers questions from Premium Members, including a simple explanation as to how China has been "buying" American debt.

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Blacks, whites differ sharply on opinions of Obama

2010-08-05T01:59:00Z

We're going to do this tomorrow also--blacks and whites continue to differ on President Obama. 88% of black Americans support the president; 38% of white Americans do. 50% gap! Huge! So we're going to get into that tomorrow--why that's happening.

Tehran denies reports of grenade attack

2010-08-05T01:56:00Z

I'm not getting into this Ahmadinejad grenade attack because we don't know anything about it. Anything that comes out of Iran, you say, "It's probably not true." They're probably trying to make the guy a hero or something--if I get anything solid on it, I'll tell you, but I don't have anything solid on it at all.

Rolling Stone reporter denied access to Afghanistan

2010-08-05T01:55:00Z

...this Hastings guy from Rolling Stone has been denied credentials to report on the military in Afghanistan. Good--good.

Congressman: Execute WikiLeaks leaker

2010-08-05T01:52:00Z

Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers says that this WikiLeaks thing about Afghanistan should be the subject of a House Intelligence Committee investigation. I agree--I agree. That guy who gave them the information, the Army private, he's in big, big trouble--Bradley Manning? Oof, is he in trouble. They could charge him with treason--he could be executed. That's not going to happen, but it's possible.

Napolitano wants investigation into release of illegal immigrant

2010-08-05T01:50:00Z

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano is reviewing why federal immigration authorities released an illegal immigrant after a drunk driving arrest in 2008--and the guy got drunk again and killed a Catholic nun and injured two other nuns very badly [more recently in a DUI]. So we're going to get into that case tomorrow as well, OK?

Arpaio could face lawsuit for failing to cooperate in investigation

2010-08-05T01:48:00Z

Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona... is refusing to cooperate with the civil rights investigation launched by the US Justice Department, so that's headed for court--Arpaio is headed for court there.

ACLU files suit against drone program

2010-08-05T01:47:00Z

...the ACLU is trying to help al-Qaeda. Outrageous, boy. Really outrageous. Gets me very, very angry.

Missouri voters rebuke federal health care law

2010-08-05T01:45:00Z

Missouri voters approved a measure aimed at nullifying the federal health care law forcing people to buy Obamacare insurance or pay a tax penalty. It was a state boat--we'll get the wording and all of that tomorrow. Interesting story, but doesn't really have any effect on the federal law. Federal law trumps state law, so it's basically a poll.

Stratfor.com: Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations

2010-08-04T23:13:00Z

Arizona's new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.

Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.

The Centrality of New Orleans
The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that oceangoing ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.

Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today's Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.

Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible-nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.

Mexico's strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.

The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico's original political order.

A Temporary Resolution
The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region's status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region's economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region's accelerating economic growth.

The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.

The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor-and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn't notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.

Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.

Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration
Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensible to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.

That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.

This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward-in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.

This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.

The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland-the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.

The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.

The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona-between those who benefit from the migration and those who don't-and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.

Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don't coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.

Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement-legal and illegal-changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.

Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona's new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.

Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a subnational issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Viewer Mail for Wednesday, August 4

2010-08-04T18:23:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY
"Mr. Fenstermaker doesn't have any evidence that Al-Awlaki is a terrorist, but he automatically assumes the U.S. and Israeli leadership are corrupt liars. Seems like selective presumption of innocence to me."
Chad Conley
Spring Creek, NV

SYMPATHIZING WITH TERROR?
Scott Fenstermaker, an attorney who has represented terror suspects, defends the ACLU taking on the case of Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration calls him a dangerous terrorist, but the ACLU is suing for due process since Mr. al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen.

"Good grief. Is this guy for real? He has the most perverted sense of reasoning I've ever seen. If he didn't see it, it didn't happen. What of the Holocaust?"
Gloria Gregory
Riverton, WY

"Please do all of us a favor and send Scott Fenstermaker a one-way ticket to Afghanistan or Pakistan."
Clint Horn
Tahlequah, OK

"If Mr. Fenstermaker needs proof of how badly al Qaeda wants to kill Americans, he need only go to Afghanistan. He would quickly find the proof he seeks, but may not live long enough to tell about it."
Audrey Figueroa
Belmar, NJ

"Mr. Fenstermaker adamantly refuses to cast negative judgment on terrorists, professing a lack of concrete evidence to sustain such judgment, yet anyone in the U.S. or Israeli governments cannot be trusted?"
Michael Oddenino
Arcadia, CA

"Sounds to me like Mr. Fenstermaker is more willing to trust al Qaeda and its ilk than he is to trust the American military. Disgraceful."
John Martin
Shoreline, WA

"Mr. Fenstermaker has apparently been radicalized by the Muslim extremists he's paid to represent and has been dangerous and anti-American."
Eugene Womack
Myers Flat, CA

"Thank you for wrapping up the interview with Scott Fenstermaker before I changed the channel. What rock does this guy live under?"
Erica Grunwald
Chesterfield, MI

"The ACLU wants to defend al-Awlaki because he is an American citizen. If we are in a war against terrorism, why has this known terrorist not been stripped of his citizenship?"
Leslie Severance
Parker, CO

"Mr. Fenstermaker doesn't know if al-Awlaki is a terrorist? Maybe he should do some research before he starts defending him."
Chad Conley
Spring Creek, NV

"I believe al-Awlaki is a terrorist. However, his U.S. citizenship affords him certain rights that set him apart from other Islamic terrorists. Our government can't be allowed to target and assassinate citizens."
Steve Edwards
Watsonville, CA

"Citizenship trumps terrorist activity. We have to capture him and then try him in court."
Bruce Beane
Nashua, NH

"I'm a conservative, but I believe any U.S. citizen, regardless of the offense they're accused of committing, must be given due process. Mr. al-Awlaki is innocent until proven guilty."
Brad Fore
Glade Spring, VA

VICTORY MOSQUE?
Opponents of the mosque at Ground Zero claim that the religious building would send a symbol to the world that the Muslim community was victorious at this location on 9/11.

"If the argument for building a mosque near Ground Zero is because this is America and we have freedom, why can municipalities put restrictions on strip clubs near churches and schools?"
Andy Smith
Orange Park, FL

"I can't believe we're even talking about building a mosque at Ground Zero. America can now officially be labeled insane."
Eric Hill
Las Vegas, NV

"Muslims constantly demand we respect their religious practices. Why don't they try showing some respect for America, particularly those lost on 9/11?"
Scott Scafer
Flower Mound, TX

"There's no doubt the mosque at Ground Zero will be seen by radical Islamists all over the world as a monument to their victory on 9/11. Wake up."
Jim Rice
Oakhurst, CA

"I have watched you for ten years and you don't seem to be a naïve person, but you appear blind to the fact that the majority of Muslims are out to destroy the west."
Monroe Gray
Cameron, LA

"I believe the mosque at Ground Zero would be an affront to the sufferings of the American people. If Muslims want to work on relations, they should put the mosque ten blocks away and stop this anguish."
Paula Doss
Roanoke, VA

"Let's make things simple: tell Muslims they can open one mosque in the U.S. for every Christian church in an Islamic country."
Ed Given
Murfreesboro, TN

"While it certainly would be helpful if the mosque planned for Ground Zero was moved to a less controversial location, that is a decision for the mosque builders, not the rest of us."
Larry Kump
Falling Waters, WV

"The Ground Zero mosque is absolutely a victory mosque. History confirms that Muslims build mosques where they have had a victory."
Steve Foster
Groveland, CA

MILLER TIME
Factor viewers weigh in on their favorite segment of the week.

"God bless Dennis Miller. He's an oasis in this desert of political correctness. I wish he and I could have a beer summit."
Paul Crauford
Sarasota, FL

"Why didn't someone tell me years ago that Dennis Miller was so witty and brilliant? I would have watched him on Monday Night Football."
Mary Kathryn Paolini
Palm Harbor, FL

"After seeing Dennis on the show tonight, one phrase comes to mind: Dennis the Menace. He had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud."
Russell Evans
Macon, GA

cantankerous

2010-08-04T03:16:00Z

ill-tempered and quarrelsome; disagreeable

Newsweek sold to nonagenarian Harman

2010-08-03T23:54:00Z

Newsweek is being sold to a 92-year-old guy named Harman--and he's Congresswoman Harman's husband. Newsweek is pretty much on the ropes--I don't think it can come back.

No jail time for Charlie Sheen

2010-08-03T23:52:00Z

Charlie Sheen--30 days in rehab for a domestic violence beef. You know, he's the highest-paid sit-com star in America right now--troubled guy, no doubt.

Denver leadership pushes for immigration checks for workers

2010-08-03T23:50:00Z

Denver--city council approved a measure that would require anyone working for the city in construction to have their immigration status cleared. It's interesting because Denver--the mayor, he doesn't like Arizona, and there's a big war in Colorado about this illegal alien stuff. I might get into that, because I used to live in Denver, and I like Colorado--it's changing. I might take a look at what's going on out there, maybe next week.

Man arrested for praying in front of abortion clinic

2010-08-03T23:46:00Z

There's a guy in Chicago--a 25-year-old graduate student at Northwestern says he was praying the rosary outside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility when he was arrested for violating the city's "bubble zone" ordinance. He says he's innocent... The "bubble zone" is basically you've got to stay eight feet away from people going into Planned Parenthood. You can't intimidate them or discourage them from walking in there. So I don't know what happened--I wasn't there. Interesting case, but you'd have to know what the nuts and bolts were to have an opinion on it.

George W. Bush to sit down with Matt Lauer

2010-08-03T23:44:00Z

George W. Bush is going to go with Matt Lauer for his first interview. His daughter Jenna works over there, which is why I think that happened. I mean, certainly NBC News pounded Bush, so why he's giving them the first interview for his new book in November--I don't know. It's kind of interesting. We're hoping we'll get him first on cable. We'll keep you posted on that.

Illegal alien kills nun, injures two in drunk driving incident

2010-08-03T23:40:00Z

In Virginia, a guy who was in and out of the court system for drunk driving has killed a nun and badly hurt two others. Carlos Montano, 23, from Bolivia, here illegally--for years has been in and out of court because of drunk driving. Nobody deported him. So this is what I mean--how much more of this are we going to take? So now there's a dead nun in Prince William County, Virginia, and two gravely injured because of Carlos Montano, who shouldn't have even been here. He should've been deported the first time he was picked up on DUI. It's awful, awful.

Prominent pols call for reexamination of 14th amendment

2010-08-03T23:36:00Z

The anchor baby controversy is heating up, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying the Fourteenth Amendment looks to be a problem, and things need to be reevaluated. ...There are a whole bunch of things that could happen there--it'll be interesting to see if this gets any steam. I suspect it will not. Even though it's not fair and we all know it's a con, I just suspect that this is not going to rise and it'll probably go away, but right now it's obviously around.

Viewer Mail for Tuesday, August 3

2010-08-03T18:21:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"The only thing that should be honored on 9/11 is the victims who perished on that day, not American-Muslim relations."
Taylor Stephenson
Huntington, WV

RATINGS DISASTER
President Obama's approval ratings are in the tank. He's taking shots at President Bush and hoping 'the other guy was worse' strategy will save his presidency. Will it work?

"It's funny to hear Obama talk about Republicans betting on voters having amnesia come November. My bet is voters will clearly remember the health care debacle."
Mark Schlemmer
Overland Park, KS

"Where would Obama's poll numbers be if he were subjected to anywhere near the media scrutiny and hostility George Bush was subjected to? Probably in the teens."
Eric Gentzschein
Miami, FL

"We need a clean candidate in 2012. The current frontrunners have too much excess baggage, which is a turnoff for many voters."
Bill Bahan
Plainfield, WI

"It's apples and oranges to compare Bush's poll numbers with Obama's. In one the mainstream media was driving the numbers down, in the other it was trying to prop them up."
John Curry
Ivins, UT

"President Bush's rating was 36% with the mainstream media solidly against him. Obama's is 41% with its support."
William Orr
Fountain Hills, AZ

"Obama is showing enormous weakness by pointing fingers. He is desperately trying to convince everyone that the majority of Americans are foolish."
Justin Bushnell
Vincennes, IN

"When Obama is criticized about not making progress, he acts as if the Bush administration has made it impossible. What happened to 'yes we can'?"
Cheyenne Fodderie
San Antonio, TX

"Obama's blame Bush and the Republicans act is neither funny nor persuasive. It is a bit jejune."
Fred Schwartz
Burlington, NJ

"President Obama may not run again in 2012 if his numbers are this low. He rarely engages in any serious matters unless he can come out on top."
Steven Hunter
Brandon, MS

"President Obama stated that the Republicans have amnesia, but he's the one who's totally forgotten all the promises he made while campaigning."
Sandi Zeller
Portland, OR

MOSQUE RULING
City officials say there is no building landmark issue involved in the 9/11 site, clearing the way for a controversial mosque to be built there.

"If the group building the mosque had nothing to do with 9/11, then why there, why now? The only reason to put it in this select location is to make a point."
Roberta Jackson
Emory, TX

"To say there is no connection between Muslims and Islamic extremists is just plain ludicrous. I clearly remember watching video of some Muslim youths celebrating in the USA after 9/11."
Eric Fowler
Pittsburgh, PA

"Building a mosque next to Ground Zero is akin to building a synagogue next to Mecca. The Muslim community would never allow it."
John Gessner
Rockford, IL

"Although the vast majority of Muslims are kind and just people, the mosque will be a propaganda tool for radical Islamists. Commit mass terrorism and get a mosque in its place."
Ed Kocialski
Azle, TX

"Which is worse: a mosque in NYC or billions in tax dollars being sent to Pakistan to fuel terrorism and protect bin Laden? Community and unity is something this country could really use."
Jeries Alfreih
Phoenix, AZ

"Non-hijacking Muslims died at Ground Zero. Are they chopped liver? Are their feelings worth less than that of Christians?"
Cheree Gillespie
Greenville, SC

ANCHORS AWAY!
The 14th Amendment says children born in this country to illegal immigrant parents - so-called anchor babies - are automatically citizens of America. But now there is a move to overturn this practice.

"There is no way these children should be granted U.S. citizenship. The 14th Amendment states children born in the USA, to people in the USA, subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, should be granted citizenship."
Kathleen McLaughlin
East Elmhurst, NY

"No one has mentioned that illegals have babies in the U.S. because their social security numbers fetch thousands of dollars and can be sold repeatedly."
Shirley Hicks
Phoenix, AZ

"Parents of anchor babies should be forced to make a decision: if they want to keep their child, it will be returned to them upon deportation. The child can legally come back to the USA when it turns 18."
Chris Ghent
Little Rock, AR

"Where is the limit to the 14th Amendment? To be extremely technical, a child born on an airplane flying over the U.S. would be a citizen."
Stephen Rodgers
Gahanna, OH

"If my 9 month pregnant wife starts contractions, I should immediately take her out to the country club, sneak her on the fairway and wait for the baby to come. Automatic membership!"
Maurice Williams
Simi Valley, CA

"Illegal aliens hop a fence, get pregnant and their baby is a citizen. The 14th Amendment creates incentive for illegal aliens to have kids they can't afford."
Michael Capezio
Flemington, NJ

"I see no reason why the children born to illegals in the United States should be considered 'anchors' to allow their parents to stay here. The parents have broken the law and should be deported."
Kay Sole
Seattle, WA

MILITARY COMMOTION
John Stossel reacts to President Obama getting heckled by protesters who say he's acting too slowly in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

"Stossel has never been in combat. The bond between soldiers is amazingly strong. If sexual behavior is brought into that bonding, it would destroy trust."
Chuck Roque
Vail, AZ

"We have the greatest military in the world. Why would we want to change anything about it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Mac McElhannon
Hammond, LA

"There have always been gays in the military, and everyone around them knows it. So long as they don't use their rank to hit on lesser ranks, it causes few problems."
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, AL

"Telling someone who is gay that they shouldn't talk about it hinders free speech. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately."
Melissa Ensell
Buffalo, NY

"As a Navy vet I can tell you that an openly gay man in a 20x20 sleeping compartment with 15-20 other men is going to cause more problems than the military can handle."
Bill Paschall
Biloxi, MS

"Keep your private life to yourself and do your job. That rule applies to the private sector and it should also apply to the military."
Pat Sechler
Springfield, MO

Lady Gaga rallies fans in Arizona

2010-08-02T23:57:00Z

Lady Gaga... wouldn't cancel a show but she doesn't like the illegal alien law. I'd love to talk to that woman, to have her explain what that law is to me. Wouldn't that be fun? Have Lady Gaga explain the law in Arizona to us all? That's exactly why she will not appear on the Factor.

Palin: Obama lacks 'cojones'

2010-08-02T23:55:00Z

Sarah Palin... she wants President Obama to have more "cojones." If you speak Spanish, you know what that means--I'm not going to translate. You can just imagine.

Fox News wins front-row seat in White House briefing room

2010-08-02T23:54:00Z

Fox News... got a front-row seat in the briefing room in the White House. Good guys win. MoveOn is going crazy.

Lindsay Lohan out of jail, into rehab

2010-08-02T23:52:00Z

Lindsay Lohan... she's out of jail and in rehab again. I just hope that she finds somebody--she needs somebody to guide her. She might be so self-destructive that there's no--like Marilyn Monroe, you can't bring her back. They say she's bipolar--if that's true, she just needs to have therapy three, four times a week. Meth addiction, TMZ says? I hope not--I mean, that's one of the worst drugs you could ever get involved with.

Gates hints at gradual Afghanistan drawdown

2010-08-02T23:49:00Z

There's a bunch of stuff going on as far as Afghanistan is concerned... that situation over there is brutal, there's no doubt about it. I just don't know which way it's going to go, and I'm rooting obviously for our guys because, you know, the people of Afghanistan are going to be brutalized if the Taliban comes back. I don't understand liberal Americans--why they just want to throw these people to the wind, but they do.

Obamas plan trip to Martha's Vineyard in August

2010-08-02T23:45:00Z

The Obamas are going to go to Martha's Vineyard again--everybody goes to Martha's Vineyard. The Clintons went there. It's a real Democratic island--they're comfortable there, they're in their element. But it's a beautiful place, as well. If you ever get a chance to go to Martha's Vineyard... go there. Nantucket is really nice as well. So they're going there for 10 days--the 19th of August to the 29th. Maybe I'll go over--I'm sure they'd be happy to see me, right? Go over and have a little lobster roll with the Obamas. That'd be fun! I'd get shot in the head by the Secret Service if I tried to do that.

The O'Quiz: Do you know the news?

2010-08-02T21:06:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was down significantly to 5.14 questions correct out of 10 compared to the previous week's average of 6.55.

Go: This week's O'Quiz

Viewer Mail for Monday, August 2

2010-08-02T18:19:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Why is it more difficult to get fruits and vegetables across state lines in the southwest than it is to get illegal immigrants across the border? Maybe the Department of Agriculture should take over immigration."
Jeff Oneill
Kenai, AK

FRONT AND CENTER
Fox News has been awarded a front row seat in the White House briefing room, outraging the left.

"Congratulations on the front seat accomplishment for Fox News. This is no small feat, so a job well done to Major Garrett and his hard-working crew."
Andrea Reed
South Harwich, MA

"In recognition of Fox News' move to the front row in the White House press room, I think it's time for you to give Major Garrett a promotion to Lt. Col. Garrett."
Harry Knipp
Reistertown, MD

"Since Major Garrett is now in the front row, when he takes time off, Fox should send Glenn Beck to fill in."
Ethan Spencer
Springfield, OR

"Congratulations to Major Garrett for being promoted to the front row at the White House news conferences. Well earned!"
Richard Ross, M.D.
Northridge, CA

MOSQUE CONTROVERSY
The debate over whether a Muslim organization should be allowed to build a mosque at Ground Zero is heating up!

"We are all told to respect the sensitivities of other religions and nationalities. I have a suggestion: why don't they show some sensitivity to Americans and not build a mosque there?"
Mark Broadley
Columbus, OH

"Building the mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero is as provocative as asking the Tel Aviv city council to allow them to build a statue to Hitler there."
George Eifler
Phoenix, AZ

"Knowing full well that New York City is a very unionized town, I can only hope the contractors will refuse to participate and block construction."
Ed Delph
Brush Prairie, WA

"The mosque cannot be allowed to be built. The kooks want it to stand as a monument to their triumph over us on 9/11."
Barbara Holt
West Jordan, UT

"Let me get this straight: Guantanamo Bay is a recruitment tool for Islamic terrorists, but building a mosque at Ground Zero is not?"
Kevin Casey
Jackson Heights, MS

"Building a mosque in proximity to Ground Zero can be interpreted as being a Muslim monument commemorating the 19 Islamists who carried out a devastating attack on this country."
Jim Honeycutt
Village Mills, TX

"Should we allow a Japanese shrine to be built at Pearl Harbor? Obviously, there is no way a mosque should be built at Ground Zero in NYC."
Mary Nichols
Atlanta, GA

HEROIC SHERIFF?
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio explains his decision to defy a federal court on illegal immigration. A judge has ruled the sheriff can't order his deputies to enforce immigration law.

"If every public servant took their responsibilities as seriously as Sheriff Arpaio, can you image what we could accomplish in this country?"
Roger Weir
Chicago, IL

"Money sent by illegals to Mexico is one of that country's leading sources of GDP, but sending money out of here can't be helping our economy."
Clint Stafford
Georgetown, TX

"If the feds put half the energy into controlling illegal immigration that they put into trying to prevent guys like Joe Arpaio from doing their job, we wouldn't have a border problem."
Alex Landi
Mt. Shasta, CA

"I don't care if Bush, Clinton or Reagan did anything about immigration. I want to know what Obama plans to do."
Kathryn Buhrer
Belpre, KS

"Mexican drug cartels have reportedly placed a bounty on Sheriff Arpaio's head so he must be doing something right. He is without a doubt a patriot!"
Jerry Sabino
Dalzell, SC

"We wished we had a Sheriff like Joe Arpaio here in San Diego. He's actually doing his job of protecting the citizens of Arizona."
Heather Coss
Spring Valley, CA

"We need a lot more Joe Arpaios and a lot less Washington liberals who haven't even read the Arizona immigration law."
P.L. Butcher
Shenandoah, LA

ELDERLY SPOKESPERSON
The administration hires legend Andy Griffith for a Medicare commercial where he tells seniors more good things are coming under the health care law.

"I think Andy supports Obama-care because Opie brainwashed him. Or maybe he's a little senile. He used to be a smart sheriff acting like a dummy; now he's not acting."
Claudia Ritchie
Carrollton, TX

"The administration's continued attempts to try to sell the American people Obama-care feels like someone being forced by buy a lemon of a car."
Michael Hambright
Overland Park, KS

"Do we consider Andy Griffith's latest gig a job saved or a job created?"
Eric Maus
Moneta, VA

"Two of my doctors have opted out of Medicare in the past year, so I'll be lucky to find replacements for them. Maybe Andy Griffith should look into this."
Claude Graves
Sequim, WA

"Using Andy Griffith to sell Obama-care, by borrowing his iconic stature as a slice of Americana, is tainting one of the treasures of this country. For shame."
David Pooley
New Hope, MN

"It's appalling that Andy Griffith's commercial was paid for using $700,000 of taxpayer money."
Terry Broomhall
Dayton, OH

"Andy Griffith is a totally unreliable source for an evaluation of Obama-care. He is a performer, paid with taxpayer money to do the commercial."
Christina Pasterz
Glendale, AZ

ULTIMATE PINHEAD?
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) explains his outburst over colleagues voting down more funding for 9/11 responders by taking a cheap shot at Fox News.

"Congressman Weiner's jabs at Fox News are far too predictable and boring. He is delivering the same tired, recycled lines to stay hip with the left."
Ben Herrera
Seattle, WA

"The confrontation between Reps. Weiner and Peter King shows politics to be in the same class as the WWE, but not nearly as entertaining."
Alan Wiggins
Greenville, NC

"My vote for the #1 pinhead of the year goes to Anthony Weiner. What say you?"
Raven Wortman
Montgomery, IL

"You should be kinder to Congressman Weiner. He does the best imitation of Howdy Doody that I've ever seen."
Bob Caldwell
San Jose, CA

"Congressman Weiner's outburst and subsequent targeting of Fox News makes him a grade A pinhead."
Jason Jonas
Bowling Green, KY

New crossword: The Heat is On

2010-07-30T21:13:00Z

As we begin the hottest month of the year, every one of this week's answers includes 'heat' ... literally. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Bill's New Column: No Winning the Race

2010-07-29T19:54:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill examines the historical reasons that racial tensions continue to run high today, and explains the high-wire act that President Obama has to perform as he leads the nation forward.

Go: Bill's latest column

Stratfor.com: WikiLeaks and the Afghan War

2010-07-27T22:43:00Z

On Sunday, The New York Times and two other newspapers published summaries and excerpts of tens of thousands of documents leaked to a website known as WikiLeaks. The documents comprise a vast array of material concerning the war in Afghanistan. They range from tactical reports from small unit operations to broader strategic analyses of politico-military relations between the United States and Pakistan. It appears to be an extraordinary collection.

Tactical intelligence on firefights is intermingled with reports on confrontations between senior U.S. and Pakistani officials in which lists of Pakistani operatives in Afghanistan are handed over to the Pakistanis. Reports on the use of surface-to-air missiles by militants in Afghanistan are intermingled with reports on the activities of former Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who reportedly continues to liaise with the Afghan Taliban in an informal capacity.

The WikiLeaks
At first glance, it is difficult to imagine a single database in which such a diverse range of intelligence was stored, or the existence of a single individual cleared to see such diverse intelligence stored across multiple databases and able to collect, collate and transmit the intelligence without detection. Intriguingly, all of what has been released so far has been not-so-sensitive material rated secret or below. The Times reports that Gul's name appears all over the documents, yet very few documents have been released in the current batch, and it is very hard to imagine intelligence on Gul and his organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, being classified as only secret. So, this was either low-grade material hyped by the media, or there is material reviewed by the selected newspapers but not yet made public. Still, what was released and what the Times discussed is consistent with what most thought was happening in Afghanistan.

The obvious comparison is to the Pentagon Papers, commissioned by the Defense Department to gather lessons from the Vietnam War and leaked by Daniel Ellsberg to the Times during the Nixon administration. Many people worked on the Pentagon Papers, each of whom was focused on part of it and few of whom would have had access to all of it.

Ellsberg did not give the Times the supporting documentation; he gave it the finished product. By contrast, in the WikiLeaks case, someone managed to access a lot of information that would seem to have been contained in many different places. If this was an unauthorized leak, then it had to have involved a massive failure in security. Certainly, the culprit should be known by now and his arrest should have been announced. And certainly, the gathering of such diverse material in one place accessible to one or even a few people who could move it without detection is odd.

Like the Pentagon Papers, the WikiLeaks (as I will call them) elicited a great deal of feigned surprise, not real surprise. Apart from the charge that the Johnson administration contrived the Gulf of Tonkin incident, much of what the Pentagon Papers contained was generally known. Most striking about the Pentagon Papers was not how much surprising material they contained, but how little. Certainly, they contradicted the official line on the war, but there were few, including supporters of the war, who were buying the official line anyway.

In the case of the WikiLeaks, what is revealed also is not far from what most people believed, although they provide enormous detail. Nor is it that far from what government and military officials are saying about the war. No one is saying the war is going well, though some say that given time it might go better.

The view of the Taliban as a capable fighting force is, of course, widespread. If they weren't a capable fighting force, then the United States would not be having so much trouble defeating them. The WikiLeaks seem to contain two strategically significant claims, however. The first is that the Taliban are a more sophisticated fighting force than has been generally believed. An example is the claim that Taliban fighters have used man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) against U.S. aircraft. This claim matters in a number of ways.

First, it indicates that the Taliban are using technologies similar to those used against the Soviets. Second, it raises the question of where the Taliban are getting them-they certainly don't manufacture MANPADS themselves.

If they have obtained advanced technologies, this would have significance on the battlefield. For example, if reasonably modern MANPADS were to be deployed in numbers, the use of American airpower would either need to be further constrained or higher attrition rates accepted. Thus far, only first- and second-generation MANPADS without Infrared Counter-Countermeasures (which are more dangerous) appear to have been encountered, and not with decisive or prohibitive effectiveness. But in any event, this doesn't change the fundamental character of the war.

Supply Lines and Sanctuaries
What it does raise is the question of supply lines and sanctuaries. The most important charge contained in the leaks is about Pakistan. The WikiLeaks contain documents that charge that the Pakistanis are providing both supplies and sanctuary to Taliban fighters while objecting to American forces entering Pakistan to clean out the sanctuaries and are unwilling or unable to carry out that operation by themselves (as they have continued to do in North Waziristan).

Just as important, the documents charge that the ISI has continued to maintain liaison and support for the Taliban in spite of claims by the Pakistani government that pro-Taliban officers had been cleaned out of the ISI years ago. The document charges that Gul, the director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, still operates in Pakistan, informally serving the ISI and helping give the ISI plausible deniability.

Though startling, the charge that Islamabad is protecting and sustaining forces fighting and killing Americans is not a new one. When the United States halted operations in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, U.S. policy was to turn over operations in Afghanistan to Pakistan. U.S. strategy was to use Islamist militants to fight the Soviets and to use Pakistani liaisons through the ISI to supply and coordinate with them. When the Soviets and Americans left Afghanistan, the ISI struggled to install a government composed of its allies until the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996. The ISI's relationship with the Taliban-which in many ways are the heirs to the anti-Soviet mujahideen-is widely known. In my book, "America's Secret War," I discussed both this issue and the role of Gul. These documents claim that this relationship remains intact. Apart from Pakistani denials, U.S. officials and military officers frequently made this charge off the record, and on the record occasionally. The leaks on this score are interesting, but they will shock only those who didn't pay attention or who want to be shocked.

Let's step back and consider the conflict dispassionately. The United States forced the Taliban from power. It never defeated the Taliban nor did it make a serious effort to do so, as that would require massive resources the United States doesn't have. Afghanistan is a secondary issue for the United States, especially since al Qaeda has established bases in a number of other countries, particularly Pakistan, making the occupation of Afghanistan irrelevant to fighting al Qaeda.

For Pakistan, however, Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic interest. The region's main ethnic group, the Pashtun, stretch across the Afghan-Pakistani border. Moreover, were a hostile force present in Afghanistan, as one was during the Soviet occupation, Pakistan would face threats in the west as well as the challenge posed by India in the east. For Pakistan, an Afghanistan under Pakistani influence or at least a benign Afghanistan is a matter of overriding strategic importance.

It is therefore irrational to expect the Pakistanis to halt collaboration with the force that they expect to be a major part of the government of Afghanistan when the United States leaves. The Pakistanis never expected the United States to maintain a presence in Afghanistan permanently. They understood that Afghanistan was a means toward an end, and not an end in itself. They understood this under George W. Bush. They understand it even more clearly under Barack Obama, who made withdrawal a policy goal.

Given that they don't expect the Taliban to be defeated, and given that they are not interested in chaos in Afghanistan, it follows that they will maintain close relations with and support for the Taliban. Given that the United States is powerful and is Pakistan's only lever against India, the Pakistanis will not make this their public policy, however. The United States has thus created a situation in which the only rational policy for Pakistan is two-tiered, consisting of overt opposition to the Taliban and covert support for the Taliban.

This is duplicitous only if you close your eyes to the Pakistani reality, which the Americans never did. There was ample evidence, as the WikiLeaks show, of covert ISI ties to the Taliban. The Americans knew they couldn't break those ties. They settled for what support Pakistan could give them while constantly pressing them harder and harder until genuine fears in Washington emerged that Pakistan could destabilize altogether. Since a stable Pakistan is more important to the United States than a victory in Afghanistan-which it wasn't going to get anyway-the United States released pressure and increased aid. If Pakistan collapsed, then India would be the sole regional power, not something the United States wants.

The WikiLeaks seem to show that like sausage-making, one should never look too closely at how wars are fought, particularly coalition warfare. Even the strongest alliances, such as that between the United States and the United Kingdom in World War II, are fraught with deceit and dissension. London was fighting to save its empire, an end Washington was hostile to; much intrigue ensued. The U.S.-Pakistani alliance is not nearly as trusting. The United States is fighting to deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan while Pakistan is fighting to secure its western frontier and its internal stability. These are very different ends that have very different levels of urgency.

The WikiLeaks portray a war in which the United States has a vastly insufficient force on the ground that is fighting a capable and dedicated enemy who isn't going anywhere. The Taliban know that they win just by not being defeated, and they know that they won't be defeated. The Americans are leaving, meaning the Taliban need only wait and prepare.

The Pakistanis also know that the Americans are leaving and that the Taliban or a coalition including the Taliban will be in charge of Afghanistan when the Americans leave. They will make certain that they maintain good relations with the Taliban. They will deny that they are doing this because they want no impediments to a good relationship with the United States before or after it leaves Afghanistan. They need a patron to secure their interests against India. Since the United States wants neither an India outside a balance of power nor China taking the role of Pakistan's patron, it follows that the risk the United States will bear grudges is small. And given that, the Pakistanis can live with Washington knowing that one Pakistani hand is helping the Americans while another helps the Taliban. Power, interest and reality define the relations between nations, and different factions inside nations frequently have different agendas and work against each other.

The WikiLeaks, from what we have seen so far, detail power, interest and reality as we have known it. They do not reveal a new reality. Much will be made about the shocking truth that has been shown, which, as mentioned above, shocks only those who wish to be shocked. The Afghan war is about an insufficient American and allied force fighting a capable enemy on its home ground and a Pakistan positioning itself for the inevitable outcome. The WikiLeaks contain all the details.

We are left with the mystery of who compiled all of these documents and who had access to them with enough time and facilities to transmit them to the outside world in a blatant and sustained breach of protocol. The image we have is of an unidentified individual or small group working to get a "shocking truth" out to the public, only the truth is not shocking-it is what was known all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that is already known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit it unimpeded? Whoever it proves to have been has just made the most powerful case yet for withdrawal from Afghanistan sooner rather than later.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Bill on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

2010-07-26T19:55:00Z

Bill appeared as the top guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno tonight--take a look at this clip where Bill talks to Jay about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the Shirley Sherrod story and the 2012 presidential race.

Go: Video Center

New crossword: In the Mainstream

2010-07-23T21:13:00Z

Remember those newspapers and TV networks we used to depend on for news? You'll find some of them in this week's crossword. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Rachel Maddow and O'Reilly feud on air

2010-07-23T20:49:00Z

MSNBC, this Rachel Maddow--do you know her? I watched her last night, I very rarely do--it's not that she offends me, she doesn't--looks like an intelligent woman, but she's so far left that I just--it's like eating spaghetti. Do you want to eat spaghetti every night? That's all you get from her and her cohorts over there--every night. There are no laughs, it's not different, they don't have the Culture Quiz, it's just--liberal, liberal, liberal.

Anyway, her thesis is that Fox News wants to hurt black people--wants whites to turn against black people. It's so preposterous, so outrageously wrong that I had to actually--I didn't mention her by name, but--take her to task the other night, so of course she used it, because what else is she going to do? And nobody watches her show--and I'm not saying that in a sarcastic, mean-spirited way--nobody watches her show. She's up against me at 11 in reruns--I beat her 5 to 1.

So anyway--so she acknowledges that we beat her in the ratings, but says that no matter how high my ratings are, I'm wrong and she's right, and then she calls me "your highness." She wasn't mean-spirited--I'll give her that, I have nothing against the woman. I wish her well, but it's just so boring, Rachel. It's just boring. Talk about anything--just, anything that's not liberal one time!

Geithner wants to let Bush-era tax cuts expire

2010-07-23T20:46:00Z

There's going to be a big debate over tax cuts and raising taxes that kicks in next year in January. I don't have a handle on that now, but the tide has turned against the tax rises. I don't know if Obama can get them through or not, and I'm looking at it. It mainly concerns people like me, but people like me spend a lot of money, and if people like me stop spending money, the economy tanks, and that's what it's all about.

Michelle Obama tops favorability poll

2010-07-23T20:39:00Z

A favorability poll that you should know about: First Lady Michelle Obama tops the favorability in the United States. Boy, I bet she's happy to see that. Bill and Hillary Clinton, tied for second, and then it goes down the list of favorability on this--I think it's a Gallup poll.

One thing that struck me about the poll--Sarah Palin is in the mid-40s, and you know, her favorable-unfavorable are about tied, but Mitt Romney is just at 36% favorability. He doesn't have high unfavorable, he just hasn't broken through--and I see Governor Romney as a real viable contender in 2012. He's got the business cachet and all of that, so--but he's really got work to do to convince you that he is a human being, because you're not responding to him in that way. That's for sure.

Now, I'm going to see Governor Romney in August... and I think I'll talk to him about that a little bit. Now, people say, "Well, why do you go to a game with a politician?" Because he invited me. if Barack Obama invites me to a Washington Nationals game, you don't think I'm going? I'm going! I'm there! Because I get a lot of information from these guys and gals when I see them in person. And I'm not intrusive in my questions, but I like to know what their day is, what they go through--all of that is very, very educational for me to talk to these people, because they live in a world that I'm not in.

Viewer Mail for Friday, July 23

2010-07-23T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Mr. Rangel is right. Mr. Russert's question didn't sound like MSNBC because he sounded like a real journalist."
Stewart Primrose
Davenport, IA

MEDIA WARS!
In the Shirley Sherrod story, the pro-Obama liberal press is pitted against the traditional media, which is skeptical of the President. But who really sets the daily discussion?

"There has never been a media war like the one we're seeing unfold now because there has never been a opposition broadcast media before Fox."
Jerry Jones
Middletown, MD

"It's great to see you pointed out your mistake about the Shirley Sherrod story. I wish other news networks would point out their mistakes publicly. You are one of the last honest reporters out there."
Ryan Larson
Whittier, CA

"No one is asking the right questions. Who sent the clip to Andrew Breitbart? Was it sent edited to make Ms. Sherrod look racist? I think this whole thing may have been a stunt."
Jo Anne Holcombe
Gretna, VA

"A government official makes a racist statement and the Obama administration is worried about what Fox is going to say? Doesn't that speak volumes?"
Darren Weber
New Orleans, LA

"Breitbart put up the video because of the outrageous response of the NAACP audience, not to paint Ms. Sherrod as a racist."
Richard Potts
Marysville, MI

"As much as it pains me, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Andrew Breitbart dropped the ball on the Sherrod issue. He had no business showing only part of the video."
Jim Nicholson
Port Orchard, WA

"Why give credit to Sherrod for helping the white farmer? It was her job! No matter if the farmer was red, yellow, white, black, brown or green, she was paid to help him."
Diane Reed
Somerville, NJ

"I'm not convinced that Ms. Sherrod's explanation of the video is on the up and up. It all seems suspect to me."
Dale Crotts
High Point, NC

"Breitbart did not make an error. His article was about the NAACP applauding when Sherrod spoke of her racism. His video was taken out of context by others."
Brian Skelly
Chesterfield, MO

"The media war you describe over the Shirley Sherrod affair, whether it is about race, class, or TV ratings, is divisive and unhelpful."
Tom Owens
Rio Rico, AZ

"In order to speak the truth, you must sometimes acknowledge mistakes. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is too corrupt to ever recognize the truth."
Jeff Shoemaker
Mooresville, NC

"Andrew Breitbart's objective was to show racism within the NAACP, not to demean Ms. Sherrod."
Kathy Novak
Honolulu, HI

"I would like to know how many white farmers Ms. Sherrod hurt by not giving her full support before she had her epiphany."
Lucy Givens
Dublin, GA

"I'm surprised you don't realize the liberal press is not interested in delivering factual news. They are more interested in creating emotion in their listeners."
Jim Niemeyer
Ocala, FL

"Bernie Goldberg deserves an award for telling the cold, hard truth concerning race and the liberal media. Shirley Sherrod owes Americans an apology. Fox News has apologized enough."
Christy Partain
Oklahoma City, OK

PRESIDENT GINGRICH?
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says he is considering a run in 2012.

"No Newt. He had his chance with the 'Contract With America' and dropped it as soon as they gained power. We need a true statesman to restore the Constitution."
Dale Lawson
Morrill, KS

"Newt and Sarah should do the right thing and get behind the person who has the best chance to win in 2012: Mitt Romney."
Steve Corban
Plumsteadville, PA

"I predicted Speaker Gingrich would run in 2012. He is the tough, honest and decent John Wayne-type of man this country desperately needs."
Stephen Navarre
Columbus, OH

"I agree that Newt Gingrich is a long shot, but if voters could appreciate his intelligence, ability and crack knowledge of history, he might stand a chance."
Susan Ivey
Palatka, FL

"I would love to see Newt Gingrich run. I think the debate would put a dent in Mr. Obama's arrogance. How about Karl Rove as his running mate?"
Marcel Horowitz
Baltimore, MD

"Newt Gingrich can't win the GOP nomination because of his personal life. No woman would ever vote for a man who divorced his first wife while she was being treated for cancer."
Charlotte Hammack
Murray, KY

"Your interview with Newt was great, but I think the Republican candidate will be running against Hillary Clinton, not Obama."
Jim Sowder
Springboro, OH

"Newt Gingrich already has two votes and he hasn't even started to campaign. Go for it, Mr. Gingrich!"
Kiro & Paula Trendov
Woodhaven, MI

DUMBEST THINGS
Singer Cyndi Lauper makes an appearance for saying the country was a dark place during the Bush administration. She claims the former president would go on TV and speak "unabashed hatred."

"Thanks for calling out celebrity airheads like Cyndi Lauper. She clearly suffers from acute Bush Derangement Syndrome, a highly contagious disease among ideologues."
Robert Rigsby
Richmond, VA

"Are Cyndi Lauper and Ozzie Osbourne the same person with different wigs on?"
Betty Martin
Grants Pass, OR

"I find it interesting that Cyndi Lauper has so much to say about President Bush. This from someone with an honorary high school diploma."
Joe Cole
Fort Wayne, IN

"Can someone please tell me what alternative universe Cyndi Lauper is living in?"
John Wilson
Knoxville, TN

"I think Ms. Lauper is suffering from memory issues. I always heard President Bush promoting America, while President Obama often demeans our great nation."
Ellen Marie Van Fossen
Elizabethtown, PA

POLITICAL PINHEAD!
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), in a heap of trouble over alleged ethics violations, gets snarky with MSNBC reporter Luke Russert.

"Rangel is worse than a pinhead. However, young Mr. Russert is just as classy as his father. Even if he does work for MSNBC."
Mary Sammons
Louisville, KY

"I find it intriguing that Mr. Rangel was even interested in which network Luke Russert represented. Does it really matter when legitimate questions are being asked?"
Corky Branda
Wichita, KS

"I enjoyed Luke Russert's courageous interview with Charles Rangel so much that I replayed it three times. Fox should hire him away from NBC pronto!"
Terry Andren
Battle Creek, MI

"Charles Rangel was indeed a pinhead for his dismissive, arrogant and condescending response to Luke Russert."
Leslie & Richard Mattingley
Huntington Beach, CA

"The way Luke Russert took on Charlie Rangel qualifies him for a job at Fox News. Get on that before he becomes irrevocably indoctrinated."
Al Kurpis
Saddle River, NJ

"Luke better watch out. His days at MSNBC are numbered if he keeps challenging prominent liberals."
Brendan Burgart
Vancouver, Canada

"I think Tim Russert would be proud!"
Dr. Brian Allmendinger
Paradise Valley, AZ

"Luke Russert reminds me a lot of his dad. He asked Charlie Rangel a tough question, yet in a very respectful and reasonable manner. Good for him."
Tom Sales
Somerset, NJ

"Luke Russert makes me think there may be hope for NBC after all. What do you think?"
Tom Arnold
Lubbock, TX

"Rangel said it was unusual to be getting dumb questions from NBC. He was right as long as dumb means tough."
Sam Aloisi
Plymouth, MA

"Kudos to Luke Russert for standing his ground. There is nothing 'dumb' about asking a politician to explain his alleged unethical conduct."
Nancy Constanzo
Rockville Centre, NY

MAILBAG EXTRA
Factor viewers react to Bill's latest appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

"Except for your white slacks, I thought you were absolutely fabulous. As a second job, you should do voice-overs of southern gentlemen. I laughed out loud at your James Carville impression."
Cindy Williams
Kansas City, MO

"You looked absolutely spiffy during your appearance with Jay Leno. Loved your imitation of James Carville."
Ann Pouk
South Bend, IN

"You were very fair with the topics Jay Leno asked you about. I know there were some people in the audience who had negative opinions about you, but I'm sure they're having second thoughts now."
Myles Cooper
Casa Grande, AZ

"I stayed up late to watch you on Leno. You were marvelous! I think you should have your own show."
Trisha Bowler
Diamond Bar, CA

"Hey Bill, you surprised me. You were great on Leno!"
Evelyn Whitney
Rescue, CA

"Please let us all know when NBC calls to thank you for giving them their highest Tonight Show rating of the year."
Jason Brackhahn
Austin, TX

"You knocked it out of the ballpark last night on Leno. Your discussion about Lindsay Lohan was positively pastoral."
Pastor Bill Read
Seven Valleys, PA

Judge: Cheerleading not an official sport

2010-07-22T23:54:00Z

Judges ruled that cheerleading is not an official sport. You see, why do we have to go through this? Why didn't they just ask me? I could've just said that--cheerleading is an activity, not a sport. But no, you've got to spend money... just ask me. Just ask me.

Facebook reaches a half billion users

2010-07-22T23:52:00Z

Facebook... 500 million members. 500 million Facebook people! Whoa! Now, Facebook started in a Harvard dormitory room in 2004. A guy named Zuckerberg invented it, and it's taking over the world. There you go.

Petraeus sharpens Afghanistan strategy

2010-07-22T23:50:00Z

In Afghanistan, General Petraeus is going to change the troop strategy there, and he's organizing village militias to help NATO forces. Will that work? God knows. And that's the only one who knows--God. Nobody knows if it's going to work.

Bill Clinton more popular than Barack Obama

2010-07-22T23:48:00Z

Former President Bill Clinton is more popular than any of his successors, according to a Gallup poll. Favorably viewed by 61% of Americans right now--they like Bill Clinton... 52%, according to Gallup, like President Obama; 45% like George W. Bush. That's an interesting poll. This is kind of "likability," not job approval or anything like that--just likability.

No charges filed in firings of US attorneys

2010-07-22T23:39:00Z

As we talked about with Megyn Kelly, prosecutors have not filed any charges against the Bush administration for the US attorney firings, so, you know--liberal media made a big deal out of that, nothing came of it. Are you surprised? I'm not.

Bill's New Column: Fairness for Shirley

2010-07-22T19:43:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill explains his mistake regarding Shirley Sherrod and goes into more depth on the still-unfolding story.

Go: Bill's latest column

Viewer Mail for Thursday, July 22

2010-07-22T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"If Rod Blagojevich is acquitted, will he be reinstated as Governor of Illinois? If not, he should take over Billy Mays' old job!"
Mark Ross
Kerrville, TX

SHERROD FALLOUT
The country continues to react to the controversy surrounding the firing of Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod.

"The Shirley Sherrod fiasco is getting out of hand. Well-meaning people made mistakes, they apologized and wrongs were righted. It's time to give it a rest."
Darrell Davis
Linton, IN

"Maybe Shirley Sherrod really had a come-to-Jesus moment about her racism. Now if only she could have one about her leftism."
Len Kern
Etters, PA

"Shirley Sherrod will not take her USDA job back. Instead, she'll come out with a book and join the lecture circuit."
David Pearson
Philadelphia, PA

"Let me get this straight. The President has time to call Sherrod but in two months, he couldn't find the time to call the CEO of BP?"
Dan Kivela
Brantwood, WI

"Enough already with your eating crow in the Shirley Sherrod matter. It doesn't change the fact that the White House overreacted."
Patricia Lockhart
Loganville, GA

"Thank you for taking responsibility for your mistake when reporting on the Sherrod story. Laura Ingraham should take a page from your book."
Keli Connor
Newton, PA

"Surprise, surprise. Laura Ingraham and the right-wing media goofed on the Sherrod story, and now Laura is blaming President Obama."
Jay Trawets
Fort Myers, FL

"Laura Ingraham is correct. The White House has a greater obligation than reporters to review the entire transcript before it makes the decision to fire her."
Henry Dickman
Richmond, IN

"I think you need to apologize again to Shirley Sherrod. I hate her political views, but at least she's a reformed racist. You need to convince her she's wrong about Fox News."
Linda Horvath
Budapest, Hungary

F-BOMB ALERT!
A group urging action against BP puts out a provocative web ad featuring angry citizens, including some kids, cursing.

"Thanks for saying you wouldn't let your child partake in a video using the F-word. It may be lawful, but it's not expedient."
Tom Mitchell
Chula, GA

"Letting a 9-year-old use the F-word just perpetuates bad behavior. In a few more years, he'll be just another rude individual."
Joan Moriarty
Pine Plains, NY

"Your culture warriors are dribbledips! There's no indecisiveness about letting kids drop F-bombs."
Bill Dytrych
Highland Park, IL

"The viewpoints of your two guests on whether a young child should use curse words in an advertisement in no way represent conservative values."
Nick Cuttler
Fenton, MO

"The fact that your guest thinks it's OK for a 9-year-old to be exploited to get a political point across is a sad commentary."
Jason Ford
Gilbert, AZ

"The F-bomb ad is entirely political, as are nearly all environmental messages. It shows progressive groups are sorely lacking in true creativity."
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, AL

HIS LIPS ARE SEALED
Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich suddenly refuses to testify in his corruption trial.

"Rod Blagojevich looks like a Cabbage Patch Kid. Maybe that's why Megyn Kelly finds him loveable. I hope she'd respect the rule of law if she were on his jury."
Lasca Low
Bethesda, MD

"I wonder if Megyn Kelly would still think Blagojevich is cute if she lived in the state where he was governor."
Donna Bales
Stewardson, IL

"If Megyn Kelly thinks Blago is 'weirdly loveable,' she must consider you warm and fuzzy."
Jennifer Logan
Stamford, CT

"Blagojevich is a criminal, but he is such a character and so disillusioned about his innocence that he is somehow likeable in the process."
Bill Salesky
Arlington, VA

"Megyn is right. Blagojevich is likeable because he thinks this is the way everybody does business in politics."
Elaine Worth
Georgia

"The best thing Blagojevich did for his defense was appearing on 'Celebrity Apprentice' and presenting himself to America as a likeable, every day guy."
Daniel Abernathy
Round Rock, TX

"Blagojevich will never be convicted. They know if he goes down, he'll sing like a bird and take half of the Obama administration with him."
Bill Lewis
Mays Landing, NJ

"Megyn Kelly and Bill O'Reilly are the perfect counterfoils. Their interactions are informative, interesting and fun."
Nick Scales
San Francisco, CA

Blagojevich fails to testify in his own defense

2010-07-22T01:18:00Z

Blagojevich--we'll do it tomorrow--he's not going to testify even though he said he would. He's a weasel. They think that the government's case is weak. I don't know--I haven't been following it day-to-day, but we'll have an exposition for you tomorrow.

Obama approval rating hits lowest point

2010-07-22T01:14:00Z

...the polls continue to trend down for Barack Obama. He's at 47% for Gallup... that's not going to change until the economy starts to perk. It's not going to change. So I'm not going to do a lot of that until he goes low 40's--if he goes below 40, it becomes Armageddon.

White House apologizes to Shirley Sherrod

2010-07-22T00:57:00Z

Big day, huh? This Sherrod story is something else--hope you saw the Talking Points and the subsequent interviews on it. This is going to be big, because Ms. Sherrod is a very, very committed left-wing activist in a government position, and her lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture was lodged way before she was hired--so it's very suspicious that she was hired in the midst of that. Obviously the Hatch Act comes into effect--we broke that story tonight, so there's a lot of stuff going around. I'd love to talk to her. I guess CNN has her bound and gagged in the basement of their Atlanta headquarters, because we can't get to her, and the White House can't get to her either, apparently.

But anyway, we're going to continue to cover this in a fair way, and I'm sorry to make that mistake. It was my fault. I just didn't go over the full transcript. You can't believe anything you take off the Internet, and I've told you that a million times, and then I make the mistake of not checking out the Internet clip. So it was my mistake, and it won't happen again, and I'm sorry I made it.

But the story is fascinating on a number of media and political levels, and we are all over it. So stay with us this whole week, because this thing has got a lot of ebbs and flows, zigs and zags. Particularly with NBC News taking up the liberal mantle, it's a good time for me to go in and really dissect what they're doing over there--not that it really matters. I think everybody's got it--our ratings speak for themselves, and MSNBC is down the train. But, you know, when you get them doing a full-court press on Fox News, you've got to basically call them out on it.

Backstage Conversation: Impacting the 2012 election

2010-07-21T21:03:00Z

In this week's Backstage Conversation webcast for Premium Members, Bill answers questions from Premium Members regarding whether or not the oil spill will have a big impact on the 2012 election--and more.

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Stratfor.com: Geopolitics, Nationalism and Dual Citizenship

2010-07-21T18:42:00Z

Geopolitics is central to STRATFOR's methodology, providing the framework upon which we study the world. The foundation of geopolitics in our time is the study of the nation-state, and fundamental to this is the question of the relationship of the individual to the nation-state. Changes in the relationship of the individual to the nation and to the state are fundamental issues in geopolitics, and thus worth discussing.

Many issues affect this complex relationship, notable among them the increasing global trend of multiple citizenship. This is obviously linked to the question of immigration, but it also raises a deeper question, namely, what is the meaning of citizenship in the 21st century?

Nation vs. State
It is difficult to make sense of the international system without making sense of the nation-state. The concept is complicated by a reality that includes multinational states like Belgium, where national identity plays a significant role, and Russia or China, where it can be both significant and at times violent. In looking at the nation-state, the idea of nation is more complex, and perhaps more interesting, than that of state.

The idea of nation is not always clear. At root, a nation is a group of people who share a fate, and with that fate, an identity. Nations can be consciously created, as the United States was. Nations can exist for hundreds or thousands of years, as seen in parts of Europe or Asia. However long a nation exists and whatever its origins, a nation is founded on what I've called elsewhere "love of one's own," a unique relationship with the community in which an individual is born or to which he chose to come. That affinity is the foundation of a nation.

If that dissolves, the nation dissolves, something that has happened on numerous occasions in history. If a nation disappears, the international system begins to behave differently. And if nations in general lose their identity and cohesion, massive shifts might take place. Some might say it would be for better and others for worse. It is sufficient to note here that either way would make a profound difference.

The state is much clearer: It is the political directorate of the nation. How the leaders are selected and how they govern varies widely. The relationship of the state to the nation also varies widely. Not all nations have states. Some are occupied by other nation-states. Some are divided between multiple states. Some are part of an entity that governs many nations. And some are communities that have developed systems of government that do not involve states, although this is increasingly rare.

The relation to the nation is personal. The relation to the state is legal. We can see this linguistically in the case of the United States. I can state my relation to my nation simply: I am an American. I cannot state my relationship to my state nearly as simply. Saying I am a "United Statian" makes no sense. I have to say that I am a citizen of the United States, to state my legal relationship, not personal affinity. The linguistic complexity of the United States doesn't repeat itself everywhere, but a distinction does exist between nationality and citizenship. They may coincide easily, as when a person is born in a country and becomes a citizen simply through that, or they may develop, as when an individual is permitted to immigrate and become naturalized. Note the interesting formulation of that term, as it implies the creation of a natural relationship with the state.

In the United States, the following oath is administered when one is permitted to become a citizen, generally five years after being permitted to immigrate:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I should say I took this oath at the age of 17. Although I became a citizen of the United States when my father was naturalized years earlier, receiving my own citizenship papers involved going to a courthouse and taking this oath personally. Being confronted with the obligations of citizenship was a sobering experience.

The American oath is one of the most rigorous; other nations have much simpler and less demanding oaths. Intriguingly, many countries with less explicitly demanding oaths are also countries where becoming a naturalized citizen is more difficult and less common. For the United States, a nation and a state that were consciously invented, the idea of immigration was inherent in the very idea of the nation, as was this oath. Immigration and naturalization required an oath of this magnitude, as naturalization meant taking on not only a new state identity but also a new national identity.

The American nation was built on immigrants from other nations. Unless they were prepared to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen," the American enterprise could fall into chaos as immigrants came to the United States to secure the benefits of full citizenship but refused to abandon prior obligations and refused to agree to the obligations and sacrifices the oath demanded. The United States therefore is in a position shared only with a few other immigration-based nations, and it has staked out the most demanding position on naturalization.

The Dual Citizenship Anomaly
It is therefore odd that the United States-along with many other nations-permits nationals to be citizens of other countries. The U.S. Constitution doesn't bar this, but the oath of citizenship would seem to do so. The oath demands that the immigrant abandon all obligations to foreign states. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 that revoking citizenship on grounds of voting in foreign elections was unconstitutional. The ruling involved a naturalized American who presumably had taken the oath. The Supreme Court left the oath in place, but if we are to understand the court correctly, it ruled that the oath did not preclude multiple citizenship.

It is impossible to know how many people in the United States or other countries currently hold multiple citizenship, but anecdotally it would appear that the practice is not uncommon. Not being required to renounce one's foreign citizenship verifiably obviously facilitates the practice.

And this raises a fundamental question. Is citizenship a license to live and earn a living in a country, or is it equally or more so a set of legal and moral obligations? There are many ways legally to reside in a country without becoming a citizen. But the American oath, for example, makes it appear that the naturalized citizen (as opposed to just the legal resident) has an overriding obligation to the United States that can require substantial and onerous responsibilities within military and civilian life. An individual might be able to juggle multiple obligations until they came into conflict. Does the citizen choose his prime obligation at that time or when he becomes a citizen?

The reality is that in many cases, citizenship is seen less as a system of mutual obligations and rights than as a convenience. This creates an obvious tension between the citizen and his obligations under his oath. But it also creates a deep ambiguity between his multiple nationalities. The concept of immigration involves the idea of movement to a new place. It involves the assumption of legal and moral obligations. But it also involves a commitment to the nation, at least as far as citizenship goes. This has nothing to do with retaining ethnicity. It has to do with a definition of what it means to love one's own-if you are a citizen of multiple nations, which nation is yours?

It is interesting to note that the United States has been equally ambiguous about serving in other countries' militaries. John Paul Jones served as an admiral in the Russian navy. American pilots flew for Britain and China prior to American entry into World War II. They did not take the citizenship oath, having been born in the United States. While you could argue that there was an implicit oath, you could also argue that they did not compromise their nationality: They remained Americans even in fighting for other countries. The immigration issue is more complex, however. In electing to become American citizens, immigrants consciously take the citizenship oath. The explicit oath would seem to create a unique set of obligations for naturalized immigrants.

The Pull of the Old Country
Apart from acquiring convenient passports on obscure tropical islands, the dual citizenship phenomenon appears to operate by linking ancestral homelands with adopted countries. Immigrants, and frequently their children and grandchildren, retain their old citizenship alongside citizenship in the country they now live in. This seems a benign practice and remains so until there is conflict or disagreement between the two countries-or where, as in some cases, the original country demands military service as the price of retaining citizenship.

In immigrant countries in particular, the blurring of the line between nationalities becomes a potential threat in a way that it is not for the country of origin. The sense of national identity (if not willingness to sacrifice for it) is often stronger in countries whose nationhood is built on centuries of shared history and fates than it is in countries that must manage waves of immigration. These countries have less room for maneuver on these matters, unless they have the fortune to be secure and need not ask much of citizens. But in those countries that are built on immigrants and that do need to call for sacrifice, this evolution is potentially more troublesome.

There are those who regard nationalism as divisive and harmful, leading to conflict. I am of the view that nationalism has endured because it provides individuals with a sense of place, community, history and identity. It gives individuals something beyond themselves that is small enough to be comprehensible but far greater than they are. That nationalism can become monstrous is obviously true; anything that is useful can also become harmful. But nationalism has survived and flourished for a reason.

The rise of multiple citizenship undoubtedly provides freedom. But as is frequently the case, the freedom raises the question of what an individual is committed to beyond himself. In blurring the lines between nations, it does not seem that it has reduced conflict. Quite the contrary, it raises the question of where the true loyalties of citizens lie, something unhealthy for the citizen and the nation-state.

In the United States, it is difficult to reconcile the oath of citizenship with the Supreme Court's ruling affirming the right of dual citizenship. That ambiguity over time could give rise to serious problems. This is not just an American problem, although it might be more intense and noticeable here. It is a more general question, namely, what does it mean to be a citizen?

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Viewer Mail for Wednesday, July 21

2010-07-21T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"You showed courage and character by apologizing personally to Ms. Sherrod on national television. Will she show the same courage and character by apologizing personally to the white farmer she discriminated against?"
Gerald Fly
Pearland, TX

CORRECTING THE RECORD
O'Reilly apologizes to Shirley Sherrod for not putting her comments into context. Talking points says we have to work together to overcome racial divisions, but cautions that Ms. Sherrod may be too much of a liberal partisan for public service.

"I was blown off the couch when I heard your talking points. If other media outlets ever took the high road like you did tonight, maybe Americans would feel better about the state of American journalism."
Mike Monseur
Springfield, IL

"I think Fox News got set up. It's interesting that none of the other networks ran the story at all and can now bash Fox."
Karen Brennan
Villa Park, IL

"Shame on Mr. Breitbart! Any credibility he gained with the ACORN scandal story was flushed down the toilet with the Sherrod story."
Romayne Turner
Liberty Hill, TX

"Well put, Bill. I believe in redemption and believe as you do, that Ms. Sherrod still probably belongs in the private sector."
Brian Malloy
San Diego, CA

"You forgot to mention that Ms. Sherrod was fired before Fox News aired anything about the story. Therefore, Fox can't be held accountable for her firing."
Steven Beck
Warren, MI

"I'm glad Ms. Sherrod apologized for her past transgressions during the speech. However, that doesn't erase her racist act of denying a white farmer equal protection simply because of the color of his skin."
John Stafford
Grovetown, GA

"Too many apologies, if you ask me. Listen carefully to all the words in Ms. Sherrod's speech and her responses to the media, and it is clear she is a racist."
Patrick Sharp
Las Vegas, NV

"In Ms. Sherrod's defense, she has a worldview different from yours because her experiences are very different than yours. It is wrong for you to judge her."
Tyler Parker
Ames, IA

"It doesn't matter what Ms. Sherrod's speech was meant to accomplish. She admitted slighting a white person of government assistance solely due to the color of his skin. Wrong is wrong."
Danny Taylor
Wichita, KS

"It took a lot of guts to admit you should have viewed the entire Shirley Sherrod tape before commenting."
Christopher Ricci
Coconut Grove, FL

"Instead of simply acknowledging their mistake, the White House instead sacrificed Tom Vilsack. You have much more class than they do."
Owen Barrott
Pocatello, ID

"Given that the only media outlet to carry the Shirley Sherrod story prior to her dismissal was Fox News, it is irrefutable that the White House closely monitors all stories on your network."
Jim Epifanio
Virginia City, NV

SHERROD SCAPEGOAT?
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack holds a press conference to insist he made the decision to fire Shirley Sherrod. Is he covering up for President Obama?

"You need to quit drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. Vilsack fell on his sword for Obama and lied in his news conference."
John Warner
Bossier City, LA

"You said you don't think the White House has anything to do with the firing of Shirley Sherrod, but it wasn't her position that would get them involved as much as the content of her speech."
Tony Morris
Wilmington, DE

"Wake up and smell the coffee, Bill. Did you count how many times Vilsack said it was his decision to fire Shirley Sherrod? The secretary doth apologize too much."
Jane Schwartz
Scotch Plains, NJ

"The administration has apologized to Muslims and Europeans. Why wouldn't it apologize to Ms. Sherrod? This is the sorriest administration we've ever had."
Joe Penny
Angeles City, Philippines

"The administration jumped the gun, didn't have all the facts and over-reacted. This was another 'the police acted stupidly' moment."
James Savage
Logansport, LA

DID YOU SEE THAT?
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) talks about the two Vietnams currently living peacefully side-by-side. Where has she been?

"Americans should be deeply offended by Sheila Jackson Lee's comments. We pay her salary. She shouldn't make such an unintelligent mistake like that."
Michelle Morehouse
South Carolina

"I'm not at all surprised by the Congresswoman's remarks. After all, when you allow idiots to vote, idiots get elected."
Vincent Joy
Franklin, TN

"Please don't judge all Texans by Ms. Jackson Lee's bizarre remarks. I would say the vast majority of us know Vietnam is one unified country."
Deana Ball
Lubbock, TX

"While residing in Texas, I recall a video of Sheila Jackson Lee being asked about her undergraduate degree; she couldn't even remember what she majored in."
Karin Burzynski
Luray, VA

"Even the most impartial of political observers would have to laugh heartily at this latest gaffe by Sheila Jackson Lee. This is the same woman who was upset because hurricanes weren't designated with enough African-American sounding names."
Dan Shepherd
Littleton, CO

"Sheila Jackson Lee is a perfect example of what is wrong with Washington, D.C. She is a nitwit. We need term limits."
Nora Hernandez
Katy, TX

"Sheila Jackson Lee, while touring NASA, asked if the American flag was still on Mars. She continues to be one of Houston's biggest problems."
Jim Barker
Houston, TX

Unemployment extension clears hurdle

2010-07-20T23:58:00Z

There's something more to this unemployment benefits extension. If they do have the money already allocated to stimulus, there's no reason they can't use the $34 billion out of that pot rather than running up the deficit even more. But again, we just can't get any logical explanation for this stuff--it's troublesome.

National Guard to deploy to border in August

2010-07-20T23:57:00Z

August 1st, the National Guard is going to be moved to the border by the president. It's more for show, but 500 soldiers going to the Arizona border can't hurt--though it should be 10,000 going across the board.

Has Lady Gaga jumped the shark?

2010-07-20T23:54:00Z

Lady Gaga made another desperate attempt at getting publicity by doing some kind of anti-religious thing. I don't even care--I can't even explain it. That's how much I don't care--I can't even explain it. My tongue won't even move in that direction.

Lindsay Lohan reports to prison

2010-07-20T23:53:00Z

Lindsay Lohan you know about--I don't really care about it very much, other than I hope she doesn't kill herself.

Thailand investigates Van der Sloot

2010-07-20T23:51:00Z

We're working on a story for Friday with Geraldo about this Van der Sloot guy over in Thailand, and now the Thai authorities want to charge him with some kind of sex ring stuff that may involve murder, so I've got Geraldo on that.

Questions remain regarding BP's role in release of Lockerbie bomber

2010-07-20T23:40:00Z

There was an interesting story today with the Prime Minister of Britain, Cameron, and President Obama. So they're both up there, and the White House press corps is so timid these days that you could just tell that Obama has no use for them at all. And they ask these little tepid questions about BP, and what role they might've had in getting this Lockerbie bomber released from a Scotland prison. And they keep saying the same thing--"Well, it was a bad decision, the Scottish did it, bad bad bad bad bad." OK, both Cameron and Obama saying this--"but we don't need an inquiry to find that out, we know it's bad."

You know what? We DO need an inquiry to find out why the Scottish government did it. Why did they do it?! What's the explanation? Did BP put heat on them to do it? Did money change hands because BP wanted a contract from Libya and Kaddafi's son said, "No way you're getting any contract if this guy is still in jail--get him out?" And he's out!

Now, the White House press corps should've articulated that scenario... tell the world what it is! You know, journalism is falling apart. If you've watched us the last two nights, we've documented how the mainstream media--particularly the network news--just ignores big stories, controversial stories. And the only reason on earth they would do that--because they're losing audience like crazy--is because of ideology. There's no other reason!

If the Ku Klux Klan were running around intimidating voters, if the Tea Party was screaming racist stuff up and down, you KNOW--you know these stories would be featured big-time on the network news, but they are very worried that the Obama administration is imploding, "they" being the executives and the guys who call the shots at the three newscasts. They're all the same kind of guys; I worked for two of them at ABC and CBS. I know what the situation is. It's a very, very subtle bias. It's an elitism attached to left-wing beliefs--"Oh, this is beneath us. The Black Panthers are beneath us. The Tea Party is beneath us."

But in the end it comes down to "Who do we want to protect?" And they do, right now, want to protect the Obama administration--there's no doubt about it in my mind, and I'm looking at it not from an ideology--I mean, you know me. If the president does something good, I'll tell you. But this media thing is just horrendous.

Viewer Mail for Tuesday, July 20

2010-07-20T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Stossel refers to government assistance as a safety net. After 99 weeks of soon to be extended unemployment benefits, the safety net has become a hammock."
Stanley Gershbein
Fort Lauderdale, FL

FIRABLE OFFENSE?
Video surfaces of a Dept. of Agriculture official telling the NAACP she held back assistance to a white farmer 24 years ago because of his race. Fox News runs with the story, Shirley Sherrod gets fired, and is now blaming FNC for her plight.

"Why do you waste your time opining about the lack of coverage by the other networks? You know the left-wing media will downplay any story that tarnishes Obama's image."
Matt Scarborough
Oxford, MA

"Nobody is discussing the key factor of Ms. Sherrod's speech to the NAACP: when she makes the offense remark, the audience is nonplussed."
Mark Sabottke
Stratford, CT

"Looks like Fox News jumped to conclusions on this one. It is clear watching the full video that Shirley Sherrod's comments were taken out of context. This is the sort of irresponsible journalism you criticize daily."
Dino Capp
Middletown, DE

"The Obama administration has used the Shirley Sherrod forced resignation to meliorate the failed Black Panther case."
Jerry Archer
Greenwood, IN

"Ms. Sherrod is certainly guilty of pandering to an audience to seem more sympathetic. She took the job, the salary and the benefits and decided to give a white farmer 'just enough' help."
Beverly Buckley
Tucson, AZ

"The White House apparently didn't gather all the facts before asking Ms. Sherrod to step down. This is another example of the administration's ready, fire, then aim public response."
Allen Bachrach
Alpharetta, GA

"Thank you for pointing out the growing problem of reverse racism. It's a real issue that just gets dismissed by the lame stream media."
Roy Gammons
Louisville, KY

"Ms. Sherrod was thrown under the bus for telling a story about how she was enlightened 24 years ago. She should get her job back, with an apology."
Dave Nelson
Bloomington, MN

"You missed the point. Shirley Sherrod bragged to the NAACP that she discriminated against a white farmer 24 years ago. Regardless of the context, she should remain fired."
Paul
Greensburg, PA

SAFETY NET?
President Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits, but some Americans think it's enabling the jobless to remain that way. What exactly does the government owe unemployed Americans?

"Unemployment is a small fraction of what a person earned before becoming unemployed. John Stossel saying it encourages someone to stop looking for work proves he's a pinhead."
Dirk Bell
Herndon, VA

"Your argument that the government owes benefits to the unemployed ignores that it requires me to pay for the government's mistakes."
Gene Brandao
Little Rock, AR

"If hard-working people lose their jobs due to bad political decisions, people will vote them out of office."
Stephen Incavo
Houston, TX

"I would vote for Stossel. Two years of unemployment breeds apathy and laziness."
Robert Isbell
Farmington, NM

"Government interference encourages bad behavior by borrowers, lenders and investment banks. Don't repeat the bad behavior with unemployment benefits."
Bill Riviere
Denver, CO

"Due to Congress, I lost my business, filed bankruptcy and am now unemployed. If I had caused this harm to others, I'd be in jail. In this case, Congress should pay for their incompetence."
Art Morris
Napa, CA

"Superfluous government intrusion into the economy causes unemployment, and extending compensation prolongs joblessness. Eventually compassionate and responsible private citizens will provide jobs for the unemployed if we leave it alone."
Bill Dyess
Pensacola, FL

TAX CHEAT
After a long appeal, actor Wesley Snipes will serve three years in prison for dodging taxes.

"They say crime doesn't pay, but if Wesley Snipes doesn't have to pay the $37 million to the IRS, I'd say crime did pay in this case."
Mike Madrid
Albuquerque, NM

"Wesley Snipes pays for his attorneys with all the tax dollars he kept for himself."
J. Sponenburg
West Chester, PA

"Could Obama give Wesley Snipes a cabinet position or a czar job so he can avoid jail time like Tim Geithner?"
Ed Koziol
Aynor, SC

"Is this social justice when Mr. Snipes goes to pay for failing to pay taxes, but Mr. Geithner gets the Treasury Secretary job? I guess Snipes had the ability and Geithner had the need."
Gina Cresse
Acton, CA

Some Mass. businesses dropping health care, pointing to public options

2010-07-20T00:12:00Z

There's this thing in Massachusetts about the subsidized health care there--it's kind of complicated, but small businesses are basically telling people, "Look, we're not going to give you health care, you've got to get it from the state," and all of that. So it goes, right?

Wesley Snipes loses appeal, faces prison for tax evasion

2010-07-20T00:10:00Z

Wesley Snipes is going to jail--appeal denied. He dodged taxes for, I guess, five years--'99 to 2004. He made $38 million appearing in movies like "Blade," and didn't pay his taxes. He's going to jail, as well he should.

Schwarzenegger deploys National Guard along Cali-Mex border

2010-07-20T00:06:00Z

Arnold Schwarzenegger is mobilizing the National Guard to the border seven years after I told him to do that, so Arnold finally listened to me after seven years. Way to go, Arnold.

Backlash prompts Tea Party to remove anti-Obama billboard in Iowa

2010-07-20T00:00:00Z

They took down that billboard... the North Iowa Tea Party put up [of] Hitler, Lenin and Obama. I got a lot of letters saying "It's not racial, it's economic," well, that's true. But whenever you put up guys like Hitler and Lenin--Hitler directly responsible for millions of deaths, and Lenin indirectly responsible--up to a president, you're in territory that you can't defend, so they took it down. That was another bone-headed move.

The Tea Party's got to be careful. Their opponents want to label them as radicals, almost like me--I sympathize with the Tea Party, because it's the same thing they try to do to me, "they" being the far left. "O'Reilly's a racist, he's anti-Semitic, he's this, he's that, he's crazy..." You know, look. The Tea Party--I don't want them to compromise their belief system, but you've got to be smart about your presentation, and Lenin, Obama and Hitler isn't smart about a presentation. It just isn't. Not on a billboard.

If you want to explain the economic realities of life in the Third Reich and in the Soviet Union vis-à-vis the USA, you can explain that, if you have the time, but not on a billboard.

Spain considers burqa ban

2010-07-19T23:58:00Z

Spain is considering expanding the burqa ban--as you know, France has passed a law saying that Muslim women can't cover their faces in public. Spain may do that as well. And here in the USA we're not going to do that, which is very interesting.

The growing divide between DC elites and you

2010-07-19T23:55:00Z

Politico is a website you guys should check out--it's pretty good. They lean left a little bit, but not obnoxious, and they seem to be very interested in breaking stories. They have a new one that I'm not going to do on the Factor, but that you as Premium Members might be interested in. There's a big divide between the elite people in Washington and you guys. That's because the Washington people are benefiting greatly from the expansion of the government under President Obama.

So they have a lot of stats about the elite people working in Washington as opposed to what you think about issues. I'll give you a couple of examples. DC elites unfavorable towards Sarah Palin, 82%. DC elites that think the Tea Party is a fad, 68%.

Now, are they all liberals? Not all of them, but obviously with a Democratic administration and Congress, there are a lot of left-wingers working in DC right now.

The O'Quiz: Know your current events!

2010-07-19T21:06:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was up significantly to 6.55 questions correct out of 10 compared to the previous week's average of 5.18.

Go: This week's O'Quiz

Viewer Mail for Monday, July 19

2010-07-19T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"There is a middle ground. FNC has pushed the Black Panther story by giving it disproportionate coverage to its day-to-day relevance, but the Washington Post was wrong to neglect the story altogether."
Alex Hyman
New York, NY

BLACK PANTHER COVERAGE
Howard Kurtz accuses Fox News of pushing the voter intimidation story, while most of the establishment press ignored it. CBS anchor Bob Schieffer even admits he didn't ask Eric Holder about the story because he wasn't aware of it.

"When the Washington Post ombudsman and Howard Kurtz have conflicting opinions about the Black Panther coverage, they are playing good cop/bad cop to obfuscate their true intentions and bias."
Dr. William Steiner
Omaha, NE

"There is a peaceful revolution happening in this country, and it begins with the honest media. Keep up the good work."
Paul Bainbridge
Cape May Court House, NJ

"Give Howard Kurtz a break! He asked the questions you wanted to ask and pushed the story forward. Bob Schieffer's lack of journalistic vigor was outdone by Kurtz's tenacity."
Peter Dayton
Stuart, FL

"You knocked Kurtz for saying Fox News is over-reporting the Black Panther story, but you should give him kudos for asking Bob Schieffer some hard questions about the story."
Mike Nastro
Holtsville, NY

"When Howard Kurtz and others in the left-wing media speak in a surly tone about Fox News, rest assured it is because they are jealous of your success."
Tom Burley
Alto, MI

"Led by the New York Times, the blatant bias of the traditional news media diminishes our public discourse. It therefore dangers our health as a democracy."
Jim Forman
Huntington Beach, CA

HOT IN HERE!
The NOAA says this June was the hottest ever recorded. So is Al Gore onto something?

"Please don't even suggest that Gore might be right about something. Even a broken clock is right twice a day."
Samantha Svensson
Conyers, GA

"I give Al Gore a C-plus for being half right. Mars is also experiencing warmer temperatures, but unless we find life on Mars, I'm unconvinced global warming is manmade."
Richard Kwiecienski
Homosassa, FL

"Al Gore was right about global warming? Did you not just go through the same snowy winter I did? You need a reality check!"
Maria Jones
Wayne, PA

"While the planet may have had the warmest June on record, let's not forget we also had one of the coldest winters."
Tom Ruisinger
Overland Park, KS

"Tell Al Gore it's hot because it's summer. Summer is supposed to be hot."
R.L. Wyke
Greensburg, PA

UNEMPLOYMENT POLITICS
Obama is using unemployment as a political football, claiming Republicans are blocking the extension of benefits in the Senate.

"The ultimate extended benefit is a job. Please tell the President."
Wes Haworth
Duarte, CA

"The unemployment extension would not be an issue now if Obama had done the things necessary to create jobs in the first place."
Jim Ramsey
Cincinnati, OH

"The only reason Obama is pushing unemployment extensions is because he's discovered another huge voting bloc for the midterm elections: the unemployed voter."
Gerry Greco
White Plains, NY

"I know some people who have been collecting unemployment for two years now and are laughing that Obama wants to give them another extension. Where's the incentive for them to find jobs?"
Cindy Tamburro
Cleveland, OH

"I think it's time to give the unemployed an incentive to find work. I fear some of them may be getting used to the 'check is in the mail' mentality and have become slack in looking for jobs."
Gary McCurry
Forest City, NC

"This is a politically motivated ploy on Obama's part. He's banking on the mainstream media misrepresenting the Republicans' stance on unemployment benefits."
Randal Rhoades
Mechanicsburg, PA

"If extending unemployment benefits is so important to the President, he can pull funds from another part of his massive budget."
Mike McBride
Fleming Island, FL

"The reason President Obama is handling the extension of unemployment benefits the way he has is simple. It's a great way to demonize Republicans before the November election."
Joe Ttanna
Tarzana, CA

HOLLYWOOD PINHEAD!
The young actress Ellen Page, promoting her new movie 'Inception,' says she'd like to implant ideas into Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin to give them compassion and 'holistic intelligence.'

"I'd like to see Ellen Page sit down face-to-face with Gov. Palin to test her own 'holistic' intelligence. But no scripts allowed, please!"
Mark Lane
Albuquerque, NM

"Of course, Miss Page being two or three years removed from her senior prom is an expert in world affairs. Is there a stronger word than pinhead?"
Joseph Klein
Winter Haven, FL

"I'm not a huge fan of Sarah Palin by any stretch of the imagination, but unlike Ellen Page, I would bet she at least knows ignorance creates fear and fear makes people say stupid things."
Lori Hunnicutt
Tucson, AZ

"Who the heck is Ellen Page and why should I care what she has to say?"
Joe Brewer
Pensacola, FL

"The only thing amusing about what Ellen Page had to say was her surprising lack of originality. Hollywood pinhead, anyone?"
Paul Seifer
Baden, PA

"I was looking forward to seeing the movie 'Inception,' but after Ellen Page's hateful, unfounded comments about Sarah Palin, I'm boycotting."
Louie Bookout
Northridge, CA

"As a fellow Canadian, I suggest Ms. Page sticks to acting, something she knows about. Why do actors always feel they have superior intelligence when it comes to politics?"
Stephen Patterson
St. John, Nova Scotia

New crossword: Capital-ism

2010-07-16T20:25:00Z

For no apparent reason, this week's puzzle focuses on state capitals and their etymologies. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Bill's New Column: The NAACP vs. the Tea Party

2010-07-15T20:02:00Z

In his new column for the week, Bill analyzes the allegations of racism made by the NAACP about the Tea Party--is there any truth to their bluster?

Go: Bill's latest column

Viewer Mail for Thursday, July 15

2010-07-15T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"If two tattooed skinheads with batons stationed themselves in front of a voting place during an election, would Eric Holder dismiss the case against them?"
Martin Sullivan
Brookings, OR

RACIAL STRIFE
Megyn Kelly is outraged over the lack of attention being paid to the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute some Black Panthers for voter intimidation. Plus, the head of the NAACP calls on the tea party to weed out racism within its ranks.

"Thank you for continuing to look into this blatant case of voter intimidation. I recall some years ago there was a similar case in the south and all the media pointed it out."
Gary Bakulich
Folson, CA

"In the media, apparently only whites can be racist. The NAACP and Black Panthers are as racist as the Klan."
Joe Reeder
Aurora, IL

"Instead of judging people on the content of their character, the Black Panthers and NAACP instigate violence and intimidate people. Dr. King must be rolling in his grave."
Kathy Clark
Halifax, MA

"A sacred premise of our democracy is one person, one vote. These men were attempting to deny other Americans their basic rights."
Josh Hermann
Simpsonville, SC

"Any citizen, regardless of race, color or creed, who is restricting from exercising his or her voting right by fear or threat is being disenfranchised."
Girard Fortin
Burlington, MA

"Eric Holder says he didn't prosecute because the facts weren't there, but he failed to do his research. The facts were clear."
Phil Erwin
Thousand Oaks, CA

"It is wrong for Ben Jealous of the NAACP to brand all tea party members racist based on the actions of a few. We must remember the words of the great Martin Luther King Jr.: judge people by the content of their character."
Fred Towery
Houston, TX

"If the NAACP wants the tea party to weed out the racial fringe elements in its ranks, then they too must weed out their fringe elements."
Kathy Fitzner
Sylvania, GA

"Why does Leslie Marshall seem hesitant to say the New Black Panther party doesn't advance the cause of blacks in America? Every American should be more than willing to condemn hatred."
Nancy Costanza
Rockville Center, NY

"Race discussions have become a diversion for the ailing economy. Open your eyes, America and focus on the economy."
Eileen Thomas
Perth, Australia

UNHAPPY MEALS?
Citing unhealthy food, a consumer group wants McDonald's to stop top giveaways as incentives to kids.

"Doesn't McDonald's also have playgrounds to encourage physical activity? Doesn't that help fight obesity?"
John Hawthorne
Harbor, OR

"McDonald's doesn't deserve this witch hunt. It doesn't a tremendous amount of good work through its Ronald McDonald House charities."
Kathy Perez
Mena, AR

"Your guest should lobby McDonald's to include a healthy substitute for the Happy Meal instead of trying to prevent kids from going there at all."
Chet Tyson
St. Cloud, FL

"Yes, kids want the Happy Meal toy, but they only end up eating half of the meal, so what's the big deal?"
Jerry Lyday
Wilmington, IL

"When I take my granddaughter to McDonald's, she orders the Happy Meal with a hamburger, apple slices and milk. No fries, no soda. So why deny her the toy?"
Francis Jacob
Opelousas, LA

"My children and I visit McDonald's every other week, and it's for the fun and food, not for the toy. They don't get Happy Meals."
Kiley Fair
New Castle, PA

"Parents have control over their children's diet. Nobody else decides what's right for my kids. Take care of your child, and I will take care of mine."
Sharon Biller
San Jose, CA

"You say irresponsible parents have the freedom to take their kids to eat unhealthy meals at McDonald's. If that's true, should irresponsible parents also let their kids smoke and drink?"
Brad Ford
Clemson, SC

"At what point does regulating companies selling high calorie, high salt, high sugar meals become necessary from a public health perspective?"
Marshall Summer
Red Bank, NJ

LET THEM EAT CAKE?
Glenn Beck takes issue with Michelle Obama telling an audience that soda and dessert are not rights for kids, but instead privileges to be decided by responsible parents.

"Glenn Beck's comparison of Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette was most inaccurate. Unlike Michelle, Marie actually let them eat cake."
Jim Morton
St. George, NY

"Comparing the First Lady to Marie Antoinette was brilliant. In both cases, the ladies were insensitive and clueless regarding the plight of citizens outside their social strata."
Priscilla Price
Cumming, GA

"It's unfair for Glenn Beck to associate Michelle Obama's comments about dessert to a nanny state. She is directing the commentary towards children, who really do not have a fundamental right to dessert."
Ruben Osorio
Rock Tavern, NY

"Who is Glenn Beck to criticize Michelle Obama's fashion sense? He's wearing sneakers with his suit."
Mike Taylor
Kennesaw, GA

"When Glenn Beck is on your show, why do you feel the need to minimize and joke about every issue he is passionate about?"
Debbie Kolibas
Somis, CA

Backstage Conversation: Our immigration woes

2010-07-15T02:31:00Z

In this week's Backstage Conversation webcast for Premium Members, hear Bill's responses to questions from PMs, including his opinion on why consensus-building as a tactic to deal with illegal immigration won't work.

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Drunk Australian attempts to ride crocodile, is bitten

2010-07-15T01:22:00Z

A guy got so drunk in Australia that he went into a zoo and tried to ride a 16-foot-long crocodile. The crocodile called Fatso bit the 36-year-old man's leg, and the guy's in surgery. Now here's the deal. In Australia, they have socialized medicine, so all of the taxpayers are paying for this guy, and it's going to be a big bill... now, if I were the people in Australia, I'd say no, we're not paying for that. See what I'm talking about here? Socialized medicine, no matter how irresponsible a person is, everybody pays. You know, it's a little thing, but it's a big thing. Now, I've been to Australia, I've seen these crocodiles, these are big crocodiles--16 feet. They hurt you. And this idiot climbs over the wire and tries to ride the crocodile, and now we've got to pay for his injuries?! There you go.

Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston engaged

2010-07-15T01:18:00Z

This is a disturbing story--I'm not going to get into it too much because I know the Palin family and I don't want to intrude, but this Bristol Palin, 20 years old now and has a baby, I guess is going to marry this guy Levi Johnston who's also 20. You remember he ran around the country trashing the Palin family and Sarah Palin; he did a number of untoward things, and now they're going to get married. I don't know. I feel bad for them. Bristol Palin, let me just give you a little piece of advice--somebody betrays you, they'll do it again. It's an old Indian saying--burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me. People don't change. If they're capable of betrayal, they'll betray. So I'm sorry to hear this, sorry to see it, and that's that.

Appeals court tosses FCC regulations on 'fleeting expletives'

2010-07-15T01:15:00Z

The FCC says that on TV you can pretty much say the F-word now--you can do what you want, we don't really want to be bothered. So a federal appeals court threw out the FCC's rules on indecent speech mainly because the government didn't really care. The judges say, do we really want to be bothered with this? If you're going to say the F-word, we don't really care. So that's where we are in America today. You have vulgarisms and all of that--you're going to have it on the networks. It's coming. It's never going to be as bad as cable, but it's coming.

Gitmo detainees beg to stay at Guantanamo Bay

2010-07-15T01:11:00Z

In Guantanamo Bay, they wanted to send six guys back to Algeria, and they said no, we want to stay at Gitmo. Why did they want to stay there? Well, they have a 17,000-book library there; you can do Wii... you can play games and all kinds of stuff. They have PlayStations, they have life skills classes. They have the Twilight vampire series you can watch there... it's not a vacation. You're in the barbed wire zone, and you're regulated and watched, but let's face it. Compared to where these people would be in Algeria or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, it IS Club Med. So President Obama is not closing this anytime soon--he doesn't know what to do with these people, so there you go.

Nebraska town bans rentals of houses to illegal immigrants

2010-07-15T01:04:00Z

In Nebraska, the Fremont city council--small town--has voted to ban the renting of homes to illegal immigrants. The voters have approved this out there. So this is another tactic to make it very difficult for illegal aliens to operate in various towns and cities. Of course, the ACLU is going to sue. So it's really becoming an us-against-them--"them," the ACLU and the far left who want illegal aliens to come here with impunity--they want open borders--and do whatever they want, while the majority of Americans say no, we have to regulate who comes here, we've got to basically get a grip on illegal immigration because it's causing a lot of damage to the country. So it's an us-against-them--the ACLU is the vanguard of the open border--George Soros, all of that.

Viewer Mail for Wednesday, July 14

2010-07-14T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Those who reward the behavior of the Family Guy writers could learn a lesson from people with Down Syndrome about kindness, acceptance, and overcoming the odds. I'm wondering who has the real special needs."
Patti Hodges
Menifee, CA

NAACP ON THE ATTACK
The president of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, goes after Sarah Palin and the tea party in his convention address.

"I feel like some in the black community have encouraged through complacency reverse racism for too long. Thank you for exposing the NAACP."
Nat Hammel
Las Vegas, NV

"If the NAACP mission is truly to advance blacks, they should be willing to acknowledge and even correct their own shortcomings including racism."
Brett Koder
Shelby, NC

"The NAACP reverts to calling out racism within the tea party because their positions are weak and they fail when arguing substantive issues."
Warren Arnold
Plano, TX

"The NAACP isn't concerned with racial harmony or fairness. It's concerned with promoting one race over others. It's right in their title."
Bryan Smith
Tucson, AZ

"The opportunity for the advancement of people of color in this country is unmatched by any other nation in the world. Unless you join groups like the NAACP and blame white people for all your personal failures."
Tim Hague
Cherokee, OK

"Dr. Hill says the NAACP isn't responsible for policing reverse racism. But they're responsible for falsely accusing the tea party of racism?"
Mike Anderson
Costa Mesa, CA

"The NAACP needs to get over its hate and get a life. Racism in this country has been reduced to a noise level."
Greg Streeter
Jacksonville, FL

"You said something to the effect of the NAACP was buying into rhetoric about racism. They are actually the ones selling it."
John Trickett
Charleston, AR

"While I disagree with the NAACP's vision, neither you nor I have to endure the struggles of a black person."
Tom Holmes
Lutherville, MD

"It's fair to say the NAACP was at fault for calling the tea party racist, but trying to say it's hypocritical for them to ignore Black Panther racism is off base. The NAACP isn't an anti-racism group, it's an African-American group."
Bill Mosher
Plainsboro, NJ

"While campaigning, Obama said he would unite America. The White House is doing more to divide this country in order to get reelected."
Kelliene Fisher
East Bend, NC

AND THE AWARD GOES TO....
The vile "Family Guy" episode mocking Down Syndrome kids and Sarah Palin receives an Emmy nod.

"I nominate Family Guy for the filthiest program on TV. I can't believe Fox, or anyone, would put such trash on the small screen."
Howard LeRoy
Yuma, AZ

"I find it quite telling that a song ridiculing kids with Down Syndrome would be nominated for an Emmy by the same liberals who advocate tolerance for the gay community."
David Gooch
Independence, MO

"I watched the entire episode and found a positive message: the girl with Down Syndrome has the same problems as most teenage girls."
Charlie Bierwirth
Redding, CA

"Are you kidding me? Family Guy gets a musical Emmy nod for an episode denigrating Down Syndrome kids and attacking Sarah Palin? Unbelievable."
Matt Nelson
Oldtown, ID

"My daughter is taught about children with special needs in her school. It's so unfortunate that some adults haven't learned basic human decency."
Tricia Simone
Staten Island, NY

TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!
Teen Jeopardy contestants are asked to identify Ronald Reagan by photograph. But they guess Nixon and JFK instead! Does not knowing what one of our greatest presidents looks like qualify these kids as pinheads?

"I thought it was sad that none of those kids could identify Ronald Reagan. I'm 14 and know he was one of the greatest modern presidents ever!"
Courtland Winfield
Stuarts Draft, VA

"I thought it was in poor taste for you to feature the kids on Jeopardy as pinheads. In the words of Pink Floyd: 'hey teacher, leave them kid alone.'"
Trish Schreiber
Meadow Vista, CA

"The fact that the Jeopardy student contestants didn't recognize Reagan's picture is proof that history is not being taught at school or discussed at home."
Kathy Ping
Eubank, KY

"The Jeopardy kids are not pinheads. Their teachers are."
Neil Vernasco
St. Joseph, MI

Is Mel Gibson's rant his defining performance?

2010-07-14T00:12:00Z

Mel Gibson--as you know, I know him--I feel very sorry for the whole deal. I don't like to see human beings destroy themselves, and he has. I don't know why. I'm not friends with him--I know him, I did business with him--I don't know why all of this is happening. It's none of my business, it's voyeurism. I'm not going to do the story on the air. I feel terrible about it. I think Gibson's career is over. There's not really much more to say... looks like he's a troubled guy. I'm not a piling-on kind of guy here, but I don't think Mel Gibson will be a viable entertainment person. I think he might be able to direct his own films, but who's going to distribute them? I don't like seeing human beings evaporate like this--it makes me very uneasy.

60 votes reached for financial reform bill

2010-07-14T00:08:00Z

The financial reform bill has 60 votes, so that's going to pass. I don't have a beef with that. ...you've got to watch these people on Wall Street. It was they who destroyed the economy because the Bush administration didn't watch them, so we have to. I don't have a beef with that bill.

Montana school proposes kindergarten sex ed

2010-07-14T00:00:00Z

Montana--we're going to work this story--kindergarten students are going to be taught that people can be attracted to the same gender. Why? This is in Helena, Montana, the capital of the state. We're going to get into it, we're going to figure out what they're doing, why they're doing it. It's about bullying and stuff, but kindergarten? No. No.

New cap on leaking Gulf oil well to be tested

2010-07-13T23:56:00Z

We're following this BP cap. We don't know if it's going to work. We'll let you know.

Some detainees would rather stay at Gitmo than go home

2010-07-13T23:54:00Z

This is pretty interesting--six detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not going to go home to Algeria unless you force them. They'd rather stay in Gitmo. I told you! I've been there twice! I told you! I'd rather be in Guantanamo Bay than go to Algeria! Alright? My god.

NAACP debating resolution to condemn Tea Party 'racism'

2010-07-13T23:52:00Z

We're going to have a big story tomorrow on the NAACP calling the Tea Party racist, and all of this nonsense. You know, what about the New Black Panthers there, NAACP? Are they not racist? We're going to get into that heavy tomorrow, so don't miss that program.

Polls show most Americans losing faith in Obama

2010-07-13T23:49:00Z

Couple of polls out today--Washington Post, ABC--58% of the American public have just some or no confidence in the president. He's not doing well, we know that. A CBS poll says that on the economy, only 40% of Americans think that the president's doing a good job. 54% do not. So this is it--he's in a slump, he's in a downward spiral, there's no question about it.

Stratfor.com: Russian Spies and Strategic Intelligence

2010-07-13T22:31:00Z

The United States has captured a group of Russian spies and exchanged them for four individuals held by the Russians on espionage charges. The way the media has reported on the issue falls into three groups:

That the Cold War is back,
That, given that the Cold War is over, the point of such outmoded intelligence operations is questionable,
And that the Russian spy ring was spending its time aimlessly nosing around in think tanks and open meetings in an archaic and incompetent effort.

It is said that the world is global and interdependent. This makes it vital for a given nation to know three things about all of the nations with which it interacts.

First, it needs to know what other nations are capable of doing. Whether militarily, economically or politically, knowing what other nations are capable of narrows down those nations' possible actions, eliminating fantasies and rhetoric from the spectrum of possible moves. Second, the nation needs to know what other nations intend to do. This is important in the short run, especially when intentions and capabilities match up. And third, the nation needs to know what will happen in other nations that those nations' governments didn't anticipate.

The more powerful a nation is, the more important it is to understand what it is doing. The United States is the most powerful country in the world. It therefore follows that it is one of the prime focuses of every country in the world. Knowing what the United States will do, and shifting policy based on that, can save countries from difficulties and even disaster. This need is not confined, of course, to the United States. Each country in the world has a list of nations that it is interdependent with, and it keeps an eye on those nations. These can be enemies, friends or just acquaintances. It is impossible for nations not to keep their eyes on other nations, corporations not to keep their eyes on other corporations and individuals not to keep their eyes on other people. How they do so varies; that they do so is a permanent part of the human condition. The shock at learning that the Russians really do want to know what is going on in the United States is, to say the least, overdone.

Russian Tradecraft Examined
Let's consider whether the Russian spies were amateurish. During the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviets developed a unique model of espionage. They would certainly recruit government officials or steal documents. What they excelled at, however, was placing undetectable operatives in key positions. Soviet talent scouts would range around left-wing meetings to discover potential recruits. These would be young people with impeccable backgrounds and only limited contact with the left. They would be recruited based on ideology, and less often via money, sex or blackmail. They would never again be in contact with communists or fellow travelers. They would apply for jobs in their countries' intelligence services, foreign or defense ministries, and so on. Given their family and academic backgrounds, they would be hired. They would then be left in place for 20 or 30 years while they rose in the ranks-and, on occasion, aided with bits of information from the Soviet side to move their careers ahead.

The Soviets understood that a recruited employee might be a double agent. But stealing information on an ad hoc basis was also risky, as the provenance of such material was always murky. Recruiting people who were not yet agents, creating psychological and material bonds over long years of management and allowing them to mature into senior intelligence or ministry officials allowed ample time for testing loyalty and positioning. The Soviets not only got more reliable information this way but also the ability to influence the other country's decision-making. Recruiting a young man in the 1930s, having him work with the OSS and later the CIA, and having him rise to the top levels of the CIA-had that ever happened-would thus give the Soviets information and control.

These operations took decades, and Soviet handlers would spend their entire careers managing one career. There were four phases:

Identifying likely candidates,
Evaluating and recruiting them,
Placing them and managing their rise in the organization,
And exploiting them.

The longer the third phase took, the more effective the fourth phase would be.

It is difficult to know what the Russian team was up to in the United States from news reports, but there are two things we know about the Russians: They are not stupid, and they are extremely patient. If we were to guess-and we are guessing-this was a team of talent scouts. They were not going to meetings at the think tanks because they were interested in listening to the papers; rather, they were searching for recruits. These were people between the ages of 22 and 30, doing internships or entry level jobs, with family and academic backgrounds that would make employment in classified areas of the U.S. government easy-and who in 20 to 30 years would provide intelligence and control to Moscow.

In our view, the media may have conflated two of Moscow's missions.

Twin Goals and the Espionage Challenge
One of the Russian operatives, Don Heathfield, once approached a STRATFOR employee in a series of five meetings. There appeared to be no goal of recruitment; rather, the Russian operative tried to get the STRATFOR employee to try out software he said his company had developed. We suspect that had this been done, our servers would be outputting to Moscow. We did not know at the time who he was. (We have since reported the incident to the FBI, but these folks were everywhere, and we were one among many.)

Thus, the group apparently included a man using software sales as cover-or as we suspect, as a way to intrude on computers. As discussed, the group also included talent scouts. We would guess that Anna Chapman was brought in as part of the recruitment phase of talent scouting. No one at STRATFOR ever had a chance to meet her, having apparently failed the first screening.

Each of the phases of the operatives' tasks required a tremendous amount of time, patience and, above all, cover. The operatives had to blend in (in this case, they didn't do so well enough). Russians have always had a tremendous advantage over Americans in this regard. A Russian long-term deployment took you to the United States, for example. Were the Americans to try the same thing, they would have to convince people to spend years learning Russian to near-native perfection and then to spend 20-30 years of their lives in Russia. Some would be willing to do so, but not nearly as many as there are Russians prepared to spend that amount of time in the United States or Western Europe.

The United States can thus recruit sources (and sometimes it gets genuine ones). It can buy documents. But the extremely patient, long-term deployments are very difficult for it. It doesn't fit with U.S. career patterns or family expectations.

The United States has substituted technical intelligence for this process. Thus, the most important U.S. intelligence-collection agency is not the CIA; it is the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA focuses on intercepting communications, penetrating computer networks, encryption and the like. (We will assume that they are successful at this.) So whereas the Russians seek to control the career of a recruit through retirement, the NSA seeks access to everything that is recorded electronically. The goal here is understanding capabilities and intentions. To the extent that the target is unaware of the NSA's capabilities, the NSA does well. In many ways, this provides better and faster intelligence than the placement of agents, except that this does not provide influence.

The Intelligence Assumption
In the end, both the U.S. and Russian models-indeed most intelligence models-are built on the core assumption that the more senior the individual, the more knowledge he and his staff have. To put it more starkly, it assumes that what senior (and other) individuals say, write or even think reveals the most important things about the country in question. Thus, controlling a senior government official or listening to his phone conversations or e-mails makes one privy to the actions that country will take-thus allowing one to tell the future.

Let's consider two cases: Iran in 1979 and the Soviet Union from 1989 to 1991. The fall of the Shah of Iran and the collapse of the Soviet empire were events of towering importance for the United States. Assume that the United States knew everything the shah's senior officials and their staffs knew, wrote, or said in the period leading up to the Iranian Revolution. Or assume that the shah's prime minister or a member of the Soviet Union's Politburo was a long-term mole.

Either of those scenarios would not have made any difference to how events played out. This is because, in the end, the respective senior leadership didn't know how events were going to play out. Partly this is because they were in denial, but mostly this is because they didn't have the facts and they didn't interpret the facts they did have properly. At these critical turning points in history, the most thorough penetration using either American or Russian techniques would have failed to provide warning of the change ahead. This is because the basic premise of the intelligence operation was wrong. The people being spied on and penetrated simply didn't understand their own capabilities-i.e., the reality on the ground in their respective countries-and therefore their intentions about what to do were irrelevant and actually misleading.

In saying this, we must be very cautious, since obviously there are many instances in which targets of intelligence agencies do have valuable information and their decisions do actually represent what will happen. But if we regard anticipating systemic changes as one of the most important categories of intelligence, then these are cases where the targets of intelligence may well know the least and know it last. The Japanese knew they were going to hit Pearl Harbor, and having intelligence on that fact was enormously important. But that the British would collapse at Singapore was a fact not known to the British, so there would have been no way to obtain that information in advance from the British.

We started with three classes of intelligence: capabilities, intentions and what will actually happen. The first is an objective measure that can sometimes be seen directly but more frequently is obtained through data held by someone in the target country. The most important issue is not what this data says but how accurate it is. Intentions, by contrast, represent the subjective plans of decision makers. History is filled with intentions that were never implemented, or that, when implemented, had wildly different outcomes than the decision maker expected. From our point of view, the most important aspect of this category is the potential for unintended consequences. For example, George W. Bush did not intend to get bogged down in a guerrilla war in Iraq. What he intended and what happened were two different things because his view of American and Iraqi capabilities were not tied to reality.

American and Russian intelligence is source-based. There is value in sources, but they need to be taken with many grains of salt, not because they necessarily lie but because the highest placed source may simply be wrong-and at times, an entire government can be wrong. If the purpose of intelligence is to predict what will happen, and it is source-based, then that assumes that the sources know what is going on and how it will play out. But often they don't.

Russian and American intelligence agencies are both source-obsessed. On the surface, this is reasonable and essential. But it assumes something about sources that is frequently true, but not always-and in fact is only true with great infrequency on the most important issues. From our point of view, the purpose of intelligence is obvious: It is to collect as much information as possible, and surely from the most highly placed sources. But in the end, the most important question to ask is whether the most highly placed source has any clue as to what is going to happen.

Knowledge of what is being thought is essential. But gaming out how the objective and impersonal forces will interact and play out it is the most important thing of all. The focus on sources allows the universe of intelligence to be populated by the thoughts of the target. Sometimes that is of enormous value. But sometimes the most highly placed source has no idea what is about to happen. Sometimes it is necessary to listen to the tape of Gorbachev or Bush planning the future and recognize that what they think will happen and what is about to happen are very different things.

The events of the past few weeks show intelligence doing the necessary work of recruiting and rescuing agents. The measure of all of this activity is not whether one has penetrated the other side, but in the end, whether your intelligence organization knew what was going to happen and told you regardless of what well-placed sources believed. Sometimes sources are indispensable. Sometimes they are misleading. And sometimes they are the way an intelligence organization justifies being wrong.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Viewer Mail for Tuesday, July 13

2010-07-13T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Your guest says an Uncle Tom is anyone who works against the best interest of the community. If he really believes that, why isn't he calling black drug dealers, gang members and absentee dads Uncle Toms?"
Kathy Lang
Louisville, KY

GETTING POLITICAL
During a speech to the NAACP, Michelle Obama cites racial inequalities, saying African-Americans don't measure up in education, health care and income.

"The First Lady is being hypocritical. If she was so concerned about educating black children, she wouldn't have let her husband eliminate the voucher system in D.C."
Lee Heidel
Signal Mountain, TN

"Discipline and parenting are the main problems facing kids in the African-American community. I can only do so much as a teacher."
Christy Sinclair
Bossier City, LA

"Parents are neglecting their primary job and leaving the responsibility of raising their children to other people. We don't respect our kids anymore."
Richard Brandt
Puyallup, WA

"If Michelle Obama really cared about changing the black community, she should be giving endless speeches to black youth making an example of her success and that of her husband."
Bruce Norcini
Houston, TX

"Where is the self-reflection in the African-American community about absent fathers and violence? Police yourselves and raise your standards!"
Kathleen Richmond
Kona, HI

"The heated exchanged between you and Laura Ingraham on Michelle Obama was riveting. But I'm sorry to say I completely agree with Laura."
Nicholas Sharky
Cambridge, MA

"If you think Michelle Obama's garden isn't political, then you, my friend, are a loon."
Bob Hood
Woodlawn, IL

RACIAL UPROAR
A black tea party member is beaten in St. Louis. In an unbelievable situation, an NAACP member refers to the victim as an Uncle Tom.

"The tea party is demonized by the NAACP for peaceful protesting, yet they have no problem with the New Black Panthers standing outside polling places with weapons. Is that equality?"
Mike Jones
Corona, CA

"No matter how you slice, dice, cut, or chop it, any criticism of our African-American president will draw the racism label."
Dave Henderson
Simi Valley, CA

"Where was your guest's outrage over respecting the office of the president when George Bush was being depicted as the devil?"
Frank Eldridge
Palma Sola, FL

"An organization that helps only people with the same skin color as they have is accusing someone else of racism? Now that's funny."
Dan Hogan
Pensacola, FL

"It's sad to see a once-great organization like the NAACP reduced to far-left radicalism."
Ephraim Freed
Waynesville, NC

"The NAACP branding all tea party members as racist is a brilliant political move. Voters don't want to be associated with a racist group, and that's exactly what the NAACP is hoping to achieve."
Theo Taoushiani
Houston, TX

IMMIGRATION RAIDS
The Obama administration is implementing a new silent raid policy: employers are ordered to fire any illegal immigrants working at their company, but the immigrants are not deported.

"Your fence has no impact on the millions of illegals already here. Obama's tactic of hitting employers does. It also generates funds through fines, while your fence costs the taxpayer more money."
Mike James
Wise, VA

"You won't solve the illegal immigration problem until you remove the incentives: food stamps, WIC coupons, free health care, and free education."
Bob Sharp
Arleta, CA

"Charles Krauthammer is out of touch when it comes to illegal immigration. The majority of illegals are here to work. They send money back to their families. If there's no work, they'll self-deport."
Jon Lemay
El Centro, CA

"Obama is quietly changing his immigration raid policy, but he's not deporting illegals and he's not hurting his reputation with Hispanic voters."
Michael Civello
Gurnee, IL

"Krauthammer's solution to build a fence won't work. A fence never arrested or deported a single illegal alien."
Norman Henry
Retired INS Agent

"Charles Krauthammer is half right. In addition to a fence on our border, we need a moat, with alligators. Lots and lots of alligators."
William McCord
Los Angeles, CA

Houston woman injured after bomb explodes in her face

2010-07-12T23:36:00Z

In Houston, Texas, a woman went to the door, saw a package, opened it and it blew up. Officials with the ATF say that the woman was the wife of an oil company executive. So obviously someone targeted that home for a bombing. It hasn't gotten a lot of publicity--we're watching it. Woman was hurt, taken to the hospital--I guess she's OK. But if we're going to have to start with terrorism here, it's going to be bad.

Doctors threatening to drop Medicaid because of looming cuts

2010-07-12T23:28:00Z

In Texas, doctors in the Dallas area are threatening to drop Medicaid patients because their fees are going to be cut 1%... And the doctors say, "Hey, look, we're already not making much money--we're going to make less, we don't like this whole game, so we may drop it." Now that might just be bluster, because doctors are obviously making money, but some of them say they're going to drop it. I do expect that many doctors across America will opt out of Medicare and Medicaid in the upcoming years. So make sure you have your doctor isolated out and that he's going to hang in. Because you don't want to change doctors, particularly if you're elderly. It's not a good thing to do.

Black voters support Obama but remain ambivalent

2010-07-12T23:24:00Z

The Washington Post is reporting that black voters still support Barack Obama--about 90%--but they're not going to show up next November--that 46%, only 46%, are jazzed enough to go out. So that again will hurt the Democratic party if that holds up.

New poll paints a not-so-rosy picture for Democrats

2010-07-12T23:20:00Z

Democracy Corps is run by James Carville and Stan Greenberg--they're two Democratic guys, and they hire themselves out to Democratic people running for office. Now, they have a new poll that says among likely voters in America, Republicans are leading 48 to 42% for next November... but here's the more interesting part of that poll. 55% of likely voters think that a socialist label is an accurate way of describing President Obama. 55% think he's a socialist. That does not bode well for the president. If that many people in America think that Barack Obama is Hugo Chavez Lite, that does not bode well. ...again, that's a Democratic poll.

The O'Quiz: Beat last week's score!

2010-07-12T19:09:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was down yet again, dropping by nearly a full point to 5.18 questions correct out of 10, compared to the previous week's average of 5.97.

Go: This week's O'Quiz

Viewer Mail for Monday, July 12

2010-07-12T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"If the ladies of Code Pink have to get naked to get folks to look at their message, they ain't got much of a message!"
Dottie Billington
Foster, RI

DISASTER ON THE HORIZON?
The debt commission predicts the U.S. will go break if it continues wild spending. O'Reilly says some entitlements need to be cut, and he'll send his Social Security checks back to the government.

"You are a true blue American patriot for your willingness to give your Social Security payments back to the fund. Hopefully other wealthy people will follow your lead."
Hoppy Hopkins
Elko, NV

"I respect your decision, but I disagree with it. You should take your Social Security check and donate it to a worthy cause. Returning it to the government is like flushing it down the toilet."
Roberto Sanchez
Winter Garden, FL

"The President isn't running a popularity contest. He's trying to run the country, with no help from Republicans and massive debt that George Bush left him."
Robert Gulley
Milan, IL

"You can't address cutting entitlements and other economic factors without mentioning the annual $113 billion cost of illegal immigrants in this country."
Colleen Sunderland
Coralville, IA

"The debt commission's dire economic forecast is no surprise to most of us, but cuts to entitlements should not be across the board. The poor and elderly shouldn't have to suffer so wealthy retirees can get an entitlement they don't need."
Christof Cook
Lake Placid, FL

"I'm going to send my 'We Live Without Our Means' bumper sticker to the debt commission. Maybe they'll pass the message on to Congress."
Barb Moberg
Bonney Lake, WA

"Our financial predicament has resulted from Congress ignoring reality for decades. There have been very few statesmen and far more selfish people in our ruling class."
Stan Bumgardner
Kerrville, TX

"Despite your poignant talking points memo, the President will continue his spending because he doesn't care if he wins re-election in 2012."
Chuck Johnson
Festus, MO

MEDIA MALICE?
Did CBS anchor Bob Schieffer intentionally misrepresent the Arizona law while interviewing Attorney General Eric Holder on 'Face The Nation'? He claimed the law allows police to stop and question the immigration status of anybody. Not true!

"My disappointment in hearing Bob Schieffer misrepresent the Arizona law was eclipsed by the fact that our Attorney General failed to correct him on the spot."
Ralph Ghent
Mount Airy, MD

"Holder did not correct Schieffer's error. Thus it was likely all pre-arranged."
Don Femia
Ouray, CO

"Either Schieffer didn't read the law, didn't understand it, or intentionally misrepresented it to further the media's falsehoods."
To Lee
Los Angeles, CA

"Brit Hume said Bob Schieffer was in good company misrepresenting the law. I think the standards need to be raised a little bit!"
Ted Moore
Nampa, ID

"Brit Hume was covering for Bob Schieffer as much as the mainstream media covers for the President. He should have said what was really on his mind."
Steve Town
Erie, CO

"Perhaps Bob Schieffer made an honest mistake regarding the Arizona law. But what is Eric Holder's excuse for not correcting the record?"
Richard Tabor
Verona, VA

MOST BORING POLL
The new BillOReilly.com poll asks, Which is the most boring? The World Cup, LeBron James or Lindsay Lohan...

"I'd really like to respond to your new poll, but I'm stymied. After much deliberation, I declare it a three-way tie."
Sean O'Brien
Leesburg, FL

"You gotta be kidding me! The most boring has to be the World Cup. What other sport gives the audience horns to keep the players awake?"
Todd Lundy
Thousand Oaks, CA

"For your most boring poll, maybe the British Open or Wimbledon would be better options than the most popular sport on the planet. I'm getting sick of you bashing the World Cup."
Charlie Riccio
Owensboro, KY

"LeBron James beats Lindsay Lohan 1-0 in overtime. And the streets are filled with celebrating pinheads!"
Wicky Lawrie
Nashville, TN

"I'll vote for the World Cup, but it was a gut-wrenching decision to delegate LeBron and Lindsay a second-place tie."
Lu Beausoleil
Gautier, MS

NAKED PINHEADS!
The anti-war group Code Pink targets BP in a "naked truth" protest by stripping down to nothing!

"It just goes to show Code Pink is a bunch of boobs!"
Kathy Kennedy
Saddlebrooke, AZ

"Never thought I'd say this in a million years, but I wish I was at that Code Pink rally. Does that make me a pinhead?"
Ray Hemion
Wawarsing, NY

"As a red-blooded American male, I wholeheartedly support Code Pink's naked truth protest. Now, what were they protesting again?"
Scott Elkins
Richardson, TX

New crossword: Radicals of All Stripes

2010-07-09T20:25:00Z

Speaking of the New Black Panthers, this week's puzzle includes other radical groups and individuals from both extremes. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Stratfor.com: The Caucasus Cauldron

2010-07-09T18:32:00Z

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited some interesting spots over the July 4 weekend. Her itinerary included Poland and Ukraine, both intriguing choices in light of the recent Obama-Medvedev talks in Washington. But she also traveled to a region that has not been on the American radar screen much in the last two years-namely, the Caucasus-visiting Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The stop in Poland coincided with the signing of a new agreement on ballistic missile defense and was designed to sustain U.S.-Polish relations in the face of the German-Russian discussions we have discussed. The stop in Ukraine was meant simply to show the flag in a country rapidly moving into the Russian orbit. In both cases, the trip was about the Russians. Regardless of how warm the atmospherics are between the United States and Russia, the fact is that the Russians are continuing to rebuild their regional influence and are taking advantage of European disequilibrium to build new relationships there, too. The United States, still focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, has limited surplus capacity to apply to resisting the Russians. No amount of atmospherics can hide that fact, certainly not from the Poles or the Ukrainians. Therefore, if not a substantial contribution, the secretary of state's visit was a symbolic one. But when there is little of substance, symbols matter.

That the Poland and Ukraine stops so obviously were about the Russians makes the stops in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia all the more interesting. Clinton's statements during the Caucasian leg of her visit were positive, as one would expect. She expressed her support for Georgia without committing the United States to any arms shipments for Georgia to resist the Russians, who currently are stationed inside Georgia's northern secessionist regions. In Azerbaijan and Armenia, she called on both countries to settle the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed region within western Azerbaijan proper. Armenia took control of the region by force following the Soviet collapse. For Azerbaijan, the return of Nagorno-Karabakh under a U.N. resolution is fundamental to its national security and political strategy. For Armenia, retreat is not politically possible.

This means Clinton's call for negotiations and her offer of U.S. help are not particularly significant, especially since the call was for Washington to help under the guise of international, not bilateral, negotiations. This is particularly true after Clinton seemed to indicate that the collapse in Turkish-Armenian talks was Turkey's responsibility and that it was up to Turkey to make the next move. Given that her visit to the region seems on the surface to have achieved little-and indeed, little seems to have been intended-it is worth taking time to understand why she went there in the first place, and the region's strategic significance.

The Strategic Significance of the Caucasus
The Caucasus is the point where Russia, Iran and Turkey meet. For most of the 19th century, the three powers dueled for dominance of the region. This dispute froze during the Soviet period but is certainly in motion again. With none of these primary powers directly controlling the region, there are secondary competitions involving Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, both among these secondary powers and between the secondary powers and the major powers. And given that the region involves the Russians, Iranians and Turks, it is inevitable that the global power would have an interest as well-hence, Hillary Clinton's visit.

Of all the regions of the world, this one is among the most potentially explosive. It is the most likely to draw in major powers and the most likely to involve the United States. It is quiet now-but like the Balkans in 1990, quiet does not necessarily reassure any of the players. Therefore, seven players are involved in a very small space. Think of it as a cauldron framed by Russia, Iran and Turkey, occasionally stirred by Washington, for whom each of the other three major powers poses special challenges of varying degrees.

The Caucasus region dominates a land bridge between the Black and Caspian seas. The bridge connects Turkey and Iran to the south with Russia in the north. The region is divided between two mountain ranges, the Greater Caucasus to the north and the Lesser Caucasus in the south; and two plains divided from one another, one in Western Georgia on the Black Sea and another, larger plain in the east in Azerbaijan along the Kura River. A narrow river valley cuts through Georgia, connecting the two plains.

The Greater Caucasus Mountains serve as the southern frontier of Russia. To the north of these mountains, running east to west, lies the Russian agricultural heartland, flat and without any natural barriers. Thus, ever since the beginning of the 19th century, Russia has fought for a significant portion of the Caucasus to block any ambitions by the Turkish or Persian empires. The Caucasus mountains are so difficult to traverse by major military forces that as long as Russia maintains a hold somewhere in the Caucasus, its southern frontier is secure. During the latter part of the 19th century and for most of the Soviet period (except a brief time at the beginning of the era), the Soviet position in the Caucasus ran along the frontier with Turkey and Persia (later Iran). Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were incorporated into the Soviet Union, giving the Soviets a deep penetration of the Caucasus and, along with this, security.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the three Caucasian republics broke free of Moscow, pushing Russia's frontier north by between about 160 to 320 kilometers (100-200 miles). The Russians still maintained a position in the Caucasus, but their position was not secure. The northern portion of the Caucasus consisted of Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and others, all of which had significant Islamist insurgencies under way. If the Russians abandoned the northeastern Caucasus, their position was breached. But if they stood, they faced an interminable fight.

Georgia borders most of the Russian frontier. In the chaos of the fall of the Soviet Union, various Georgian regions attempted to secede from Georgia with Russian encouragement. From the Georgian point of view, Russia represented a threat. But from the Russian point of view, Georgia represented a double threat. First, the Russians suspected the Georgians of supporting Chechen rebels in the 1990s-a charge the Georgians deny. The more important threat was that the United States selected Georgia as its main ally in the region. The choice made sense if the United States was conducting an encirclement strategy of Russia, which Washington was doing in the 1990s (though it became somewhat distracted from this strategy after 2001). In response to what it saw as U.S. pressure around its periphery, the Russians countered in Georgia in 2008 to demonstrate U.S. impotence in the region.

The Russians also maintained a close relationship with Armenia, where they continue to station more than 3,000 troops. The Armenians are deeply hostile to the Turks over demands that Turkey admit to massacres of large number of Armenians in 1915-16. The Armenians and Turks were recently involved in negotiations over the normalization of relations, but these talks collapsed-in our view, because of Russian interference. The issue was further complicated when a U.S. congressional committee passed a resolution in March condemning Turkey for committing genocide, infuriating the Turks.

One of the countercharges against Armenia is that it has conducted its own massacres of Azerbaijanis. Around the time of the Soviet breakup, it conducted a war against Azerbaijan, replete with the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis in a region known as Nagorno-Karabakh in western Azerbaijan, leaving Azerbaijan with a massive refugee problem. While the U.N. Security Council condemned the invasion, the conflict has been frozen, to use the jargon of diplomats.

The Importance of Azerbaijan
For its part, Azerbaijan cannot afford to fight a war against Russian troops in Armenia while it also shares a northern border with Russia. Azerbaijan also faces a significant Iranian problem. There are more Azerbaijanis living in Iran than in Azerbaijan; Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a prominent Azerbaijani-Iranian. The Soviets occupied all of Azerbaijan during World War II but were forced to retreat under British and American pressure after the war, leaving most of Azerbaijan inside Iran. The remainder became a Soviet republic and then an independent state.

The Azerbaijanis are deeply concerned about the Iranians. Azerbaijan is profoundly different from Iran. It is Muslim but heavily secular. It maintains close and formal relations with Israel. It has supported the war in Afghanistan and made logistical facilities available to the United States. The Azerbaijanis claim that Iran is sending clerics north to build Shiite schools that threaten the regime. Obviously, Iran also operates an intelligence network there.

Adding to the complexity, Azerbaijan has long been a major producer of oil and has recently become an exporter of natural gas near the capital of Baku, exporting it to Turkey via a pipeline passing through Georgia. >From the Turkish point of view, this provides alternative sources of energy to Russia and Iran, something that obviously pleases the United States. It is also an obvious reason why Russia sees Azerbaijan as undermining its position as the region's dominant energy exporter.

The Russians have an interest, demonstrated in 2008, to move southward into Georgia. Obviously, if they were able to do this-preferably by a change in government and policy in Tbilisi-they would link up with their position in Armenia, becoming a force both on the Turkish border and facing Azerbaijan. The Russians would like to be able to integrate Azerbaijan's exports into its broader energy policy, which would concentrate power in Russian hands and increase Russian influence on Russia's periphery. This was made clear by Russia's recent offer to buy all of Azerbaijan's natural gas at European-level prices. The Turks would obviously oppose this for the same reason the Russians would want it. Hence, the Turks must support Georgia.

Iran, which should be viewed as an Azerbaijani country as well as a Persian one, has two reasons to want to dominate Azerbaijan. First, it would give Tehran access to Baku oil, and second, it would give Tehran strategic bargaining power with the Russians, something it does not currently have. In addition, talk of present unrest in Iran notwithstanding, Iran's single most vulnerable point in the long term is the potential for Azerbaijanis living in Iran to want to unite with an independent Azerbaijani state. This is not in the offing, but if any critical vulnerability exists in the Iranian polity, this is it.

Consider this from the American side. When we look at the map, we notice that Azerbaijan borders both Russia and Iran. That strategic position alone makes it a major asset to the United States. Add to it oil in Baku and investment by U.S. companies, and Azerbaijan becomes even more attractive. Add to this that its oil exports support Turkey and weaken Russian influence, and its value goes up again. Finally, add to it that Turkey infuriated Azerbaijan by negotiating with Armenia without tying the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh to any Turkish-Armenian settlement. Altogether, the United States has the opportunity to forge a beneficial relationship with Azerbaijan that would put U.S. hands on one of Turkey's sources of oil. At a time when the Turks recognize a declining dependence on the United States, anything that could increase that dependence helps Washington. Moreover, Azerbaijan is a platform from which Washington could make the Iranians uncomfortable, or from which to conduct negotiations with Iran.

An American strategy should include Georgia, but Georgia is always going to be weaker than Russia, and unless the United States is prepared to commit major forces there, the Russians can act, overtly and covertly, at their discretion. A Georgian strategy requires a strong rear base, which Azerbaijan provides, not only strategically but also as a source of capital for Georgia. Georgian-Azerbaijani relations are good, and in the long run so is Turkey's relation with these two countries.

For Azerbaijan, the burning issue is Nagorno-Karabakh. This is not a burning issue for the United States, but the creation of a stable platform in the region is. Armenia, by far the weakest country economically, is allied with the Russians, and it has Russian troops on its territory. Given that the United States has no interest in who governs Nagorno-Karabakh and there is a U.N. resolution on the table favoring Azerbaijan that serves as cover, it is difficult to understand why the United States is effectively neutral. If the United States is committed to Georgia, which is official policy, then it follows that satisfying Azerbaijan and bringing it into a close relationship to the United States would be beneficial to Washington's ability to manage relations with Russia, Iran and Turkey.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Azerbaijan a month ago and Clinton visited this weekend. As complex as the politics of this region are to outsiders, they are clearly increasing in importance to the United States. We could put it this way: Bosnia and Kosovo were obscure concepts to the world until they blew up. Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are equally obscure now. They will not remain obscure unless strategic measures are taken. It is not clear to us that Clinton was simply making a courtesy call or had strategy on her mind. But the logic of the American position is that it should think strategically about the Caucasus, and in doing so, logic and regional dynamics point to a strong relationship with Azerbaijan.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Viewer Mail for Friday, July 9

2010-07-09T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"The politicizing of NASA is just plain stupid. The only group the space program should be reaching out to is Americans."
Pat Pittman
Montgomery, AL

PALIN'S PLAN
The former governor enters the no spin zone to explain her strategy for dealing with illegal immigration.

"Given her vocal support of more secure borders and her obvious political aspirations, one would have thought Sarah Palin to have a coherent strategy for dealing with the illegals already in this country."
Cindy Sanford
Mifflinville, PA

"I can hardly wait until you interview Sarah Palin again and tell her how you are going to run the country when she's president."
C.W. Beeler
Yuba City, CA

"Maybe the Republicans need to look at Sarah Palin for RNC Chairperson!"
Lynne Kelley
Elkhart, IN

"Mama Grizzlys react without thinking or reasoning. That's not my idea of what a true leader should look like."
Al Sams
Cocoa, FL

READY TO RUMBLE?
The New Black Panther Party speaks out about Fox News' coverage of the Justice Department decision not to prosecute two of its members for voter intimidation.
"What would Martin Luther King say about this if he were alive today? I'm appalled and disgusted by the vitriol I see in the New Black Panther movement."
John Pcola
St. Michael, PA

"What an opportunity the ACLU missed to improve their image! It could have shown a lack of bias by speaking out against the Black Panthers."
Max Hughes
Georgetown, TX

"Where do groups like the New Black Panthers get their financing? Without money, these people couldn't be dispatched to intimidate voters."
Maurice Sullivan
Cave City, AR

"If these Black Panthers are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, there will be hundreds of polling places overtaken by similar thugs in the upcoming election."
John Thiry
Ponca City, OK

"The Republicans always take a stand against the KKK, but the Democrats never stand against the Black Panthers."
Jackie Locke
Waxahachie, TX

"I can tell you what would happen to me if I formed a White Panthers group and publicly announced I hated all black people. I would be immediately arrested, convicted of a hate crime and sent to prison."
Dennis Crump
Beachwood, NJ

SPACE ODYSSEY
The head of NASA says he wants to focus on reaching out to the Muslim community to make them feel good about their contributions to space research. Does this qualify as one of this week's dumbest things?

"NASA is funded by our hard-earned tax dollars. Our government shouldn't be spending space dollars for Muslim outreach."
Vinny Ciro
Wantagh, NY

"I can see where this is heading. Obama is seeking another channel to siphon the space program's budget to provide billions to empower his Islamic friends."
Lynne Burns
Little Rock, AR

"I find it ironic that NASA wants to make Muslims feel good about our space program considering many devout Muslims would turn our society back to the 7th century if they could."
Anthony Bulver
Ava, MO

"NASA's expertise should not be spent helping any specific religion with its self-esteem problems. This is absolutely pinheaded."
Heidi Johnson
Lake Jackson, TX

"Obama is phasing out the space program. NASA is on its way to becoming irrelevant."
Doris Fortune
Islamorada, FL

MISCELLANEOUS
"Since the Westbury, Long Island theater has a revolving stage, you won't be able to say the Bold Fresh show there is no spin."
Roger Hart
Orlando, FL

"There is an opiner on Fox,
Millions take heed when he talks,
He is no curmudgeon,
The facts he is judging,
O'Reilly's Factor rocks!"
Debi Nielson
Tempe, AZ

"There once was a pinhead named Bill,
Who said the World Cup was no thrill,
All his bashing was boring,
I couldn't stop snoring,
Therefore, soccer scores one, Bill scores nil."
Charlie Riccio
Owensboro, KY

"Mr. O'Reilly, you're bold and fresh,
You're the best, you're great!
You can bet my DVR's recording your show,
If I can't watch Fox News at 8."
Karen Courtney
Prince George, VA

Russian spies deported, swapped for U.S. spies

2010-07-09T01:34:00Z

I'm not covering this spy story because I think it's a bunch of nonsense. Russians running around trying to get industrial secrets. So now they're going to have some spy swap and all of that. Do you care about that? If you do, let me know, because I don't care about this at all. This wasn't about national security. This was about Blackberry stuff.

Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah may pass Arizona-style immigration law

2010-07-09T01:32:00Z

That'll be interesting to see if they back Arizona up. It does cost the states money to litigate this, and no states have money at this point. So we'll see. We'll follow that story.

Levis Johnston apologizes to the Palins

2010-07-09T01:28:00Z

This guy Levi Johnston, I didn't get into this, because Sarah Palin is a contributor to Fox, and I just don't want to empower this Johnson guy. But now he says "I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true." He sold his story to CBS and other places like People Magazine. And now he's saying "It was all B.S., what I said about them." He's the father of Bristol Palin's baby. He's just a low life creep, this guy. I've never had him on. I've never done anything with him. And now he says he's a liar. Okay, good, thanks for correcting the record, but will CBS correct the record? There comes a point where you have to make a decision on who to put on the air and who not to, and we made a decision early on about that guy. And we were right.

New Black Panther leader attacks Fox News

2010-07-09T01:16:00Z

Everyday we find more outrageous soundbites from these crazy guys. You know, look, the law is the law, and they broke it. I can understand the Federal government saying "We don't want to spend the money and resources. They're lowlife creeps. They really didn't have much effect on anything. But explain it. Just don't say "We're not going to prosecute" and then hide like Attorney General Holder is doing. Explain it. Is that too much to ask? I guess it is.

Bill's New Column: Blood and Treasure

2010-07-08T21:05:00Z

Vampires and their ilk are big business for authors like Stephenie Meyer, and in his new column this week, Bill takes a stab (no pun intended!) at understanding why.

Go: Bill's latest column

Viewer Mail for Thursday, July 8

2010-07-08T18:27:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"The hypocrisy continues from our entertainers. I guess all the planes and boats in Margaritaville run on alternative fuel. Right, Jimmy Buffett?"
Lisa Guardino
Stafford, VA

SNEAKY SOCIALISM?
President Obama pushes a recess appointment through for the head of Medicare and Medicaid. Dr. Donald Berwick says a fair health care system must redistribute wealth since it's mostly poor people who get sick.

"Newt is finally realizing Obama is an ultra-liberal? Before it's over, you and Newt will wake up and realize our President is a socialist. He's only getting started."
Tom Shaw
Midland City, AL

"President Obama's extreme leftist philosophy was obvious from his books and speeches. It's astonishing to hear that you and Newt are just realizing how far left he is."
Ann Goergen
St. Petersburg, FL

"For most of us, the writing was on the wall during the election. You are trained to be fair and balanced, but we dismissed his rhetoric and looked at the facts."
Susan Vanderbilt
Holland, MI

"You and Newt give Obama too much credit for being smart enough to fool Americans. His political skills come only from the cover the mainstream media provides him."
Steven Rushing
Fair Oaks, CA

"Dr. Donald Berwick is a socialist if his ideology calls for taking away from the rich and giving to the poor. That's the basis of socialism."
Alla Severns
El Paso, TX

"If Berwick is so into redistribution, I wonder how much of his own wealth he's redistributed. Or is it just everyone else's money?"
Chris Mann
Wilmington, NC

"Is there anything the next president could do to eliminate the impact of the current president's recess appointment of Donald Berwick?"
Scott Wathne
Washington, D.C.

VAMPIRE CRAZE
Has Twilight mania turned dangerous? There are reports of some teens going overboard and biting each other to show their love for the vampire series.

"As a fan of the Twilight saga, I can assure you that if anyone at my school bit me, even as a joke, they would definitely get punched in the face. It's not a very widespread practice."
Ellen Huber
St. Louis, MO

"Please remember the Twilight series has many positive messages for teens too. Its lead characters choose abstinence, a message every parent can embrace, even if a vampire is delivering it."
Debbie Hodge
Bolingbrook, IL

"The human mouth is really quite dirty, and a bite that breaks the skin can get easily infected and require medical attention."
Libby Bickford
Defiance, OH

"If you believe in God, then you also believe in the devil. The vampire craze is just another tool the evil one is using against our youth."
Bob Sharples
Haines City, FL

"Vampires aren't new. When I was a kid, instead of Edward and Jacob, it was Barnabas and Quentin Collins. Remember them?"
Paul Gavinger
Arlington, TX

"A vampire segment? I thought I was watching an updated version of Inside Edition or something."
Antonio Vigil
Litchfield Park, AZ

"Parents need to watch Twilight with their teens and discuss the two teen characters' decision to wait until marriage for sex."
Debbie Keck
Reno, NV

"The books are based on a human girl and a vampire falling in love. Know your topic and don't be obtuse about it."
Rita Maloney
McBain, MI

"Vampires are just what Hollywood is pushing at this time. Don't be surprised if the Wild West and WWII flicks are next. What comes around goes around."
Edward Kocian
Pittsburgh, PA

"The kids in that report are just looking for an excuse to act out. The books and movies emphasize over and over again that the good vampires don't bite people."
Julie Wagner
Illinois City, IL

"Despite the biting stories, these books and movies are sending positive love and abstinence messages to teens all over the world."
Anne Pappas
Peoria, AZ

PARROTHEAD PINHEAD?
Singer Jimmy Buffett says the blame for the Gulf oil spill falls more on the Bush administration than the Obama administration.

"All these years I thought Jimmy Buffett was a parrothead. Now I find out that he is a pinhead."
Jack Falcon
Issaquah, WA

"Jimmy Buffett shouldn't be politicizing the oil spill. He must have seen it coming and did nothing about it: 'Nibblin on sponge cake, Watching the sun bake, All of those tourists are covered in oil.'"
Joe Drouin
Bremerton, WA

"Jimmy Buffett needs to lay off the margaritas. President Bush was back in Texas for five months when the Obama administration approved Deepwater Horizons."
Carol Piascik
Toms River, NJ

"I'm now denouncing my claim as a parrothead. Why can't he just shut up and sing instead of taking a stab at the former president?"
Cheryl Pardue
Tishomingo, MS

"We spent over $500 at his Margaritaville in Panama City Beach over Memorial Day. We want make that mistake again."
Bob Cherry
Nashville, TN

"How much fuel does Jimmy Buffett's yacht suck up?"
Sharon Ware
Olympia, WA

MISCELLANEOUS
"There once was a man named O'Reilly,
Who is really so dapper and smiley,
With Bold Fresh and a pen,
He travels with Glenn,
And then he opines most unshyly!"
Loretta Noel
Aiken, SC

San Francisco bans sales of sugary drinks on city property

2010-07-08T01:22:00Z

Our pal Gavin Newsom in San Francisco issued an executive order that Coke, Pepsi and orange drinks are not allowed any longer in vending machines on city property. OK... so maybe we'll get Gavin Newsom on later this week and we'll kick that around.

Lindsay Lohan sentenced to jail, rehab

2010-07-08T01:17:00Z

...this Lindsay Lohan--not real important, as far as she's concerned. She's just a spoiled little girl... she needs to be awakened, or she's going to die. So I don't object to her being put in jail. But the over arch--and we're going to do this story probably tomorrow--is, do you put addicts in jail when they're out of control and they won't obey the rules of society? Do you put them in jail? I say you do. Now, I know it costs a lot of money and all of that, but what's the alternative? Let them keep breaking the law, and drunk driving, and thumbing their nose at the court system? You want anarchy in the streets? Addiction hurts other people, not just the addict--other people. So there's got to be some kind of order and regulation, so Miss Lohan is going to have to go. That's it.

Illegal immigrants costing USA $113B yearly

2010-07-08T01:14:00Z

Illegal immigration is costing the United States $113 billion a year... I don't think that's far off. $113 billion strikes me to be about what it is, with hospitals, education, criminal justice, all of that--border patrol.

Federal suit argues Arizona law hurts ties to Mexico

2010-07-08T01:08:00Z

This Arizona thing--every day we're reporting on new things, and now Arizona and Mexico are going back and forth because of this law. There's no doubt that many Mexicans do not like this--they don't want to be singled out, even though they are the source of the problem. Mexico is the source of the problem. Can't support its population, but they don't want to be singled out for scrutiny in the United States--I mean, come on. That's like saying, OK, we have a war on terror against jihadists, but we're not going to single out Muslims. Now, I'm not making a comparison between the war on terror and Mexico, but when you have one group that is in the center of the problem and then they object to being spotlighted, it's insane. And that's what we have, no doubt about it.

Obama struggling to gain approval of independents

2010-07-08T01:00:00Z

President Obama's approval rating is now at 38% amongst independents... and he's in trouble. Now, the president obviously has two and a half years to right himself on a reelection jag, but he's in trouble. There's no doubt that Americans are losing confidence in his leadership. So that's the truth--it's non-partisan. We don't do the ideological thing here. Republicans haven't really put out anything that's threatening to the president as far as personality. If the election were held today, I think Mitt Romney would get the nomination.

Backstage Conversation: It's back!

2010-07-07T22:22:00Z

It's been a few weeks, but the Backstage Conversation is back! Hear Bill's answers to Premium Members' questions in this week's brand new Backstage Conversation webcast.

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Viewer Mail for Wednesday, July 7

2010-07-07T18:26:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Russian women have come a long way since the days of the Cold War."
Annabelle O'Keefe
Elk Grove, CA

STOP THE MADNESS
Univision anchor Jorge Ramos enters the no spin zone to discuss his solutions to dealing with criminal illegal aliens in Arizona.

"I'm beginning to wonder whether instead of passing a law, the state of Arizona should have sued the federal government for not enforcing immigration law."
Dan Reynolds
Lake Panasoffkee, FL

"Illegal immigrants' rights are restricted here in the USA because - wait for it - they are here illegally! Unlike Mexico, we are a nation of laws."
Jeff Lewis
Kingsville, TX

"I'm convinced that the illegal immigration issue is going to divide this country like never before. This nation was built on laws, and it is the government's responsibility to enforce them."
Tom Maloney
Los Angeles, CA

"The fact that most immigrants are not violent criminals is totally immaterial. They have no right to be here. A country that doesn't secure its borders will soon cease to be a nation."
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, AL

"After listening to Jorge Ramos deny the facts, it's no wonder Mexico's state of affairs is in the mess it is."
Uno Bloom
Eagle River, WI

"Jorge Ramos is intellectually dishonest when he refuses to acknowledge he has no idea how to stop illegal violent crime in Arizona. He just wants open borders, no matter what the cost."
Mary Garatti
Willits, CA

"President Obama just flat-out does not care about the problems Arizona is having as a result of illegal immigration."
Pete Horne
Lake Alfred, FL

"The main problem seems to be that illegals don't want to be held to the same standards as citizens. They feel the deserve more and don't need to follow the rule of law."
Alice Wilson
Sun City, AZ

"Your guest kept saying most immigrants aren't criminals. But if they are here illegally, wouldn't that make them criminals?"
James Goss
College Station, TX

"As a legal Hispanic immigrant and a naturalized American citizen, I couldn't disagree with Mr. Ramos more. His position shows a total disregard for the sovereignty of this country."
Sergio Valdes
Jensen Beach, FL

"It's not that your guest didn't know what to do about the problem of criminal illegals crossing into this country. It's that he doesn't care."
Robert Neely
Salisbury, NC

GOOOOOOOAL!
Once again, Dennis Miller and O'Reilly mock the intense fascination with World Cup soccer.

"You and Miller don't know jack about soccer. Making fun of a low score is missing the whole point of the game."
Jay Sanchez
Pompano Beach, FL

"Soccer (in fact, football) is the only sport that gets the whole world united. Too bad you don't get it."
Anabella Wulff
Newport Beach, CA

"You and Miller sound like hillbillies discussing the World Cup. Soccer is a test of athleticism, a chess game, and an artistic creation."
Steven Rainwater
Orlando, FL

"You shouldn't make fun of soccer. It's obvious to everyone you know nothing about it."
Friedrich Saam
Chapel Hill, NC

DID YOU SEE THAT?
An eye-catching new ad for a Russian airline company features flight attendants washing the plane in bikinis.

"I must admit I was very offended by the Russian airline commercial. Please feel free to offend me like that again."
Jeff Nix
Lawrenceville, GA

"Regarding the commercial for the Russian airline, was there even a plane in that ad? I missed it."
Dave Ryan
Clovis, CA

"After seeing the Avionova segment, I was forced to find the full length video on the Internet. I'm booking my flight tomorrow."
David Aleman
Metairie, LA

"The beautiful Russian women washing that plane were KGB agents in training, not airline employees. They may have fooled you, but they didn't fool me."
Ron Bannister
Webster, MA

"Why the viewer warning? The commercial didn't show anything any American couldn't see during a summertime visit to the local beach."
Geoff Miller
Boulder Creek, CA

Exclusive clip: Bold & Fresh Tour in Columbus!

2010-07-07T01:15:00Z

So you weren't able to make it out to Columbus for the Bold & Fresh Tour, huh? Never fear--we have a ten-minute clip of some of our favorite moments from the show just for Premium Members!

Go: This week's Backstage Conversation

Debt is the Tea Party's primary concern

2010-07-07T00:00:00Z

The Tea Party people were polled as well, and their top concern is the expansion of the federal government. That binds the Tea Party people together. The debt, the money spent by the federal government, the expansion of all of that--that's what's driving the Tea Party.

Most Americans favor repeal of health care law

2010-07-06T23:57:00Z

60%, according to Rasmussen, favor a repeal of the health care law; 41% say it won't be repealed... 36% oppose repeal. Again, the vast majority of Americans do not like the government running all of this stuff.

Health care reform might mean longer waits at the ER

2010-07-06T23:53:00Z

...the Associated Press is reporting that some health experts say there's going to be a bigger waiting--lines--in the ERs across the country because family physicians are going to quit when Obama-care kicks in. They're not making enough money, they're not going to get reimbursed enough, so they're either just going to leave the profession or very limited practice. So people aren't going to have doctors to go to, they have to go to the ER. People without insurance will have it by the government, but they might not have a doctor--so where are you going to find a doctor? ...So this is a big thing. It's a study from the RAND Corporation, which is decent. RAND does pretty good work, and unintended consequences of any government-run program are going to be big.

Mexico drug war violence nears US border

2010-07-06T23:51:00Z

Violence continues south of the border... you get major gun battles going on down there between the drug cartels and the authorities, and then the drug cartels and each other and all of that chaos. It's going to spill over here--it's only a matter of time.

64% of Arizonans oppose automatic citizenship for babies

2010-07-06T23:48:00Z

64% of people in Arizona say that the children of illegal immigrants should not automatically become US citizens when they're born--that's according to a new Rasmussen report. These are likely voters in Arizona... because it's a con game. Pregnant women sneak across the border, their babies are born, they're US citizens, and the mother gets to stay and all of that. Everybody knows the game. Just 26% in this poll disagree and say that children should automatically become US citizens. Just 26%--that's the hardcore left.

Arizona candidate wants to cut power to illegals' homes

2010-07-06T23:45:00Z

There's a guy in Arizona, Barry Wong, who's running for corporate commissioner, and he wants to cut off power to people who are not in the country legally--and in Arizona that would mean you couldn't live there, because it's so hot. So I don't like this, I've gotta tell you. I don't think we should be punishing people in a physical way even if they are here illegally. I think that just goes way too far. If people are here illegally, I think the authorities should know about it, and then the immigration people, ICE, should take steps to find out what the heck's going on. Do you cut off their power? No. I just don't think that's what America is supposed to be.

The O'Quiz: Test your news knowledge

2010-07-06T18:47:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was up for the first time in a couple of weeks, increasing by nearly half a point to 5.97 questions correct out of 10, compared to the previous week's average of 5.53.

Go: This week's O'Quiz

Viewer Mail for Tuesday, July 6

2010-07-06T18:25:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"I wonder how Obama and the Justice Department would react if tea partiers were intimidating voters with night sticks."
Michael Bourgoin
Conway, AR

POLITICAL MISCALCULATION?
Is President Obama filing suit against the state of Arizona over its new anti-illegal immigration law as a means of securing the Hispanic vote?

"I'm confused. The government has brought suit against Arizona for passing an immigration law, but won't go after California for passing a medical marijuana law?"
Ann Flood
Vallejo, CA

"The Obama administration doesn't need to win the lawsuit against Arizona. It simply needs to create the appearance of concern in order to retain Hispanic votes."
Daniel Scherr
Burbank, CA

"If President Obama and the State Department really fear a patchwork of immigration laws, why don't they sue sanctuary cities?"
David Pond
Palm Desert, CA

"The Hispanic people I know support Arizona enforcing federal immigration law since the federal government won't take a proactive role in enforcing it."
Lucille Gallagher
Denver, CO

"The Obama administration is suing Arizona because people's civil rights might be violated, but they've dropped charges against the Black Panthers who definitely violated voters' rights."
Chris Cusack
Silver Spring, MD

"The administration better do something to secure the border. If they don't, the Arizona lawsuit gives the appearance they want open borders."
Cory Burkhardt
San Antonio, TX

JUSTICE DISSENTION
There is conflict at the Justice Department over Eric Holder's decision not to prosecute the New Black Panthers who intimidated voters at a polling place in Pennsylvania.

"Since Eric Holder is giving the Black Panthers a free pass, won't this open the door for Nazi skinheads and the Klan to do the same exact thing?"
Steven Slater
Albuquerque, NM

"I am surprised that President Obama didn't have much to say regarding the Black Panther patrol at the Pennsylvania polling place. He had quite a bit to say about the Professor Gates situation in Boston."
Stacey Shore
Stoughton, MA

"Black Panthers have no more place at polling stations than people in white robes and pointy white hats. Either is an abomination."
Ed Duffey
Suffolk, VA

"President Obama is setting a precedent by not prosecuting the Black Panthers. Will Klan members who do the same thing during November's election also be immune from prosecution?"
Mike Ma
San Francisco, CA

"I feel this is an abuse of certain liberties endowed to all Americans. The truth must be told and arrests should be made."
Paul Figuly
Overland Park, KS

"If I had stood in front of the same polling place as a New White Panther, I assure you I would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
Dr. Abe Michaels
Port Washington, NY

"Eric Holder and President Obama are concerned about the civil rights of illegal aliens in Arizona, but not for white voters intimidated by Black Panther thugs in Pennsylvania."
George Sellers
Santa Barbara, Costa Rica

"This decision makes it legal for any racist to stand outside a polling place with weapons. Somebody tell Alan Colmes this is certainly a big deal."
Jay Roberts
Mustang, OK

"It's amazing that Alan Colmes can't admit that anyone greeted at their local polling place by two large angry looking men brandishing clubs would be intimidated."
Midge Frost
Roseburg, OR

EULOGY SNAFU?
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) dies at age 92. Bill Clinton excuses Byrd's former association with the KKK, calling him a country boy who was just trying to get elected.

"Slick Willie was simply trying to compare Sen. Byrd's indiscretion with the KKK as the same sort of human character error he made with Monica Lewinsky."
Jerry Oglesbee
Sour Lake, TX

"By saying in his eulogy that Robert Byrd joined the KKK to get elected, wasn't President Clinton saying West Virginians are racist?"
Michael Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO

"Since we can only surmise the Senator's intentions for joining the KKK, making it an issue only gives the left sound bites to drool over."
Josh Peterson
Grand Junction, CO

"The mainstream media seems far more tolerant of Bill Clinton's remarks about Senator Byrd than they were about Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond."
John Bagley
Providence Forge, VA

"When Bill Clinton said 'he did a bad thing, he spent the rest of his life making up for it, that's what good people do,' it sounded like he was talking about himself."
Mike Lyman
Lihue, HI

"As far as I'm concerned, Sen. Byrd was the perfect example of why we need term limits in this country."
Scott Bagger
Peoria, AZ

"I can assure you that the 'country boy' Robert Byrd never changed his believes, but he changed his politics with the times. He was the definition of a hypocrite."
Dean Bengtson
Victoria, TX

"President Clinton thinks it's okay to be a racist in order to get elected? I think it dishonors all the men and women who have given their lives for this country to bury Sen. Byrd at Arlington National Cemetery."
Keith Sandrock
San Juan Capistrano, CA

"You defended Sen. Byrd's civil rights shenanigans by saying he was immature. He was 54-years-old when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act for crying out loud!"
Bill McNamara
New Britain, CT

"Bill Clinton has spent his entire life rewriting history, but it's usually his own."
Mary McLemore
Pike Road, AL

Bill's summer reading list

2010-07-06T17:54:00Z

Looking for a new book to occupy your beach time this summer? Here are my picks for great summer reads.

Fiction

The Gate House
Nelson DeMille
The Glass Rainbow
James Lee Burke
Blue-Eyed Devil
Robert Parker
The Overton Window
Glenn Beck

All these novels are good beach or plane reads. They move along and entertain without being stupid. Burke is my personal favorite fiction writer.

Non-Fiction

Get Capone
Jonathan Eig
Steinbrenner
Bill Madden
Willie Mays
William Hirsch

A crime book and two baseball tomes. It's summer and the living is easy.

New crossword: Signers & Their Namesakes

2010-07-02T19:55:00Z

This week's puzzle includes half of the 56 men who signed the Declaration 234 years ago, as well as some contemporary folks with the same names. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Bill's New Column: Shooting Down the Constitution

2010-07-01T18:57:00Z

In his new column for this week, Bill takes a look at the decision made by the Supreme Court on handgun ownership--and what the dissenters on the opinion had to say.

Go: Bill's latest column

Viewer Mail for Tuesday, June 29

2010-06-30T00:11:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"Stossel is right but why stop with illegal aliens? We can eliminate 100% of crime overnight simply by legalizing everything."
Bob Cash
Mebane, NC

WAR ZONE CHAOS
As the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, how much of the blame falls on President Obama?

"When you say Afghanistan is a mess, I believe that is the understatement of the century."
Jeremy Henderson
Albuquerque, NM

"The American people would be well-advised not to wish troops out of Afghanistan just yet. We can't find out what al Qaeda would do with free reign of that country."
Landon Garner
Rogers, AR

"If the Taliban controls Afghanistan again, they will be in an even stronger position to destabilize Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons."
Bill Rothe
Hilton Head, SC

"Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in charge of Afghanistan for years. Monica Crowley can't blame Obama for this mess. He needs to be given a chance to clean it up."
Hermann Thoni
Los Angeles, CA

"Alan Colmes wants to get out of Afghanistan and go back if we find a credible threat there? Does he expect to just start from scratch?"
Corky Axelson
Cupertino, CA

"I believe the best strategy is to withdraw, but keep a substantial force nearby. When al Qaeda moves back in, we can launch tactical strikes and keep them off-balance."
Bob Jones
Overland Park, KS

LIBERTARIAN VIEW
With open warfare going on between Arizona and the feds over immigration, how would John Stossel deal with the border issue?

"John Stossel goes beyond libertarian when it comes to immigration. The primary duty of the federal government is to defend our borders, at any cost."
Paul Williams
Fresno, CA

"John Stossel's position on protecting the border is a perfect example of what libertarians will continuously fail to gain mainstream traction in American politics."
Frank Spryszak
Toledo, OH

"John Stossel is complaining about how much money it would cost to stop illegal immigrants from entering this country, but is he considering how much they are costing this country already?"
David Dowe
Rochester, NY

"Stossel's take is like saying that even though you're in your own home, paying rent, you should remove you front door and let your neighbor eat the food out of your fridge."
Paul Hovanec
Butler, PA

"When Stossel says enforcing the border won't stop people from overstaying their visas, he is right. However, it would stop career criminals who are deported from reentering the country."
RansomHicks
Ontario, CA

"Increasing the number of legal immigrants and leaving the border unsecured will only result in more legal immigrants and the same number of illegal immigrants."
Joe Viera
Glendale, AZ

"Arguing the high cost of securing the border is a losing argument. The sovereignty of the USA is the primary, if not the only, responsibility of the President."
Paul Ketter, Jr.
Pittsburgh, PA

"I think we need to send John Stossel down to one of those Arizona border towns for a couple of days. Then ask him the border question again."
Elaine Melair
Maple Glen, PA

APOLOGY NECESSARY?
Beatles legend Paul McCartney refuses to apologize for taking a cheap shot against President Bush while accepting an award at the White House.

"What happened to the days when celebrities graciously accepted awards with decorum? Paul McCartney may be wealthy, but he still lacks character and class."
Heather Johnson
York, PA

"Love McCartney and I don't think he needs to apologize, but what he said was certainly inappropriate for the venue."
Susi Baldwin
Key West, FL

"I grew up listening to the Beatles and spent several thousand dollars on tickets and travel to Paul's concerts. I won't do that again."
Daryl Maxwell
San Antonio, TX

"As a visitor and guest in a foreign country, it is disrespectful to express one's personal views on that nation's business. Paul should know that."
Jan Meyers
Pittsburgh, PA

"Time for a well-armed American militia to send Paul McCartney back to England where he can pay their taxes to support their libraries."
Robert Banoczi
Murrieta, CA

"For a guy with a high school education, Paul McCartney sure talks smart. I wonder how many times he's seen the inside of a library."
George Klug
Plover, WI

"McCartney insulted the people of the United States with his thoughtless remark. All Sir Paul has done is diminish himself."
Norman Schwartz
Oro Valley, AZ

"It was tasteless and insulting for Paul McCartney to denigrate an American president while accepting an award from America on American soil."
Nancy Costanza
Rockville Centre, NY

Sheryl Crow: Tea Partiers 'too uneducated' to understand certain issues

2010-06-29T21:59:00Z

Sheryl Crow says that the Tea Party people are idiots. ...Nice woman, met her, fine, good singer--do we care what she says about the Tea Party people? Not really. Entitled to her opinion, but, I dunno--if I'm sitting across from Sheryl in an interview, I think you know what would happen, right? Do we all know?

Partisans split on role of government

2010-06-29T21:56:00Z

A Gallup poll says that Republicans, 81%, say the government is trying to do too much they don't want--this big federal intrusion--but 63% of Democrats want the big nanny state. So there you go, there's your political party division right there. So the Democrats want the big government, big spending, big taxes, and the Republicans do not. So the momentum has swung back to the Republican party even though it's kind of leaderless right now. We expect in November that will play out unless some big thing happens.

Putin condemns arrests of Russian spies in USA

2010-06-29T21:53:00Z

We didn't cover the Russian spy case--federal prosecutors say 11 people were spying for Russia in communities from Seattle to D.C. It was mostly industrial, I would imagine, trying to get high tech stuff, and the FBI busted them. They've got taps... and they got intercepted by the FBI, and all of that. I didn't cover it because it's kind of murky on what exactly these spies were doing. When I find that out, I'll probably do something on it.

Pundits, lawmakers split over McChrystal departure

2010-06-29T21:47:00Z

How about that big Tata interview, huh? The general is saying flat-out that Rolling Stone lied to McChrystal--used off-the-record stuff, and the general tells us that he gets that right from McChrystal's staff who were on the scene. So I believe the general--we know what Rolling Stone is, we know who this guy Hastings is. Makes perfect sense that he'd bag McChrystal and ruin his career. McChrystal's only 55 years old, interestingly enough--and he's done. He's going to retire. He's filed the retirement papers, and it's a shame. The guy's a patriot--brave man, risked his life for his country, as I said, and this weasel Hastings and Rolling Stone magazine destroy him. Boy. Tell you what--life is hard, huh? Life is hard.

Stratfor.com: The 30-Year War in Afghanistan

2010-06-29T20:41:00Z

The Afghan War is the longest war in U.S. history. It began in 1980 and continues to rage. It began under Democrats but has been fought under both Republican and Democratic administrations, making it truly a bipartisan war. The conflict is an odd obsession of U.S. foreign policy, one that never goes away and never seems to end. As the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal reminds us, the Afghan War is now in its fourth phase.

The Afghan War's First Three Phases
The first phase of the Afghan War began with the Soviet invasion in December 1979, when the United States, along with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, organized and sustained Afghan resistance to the Soviets. This resistance was built around mujahideen, fighters motivated by Islam. Washington's purpose had little to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with U.S.-Soviet competition. The United States wanted to block the Soviets from using Afghanistan as a base for further expansion and wanted to bog the Soviets down in a debilitating guerrilla war. The United States did not so much fight the war as facilitate it. The strategy worked. The Soviets were blocked and bogged down. This phase lasted until 1989, when Soviet troops were withdrawn.

The second phase lasted from 1989 until 2001. The forces the United States and its allies had trained and armed now fought each other in complex coalitions for control of Afghanistan. Though the United States did not take part in this war directly, it did not lose all interest in Afghanistan. Rather, it was prepared to exert its influence through allies, particularly Pakistan. Most important, it was prepared to accept that the Islamic fighters it had organized against the Soviets would govern Afghanistan. There were many factions, but with Pakistani support, a coalition called the Taliban took power in 1996. The Taliban in turn provided sanctuary for a group of international jihadists called al Qaeda, and this led to increased tensions with the Taliban following jihadist attacks on U.S. facilities abroad by al Qaeda.

The third phase began on Sept. 11, 2001, when al Qaeda launched attacks on the mainland United States. Given al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan, the United States launched operations designed to destroy or disrupt al Qaeda and dislodge the Taliban. The United States commenced operations barely 30 days after Sept. 11, which was not enough time to mount an invasion using U.S. troops as the primary instrument. Rather, the United States made arrangements with factions that were opposed to the Taliban (and defeated in the Afghan civil war). This included organizations such as the Northern Alliance, which had remained close to the Russians; Shiite groups in the west that were close to the Iranians and India; and other groups or subgroups in other regions. These groups supported the United States out of hostility to the Taliban and/or due to substantial bribes paid by the United States.

The overwhelming majority of ground forces opposing the Taliban in 2001 were Afghan. The United States did, however, insert special operations forces teams to work with these groups and to identify targets for U.S. airpower, the primary American contribution to the war. The use of U.S. B-52s against Taliban forces massed around cities in the north caused the Taliban to abandon any thought of resisting the Northern Alliance and others, even though the Taliban had defeated them in the civil war.

Unable to hold fixed positions against airstrikes, the Taliban withdrew from the cities and dispersed. The Taliban were not defeated, however; they merely declined to fight on U.S. terms. Instead, they redefined the war, preserving their forces and regrouping. The Taliban understood that the cities were not the key to Afghanistan. Instead, the countryside would ultimately provide control of the cities. From the Taliban point of view, the battle would be waged in the countryside, while the cities increasingly would be isolated.

The United States simply did not have sufficient force to identify, engage and destroy the Taliban as a whole. The United States did succeed in damaging and dislodging al Qaeda, with the jihadist group's command cell becoming isolated in northwestern Pakistan. But as with the Taliban, the United States did not defeat al Qaeda because the United States lacked significant forces on the ground. Even so, al Qaeda prime, the original command cell, was no longer in a position to mount 9/11-style attacks.

During the Bush administration, U.S. goals for Afghanistan were modest. First, the Americans intended to keep al Qaeda bottled up and to impose as much damage as possible on the group. Second, they intended to establish an Afghan government, regardless of how ineffective it might be, to serve as a symbolic core. Third, they planned very limited operations against the Taliban, which had regrouped and increasingly controlled the countryside. The Bush administration was basically in a holding operation in Afghanistan. It accepted that U.S. forces were neither going to be able to impose a political solution on Afghanistan nor create a coalition large enough control the country. U.S. strategy was extremely modest under Bush: to harass al Qaeda from bases in Afghanistan, maintain control of cities and logistics routes, and accept the limits of U.S. interests and power.

The three phases of American involvement in Afghanistan had a common point: All three were heavily dependent on non-U.S. forces to do the heavy lifting. In the first phase, the mujahideen performed this task. In the second phase, the United States relied on Pakistan to manage Afghanistan's civil war. In the third phase, especially in the beginning, the United States depended on Afghan forces to fight the Taliban. Later, when greater numbers of American and allied forces arrived, the United States had limited objectives beyond preserving the Afghan government and engaging al Qaeda wherever it might be found (and in any event, by 2003, Iraq had taken priority over Afghanistan). In no case did the Americans use their main force to achieve their goals.

The Fourth Phase of the Afghan War
The fourth phase of the war began in 2009, when U.S. President Barack Obama decided to pursue a more aggressive strategy in Afghanistan. Though the Bush administration had toyed with this idea, it was Obama who implemented it fully. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama asserted that he would pay greater attention to Afghanistan. The Obama administration began with the premise that while the Iraq War was a mistake, the Afghan War had to be prosecuted. It reasoned that unlike Iraq, which had a tenuous connection to al Qaeda at best, Afghanistan was the group's original base. He argued that Afghanistan therefore should be the focus of U.S. military operations. In doing so, he shifted a strategy that had been in place for 30 years by making U.S. forces the main combatants in the war.

Though Obama's goals were not altogether clear, they might be stated as follows:

Deny al Qaeda a base in Afghanistan.
Create an exit strategy from Afghanistan similar to the one in Iraq by creating the conditions for negotiating with the Taliban; make denying al Qaeda a base a condition for the resulting ruling coalition.
Begin withdrawal by 2011.

To do this, there would be three steps:

Increase the number and aggressiveness of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Create Afghan security forces under the current government to take over from the Americans.
Increase pressure on the Taliban by driving a wedge between them and the population and creating intra-insurgent rifts via effective counterinsurgency tactics.

In analyzing this strategy, there is an obvious issue: While al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan in 2001, Afghanistan is no longer its primary base of operations. The group has shifted to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries. As al Qaeda is thus not dependent on any one country for its operational base, denying it bases in Afghanistan does not address the reality of its dispersion. Securing Afghanistan, in other words, is no longer the solution to al Qaeda.

Obviously, Obama's planners fully understood this. Therefore, sanctuary denial for al Qaeda had to be, at best, a secondary strategic goal. The primary strategic goal was to create an exit strategy for the United States based on a negotiated settlement with the Taliban and a resulting coalition government. The al Qaeda issue depended on this settlement, but could never be guaranteed. In fact, neither the long-term survival of a coalition government nor the Taliban policing al Qaeda could be guaranteed.

The exit of U.S. forces represents a bid to reinstate the American strategy of the past 30 years, namely, having Afghan forces reassume the primary burden of fighting. The creation of an Afghan military is not the key to this strategy. Afghans fight for their clans and ethnic groups. The United States is trying to invent a national army where no nation exists, a task that assumes the primary loyalty of Afghans will shift from their clans to a national government, an unlikely proposition.

The Real U.S. Strategy
Rather than trying to strengthen the Karzai government, the real strategy is to return to the historical principles of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan: alliance with indigenous forces. These indigenous forces would pursue strategies in the American interest for their own reasons, or because they are paid, and would be strong enough to stand up to the Taliban in a coalition. As CIA Director Leon Panetta put it this weekend, however, this is proving harder to do than expected.

The American strategy is, therefore, to maintain a sufficient force to shape the political evolution on the ground, and to use that force to motivate and intimidate while also using economic incentives to draw together a coalition in the countryside. Operations like those in Helmand province-where even Washington acknowledges that progress has been elusive and slower than anticipated-clearly are designed to try to draw regional forces into regional coalitions that eventually can enter a coalition with the Taliban without immediately being overwhelmed. If this strategy proceeds, the Taliban in theory will be spurred to negotiate out of concern that this process eventually could leave it marginalized.

There is an anomaly in this strategy, however. Where the United States previously had devolved operational responsibility to allied groups, or simply hunkered down, this strategy tries to return to devolved responsibilities by first surging U.S. operations. The fourth phase actually increases U.S. operational responsibility in order to reduce it.

From the grand strategic point of view, the United States needs to withdraw from Afghanistan, a landlocked country where U.S. forces are dependent on tortuous supply lines. Whatever Afghanistan's vast mineral riches, mining them in the midst of war is not going to happen. More important, the United States is overcommitted in the region and lacks a strategic reserve of ground forces. Afghanistan ultimately is not strategically essential, and this is why the United States has not historically used its own forces there.

Obama's attempt to return to that track after first increasing U.S. forces to set the stage for the political settlement that will allow a U.S. withdrawal is hampered by the need to begin terminating the operation by 2011 (although there is no fixed termination date). It will be difficult to draw coalition partners into local structures when the foundation-U.S. protection-is withdrawing. Strengthening local forces by 2011 will be difficult. Moreover, the Taliban's motivation to enter into talks is limited by the early withdrawal. At the same time, with no ground combat strategic reserve, the United States is vulnerable elsewhere in the world, and the longer the Afghan drawdown takes, the more vulnerable it becomes (hence the 2011 deadline in Obama's war plan).

In sum, this is the quandary inherent in the strategy: It is necessary to withdraw as early as possible, but early withdrawal undermines both coalition building and negotiations. The recruitment and use of indigenous Afghan forces must move extremely rapidly to hit the deadline (though officially on track quantitatively, there are serious questions about qualitative measures)-hence, the aggressive operations that have been mounted over recent months. But the correlation of forces is such that the United States probably will not be able to impose an acceptable political reality in the time frame available. Thus, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is said to be opening channels directly to the Taliban, while the Pakistanis are increasing their presence. Where a vacuum is created, regardless of how much activity there is, someone will fill it.

Therefore, the problem is to define how important Afghanistan is to American global strategy, bearing in mind that the forces absorbed in Iraq and Afghanistan have left the United States vulnerable elsewhere in the world. The current strategy defines the Islamic world as the focus of all U.S. military attention. But the world has rarely been so considerate as to wait until the United States is finished with one war before starting another. Though unknowns remain unknowable, a principle of warfare is to never commit all of your reserves in a battle-one should always maintain a reserve for the unexpected. Strategically, it is imperative that the United States begin to free up forces and re-establish its ground reserves.

Given the time frame the Obama administration's grand strategy imposes, and given the capabilities of the Taliban, it is difficult to see how it will all work out. But the ultimate question is about the American obsession with Afghanistan. For 30 years, the United States has been involved in a country that is virtually inaccessible for the United States. Washington has allied itself with radical Islamists, fought against radical Islamists or tried to negotiate with radical Islamists. What the United States has never tried to do is impose a political solution through the direct application of American force. This is a new and radically different phase of America's Afghan obsession. The questions are whether it will work and whether it is even worth it.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.

Viewer Mail for Monday, June 28

2010-06-29T00:10:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"If the General was dumb enough to be taken in by Michael Hastings, what's to say he wouldn't be foolish enough to be taken in by the insurgents?"
Carol Bruce
Jordan Valley, OR

RIOTING IN CANADA
A liberal columnist for the Toronto Globe & Mail, Rick Salutin, enters the no spin zone to explain the actions of the violent protesters at the G20 summit in his city.

"Salutin doesn't defend the violent acts of the rioters. He deplores the fact that a bunch of empty suits come to Toronto, shut down the city, spend millions and accomplish nothing."
Dante Giammarco
Lake Ariel, PA

"The vast majority of G20 protesters are peaceful. Only a small percentage is violent, and those protesters should be arrested and imprisoned."
John Hurley
Virginia Beach, VA

"The rioters are completely out of hand and should be held financially responsible for the damage they caused. But I agree with your guest's point that the G20 summit was completely useless."
Ellen Marie Van Fossen
Elizabethtown, PA

"Although the protesters reacted badly, Mr. Salutin made a great point: the whole city was shut down, disrupting everything for a long time. For what?"
Dora Gallardo
Uvalde, TX

"The rioters in Toronto were anti-capitalist anarchists. What if these spoiled brats were to channel all that energy into getting real jobs?"
Kelli Rapini
Sonora, CA

"The average American feels the G8 and G20 are directed only at the economic well-being of corporate fat cats and the rich. The policies don't benefit average people. That's what drives the anger."
Vince Laurelli
Huntingdon Valley, PA

"Mr. Salutin is right. It is a crime for world leaders to meet knowing full well they are incurring an enormous amount of needless expense."
Marilyn Schoenthaler
Yardley, PA

"The G20 moving their meeting to a military base or some other location would be an example of giving into terrorists."
Brian Cavanaugh
Los Angeles, CA

"Salutin has long been a champion of the left and his sympathies lie solely with the criminal thugs who rampaged downtown Toronto."
Steve Flanagan
Ottawa, Canada

"The Toronto Globe & Mail is the equivalent to your New York Times. You got a taste of its extreme leftist lean with the Rick Salutin interview."
Larry Comeau
Ottawa, Canada

"As a Canadian, I feel you were overly patient with the embarrassingly vacant Globe & Mail columnist. His equating the G20 leaders with the violent anarchists in the streets is appalling."
Mary Gowan
Ottawa, Canada

"We are proud of our Prime Minister. And we're proud of the Toronto police, who did an excellent job of protecting the world leaders from those criminal thugs."
Ken & Anne Watson
Burlington, Ontario

BLAME GAME
Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings defends his journalistic integrity in the McChrystal controversy.

"Bernie got it right. The buck stops with Gen. McChrystal. Scapegoating Hastings is a transparent attempt to shift the blame."
Jerry Dickey
Surprise, AZ

"McChrystal used the liberal media to pull off the best bait and switch in years."
Bill Hancock
North Myrtle Beach, SC

"Hastings isn't a weasel. He's a snake. My daddy used to say, 'Assume all snakes are poisonous until proven otherwise.' Gen. McChrystal should have known that."
Patty Ramirez
Houston, TX

"A slight qualification: Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings is not a weasel. He's a festering weasel."
Michael Ingmire
Charlotte, NC

"McChrystal has no one to blame but McChrystal. Stupid is as stupid does. We all love to point fingers, but place the blame were it truly belongs."
David French
St. Peters, MO

"Gen. McChrystal should have remembered the lesson of Pearl Harbor in his dealings with Rolling Stone. Over-confidence and hubris made a sneak attack possible. History sadly repeats itself."
Michael Lockatell
Bon Aire, VA

SMART ASS COMMENT?
Vice President Biden makes a stop at a custard shop in Wisconsin while campaigning for Russ Feingold. When the shop manager asks to have his taxes lowered in exchange for free custard, the veep calls him a smart ass.

"Regarding the comments Joe Biden made to the manager at the Wisconsin custard shop, I believe almost all Americans want lower taxes. Does that make us all smart alecks?"
Robert Vera
El Paso, TX

"Just who does Joe Biden think he is calling a private American citizen a smart ass for daring to ask him to consider lowering taxes? He has apparently forgotten who he's working for."
Paul Minshew
Round Rock, TX

"Even during an innocent photo op, Joe Biden can't help getting defensive with a hard-working proprietor."
Tim Goggins
Cedarburg, WI

"We hold our military commanders accountable for what they say, but Joe Biden can run around cursing hard-working Americans all he wants apparently. This is an embarrassment."
Jamie Reese
Vernon, AL

"Joe Biden proved when you get something for nothing, you never appreciate it."
Don Mills
Palmetto, FL

"Since when does asking our Vice President to lower taxes make us smart asses? I'm a small business owner myself and I would have asked him the same exact thing."
Tina Shareef
Atlanta, GA

Panetta: Cyber-crime could paralyze USA

2010-06-29T00:04:00Z

Leon Panetta, who I do like--CIA director--says that cyberattacks are wha's worrying the agency right now. Attacks on computers could bring down the entire US communications system, and that's true. So I'm glad that Leon and the CIA are on it, and let's pray that they can protect us.

Sen. Byrd dies at 92

2010-06-29T00:02:00Z

Robert Byrd died at 92, the longest-running senator--I had no use for the man, but he did serve his country for a long, long time.

Reporters caught on tape mocking Sarah Palin speech

2010-06-29T00:00:00Z

Some reporters were caught on tape mocking Sarah Palin. We'll play you the tape that we have. It's more of the same; you're not going to be surprised, but the fact that it's on tape makes it more visible and in some cases shocking.

Karzai aides accused of derailing criminal corruption cases

2010-06-28T23:57:00Z

It seems that some American intelligence officials believe that President Karzai is derailing criminal corruption cases--he's not cooperating, because his brother's a crook and a lot of his friends are crooks, so he's sabotaging the investigations. It's hard to tell what's true over there, but the reports coming out of there are that Karzai's really a bad guy, and if that's the case, we're never going to win. We've got to have a good guy in there, and he's a bad guy. It looks like that is the truth.

Philadelphia to withhold arrest data from immigration agents

2010-06-28T23:53:00Z

We have some interesting things coming out of Philadelphia where the mayor there, a guy named Nutter--no jokes, no puns--says he's not going to report criminal illegal aliens (people in this country under false pretenses committing actual crimes--not immigration crimes--but crimes against people and property)--he's not going to report them to ICE, because it's a violation of human rights of all immigrants.

This is just nuts from Mayor Nutter--I promised I wouldn't, but I couldn't hold back. So we're going to stay on this story. We've invited the mayor on the program. We'll see what happens. But Philadelphia--kind of a crazy town, and they have a big crime problem there, by the way.

The O'Quiz: Do you know the latest news?

2010-06-28T20:28:00Z

Test your knowledge of the news with a brand new O'Quiz for this week. Last week's average score was down yet again, slumping just under half a point to 5.53 questions correct out of 10, compared to the previous week's average of 5.92.

Go: This week's O'Quiz

Viewer Mail for Friday, June 25

2010-06-26T00:09:00Z

LETTER OF THE DAY!
"My first thought when I heard the comments were reported in Rolling Stone was how excited the editors of that magazine must have been to take part in bringing down a four-star general."
Charles Drake
Woodstock, GA

SLAMMING ROLLING STONE
Geraldo Rivera goes after the magazine for the shoddy journalism that destroyed Gen. Stanley McChrystal's distinguished career.

"For his passionate statements denouncing Rolling Stone's exploitation of journalistic privilege, Geraldo Rivera is a patriot."
Sherron Trimble
College Grove, TN

"What is said in a bar in frustration after a few drinks is not an interview and should not be quoted. Soldiers are at risk here."
Norma Green
Midland, TX

"I agree with Geraldo. Gen. McChrystal should have known better, but the Rolling Stone reporter is a quisling."
Dale Nelson
Apple Valley, MN

"For the first time ever, I agree with Geraldo. The article was wrong on so many levels and the magazine has proven itself to be trash."
Marianne Hyson
Palmdale, CA

"Shouldn't Obama have considered that this reporter is a far-left hatchet guy before he fired McChrystal? Instead it looks like the President accepted the article as sworn testimony."
Ed Nadolski
Lafayette, CO

"Are we sure Rolling Stone didn't betray the General by publishing off-the-record comments? Maybe the General was too honorable to complain."
Bob Wise
Spring, TX

"Geraldo usually rubs me the wrong way, but this time he is dead on right about McChrystal and Rolling Stone magazine."
Robert DeForke
Kerrville, TX

"I'm not a supporter of President Obama, but this time, he did the only thing he could have done. Otherwise, he would have lost credibility as Commander-in-Chief."
Bruce Harrison
Hercules, CA

PRESIDENT DOOLITTLE?
Glenn Beck has a hilarious take on why so many animals are caught on tape lurking around the White House. What do all the flies, bees and rats know that we don't?

"Beck knows what he's talking about when it comes to flies. They too think something smells at the White House."
Bill Gordon
Acton, CA

"When you and Beck giggled your way through the piece concerning the President being surrounded by flies, bees and rats, you needlessly demeaned not only the President, but yourselves."
Dr. Richard Bashore
La Quinta, CA

"We have a history of having animals in the White House. What's so strange about that?"
David Yedidsion, M.D.
Los Angeles, CA

"Beck is right. Obama could be lord of the flies."
Julie Blink
Citrus Heights, CA

"The pests of the world are taking over at the White House, just like in Lord of the Flies!"
Gus Moore
Louisville, KY

"How many folks out there are saying they'd love to be a fly on the wall at this White House? Maybe there's a connection..."
Christine West
Columbus, IN

BULLYING UPSIDE?
In all seriousness, comedian Chris Rock says bullies may actually be doing their victims a service by making them stronger people.

"I'm with Chris Rock. Although it hurts to be bullied, it also helps you become a stronger and more determined person. I'm speaking from experience."
Brianna Curl
Conroe, TX

"When did Chris Rock become an expert on bullying? He's not a psychologist and shouldn't be taken seriously on the subject."
Brian Ezell
Richmond, VA

"What Chris dense-as-a-Rock fails to acknowledge is that with today's technology, bullying has a greater impact on its victims."
Carlos Nieves
New York, NY

"I just wrote a book on bullying and couldn't disagree more with Chris Rock. It is because of such ludicrous viewpoints on bullying that the deplorable behavior is perpetuated."
George Banketas
Cordele, GA

"The only result of bullying is poor self-esteem and depression. How could any intelligent person think the victims of bullying are motivated to do great things because of it?"
Lori DelMonaco
Sharpsville, PA

Supreme Court rules on privacy of petition signatures

2010-06-25T20:46:00Z

The Supreme Court says that if you sign an anti-gay marriage petition, that you cannot keep your name private. Citing freedom of speech First Amendment concerns, the court says that if you sign a petition in a public policy area, then it's public. And why that's important is because people in California who signed a petition opposing gay marriage say they were harassed afterwards. People would call them up, threaten them, they lost jobs, whatever. So they wanted to keep it secret, and the Supreme Court said "no." You know, I understand why the court did it, but I also understand that if you sign a controversial petition, someone might come after you, so it's troubling.

10-year-old boy named as grand marshal of gay pride parade

2010-06-25T20:41:00Z

In Arkansas, Fayetteville, where the University of Arkansas is, there's a gay pride parade on Saturday--tomorrow. And the parade grand marshal is a 10-year-old boy. That's really weird. Is that not weird, in Arkansas, of all places? I know the university is there, but wow. Will Phillips, a 10-year-old boy who disrupted his school by failing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and recite it--now he's the grand marshal of a gay pride parade. You're just asking for trouble with that.

Obama invoked at Blagojevich trial

2010-06-25T20:36:00Z

On the Blagojevich trial, a former aid to the guy says that President Obama knew that Blagojevich wanted a job in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett, who is a friend of Barack Obama's, to the Senate seat that he vacated. But it's hearsay times two. The guy says, "Well, somebody told me this, but he didn't really see, but somebody told him." I'm not going to report this stuff on TV. I'm just not going to do it. It's garbage! You're a juror and you're going, "What? Hearsay times two?"

Bring somebody in who actually heard a presidential aide make that offer or at least listen to the offer, and then I'll listen to you, but this is crazy. And I'm not sticking up for Obama--I'm just being fair. Just fair. It's crazy.

GOP warns of White House plan to grant blanket amnesty

2010-06-25T20:31:00Z

FoxNews.com is reporting that the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can grant legal status on a mass basis to illegal immigrants. I just can't see it. This would be political suicide for Barack Obama. Now, I know it's being said--Republicans are saying it, and the White House doesn't confirm or deny the claim--but if that happens, that's it, it's over. Goodbye, goodnight, turn out the lights in the White House, we'll see you back in Chicago. That's how bad that would be.

And why do I say that? A new study by the Gallup people says that 42% of Americans now describe themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative." Just 20% say they are "liberal" or "very liberal," and 35% say they're moderate. Most moderates want the borders secured before any amnesty, and almost every conservative does. That puts the number at 77% of the American population would be angry if the president gave amnesty and bypassed Congress. You can't survive in office like that, so that's why I'm saying it's impossible. Unless the guy is self-destructive--it could be.

New crossword: In General Terms

2010-06-25T19:33:00Z

With Generals McChrystal and Petraeus in the news, our puzzle-meister thought of other famous - and infamous - American generals. Play online or print it out for the road.

Go: O'Reilly crossword

Obama broadens efforts to end homelessness

2010-06-25T00:39:00Z

...the president vows to end homelessness in ten years. Of course, he won't be around ten years from now, so I don't know how this is going to play out. But he has a new program called "Opening Doors..." OK, the problem with this is that many homeless, perhaps most, are drug addicted or alcoholic, or have mental illness. Remember, under Reagan, people were let out of mental facilities, and it was very, very tough to put anybody in there. It's a very tough issue, because there are a lot of Americans who are mentally ill. Schizophrenic--they have problems that prevent them from working, well, where do they wind up? They're crazy, so people don't want to take them in, and then they can't earn a living, so they're under the bridge.

So you've got mental illness, you've got addiction--all of that playing into this homelessness stuff, and, you know--Obama's just going to end it? What are you going to do, force people? That's what you'd have to do. A lot of mentally ill people don't want to be in anywhere, they want to roam around. And if you know anything about homelessness--and I do, I've covered it--you go out there and they don't want to do anything, they want to stay out.

42% of voters oppose Kagan nomination to Supreme Court

2010-06-25T00:35:00Z

Elena Kagan is pretty much falling off the radar with the oil spill and the Afghanistan stuff, but she is now coming up for a vote to be the new Supreme Court justice. 42% of US voters say 'no;' 35% say 'yes,' according to a Rasmussen poll of likely voters.

That surprised me a little bit; I guess people are really turning against liberals now. I guess that's what this is--an anti-liberal thing, because Obama is in so much trouble, I guess. Because Kagan herself isn't really that controversial. But remember, Sotomayor is turning out to be a pretty far-left person on that court, so I guess people are saying, "You know, do we need another one of those?"

Students file suit against school district over flag-themed clothing

2010-06-25T00:33:00Z

You remember that Cinco de Mayo deal out in California where five boys wore American-themed shirts and bandanas to school while their Hispanic counterparts had Cinco de Mayo Mexican stuff? Well, now the five wearing the American garb are going to file suit against the school district because they were sent home for wearing that stuff and the Hispanics were not. So obviously the school district will settle this and the kids will get some money--not a lot, but some. I may deal with that tomorrow... I'm going to take a look at it.

Philadelphia can't evict Scouts over gay ban

2010-06-25T00:29:00Z

In Philadelphia, a court has ruled that the city cannot evict a local Boy Scouts chapter from a city-owned building because the Boy Scouts will not admit gays. A federal jury ruled that the city gave the property to the Boy Scouts ...[without] any strings, and to take it away from them would violate their First Amendment free speech rights--free speech being... that a private company, a private club, a private group can dictate who they will let in and who they will not. The Supreme Court has ruled that. So the Boy Scouts can stay on city property in Philadelphia.

Pakistan convicts Americans on terror charges

2010-06-25T00:26:00Z

Five Americans have been convicted of terrorism in Pakistan. They're all Muslims, and they all have ties to that country. Two are of Pakistani descent, others are Egyptian or Ethiopian. They're all murky people--they're not guys that are hanging around with Beaver and Wally Cleaver, OK? So they're going to get 10 years each in a Pakistani prison, and that's not good for them. They all live in D.C., or did, and they went there to train for the jihad or some nutty thing.