Bill O’Reilly
Bill O’Reilly is one of the most opinionated columnists writing today. He speaks on many topics varying between politics and today’s news. However, he speaks his mind too freely on some topics and says things that may offend people. In the first article I read, he spoke about the trade of terrorists for an American soldier. He thinks that this was a horrible idea and that it will cause more problems than it would help by putting the country into more danger. He says some things in this article that may bother Americans, and that could be offensive. For example, he says about the traded soldier, “Let’s be very clear. Bowe Bergdahl was not a prisoner of war captured on the battlefield. And to be even more clear, he did not serve with ‘honor and distinction,’ as claimed by serial prevaricator Susan Rice.”
Do you agree with him that the trade was a bad idea for the country?
Do you think that it was wrong for him to call a soldier dishonorable? Do you think this could offend his American readers?
I study Bill O’Reilly as well and have come to terms with he fact that I definitely do not agree with how bigoted he gets. I feel as if all he does is bash on our government and America and that is something that doesn’t go too well with me. I do not agree that the trade was a bad idea for the country- we were extremely vague in the situation and we are a country who truly believe in freedom, us Americans stick together. I think it was extremely wrong for him to call a soldier dishonorable, at one point the soldier was bound to be honorable to get him in the military in the first place. This definitely offended me and i am an American reader so yes.
I agree with your writer. The trade was not a good idea or a good act because for one American soldier we gave up five active Al Quida members, and it was only twelve years ago that we were attacked by this terrorist group. Our country is a target for many terrorist groups and Al Quida is the biggest, but even that being the case, you should never call a soldier dishonorable. There is dispute on whether he was a part of the terrorist group, and if you have no solid proof you can’t blame him or accuse. He was over seas fighting for our country, and your columnist is here bashing an American soldier. He isn’t over seas nor was he fighting for his right to bash an American Soldier. I myself am offended by his comment, I could only imagine how other Americans feel about it. It is biased, rude, inconsiderate and most of all ignorant.
I do agree with your writer about the trade. I think that the trade was a horrible idea. There must be other ways to get the terrorists then to trade one of your own. There is no way of knowing what would happen to the soldier once he is traded. Also I think that even if you did the trade and you have some of the terrorist it might not stop the terrorist group from attacking. Also I think it is wrong to call an American soldier dishonorable. The soldier may do things differently but he still serves our country. I think that might upset a lot of american readers. I don’t think that anyone has the right to criticize an American soldier.
While the writer does have the right to say whatever he feels, I do think that he is wrong in bashing the trade because at the time the government did not know all that was going on and they were just trying to protect their own. Negative things may have come to light after the trade, but I do not think the trade was bad because the intention was to get one of America’s citizens their freedom again, so I think that this writer does not look at the whole picture, and only focuses on the negative to be biased and say bad things about America. I also think it was wrong to call this soldier dishonorable because chances are the writer is writing off of what the media is telling him, and he has no idea what this person went through. Even if he is dishonorable, the writer does not know his whole story so who is he to judge. I think this could offend American readers because he makes all these rude accusations that makes our country look bad.
I can only imagine how many issues this writer has brought upon himself by simply not being able to keep his bias quiet. I do not agree with O’Reilly that the trade was a bad idea. Not only was this man an American citizen, but he was serving for his country and America should do whatever it takes to keep him alive. Yes, the last thing America needs is more terrorists wandering the Earth, however, whether we had these terrorists captive or not that would not stop the other terrorists from attacking. If anything, I feel that by holding those terrorists the others would want to attack more to “prove” to us we are not more powerful than them. I think it was very wrong for O’Reilly to call a soldier dishonorable. When an American enlists into the military they are pledging their honor to their country and to do what it takes to protect everyone of their country. It’s hard for me to even consider that there could be Americans out there not offended by his comment. As Ana said, these accusations make our country look bad and nobody wants that.
Adrianna,
This is the second post I have read about Bill O’Reilly and he does seem to be one of the most opinionated columnists out there. I don’t necessarily agree with the trade, but at the time I do believe that the government was doing what they thought was best for the country. It also seems like O’Reilly is quick to judge without knowing all of the facts because both of the posts I have read about him have been mostly about his opinion, but were not backed up with knowledge. I also think that it was very wrong of him to call a soldier, who is fighting for out country, dishonorable. Again, O’Reilly isn’t giving any reasoning behind this which makes it even more wrong. I do think it could, and did, offend American readers. O’Reilly is putting down ours and his own country here which is not something that Americans like to read about. Also, that soldier has friends and family who could be reading this. Great Post!
-Colleen K.
I partially agree with Bill O’Reilly, however I do not support him in his accusations of the soldier being dishonorable. The trade of one American soldier for five terrorists gives the group a victory to boast about. This “victory” for the terrorists validates their ideology in their eyes and gives them reasons to continue their fighting. However, Bergdahl has not been accused of anything yet. Investigations have just begun and the military is still looking into the reason for him abandoning his post. Without any evidence of him going AWOL or supporting the Taliban, it is wrong to call Bergdahl “dishonorable”. His comments on Bergdahl are bound to upset Americans with military family members, or people who support Bergdahl.
I agree with Bill O’Reilly that the trade was a bad idea. I think that there should have been a better way to handle this situation and that the country does not benefit from what happened. I understand that it was probably the right thing to do to save a soldier to keep Americans happy, but it could have put the country into more trouble. I think it was not the right thing to do to call the soldier dishonorable. He made the choice to serve our country, and whether he was a deserter or not, he is still an
American who had risked his life. I think he deserves more respect and I think that by not giving it, your writer most likely offended many Americans.
Adrianna,
Bill O’Reilly was wrong to dishonor the soldier who dedicated his life for our country. That being said, I understand his apprehension with releasing apprehended terrorists. At least we know who these terrorists are and, knowing our nosy American government, we will most likely be tracking them after they are released. Knowing what we know about them will make that easier.
Bill O’Reilly seems very opinionated as well as bias. And for that reason I think that this article offended many people. Although I agree with him that it was not a good trade but at the same time he needs to understand that as Ana said the government did not know what was going on. They were just trying to bring a U.S soilder home to his family. But I do not agree with calling a U.S solider dishonorable, Even if he did leave his base. By becoming a soilder he gave up his life to save ours and O’Reilly clearly does not comprehend that.
No, I do not agree with your writer that the trade was a bad idea for our country. Shouldn’t people be happy that a soldier got to come home? Besides, I don’t really see what the point of us keeping all these terrorists anyway. It doesn’t seem like we’ve gotten any useful information out of all the terrorists we’ve captured over the years. I do think that the trade was a little unbalanced and not in our favor though: we gave back several terrorists just for one man? I think we should have bargained harder and gotten more out of the deal, and then maybe people like Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t be complaining about it so much and calling it “bad for the American people” and whatnot.
Yes, I think it was very wrong of him to call an American soldier dishonorable. However he ended up in the position of being captured by these terrorists, it’s not his fault, and he’s still incredibly brave for choosing to serve his country and just being over there in the firs place. Bill O’Reilly shouldn’t disrespect someone who has much more bravery and honor than him, I’d like someone to send him off to war and see how he likes it. If he understood what these soldiers have to go through, and especially this particular man, being held prisoner by terrorists, he would have much more respect for them. If it was him who’d been captured by terrorists, he wouldn’t say that a trade allowing him to go back home was bad for America. I think that O’Reilly’s flagrant disrespect for our soldiers could certainly be seen as offensive to the American people, nearly all of whom have much more respect for our men and women in uniform than O’Reilly does, and many of whom are veterans themselves. I would be very offended if I heard someone disrespecting people who would give everything to protect us.
From what we know, I believe the trade was a bad idea. However, it is possible that there is information that hasn’t been released yet. Based on what has been released, the trade was a bad idea and can put Americans in danger. These 5 terrorists want to cause harm to the United States, and now that they are free, they will be able to. Many people are probably thinking “I thought the United States doesn’t negotiate with terrorists”. I don’t think it is wrong to call Bowe Bergdahl dishonorable. This is a man who was sworn in to protect his country and the people in it. Instead, he abandoned his company and turned his back on the United States. I think anyone who says “they are ashamed to be an American” can be deemed dishonorable. Soldiers died looking for him, looking for a man who left them to join the Taliban. Obama was planning to remove soldiers, but now he will most likely have to send more troops in. I think this does affect American readers, especially some of the comments he made.