Stick to comedy Dave

Updated: With O’Reilly as Guest, Letterman Denounces Iraq War & Criticism of Sheehan

...

Letterman: “How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”

O’Reilly: “Because I think she’s run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.”

Letterman: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?”

O’Reilly: “No, I have not.”

Letterman: “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?” [applause]
[The Ponderosa: Who, aside from Dave, is speaking for Ms. Sheehan? Out of respect, most of us refrained from speaking out against her until she became a raving Moonbat. ]

O’Reilly: “I’m not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question.”

Letterman, referring back to O’Reilly’s examples of a war on Christmas: “Let’s go back to your little red and green stories.”

O’Reilly: “This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters,’ how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, waht about their feelings, sir?”

Letterman: “What about, why are we there in the first place? [applause] The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?”

[The Ponderosa: It was the CIA ...backed by any number of foreign intelligence agencies, particularly Israel's ... And we're not sure they were wrong (see elsewhere on this site).]

Bill O’Reilly: “No.”

Letterman: “No, it was the intelligence gathered by his administration.”
[The Ponderosa: Erm, Dave, intelligence agencies (not administrations) staffed by non-political functionaries, gather intelligence. Suffice it to say, the intelligence acted upon went back to the '90's.]

O’Reilly: “By the CIA.”

Letterman: “Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There’s no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we’re in it it’s going to take a long, long time. People who expect it’s going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it’s not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of ‘Why the Hell are we there to begin with?’”
[The Ponderosa: Does Dave read much?]

O’Reilly: “If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that’s obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin’s people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak’s intelligence agency in Egypt.”

Letterman: “Well then that makes it all right?”

O’Reilly: “No it doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we’re there?”

O’Reilly: “It doesn’t make it right.”
[The Ponderosa: Yeah, it kinda does. What the hell else are we supposed to rely on in these matters? Reading the bumps on Michael Moore's gut?]


Letterman: “See, I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Chr-st.” [audience applause]
[The Ponderosa: Who, aside from the Moonbats, doesn't have sympathy for any Gold Star parent? ]
O’Reilly: “No, I’m sorry.”

Letterman: “Honest to Chr-st.”
[The Ponderosa: Honest to WHOM? Someone alert the ACLU! ]
“O’Reilly: “No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you’re going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.”

Letterman: “Do you have children?”

O’Reilly: “Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter’ on my program.” [mild audience applause]

Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

Paul Shafer: “60 percent.”

Letterman: “60 percent. I'm just spit-balling here.”
[The Ponderosa: This is what passes for critical analysis on the Left? "I can't debate you but you're peddling crap." Hardly the stuff of Lincoln-Douglas.]

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”

Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

[The Ponderosa: This from a guy who works for the network that kept Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather fat and giggly!]

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

[The Ponderosa: Game over. ]

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

[The Ponderosa: Game VERY over!]

O’Reilly: “Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read. You know what say about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat.”

Letterman: “You’ll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat”

O’Reilly: “I’ll be happy to.”
[The Ponderosa: We'd advise against that. She'd likely forward it to al-Zarqawi. ]



-more-

We were fans of Letterman as far back as the late '70's/early '80's when he frequently appeared on "The Tonight Show".

We loved his short-lived morning show and bought our first VCR in order to record "Late Night With David Letterman".

We are not fans of O'Reilly. We find him more a populist than a conservative -- witness his recent inane vilification of oil companies.

Leftist myths aside, most conservatives are not Fox News groupies. We do enjoy Brit Hume's "Special Report", John Gibson's show and a coupla others. For the most part, however, we find Fox News lame -- Shep Smith, tabloid shows (Regrettable Van Sustern) and the facile Sean Hannity.

In true "Late Night" fashion let's call this display "Dave's Cavalcade o' Logical Fallacies", highlighted by this byoot:

Letterman: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?”

O’Reilly: “No, I have not.”

By this "logic" the thousands of mothers who have lost kids in Iraq who disagree with Ms. Sheehan -- whose son believed in the cause -- trump this one who has been co-opted by the Loony Left.

At the risk of repeating ourselves: this is the best they have to offer?

When a movement relies on Al Franken, Keith Olberman and David Letterman for its intellectual sustenace, it can properly be called moribund.

As for Dave -- to paraphrase Tony Soprano: he's dead to us.