Bill O’Reilly Battles Military Experts Over U.S. Intervention in Syria – and Gets Double-Teamed

Bill O’Reilly made it crystal clear on Tuesday that he supports U.S. intervention in war torn Syria following reports of the regime using chemical weapons. In fact, he actually called opponents of intervention “loons” earlier in the day.
But the TV host found himself double-teamed by two military analysts, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt, who both agree there are still too many unknowns in Syria to justify military action.
 
Peters (on the right) argued the U.S. is considering “helping Al Qaeda” to stop Syrian President Bashar Assad, a “murderer.”
“On one side you have Assad, Hezbollah, Iran — horrible people. On the other side, it’s increasingly dominated by Al Qaeda…the team that brought you 9/11. Right now, in Syria, our enemies are killing each other,” he said. “Where in our Constitution does it say we should stop our enemies from killing each other?”
 
O’Reilly said the situation in Syria is “humanitarian issue” and the violation of the Geneva Convention justifies U.S. action. “If that is allowed to stand, forget about it, it’s going to be used all over the world,” he added.
 
Hunt (Center) pushed back, reminding O’Reilly that it has not been conclusively confirmed that chemical weapons were used or that it was the Assad regime and not the Syrian rebels that used them.
 
O’Reilly said the U.S. had to “assume” that Assad used chemical weapons and told the two military experts they sound like those who argued against U.S. intervention in World War II.  SOURCE

Dennis324 wrote:

Bill O’Reilly made it crystal clear on Tuesday that he supports U.S. intervention in war torn Syria following reports of the regime using chemical weapons. In fact, he actually called opponents of intervention “loons” earlier in the day.
But the TV host found himself double-teamed by two military analysts, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and Col. David Hunt, who both agree there are still too many unknowns in Syria to justify military action.
 
Peters (on the right) argued the U.S. is considering “helping Al Qaeda” to stop Syrian President Bashar Assad, a “murderer.”
“On one side you have Assad, Hezbollah, Iran — horrible people. On the other side, it’s increasingly dominated by Al Qaeda…the team that brought you 9/11. Right now, in Syria, our enemies are killing each other,” he said. “Where in our Constitution does it say we should stop our enemies from killing each other?”
 
O’Reilly said the situation in Syria is “humanitarian issue” and the violation of the Geneva Convention justifies U.S. action. “If that is allowed to stand, forget about it, it’s going to be used all over the world,” he added.
 
Hunt (Center) pushed back, reminding O’Reilly that it has not been conclusively confirmed that chemical weapons were used or that it was the Assad regime and not the Syrian rebels that used them.
 
O’Reilly said the U.S. had to “assume” that Assad used chemical weapons and told the two military experts they sound like those who argued against U.S. intervention in World War II.  SOURCE

I watched this interview tonight and had to laugh.  I think it kinda blew up in Bills face.  I don't think he was expecting both guests to disagree with his wanting to get the US involved on humanitarian grounds.  Imo, he ought to listen close to what these two offered.  They are smart people.  And, as I have said before, we have a situation where our enemies are killing off one another.  Let em have at it!  As long as it doesn't spill over and our allies get hurt.