Dan Senor: Iraq OK Because It Could Be Worse.

The O'Reilly Factor featured a sub again for Bill "Falafel King" O'Reilly. This douchebag is just like all the other Fox News douchebags. First, he's a far-right conservative wingnut. Second, he hosts a debate between a "both sides." Only problem is that he's not mediator, he's IN the debate, so it's 2 on 1, which leaves the psychological impression to the viewer that the conservative viewpoint is "mainstream" and the liberal viewpoint is "extreme."

Bullshit.

Paul Hackett, whom I admire comes on. He's the only guy who's actually been in the war in Iraq. These other chickenhawks just want to give their biased opinions. As always, Hackett is constantly interrupted when his viewpoint is not agreed with (and it won't be with the so-called moderator a conservative). The other guy gets to talk all he wants. The so-called moderator talks way too long and when his line of questioning becomes tiresome and Paul starts to answer, he's shouted down again and again.

Listen to the arguments, and only one makes sense: Paul's.

The man he is debating, a chickenhawk named Dan Senor, demonstrates who is truly out of the mainstream and who truly has no idea what's going by offering this line of reasoning on Iraq:

Paul Hackett raises an interesting point, has the bottom fallen out...It is really bad in Iraq -- could it be worse? The answer is yes. 100 Iraqi casualties could easily be 1,000.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Iraq isn't that bad because -- IT COULD BE WORSE. Following that logic, Mr. Senor, you are not a douchebag because you could be a far worse douchebag.

No, check that. You're a douchebag.

Oh, by the way, is he a pundit? Not at all. He's the ex-CPA spokesman. Yes indeed, Fox News is choosing to have the government defend -- itself. Honesty at it's finest.