Bill O’Reilly thought President Obama was able to “move the needle” a little on Syria with his big Tuesday night speech, but both Kirsten Powers and Kate Obenshain took a dimmer view of how much convincing Obama actually did. O’Reilly clashed with both his guests, scolding their “speculative” arguments about the risks of striking Syria, and at one point telling Powers her argument is “so intellectually dishonest.”
Powers didn’t think Obama necessarily lacked passion in his speech, he was just pushing “bad policy.” Obenshain insisted “it didn’t shift anything,” calling the president out for “contradicting himself” on exactly how serious the threat from Syria is.
O’Reilly argued that Obama’s main point is that not punishing Syria will set a bad precedent for other nations that want to use chemical or nuclear weapons. Powers called that a “completely flawed argument,” citing Sadaam Hussein‘s use of chemical weapons in the 1980s. O’Reilly todl Powers she was being “so intellectually dishonest.”
Obenshain argued a different point: striking Syria would empower al-Qaeda-affiliated rebel groups. O’Reilly called her argument speculative too, and she pushed back, insisting the Obama administration has not thought their strategy through enough.
Watch the video below, via Fox News:
[photo via screengrab]
Have a tip we should know? firstname.lastname@example.org