Are right-wing pundits losing it?

Is Bill O'Reilly is losing it? He recently said:

"...the philosophy of the ACLU is fairly consistent: The gratification of the individual is paramount. If a person wants to die, fine. If a woman wants to abort a fetus even after viability, no problem." (4/1/05)

Is there anyone who has ever had an abortion or accompanied a woman getting an abortion, who can possibly imagine that she is gratified by it?

In that same column O'Reilly says, ""The United States has become the most powerful and wealthiest country on earth because it combined freedom, discipline and a clear sense of right and wrong based on Judeo-Christian philosophy."

I would never have attributed the theft of land and resources from the American Indians, the kidnapping of Africans from their homelands and their enslavement here, and the exploitation of immigrant labor to enrich a few to Judeo-Christian philosophy, but Bill, if you say so, who am I to argue.

Now regarding the Pope, he says: [according to Think Progress]

“I do know that I’ve studied this pope as well as I’ve studied anybody. And I can’t find anything, anything that this guy didn’t walk the walk. You know, right down the line. Nobody’s perfect, but this guy was close in his personal behavior and the way he conducted himself.” (3/31/05)

O’Reilly has obviously forgotten some earlier things he said:

“John Paul has sent his emissary, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to tell President Bush that attacking Iraq would be ‘unjust’ and ‘immoral.’ That’s like sending Sister Mary Theresa to tell Eminem to stop cursing…Humanistically, [the pope] is one of the many Saddam enablers.” (3/15/03)

“I believe also that John Paul is naive and detached from reality. If America does not lead an attack on Iraq, once again, Saddam remains in power and is free to use his anthrax and other terrible weapons as he chooses. … Summing up, Jacques Chirac is our enemy, and the pope, well, I don’t know what to think.” (3/12/03)

“John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be ‘immoral.’ Back in the ’30s, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany.” (3/8/03)

While on the subject of the Pope,

Nico on Think Progress says:

"Conservatives are attaching themselves like barnacles to the legacy of Pope John Paul II, portraying him as an ideological soulmate of President Bush. Of course, they haven’t always felt that way – especially when the Pope was opposing the President’s policies. Here’s Sean Hannity, from January 2003:

COLMES: …And before you respond, let me just put up what the pope says.

“No to war,” says Pope John Paul II. “during his annual address to scores of diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican… ‘War is not always inevitable,’ he said. ‘It is always a defeat for humanity.’”

Are these a bunch of wild-eyed liberal loonies?

HANNITY: Yes."

Right-wing consistency seems when necessary to have turned into opportunistic inconsistency.