Bill 'O'Really on Jon Stewart's Daily Show

[Booker Floyd]

glick accuses bush of orchestrating 9/11

Can you provide evidence to support this?

donahue was trying to say bush is behind the 9/11 attacks

Can you provide evidence to support this?

[gilld1]

So I'm "intellectually blind"  because I don't believe this conservative whoo-ha about dinosuars and man living together in the Garden of Eden?  So conversely, any Righty who doesn't believe something because it comes from a Liberal source is the same? 

[POPmetal]

So I'm "intellectually blind"? because I don't believe this conservative whoo-ha about dinosuars and man living together in the Garden of Eden?? So conversely, any Righty who doesn't believe something because it comes from a Liberal source is the same??

I like how you all started changing the subject form arguing about the media bias to misinterpreting what popmetal said.

Nice try.

[Drew]

From time to time I watch The O'Reilly Factor. I do enjoy the show majority of the times. I think he does a good job of reporting and representing different sides of an issue. I'd also say that on the majority of times I do agree with his opinions.

[jarmo]

I like how you all started changing the subject form arguing about the media bias to misinterpreting what popmetal said.

Talking about yourself in third person now? 




/jarmo

[Will]

That was actually funny!

Sorry popmetal, you didn't really convince me. And I stand by what I said: if, in any given debate or discussion here, any of you guys can talk normally without putting down the "other side", I'd consider your point of view. Name calling and all that shit doesn't really make it for me.

[POPmetal]

Keep veering away from the subject. I have yet to see anyone debate the points in the Wall Street journal op-ed I posted.

And I stand by what I originally said. Anyone who would reject information from the Wall Street Journal simply based on the fact that it is conservative, is intellectually blind. It is not name calling, it is reality. This isn't some right wing blog or indy media. Even most liberals respect the Wall Street Journal. If you think their analysis was wrong, say how...........

My goal is not to convince you. I realize that there are some people who will only see what they want to see. I'm putting information out there for people who are actually willing to look at both sides of the issue.

[RichardNixon]

I think Fox saw an opening in the marketplace and have capitalized greatly. No one attacks the news from the angle fox does and they have the highest ratings of any cable news. Who ever thought CNN would be knocked out, I sure didnt.


Richard Nixon u are totally twisting everything around.

If u dont believe everything Micheal Moore says then u dont apply, I never said all left wingers believed him verbatim but there are those who think everything in his documentaries are 100 percent fact and they arent.

its about 50/50, he has some truth with fiction around it but because its based on an element of truth it appears to be so.


Dont put Bill O Reilly and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence, there is a huge difference in supporting someone like O Reilly for his opinions and supporting someone like Adolf Hitler, I mean were u actually serious when u said that?


Ill give u one Huge Example of bias in the Media SLC and that bias really helped cost Kerry the election.

CBS News and their fake ass report on George Bush.

My point was it is stupid to believe and or follow someone because they ?believe in what they are saying.?

This ?liberal bias? is pure crap. When the US invaded Iraq, all four networks and most papers supported Bush and the war and didn?t ask any hardball questions.

that's because the left supported the invasion!!!!!!!

Oh bullshit. The real left was against the war from day one. Remember hundreds of thosands took to the streets in NY, Boston, and other major cities. We all saw the lies and the bullshit, and the rest of the dumbass country is just now waking up to smell the coffee.

[Surfrider]

I think Fox saw an opening in the marketplace and have capitalized greatly. No one attacks the news from the angle fox does and they have the highest ratings of any cable news. Who ever thought CNN would be knocked out, I sure didnt.


Richard Nixon u are totally twisting everything around.

If u dont believe everything Micheal Moore says then u dont apply, I never said all left wingers believed him verbatim but there are those who think everything in his documentaries are 100 percent fact and they arent.

its about 50/50, he has some truth with fiction around it but because its based on an element of truth it appears to be so.


Dont put Bill O Reilly and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence, there is a huge difference in supporting someone like O Reilly for his opinions and supporting someone like Adolf Hitler, I mean were u actually serious when u said that?


Ill give u one Huge Example of bias in the Media SLC and that bias really helped cost Kerry the election.

CBS News and their fake ass report on George Bush.

My point was it is stupid to believe and or follow someone because they ?believe in what they are saying.?

This ?liberal bias? is pure crap. When the US invaded Iraq, all four networks and most papers supported Bush and the war and didn?t ask any hardball questions.

Of course you don't believe there is a bias, you believe what they say.  The same goes for universities; I'm sure they might not be consciously discriminating against conservatives, however, I'll bet the fact that they disagree with the ideas makes them believe that those scholars aren't as qualified.

[Surfrider]

Keep veering away from the subject. I have yet to see anyone debate the points in the Wall Street journal op-ed I posted.

And I stand by what I originally said. Anyone who would reject information from the Wall Street Journal simply based on the fact that it is conservative, is intellectually blind. It is not name calling, it is reality. This isn't some right wing blog or indy media. Even most liberals respect the Wall Street Journal. If you think their analysis was wrong, say how...........

My goal is not to convince you. I realize that there are some people who will only see what they want to see. I'm putting information out there for people who are actually willing to look at both sides of the issue.

Your statement was pretty clear for those that chose to actually read it correctly.? Ironically, I am not sure if they realize it, but they did exactly what you accused them of doing with the source; they dismissed your post because it was written by you (a conservative), instead of disputing the content of the article.? Funny.

[journey]

Oh bullshit. The real left was against the war from day one. Remember hundreds of thosands took to the streets in NY, Boston, and other major cities. We all saw the lies and the bullshit, and the rest of the dumbass country is just now waking up to smell the coffee.

He was referring to government officials supporting the invasion, not the general public

[Booker Floyd]

glick accuses bush of orchestrating 9/11

Can you provide evidence to support this?

donahue was trying to say bush is behind the 9/11 attacks

Can you provide evidence to support this?

Just to remind Sandman of this post, if he happened to miss it.  I expect hell have a substantial response.   

[POPmetal]

Keep veering away from the subject. I have yet to see anyone debate the points in the Wall Street journal op-ed I posted.

And I stand by what I originally said. Anyone who would reject information from the Wall Street Journal simply based on the fact that it is conservative, is intellectually blind. It is not name calling, it is reality. This isn't some right wing blog or indy media. Even most liberals respect the Wall Street Journal. If you think their analysis was wrong, say how...........

My goal is not to convince you. I realize that there are some people who will only see what they want to see. I'm putting information out there for people who are actually willing to look at both sides of the issue.

Your statement was pretty clear for those that chose to actually read it correctly.? Ironically, I am not sure if they realize it, but they did exactly what you accused them of doing with the source; they dismissed your post because it was written by you (a conservative), instead of disputing the content of the article.? Funny.

Thank you. I really appreciate this coming from you since you're one of the most fair minded posters here.

[POPmetal]

glick accuses bush of orchestrating 9/11

Can you provide evidence to support this?

donahue was trying to say bush is behind the 9/11 attacks

Can you provide evidence to support this?

Just to remind Sandman of this post, if he happened to miss it.? I expect hell have a substantial response.? ?

I don't watch O'Reilly and didn't see this when it happened, but? I found a transcript:

O?REILLY: All right. You didn?t support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan ?

O?REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan ?

O?REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ? didn?t kill my father.

O?REILLY: Sure they did. The Al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The Al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O?REILLY: See, I?m more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O?REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director ? senior as director of the CIA.

O?REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand mujahideen who were ?

O?REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn?t watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

and then O'Reilly cuts him off.

I guess you can say he didn't directly accuse Bush of "orchestrating" 9/11. But what Glick is insinuating here is still out of line and extremely offensive. There's really no defending this.

[Will]

No offense, but O'Reilly is cutting him off so many times it's even difficult to get what either of them is saying...What did he insinuate exactly? That Bush Sr. had something to do with...? You can basically interpret this "discussion" however you see fit.

And people still see O'Reilly as a source of fair and balanced information. This is funny. As far as I'm concerned, I don't even respect a piece of shit who is always aggressive and has to cut off all of his guests as soon as they disagree with him.

[Booker Floyd]

I guess you can say he didn't directly accuse Bush of "orchestrating" 9/11.

But thats what hes been accused of numerous times by O'Reilly himself, as well as O'Reillys "Kool-Aid drinkers." ?Its a charge he simply did not make, and what O'Reilly (and somebody like Sandman) is doing is intellectually dishonest to say the very least. ?Sandman posted that about Glick without really knowing such a statement was made, because obviously, it wasnt...So what they are doing is fundamentally dishonest. ?Thats not even mentioning the Donahue accusation (which even you didnt bother mentioning or defending) because theres absolutely no basis for it. ?Hes playing the role of "liberal antagonist" rather than honestly considering and discussing these issues. ?Therefore, I hold most of what he (or someone like him) says pertaining to political issues in very little regard. ? ?

But what Glick is insinuating here is still out of line and extremely offensive. There's really no defending this.

Well, its offensive to you as a conservative, and presumably, a defender of George Bush (41 or 43). ?O'Reilly brought up the topic of Al Qaeda member training, to which Glick brought up George H.W. Bush. ?O'Reilly interpreting that as accusing George W. Bush of "orchestrating 9/11" says all you need to know about his journalistic and moral integrity, and possibly his intelligence.

Now Glick was incorrect in mentioning Bushs tenure as C.I.A. Director (1976-77) as it relates to the training of the Mujahideen, which began in 1979. ?However, training and aid was significantly increased under Ronald Reagan, under whom Bush was Vice President. ?This relates somewhat to what I said earlier about honest discourse, because instead of addressing, or even momentarily considering Glicks point, O'Reilly predictably bullied him by taking personal shots and cutting off his microphone. ?

Theres really no defending that. ?

Edit: This is most likely the quote that has led to O'Reillys false claim:

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period. Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.

---

To confuse that with O'Reillys accusation, one would have to possess very limited reading comprehension, or just a plain simple mind.? You might not agree with the sentiment of the final sentence, but its not a completely unreasonable statement considering that Reagan and Bush were responsible for funding and training what would eventually become the Taliban (Reagan preferred to call them "freedom fighters").

[POPmetal]

I'm not really a big Bush Sr fan. But if Glick had accused Carter of training Al Qaeda in context of a conversation over "Who killed your father?" I'd find it just as offensive. I think most people, left or right, would find this offensive.

As for cutting him off, I agree, if I was the host, I wouldn't have cut him off. However, I've seen OR argue with people who disagree with him and he doesn't do that. For the people who watch his show regularly, does he do that often, or is it just in extreme cases?

[Booker Floyd]

I'm not really a big Bush Sr fan.

How you could make this distinction for George H.W. Bush rather than our current president is honestly puzzling to me. 

But if Glick had accused Carter of training Al Qaeda in context of a conversation over "Who killed your father?" I'd find it just as offensive. I think most people, left or right, would find this offensive.

Okay, and like I said, you can disagree with the sentiment behind that emotionally charged statement, but the real issue is O'Reilly and others claiming that Glick accused the president of "orchestrating 9/11."  And American support for the Muhajideen is certainly a valid subject of discussion in terms of Al Qaeda training, which O'Reilly brought up. 

[POPmetal]

The mujahideen were trained by the CIA to fight the invading Soviet army, not to plan terrorist attacks. Glick brought it up only as a distraction to avoid having to answer for the fact that the Taliban led Afghanistan did provide an environment for Al Qaeda to train in, which would have destroyed his case for opposing the war in Afghanistan.

[Booker Floyd]

But if Glick had accused Carter of training Al Qaeda in context of a conversation over "Who killed your father?" I'd find it just as offensive

GLICK: -- is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahideen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

The mujahideen were trained by the CIA to fight the invading Soviet army, not to plan terrorist attacks. Glick brought it up only as a distraction to avoid having to answer for the fact that the Taliban led Afghanistan did provide an environment for Al Qaeda to train in, which would have destroyed his case for opposing the war in Afghanistan.

Yes, the Mujahideen were trained with the intention of fending off the Soviets, but many also predicted American blowback as a result of such training.? I dont think Glick stated or implied that George Bush (or Reagan or Carter) intentionally trained these fighters to use that training aganist us, but thats essentially what happened.? But were digressing...the point is, despite your level of agreement, its a valid subject of discussion.? O'Reilly could have responded similar to the way you did; instead he cowardly cut off the microphone and has since continued to lie about what was said.? As I said before, that says all you need to know about O'Reilly character and integrity.? His cowardice follows him behind-the-scenes, too.  Despite his tough-guy persona, countless challenges for people to appear on his show, and ridicule of those with enough sense not to indulge his nonsense and bullying, he refuses to allow anybody from the Media Matters organization to appear on his show (despite continuous one-sided attacks).  You talk about outlandish claims, hes essentially blamed that organization (one that simply provides audio/video of false/misleading/outrageous Right-Wing statements, including O'Reillys, and debunks them) for his use of security.   Hes becoming increasingly McCarthy-like and Im anticipating his return to private life.? His brand of discourse is not needed.