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

[RichardNixon]

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.

Glick was a guest on the show and he is entitled to state his POV. You should really watch this for yourself--you will see O'Reilly for the cruel man that he is.

[Surfrider]

I definately don't always agree with O'Reilly.  In fact, I watched his program the other night in disgust as he was trying to explain the recent drop  in oil prices.  Some things this guy just has no clue on.

With that said, I do like the fact that he interrupts people and doesn't give them a free ride with their bullshit answers.  He makes the people that come on his show prove their points with facts.  Everyone in Washington tries to spin.  And for those that actually watch his show, he actually does give people the chance to respond.  I think many on the right and the left don't like him because he doesn't put up with BS.  Take it for what its worth, but to me it sure beats Larry King or George Stephanapolous sit and drool over their guests as they give completely false rewritings of actual events.

[RichardNixon]

Yeah, it's real cool to bully your guests and cut off their mics.

[sandman]

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 stand corrected. i watched bill o's show and heard him talk about glick. he may be saying false things about him. or i may have misunderstood him. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170223,00.html

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

in these boards, no one (on either side) makes comments that are dishonest. there are enough people arguing on both sides that anything that is un-factual, will be brought to everyone's attention.

i appreciate you pointing out my error, but keep the cheap shots outta here.

[sandman]

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.

you keep saying "you guys". and i am in the minority right on these boards, which i believe you are referring.

so i just hope that you keep this same standard for those with liberal views as well.

cause i agree with you 100%, this is not the place to take cheap shots at others and put people down. 

[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 stand corrected. i watched bill o's show and heard him talk about glick. he may be saying false things about him. or i may have misunderstood him.?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170223,00.html

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

in these boards, no one (on either side) makes comments that are dishonest. there are enough people arguing on both sides that anything that is un-factual, will be brought to everyone's attention.

i appreciate you pointing out my error, but keep the cheap shots outta here.

They jump on you for one mistake and accuse of being dishonest, but they defend Glick's, obviously intentional, attempt to spin away from OR's question 

[Booker Floyd]

They jump on you for one mistake and accuse of being dishonest, but they defend Glick's, obviously intentional, attempt to spin away from OR's question?

Well this thread has more to do with O'Reilly, and what Glick said, agree or disagree, has nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is perpetuating an outright lie.? Sandman subscribed to and perpetuated that lie - thats a fact.? Did he know that the serious allegation he was making was true?? Obviously not.? He chose to say it anyway...and he said the same about Donahue.? Its a dishonest, unserious form of debate and I cant take him seriously.?

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

You made a dishonest mistake.? You obviously didnt listen to or read what was said fairly, if at all, and you carelessly commented on it and perpetuated an untruth in the process.? If you were honest, you would have evaluated what was said, and assuming that youre reasonably intelligent, concluded that Glick didnt make that allegation and O'Reilly is in fact lying.? Your carelessness in relaying that lie suggests to me that youre a lot more interested playing that liberal antagonist role than anything else.? Thats not honest (or productive) in my view and affects how seriously I take your posts.

[SLCPUNK]

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.

Sorry...but who do you think trained AQ?

Santa Claus?


It was the USA who trained them.

in these boards, no one (on either side) makes comments that are dishonest. there are enough people arguing on both sides that anything that is un-factual, will be brought to everyone's attention.

I pointed it out in the begining of this thread actually.

[SLCPUNK]

Now, I know the intellectually blind will simply dismiss this because it comes from a conservative source.

Wow...so people who don't rely upon conservative sources or doubt their articles are "intellectually blind". I don't know why you guy always have to use that kind of low level remarks to put yourself above the rest. I guess it makes you feel better. When you guys won't use that kind of behavior, I may actually consider your point of views...but are you capable of having a normal debate without putting down "the other side"? Hmmm...don't think so.

This is usually the case.

He posts a link that has the word "opinion" in it, which links to a neocon propaganda machine and then tells me I'm stupid not to believe it.

[SLCPUNK]

What I said was very clear. People who automatically discredit information because it comes from a conservative source are intellectually blind. Not people who don't rely upon conservative sources. And if you have doubts, voice them out and say why you think it's false. Don't attack the source simply because it happens to be conservative.

What a load.

If I posted an article from NYTs, you'd cry foul like a bunch of little girls.

The "liberal media" thing is a myth. It is the same way you call anything a "conspiracy theory" if another idea is given.

If somebody holds the president accountable.......or asks him to be held accountable, then all of a sudden it's "Liberal media" at it again. Anything that does not favor your opinion, is put in a bad light.

Anybody (and there have been plenty) to come from Bush's cabinet to criticize it, is quickly labeled " A nut job" or "out to make a quick buck with a book deal."

It's all the same:

Read something you don't like? = Liberal Media

Hear something you don't like?  = Nut Job (ignoring all credentials or level of experience)

Hear any alternative scenerio to the "war" in Iraq = Conspiracy theory

Hear anybody speak out against the war = traitor, hates America, should move to France, etc etc.

How sheepish...........

[POPmetal]

They jump on you for one mistake and accuse of being dishonest, but they defend Glick's, obviously intentional, attempt to spin away from OR's question?

Well this thread has more to do with O'Reilly, and what Glick said, agree or disagree, has nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is perpetuating an outright lie.? Sandman subscribed to and perpetuated that lie - thats a fact.? Did he know that the serious allegation he was making was true?? Obviously not.? He chose to say it anyway...and he said the same about Donahue.? Its a dishonest, unserious form of debate and I cant take him seriously.?

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

You made a dishonest mistake.? You obviously didnt listen to or read what was said fairly, if at all, and you carelessly commented on it and perpetuated an untruth in the process.? If you were honest, you would have evaluated what was said, and assuming that youre reasonably intelligent, concluded that Glick didnt make that allegation and O'Reilly is in fact lying.? Your carelessness in relaying that lie suggests to me that youre a lot more interested playing that liberal antagonist role than anything else.? Thats not honest (or productive) in my view and affects how seriously I take your posts.

OK. We know already. Liberals are allowed to do whatever they want, including dishonestly spinning out of answering questions they don't like, but if a conservative does anything dishonest (and it's arguable at best that OR was dishonest, since Glick did imply what he accused him of) they deserve to be crucified. Nothing new here.

Oh ... and I'm sure sandman will be heartbroken that you no longer take his posts seriously. There are plenty of leftists here who make false claims and never own up for them. Since you're such an astute judge of honesty, why don't you go whine about how dishonest their mistakes are? At least sandman had the decency to admit he made a mistake. That tells me all I need to know about whether he is honest or not.

[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.

Sorry...but who do you think trained AQ?

Santa Claus?


It was the USA who trained them.

To fight the invading Soviet army. Not to launch 911. It is absolutely despicable to imply that the US training the mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union is the same thing as Afghanistan providing training camps for Al Qaeda to plan and train for 911! This is exactly what Glick did.

[POPmetal]

Now, I know the intellectually blind will simply dismiss this because it comes from a conservative source.

Wow...so people who don't rely upon conservative sources or doubt their articles are "intellectually blind". I don't know why you guy always have to use that kind of low level remarks to put yourself above the rest. I guess it makes you feel better. When you guys won't use that kind of behavior, I may actually consider your point of views...but are you capable of having a normal debate without putting down "the other side"? Hmmm...don't think so.

This is usually the case.

He posts a link that has the word "opinion" in it, which links to a neocon propaganda machine and then tells me I'm stupid not to believe it.

Explain where the opinion is wrong. If you dismiss it only because it is coming from what you refer to as "a neocon propaganda machine," then I'm not calling you stupid, you make yourself look stupid.

[POPmetal]

What I said was very clear. People who automatically discredit information because it comes from a conservative source are intellectually blind. Not people who don't rely upon conservative sources. And if you have doubts, voice them out and say why you think it's false. Don't attack the source simply because it happens to be conservative.

What a load.

If I posted an article from NYTs, you'd cry foul like a bunch of little girls.

The "liberal media" thing is a myth. It is the same way you call anything a "conspiracy theory" if another idea is given.

If somebody holds the president accountable.......or asks him to be held accountable, then all of a sudden it's "Liberal media" at it again. Anything that does not favor your opinion, is put in a bad light.

Anybody (and there have been plenty) to come from Bush's cabinet to criticize it, is quickly labeled " A nut job" or "out to make a quick buck with a book deal."

It's all the same:

Read something you don't like? = Liberal Media

Hear something you don't like?? = Nut Job (ignoring all credentials or level of experience)

Hear any alternative scenerio to the "war" in Iraq = Conspiracy theory

Hear anybody speak out against the war = traitor, hates America, should move to France, etc etc.

How sheepish...........

Keep the cheap shots and lies coming. Apparently, it's all you've got.

[RichardNixon]

They jump on you for one mistake and accuse of being dishonest, but they defend Glick's, obviously intentional, attempt to spin away from OR's question?

Well this thread has more to do with O'Reilly, and what Glick said, agree or disagree, has nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is perpetuating an outright lie.? Sandman subscribed to and perpetuated that lie - thats a fact.? Did he know that the serious allegation he was making was true?? Obviously not.? He chose to say it anyway...and he said the same about Donahue.? Its a dishonest, unserious form of debate and I cant take him seriously.?

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

You made a dishonest mistake.? You obviously didnt listen to or read what was said fairly, if at all, and you carelessly commented on it and perpetuated an untruth in the process.? If you were honest, you would have evaluated what was said, and assuming that youre reasonably intelligent, concluded that Glick didnt make that allegation and O'Reilly is in fact lying.? Your carelessness in relaying that lie suggests to me that youre a lot more interested playing that liberal antagonist role than anything else.? Thats not honest (or productive) in my view and affects how seriously I take your posts.

OK. We know already. Liberals are allowed to do whatever they want, including dishonestly spinning out of answering questions they don't like, but if a conservative does anything dishonest (and it's arguable at best that OR was dishonest, since Glick did imply what he accused him of) they deserve to be crucified. Nothing new here.

Oh ... and I'm sure sandman will be heartbroken that you no longer take his posts seriously. There are plenty of leftists here who make false claims and never own up for them. Since you're such an astute judge of honesty, why don't you go whine about how dishonest their mistakes are? At least sandman had the decency to admit he made a mistake. That tells me all I need to know about whether he is honest or not.

Ok, what the hell are you talking about?

[Booker Floyd]

since Glick did imply what he accused him of

 

Explain how Glick implied that "Bush orchestrated 9/11."? ? This is even more dishonest since youve essentially conceded that he didnt say it...

You know that O'Reillys stating that Glick believes that George W. Bush "orchestrated" 9/11.  The "Bush" that Glick credited with training future terrorists was George H.W., not W.?  Now if youre really foolish enough to insinuate that he alleged George H.W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11, please continue.

Oh ... and I'm sure sandman will be heartbroken that you no longer take his posts seriously. There are plenty of leftists here who make false claims and never own up for them. Since you're such an astute judge of honesty, why don't you go whine about how dishonest their mistakes are?

1) I dont expect him to care about what I think of his posts, and dont care if he does or doesnt.

2) This is one of, I think, 3 threads Ive even bothered checking in this section.? Sandmans statement happened to be most apparently false.

At least sandman had the decency to admit he made a mistake. That tells me all I need to know about whether he is honest or not.

 

Now tell me what other choice he had?? To do what youre apparently doing and rationalize O'Reillys lie??

[sandman]

They jump on you for one mistake and accuse of being dishonest, but they defend Glick's, obviously intentional, attempt to spin away from OR's question?

Well this thread has more to do with O'Reilly, and what Glick said, agree or disagree, has nothing to do with the fact that O'Reilly is perpetuating an outright lie.? Sandman subscribed to and perpetuated that lie - thats a fact.? Did he know that the serious allegation he was making was true?? Obviously not.? He chose to say it anyway...and he said the same about Donahue.? Its a dishonest, unserious form of debate and I cant take him seriously.?

but please do not call me dishonest. i made a mistake.

You made a dishonest mistake.? You obviously didnt listen to or read what was said fairly, if at all, and you carelessly commented on it and perpetuated an untruth in the process.? If you were honest, you would have evaluated what was said, and assuming that youre reasonably intelligent, concluded that Glick didnt make that allegation and O'Reilly is in fact lying.? Your carelessness in relaying that lie suggests to me that youre a lot more interested playing that liberal antagonist role than anything else.? Thats not honest (or productive) in my view and affects how seriously I take your posts.

fair enough, bro. but if people are taking anything in these posts seriously, they have major issues. 

[POPmetal]

since Glick did imply what he accused him of

 

Explain how Glick implied that "Bush orchestrated 9/11."? ? This is even more dishonest since youve essentially conceded that he didnt say it...

You know that O'Reillys stating that Glick believes that George W. Bush "orchestrated" 9/11.? The "Bush" that Glick credited with training future terrorists was George H.W., not W.?? Now if youre really foolish enough to insinuate that he alleged George H.W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11, please continue.?

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.

Like I said before, Glick implied it, he didn't actually directly say it, but it's still just as sickening a statement. What the CIA did in training the mujahideen to fight the Soviets was a noble thing, and thier defeat in Afghanistan contributed greatly to the collapse of that hell hole. Nobody, Carter, Reagan, or HW Bush, supported the mujahideen so that one day Al Qaeda could fly plaines into buildings, but this is what Glick is implying. Can you say O'Reilly is stretching things when he says Glick said Bush "orchestrated" ? Yes, he is. Is it a "lie"? I guess technically you could say it is, but you have to stretch things yourself. In light of the above quote, it is very clear where Glick's sentiment is. You'd have a hard time convincing anyone who doesn't already hate O'Reilly that he is a dishonest man based on this.

[POPmetal]

Since you're such a crusader against dishonesty. Here's a lie for you that's not based on any technicalities:

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.

Democratic government? Mohammad Taraki became President after a communist coup:

President Daoud and his family were shot dead, and Nur Mohammad Taraki took power as head of the country's first Marxist government, bringing to an end more than 200 years of almost uninterrupted rule by the family of Zahir Shah and Mohammad Daoud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1569826.stm

So Glick calls a Marxist who took power after a bloody coup a "democratic government." I think we all know what his true colors are.

Anyway, in consistency with your previous statements, I expect you will now go off at Glick for his blatant dishonesty ........