Here is Mike Thompson’s Detroit Free Press cartoon that apparently caused Bill O’Reilly to blow a nut.
Fox News far-right (I know … kind of redundant) commentator Bill O’Reilly has been working overtime to take revenge on numerous people who have dared to in any way be what he perceives as negative toward Juan Williams, who made bigoted comments about his fear of Muslims on airplanes.
One of the targets of O’Reilly has been Detroit Free Press cartoonist and blogger Mike Thompson, who apparently drew a cartoon that drew the ire of Big Daddy Bill.
For the past week, Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly and his colleagues at Fox News have been bending over backwards to defend former National Public Radio news analyst and current Fox commentator Juan Wiliams, who was fired from his NPR gig for making disparaging remarks about Muslims. A journalist should not be fired for speaking his mind, according to O’Reilly. No, apparently a journalist who speaks his mind should have his e-mail inbox crammed with threatening, disparaging e-mails, according to O’Reilly.
Last Sunday I drew a cartoon about Fox News and the Juan Wiliams affair. O’Reilly apparently took offense to my cartoon and showed it on the air Monday evening. He then gave out my work e-mail address and instructed his viewers to “let him know what you think.” O’Reilly stressed that his viewers should take the high road in their e-mails to me, which is a little like placing a bowl of Halloween candy in front of kids and telling them not to gorge themselves. O’Reilly’s smart enough to know what would happen.
And e-mail me they did, more than 2,500 e-mails, many of them unsuitable to publish here, clogged my inbox.
O’Reilly is not above name calling (does the word “pinhead” ring a bell?), badmouthing people (ask Boyce Watkins, the family of the murdered Dr. George Tiller and others), using blatant acts of intimidation (not unlike what gangs do), dispatching his hired thugs (disguised as “producers”) to harass and badger his enemies and more. He has not resorted (yet) to the methods of U.S. senate candidate Rand Paul supporters through which he would have people beat down and stomp on critics.
Ah yes, tough guy Bill O’Reilly now is going after cartoonists.
One of the reasons I enjoy reading The O’Reilly Sucks Blog is because of my admiration for the author. It takes a lot of time and effort to break down all of the garbage that Bill O’Reilly inflicts on the American people each night his program airs on Fox News. Now, O’Reilly is not always present on the show. He takes his multi-millionaire ass on vacation from time to time to allow for nuttier replacements like Laura Ingraham to take over (and still insanely trying to call the show a “No-Spin Zone” in the opening).
One of the interesting tidbits from The O’Reilly Sucks blog I recently saw was the hypocrisy about protests. When liberals protest, one nut who burns a flag represents all liberals. When far-right idiots spit on black congressmen and call them “nigger” that is not supposed to represent all people who are involved with tea parties.
Then the right-wing Bernie Goldberg was on to complain about the lack of media coverage of an anti-war protest. Which is a joke, because he never once complains about Fox News ignoring every protest there is, unless it’s a Tea Party protest. Ingraham called it a vile anti-war demonstration, because some nut burned an American flag. But when the nuts on the right do something offensive at a protest, they dismiss it as just a couple loons that do not represent the majority of the protesters.
Which is total hypocrisy from Ingraham and Goldberg. And btw, flag burning is not even close to being as offensive as spitting on someone, or calling a black person the n-word. I would even say if you are an American and you want to burn a flag, you should have the right to do it. I would never do it, but it’s not illegal. And btw, Goldberg denied a white man spit on a black Congressman, when there is a video that shows he did. Goldberg admits the spit hit the black Congressman, but that he did not spit on him. Ummmmmm, ok, how is that possible Bernie. Goldberg claims his saliva accidently flew onto the black Congressmans face, yeah and I have a bridge to sell you too.
Sure, it was an “accident” that the congressman’s face got in the way of some bigot’s spit.
On Fox News, the spin is constant and always spins to the right.
There is nothing wrong with being black and conservative and there is nothing wrong with being a black Tea Party person. It would be crazy not to think that there are blacks from all walks of life with political ideologies that run the full spectrum (from conservative to liberal). I used to be a conservative (not that most people would believe me), and not all that long ago. But, there is something wrong when you have far-right racism deniers like tea party “activist” Kevin Jackson trying to seemingly equate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to a sort of slave master (reference the passage below as compiled by Media Matters for America):
O’Reilly hosts tea party activist who says it “would have been more symbolic had [Pelosi] had a whip.” On The O’Reilly Factor, tea party activist Kevin Jackson characterized the walk to the Capitol by Pelosi and other members of Congress on the day the House voted for health care reform as “this very wealthy white lady leading a group of black, you know, men up to the thing with her gavel in her hand. It would have been more symbolic had she had a whip.” [The O'Reilly Factor, 3/31/10]
Jackson, who ignores blatant racism associated with tea party activities, bends over backward to accuse Democrats of racism. His comment about the whip are a clear illustration that he has sold his soul and is willing to do and say whatever it takes to stay in good standing on the right … to retain most favored Negro status (right alongside Jesse Lee Peterson, who has a long and dubious history of making anti-black racist comments on Fox News, generally unchallenged, and on his own radio show).
Fox News right winger Bill O’Reilly found his black tea bagger who took great pleasure in attacking civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis. This far-right nut then went on the attack against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a ham-handed attempt to portray her as some kind of racist. It was stupid and illustrates a few things: ignorance is color blind, there is always some Jesse Lee Peterson-like black man who will say whatever is necessary to earn most favored Negro status and Bill O’Reilly once again showed that he remains a biased right winger.
Once again, leave it to “fair and balanced” Fox News to come to the defense of the tea parties through a one-sided Bill O’Reilly interview.
A still fairly recent release of a Harris poll that put into sharp focus how ignorant some Republicans are when it comes to their views on President Barack Obama. Some of the revelations in the poll show the depth of the hatred that some close-minded Republicans have for this president. And, that hatred started long before he was president and long before he became the official nominee for the presidency in 2008. The hatred started before this nation knew much of anything about Barack Obama.
The findings of the Harris poll continue to reflect the hatred that exists in the dark hearts of some of these Republicans. Below are summaries of the Harris poll results as compiled by Media Matters for America.
According to the Harris poll, conducted of 2,320 adults between March 1 and March 8, a majority of Republicans believe President Obama:
is a socialist (67 percent);
wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns (61 percent);
is Muslim (57 percent);
wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government (51 percent); and
has done many things that are unconstitutional (51 percent).
It goes on:
large minorities also believe Obama was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible for the presidency (45 percent);
many believe he is a racist (42 percent);
and many believe he is doing many things Hitler did (38 percent)
There is your Republican party (still believing in thoroughly vetted and debunked garbage. It basically shows that everyday Republicans and tea baggers are like storm troopers from the Star Wars movies. They operate like robots taking their marching orders from right-wing extremists like Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
I read the following comment from Fr. Michael Pfleger, who has been targeted by far-right conservatives like Fox News commentator (not fair and balanced journalist or journalist at all for that matter) Bill O’Reilly because he can be somewhat used as a way of attack President Obama. First off, none of these conservatives gave much of a rat’s tail about Pfleger or Rev. Jeremiah Wright until they saw them as ways of attacking Barack Obama during his candidacy to become president of the United States.
Anyway, fast forward to the present, the time since the historic election of 2008, and right wingers like O’Reilly continue to target Pfleger, Wright and Minister Louis Farrakhan as ways of attacking black people or portraying blacks as being racist (note: yes, I do realize that Pfleger is a white man, but not a lot of conservatives see him in that way).
I found this quote from Pfleger at News Hounds: “O’Reilly doesn’t want to hear the truth we speak,” Father Pfleger said, ” . . . I’ll hang around Wright and Farrakhan any day rather than O’Reilly.”
Who Pfleger chooses to hang with is his business (in no way, shape or form do I subscribe to the theories that Pfleger or Wright are anywhere close to racist as people), but, the underlying message in his quote is an important one. O’Reilly doesn’t want to hear the truth about issues regarding race. He, like many conservatives, live in this laughable utopia where all people of all races are equal, the battle for civil rights was one and it’s a completely level playing field.
Sure, these right wingers will utter the customary, “sure racism still exists,” but every example you give of racism they deny it is racially motivated.
When Bill O’Reilly looks moderate, while conducting an interview, it’s clear that the interviewee has to in all likelihood be an extremist nut. Enter Stewart Rhodes, who is president and founder of Oath Keepers. If this guy is symbolic of the rank and file membership of this organization then that speaks volumes about what this group stands for in this troubling period of our nation’s history. Here is an excerpt from Crooks and Liars from the interview O’Reilly conducted with Stewart.
O’REILLY: OK, so full members in the Oath Keepers have to have a military or police background. Or firefighters. Now, I’m gonna read you something from your website. “We will not obey unconstitutional and thus illegal and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or place them under martial law.”
Well, who’s gonna try to disarm people and place them under martial law? I mean, why would that even be something you would be discussing?
RHODES: Well, it happened as recently as Katrina. You probably have seen the videos there of the old lady being tackled in her kitchen, and disarmed of her revolver, and there was house-to-house searches for firearms. And you had the police chief declaring that no one would be allowed to have weapons, or he’d take all the guns. And he did.
So they disarmed Americans over some bad weather, as though the bad weather suspended the Second Amendment. So, that’s the most recent example.
Although even O’Reilly recognized this guy was an extremist, I did think that Bill took it easy on him with a subdued approach to the segment that would have been far different had he interviewed a left-wing extremist. As just about anyone knows, O’Reilly would have torn into a left-wing nut without hesitation, but instead approached the interview as if he was on anti-depressant medication.
Every time I think of these Fox News “producers” (stalkers) like Griff Jenkins and Jesse Watters, I think of the Ice-T rap, Bitches 2.
Jenkins and Watters have dubious histories in relation to stalking people who do not fit the conservative ideology of Fox News as an organization that served as the public relations arm of the GOP. When someone crosses Fox News, and in particular big shot Bill O’Reilly, clowns like Jenkins and tough-guy Watters are put on the case in an effort to intimidate and/or shame targets into submission (ideally).
Among the most pathetic examples was the pathetic Jesse Watters stalking 5-foot, 100-pound Amanda Terkel, a popular blogger for Think Progress. Like a predator, Watters followed Terkel around while she was on vacation and then sprung out of nowhere and tried to intimidate her in pure ambush fashion.
Check out Terkel’s account of the ambush as she is interviewed by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC:
Notice in the video how the “fair and balanced” O’Reilly labels Terkel as a “FAR-LEFT BLOGGER” in the screen graphic.
This all brings me back to the Ice-T song, Bitches 2:
I knew this guy
That was never that fly
Couldn’t act cool
Even when he tried
When we played rough
He always cried
When he told stories, he always lied
A Black brother
Who was missin’ the cool part
He had the color
But was missin’ the true heart
When we would fight
He would always go down quick
So he took karate
and he still got his ass kicked
But now he’s married
And he kicks his wife’s ass
Says it comes from problems
That he had in the past
Doesn’t like Blacks
Claims he’s upper class
Joined the police, got himself a badge
Now he rolls the streets
and he’s cut to jack
Doggin’ young brothers
Cause they usually don’t fight back
Got a White partner
And he asked for that
and every night
Another head they crack
So now he’s big man
But he really ain’t shit!
Yo, how did he go out?
He went out like a bitch!
So ladies
We ain’t just talkin’ bout you
Cause some of you niggas
Is bitches too!
It’s hard to think of Bill O’Reilly, Griff Jenkins and Jesse Watters and not think of Bitches 2 as their potential theme music.
News Hounds and Think Progress have documented a recent attempt to interview Jenkins who, as Ice-T would wrap, “went out like a bitch.”
Here is the transcript of the conversation Think Progress attempted to have with Jenkins, who all but went into the fetal position:
JENKINS: I’m just covering CPAC for Greta, but listen, call the media relations people, we can do something about my coverage here, other than that, ask the media relations people.
[crosstalk]
TP: Do you ever extend that courtesy to the people you interview?
JEKINS: I gotta go buddy. [...]
TP: I’m just asking, when you ambush people, do you ever do that? [...]
JENKINS: I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but I’m working here.
TP: Yeah, but sometimes when you ambush people, they’re working too.
Just when you thought Glenn Beck (pictured) and Bill O’Reilly could not prove to be any nuttier, we have this (from Media Matters for America):
O’REILLY: Why do you think there’s a level of hatred against you and against me that there is? I mean, look, I was kidding about Bill Maher before. I don’t hate Bill Maher. I like –
BECK: I don’t either.
O’REILLY: I mean, he’s not my kind of guy, but I don’t want to hurt him. I don’t, you know — I’ll make fun of him. But these people want to hurt us. They want to hurt us. Why do you think that is?
BECK: I think because that’s the only way you can win the argument. Look, I mean –
O’REILLY: But they can’t win the argument.
BECK: No, I know that. So what do you do? It is — I mean, it’s why Woodrow Wilson put thousands of Americans behind bars. If you can’t win the argument, you have to shout them down, you have to call them racist, you have to call them names. You have to do whatever it is you have to do. If that doesn’t work, the revolutionary way is as Robert Creamer – as I pointed out on the show. Here’s a guy who went to prison for embezzlement — has designed the progressive blueprint that Obama is using. David Axelrod says that. In a newspaper article when I expose him, he says that we must do whatever we have to do, whatever it takes, to shut him down. Well, what do you think that means?
O’REILLY: Yeah. No, OK, I think that’s a good answer. There’s no other reason for it — other than jealousy.
This shows that Glenn Beck is nuts.
This is the same Glenn Beck who called President Obama and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor “racist” in different rants (which is puzzling since Barack Obama is half white).
This from the same Bill O’Reilly who routinely goes on the air and calls many who disagrees with him “loons,” “pinheads,” “kooks,” etc.
This from the same Bill O’Reilly who has his tough-guy “producer” stalk women like the vacationing Amanda Terkel from Think Progress (and then later crying like a sissy because people bother poor Sarah Palin when she is on vacation).
This from the same Bill O’Reilly who routinely uses his platform to attack NBC and anything affiliated with it (to satisfy his personal vendetta).
Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly and far-right commentator Laura Ingraham had an interesting little exchange when Billy made a compliment (he might have had a senior moment or something) about first lady Michelle Obama. Ingraham, who is a far-right nut, didn’t like that and called him out. But, if there is one thing Bill O’Reilly dislikes more than anything to the left on the political spectrum, it’s having his ego (the size of the continent of Asia) bruised. Ingraham made that slip and he pretty much went off on her as if she had spit in the face of one of his parents.
Here is the exchange:
O’REILLY: Now for the top story tonight, how do conservative Americans feel about Howard Dean being on their side? Joining us from Washington, FOX News analyst and radio talk show star Laura Ingraham.
So I understand you and Dr. Dean have a dinner date tonight? Are you going to go out and.
INGRAHAM: Oh, yeah.
O’REILLY: Yeah?
INGRAHAM: It’s like you and Michelle Obama. We’re like this.
O’REILLY: Hey, Michelle and I have very, very close. Very close.
INGRAHAM: I’m gushing over your gushing last night about the Christmas party. I’m still trying to get over that.
O’REILLY: Wait, a minute. I’m going to call you – I’m calling you out on this.
INGRAHAM: Oh, man.
O’REILLY: I thought she was very nice at the party.
INGRAHAM: What do you think she’s going to do to you?
O’REILLY: I thought she treated everybody respectfully. And you’re giving me a hard time about that because I reported honestly.
INGRAHAM: What did you think she’s going to do you? Not allow you near to the punch bowl? I mean, of course she’s going to be nice to you.
O’REILLY: So what? She was nice. I reported what happened. And you have a beef with it?
INGRAHAM: I don’t remember you gushing over Laura Bush.
O’REILLY: Well, then you have a bad memory, Miss Laura, because I said.
INGRAHAM: Yeah.
O’REILLY: When Laura Bush gave the initial speech at convention in 2000, I was the first broadcaster to say this woman gave an extraordinary speech on education.
INGRAHAM: I have one question for you.
O’REILLY: So you don’t know what you’re talking about. Don’t call me out on that.
INGRAHAM: Bill, one question.
O’REILLY: Go ahead.
INGRAHAM: Did you eat an ACORN cookie last night?
O’REILLY: Oh, bull. You are a blind ideologue who even if somebody’s nice to you, won’t admit it because, you’re, talking about a Kool-Aid drinker.
INGRAHAM: I’m sure that.
O’REILLY: Come on.
INGRAHAM: Oh, come on.
O’REILLY: You have an IV attached to your arm on the Kool-aid.
INGRAHAM: They’re a beautiful family, but let’s talk about the health care bill.
O’REILLY: All right.
This exchange shows two key things: (1) Ingraham is so far to the right she can’t say anything even remotely positive about the other side and (2) O’Reilly has an ego bigger than Africa as proven by the fact his feelings clearly were hurt by Ingraham’s blindly-partisan attack.
The funny part comes up next.
Here is what Steve, from The O’Reilly Sucks Blog, wrote:
Now think about this, Billy said she is a blind ideologue Kool-Aid drinker, but he has her host his show when he is not there. So he is admitting he has a Kool-Aid drinking blind ideologue as his fill-in host. Which also proves that he is an ideologue because he is the one who picked her to be his fill-in.
That is pretty well said. It helps prove that O’Reilly is a right-winger who has other far-right extremists hosting his show in his absence. Remember that the next time Ingraham (with that stupid, doll-like grin and nasal-congested speech) hosts The Factor (if she gets another shot after this) or think about it any time you watch an old episode of the show that she guest-hosted in his absence.
On Friday’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News right-wing commentator Bill O’Reilly cried more than a spoiled kid in Toys R Us hearing “NO” for the first time. So, what was O’Reilly crying about: his old archenemy Sen. Al Franken. O’Reilly has been waging a war against Franken since before the man became a senator from the state of Minnesota. Franken has been one to stand up to Bully O’Reilly and not take his crap and that is something O’Reilly can’t stand. Like a true bully, O’Reilly depends on intimidation and fear as his weapons of choice.
This all brings me to the nontroversy involving Sen. Franken cutting off Sen. Joe Lieberman who had used up his 10 minutes of time. Sen. Franken, by several reports, merely was following the rules as he was made aware. O’Reilly, however, since blood in the water and once again used his platform to wage a personal battle (think back to previous personal attacks he has made against Boyce Watkins, Jesse Jackson, Ward Churchill, NBC, GE, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Dr. George Tiller … to name a VERY FEW). When O’Reilly got word of the incident (one that even Sen. Lieberman laughed off) he went nuts and used it as provocation to attack Sen. Franken.
O’REILLY: Yesterday on the Senate floor, Joe Lieberman was talking about the health care bill and politely asked for an extension to wrap up his remarks. He didn’t even wait for verbal approval because it is almost always given. But not yesterday. That’s because Senator Al Franken, who was in a rotation presiding over the Senate, objected to Lieberman continuing his remarks in a stunning display of disrespect.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone – Franken is a hater and always has been. But it illuminated why the far-left is despised by most Americans. Franken’s actions were mean, petty, and disrespectful. That’s what we often get from the far-left – just look at their web sites and the savages spewing venom on cable television. It’s true that the right does some of that stuff as well, but not nearly as much.
In the end, Franken’s behavior is self-defeating. It’s incredible that the man is even in the Senate, and now he’s alienated most of the country. Does the far-left really think it’s going to get the support of most Americans using tactics like that?
This shows how nutty O’Reilly really has become and how his sanity is slipping through his greasy fingers. It also, once again, puts on display his right-wing hatred for anything that he perceived to be to the left of the political mainstream. It was not a display of disrespect. Sen. Franken politely told Sen. Lieberman that he had used his time up and there would be no extensions granted. It’s not like he said, “Bitch, sit your punk ass down and be quiet.”
Bill O’Reilly calling anyone a hater is laughable and hilarious considering how much he hates Sen. Franken. So, in other words, he was being directly hypocritical.
In the second paragraph of O’Reilly’s above comments you see his right-wing bias spring to the surface. The last sentence of the second paragraph again illustrates his bias and ignorance. He gives you the boilerplate “the other side does it too.” Only problem is O’Reilly almost never talks about anything negative related to Republicans and when he does it is usually minimized.
The first sentence of the third paragraph shows just how ridiculous O’Reilly is as most people could care less about the exchange. Most people understand that you have rules and you follow them without complaining because you don’t get an exception.
Once again, Bill O’Reilly uses his Fox News-granted platform to fight his personal battle with Sen. Al Franken.
While Sen. Franken has worked hard and is fighting for people, Bill O’Reilly is making lots of money by waging personal vendettas on the airwaves of Fox News.
Fox News right-wing talker Bill O’Reilly, who remains consistently dishonest about his political bias, already had his talking points prepared before President Obama’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. O’Reilly was already prepared to attack the leader of our nation before even hearing a word the man had to say about the war effort in Afghanistan.
Here is how Media Matters documents what O’Reilly said as he hosted a show to supposedly analyze the president’s speech on Afghanistan:
Following President Obama’s speech at West Point addressing the war in Afghanistan, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly criticized Obama for supposedly not “saying, ‘Look, these are bad guys. We’re fighting evil” and for not warning Americans that “[i]f we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed all over the world.” In fact, Obama referred to Al Qaeda as “extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam … to justify the slaughter of innocents,” he called the Taliban “a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement,” and he warned that withdrawing from Afghanistan now “would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.”
This is crazy even by Bill O’Reilly’s standards. Additionally, it proves he is a right-wing hater who will never be satisfied with much of anything this president does (after mostly kissing George W. Bush’s ass for eight years). He hammers the president for not using the exact language he wanted him to use (even though the president’s message was clear and strong).
Check out how Media Matters breaks it down and illustrates how O’Reilly’s prejudice paralyzes him in pretty much any discussion about President Barack Obama.
FACT: Obama referred to Al Qaeda as “extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam to justify the slaughter of innocents,” he called the Taliban “a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement,” and he warned that withdrawing from Afghanistan now “would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.”
OBAMA: We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith, or race, or station.
Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers on board one of these flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to Al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents.
Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
O’Reilly also claimed that Obama didn’t put any urgency behind his words, like, ‘If we lose, this is going to lead to more bloodshed all over the world. Let’s wise up everybody and get in there and win it.’ “I didn’t see any of that.”
FACT: Obama said “new attacks are being plotted” from region, and withdrawal now would “create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks.”
OBAMA: I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda.
It is from here that we were attacked on 9-11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders, who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.
And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and Al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9-11, Al Qaeda’s safe havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan: We must deny Al Qaeda a safe haven; we must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government; and we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
Basically O’Reilly only saw what he wanted to see, and he was dishonest about that. As he claims to be fair to Obama, while him and Rove sit there and lie about everything he said in the speech.
Again, we see that O’Biased had a predetermined attack ready to unleash and it barely mattered what the president said. It’s kind of like when the President gives the State of the Union and the opposing party already has a predetermined counterattack ready to go. O’Reilly and others want to portray the president as being tough on terrorists in Afghanistan. Even as he pledged to send more troops to Afghanistan, the conservatives were all ready with new attacks.
You can’t please these right-wing nuts so don’t even try.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who hosts “Hardball” on the network, made what a large number of people considered to be a highly offensive and inexplicable statement about President Obama’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Matthews said that the president went into “the enemy camp” for his speech at West Point. Obviously, you don’t need advanced college degrees to know and see the offensive nature of such a statement. Matthews, rightly, came under fire for those comments.
MATTHEWS: I didn’t see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that the President chose to address tonight and I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That’s where he went to rabble rouse the ‘we’re going to democratize the world’ campaign back in ‘02. So, I thought it was a strange venue.
That is reprehensible and just plain stupid. At the very least, it was a poor choice of words.
MATTHEWS: But first. I’ve gotten some very tough calls from parents of cadets and from former cadets at West Point and about my saying last night that the President going to speak up there to maybe the “enemy camp.” I was talking about the skepticism I saw on the faces in the crowd as President Obama spoke also of course about how West Point was where President Bush went in 2002 to make his most hawkish speech before the Iraq war.
Now I’ve heard too many politicians say things like, “oh that was taken out context” to explain something they wish they hadn’t said let me just say to the cadets, their parents, former cadets and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it: I used the wrong words and worse than that I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize.
As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image. I was wrong to make that conclusion based on the lack of applause or apparent enthusiasm in the ranks of officers and cadets last night. Cadets, one former cadet and a friend of mine just told me, aren’t supposed to show that kind of reaction to a speaker.
He, a former cadet, reminded me that soldiers, including those now in training to face the enemy, want wars to be fought effectively and ended as quickly as possible. I had no reason to assume that the cadets at West Point or their officers who were present last night are more hawkish than the president. People who have watched me over the years know, I think, of my strong devotion to this country and strong gratitude toward those who serve in the military. It’s because our military is so good and true I want the civilians that make the policies and set the missions to get them right, in this country’s best possible interest. And by the way, it’s something we’re allowed to argue about in this country. Whenever I meet someone with a service record I always say, “thank you for your service.” They know I say it, and I hope they know I mean it.
It’s good that Chris Matthews apologized for his comments. He could have done what Bill O’Reilly would do and make excuses, blame the victims and bring on someone like Juan Williams to defend him against a charge. Fortunately, Matthews did not do that and issued a solid apology for his words.
It’s a wonder Bill O’Reilly doesn’t talk about himself in the third person.
The depth and breadth of Bill O’Reilly’s arrogance seemingly knows no bounds. Recently, the right-wing Fox News commentator again granted himself permission (still suffering from his God complex) to take credit for something that he simply deserves no credit for in any way, shape or form. But, the reason that Bill O’Reilly is taking credit for the announced retirement of PBS legend Bill Moyers is precisely what makes him little more than a zit on the face of journalism. O’Reilly has had a vendetta against Moyers and, as he is apt to do, has sent his producers at different times to try and ambush Moyers simply because Big Bill disagrees with the accomplished host on some issues and sees him as a liberal.
For O’Reilly, these (meager as can be) are sufficient grounds to send low-life stalker “producers” after people.
Last night on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly used the news to attack Moyers and his journalistic ethics. He also claimed that his producer, Jesse Watters, was solely responsible for Moyers resigning. “Now I think we — Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS,” said O’Reilly. “I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving.”
Ah yes, in the head of Bill O’Reilly, the fifth-rate Jesse Watters (the tough guy “producer” who stalked and intimidated a female reporter from Think Progress, Amanda Terkel, who wrote this recent article) gets credit for attacking a legend like Bill Moyers.
In 2007, Watters ambushed Moyers on the street outside his home. O’Reilly had Watters harass Moyers after the PBS journalist ran a program about impeaching President Bush. O’Reilly claimed that Moyers symbolized “Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq, based upon hatred of all things Bush,” which he determined was a good reason to send his henchman to Moyers’ house. According to O’Reilly, this one interview was what drove Moyers out of his job two years later.
This just shows how arrogant Bill O’Reilly is to think that an ambush “interview” from a couple of years back drove Bill Moyers completely out of the business.
Talk about a delayed reaction, but in the world of Bill O’Reilly it is so.
Terkel, in her article, does highlight one of my favorite video clips of all time: Fox News “reporter” Porter Berry’s pitiful attempt to ambush Moyers.
Berry is at least 0-2 because he also was schooled by Fr. Michael Pfleger in another of my favorite videos.
Just to show you how angry O’Reilly is at Moyers, his attack continued as he hosted another right-wing talker, Bernie Goldberg.
GOLDBERG: Avuncular, right. But you know what? I knew Bill Moyers at CBS. I worked with him. He’s a very serious guy. And in that sense I give him — I give him credit. When a lot of people were going for fluff, Bill Moyers wanted to do serious journalism.
Some place along the line, Bill, he stopped being a journalist, and he started of being an advocate. He stopped being a journalist, and he started being an evangelist. And the religion he was preaching for was liberalism.
O’REILLY: Far left.
GOLDBERG: Far left. And when you’re — when you’re that kind of person, there are no shades of gray.
O’REILLY: Now I think we — Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS. I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving. Now Bill Moyers is hammering Bush and Cheney, wanted them impeached, this and that, and you know, taking shots at The Factor. So we sent Jesse out to talk with him. Roll the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, FACTOR PRODUCER: Mr. Moyers, what do you think about that? I mean, come on, do you think…
BILL MOYERS, PBS: Come on my show. I’ll ask you. Bill won’t do it. He doesn’t have the courage. But I’ll ask you.
WATTERS: Bill would have been here today but he’ interviewing Lindsay Lohan.
MOYERS: Oh, of course. Bill’s got his priorities in line.
WATTERS: That’s right. He would have loved to be here, but he can’t make it tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right.
GOLDBERG: I’m amazed he knew who Lindsay Lohan was.
O’REILLY: Look, and that was a joke, by the way. There was no Lindsay Lohan interview.
Ha, ha … oh that is so funny.
Once again, O’Reilly uses his platform to attack someone with which he has disagreement. This time (but not the first time) it’s Bill Moyers.
Religion, liberalism … these guys are nuts.
Bill O’Reilly never had the journalistic integrity of Bill Moyers.
Unlike Moyers, O’Reilly gets on television almost every night and lies about being fair.
The O’Reilly Sucks Blog generally does an interesting job of analyzing some of the garbage that Bill O’Reilly serves up on his Fox News right-wing show, The O’Reilly Factor. Lately, O’Reilly has been on a mission to have the tragic massacre that went down at Fort Hood a terrorist attack. This is being done for two primary reasons: 1. There is increasing hatred toward Muslims in this nation. 2. If he can call it a terrorist attack then he can later use it to attack President Obama. Frankly, I could really care less what it is called. Whether it’s a massacre or it’s called a terrorist attack means little to the victims and their families right now. Those who want to force a label on it, and particularly those who are trying to have it called a terrorist attack, are trying to exploit this horrific crime to score political points against President Obama.
Consider this lengthy passage from The O’Reilly Sucks Blog:
The TPM was called Military Controversy. The Army denies they were given information about Hasan talking to Al Qaeda. Billy said they must do an investigation. Then he declared once again that the Fort Hood shooting was terrorism, who decided it, he did. Hey Billy, what happened to we report you decide. What’s really sad is O’Reilly played a clip of a couple Fox News analysts saying Obama gave a good speech at the memorial, and that it proves they are not biased against Obama. What a fricking joke, that does not cancel out the other 99% of the time Fox attacks Obama.
Then Dick Morris was on to discuss it. The crazy Dick Morris claims that the Fort Hood shooting was a terrorist attack, and that it happened under Obama so he is done. What a massive idiot he is, it was one man, in the military. It was not a terrorist attack, and anyone who says it is needs to be locked up in a padded room. A terrorist attack is on civilians, this was a man in the military attacking other people in the military. It’s insane to call it a terrorist attack, the man was in the U.S. military for Gods sake.
These right-wing fools like Dick Morris are actually blaming Obama, Morris said Obama allowed it to happen because he is soft on terror.When this guy Hasan joined the military when Bush was the President, and the military is supposed to police their own people, the President has nothing to do with who the military sign up. Obama has nothing to do with it, yet here you have Dick Morris saying it’s Obama’s fault. This is insanity, and O’Reilly let that fool sit there and blame it on Obama. They should call him Dick (Beck) Morris, it was just ridiculous. The people to blame are in the military and the FBI, they let this guy Hasan go on about his business when they knew he could be trouble, so they are to blame not Obama.
Then O’Reilly had Sally Quinn on to discuss the Fort Hood shooting even more. O’Reilly spent the entire segment trying to force her to call it a terrorist act. She would not do it, and said it was complicated. Then at the very end of the segment Billy finally got her to say it was a terrorist act. But she said it in a sarcastic way, just to make O’Reilly happy, she was not being serious, and she was laughing as she said it. Then in the next segment with Ralph Nader O’Reilly said he got Sally quinn to admit it was a terrorist act, and he was serious, when she only admittted it in a sarcastic way, and she was not being serious. She said we should wait until the military and the FBI decide he is a terrorist, Billy said we already know he is, and 90% of the people watching him do too.
Billy had Ralph Nader on to discuss politics and terrorism. Billy asked Nader about the Fort Hood shooting, he wanted to know if Nader would call it terrorism. Nader said he will not call it a terrorist act, he called it a massacre, and said he will let the military decide what it is. O’Reilly is calling it a terrorist attack. Then Nader told O’Reilly he was not invited on to talk about terrorism, he was invited on to talk about his new book. So Billy tried to do a bait and switch on Nader and he would not fall for it. Then O’Reilly asked him again about the Fort Hood shooting, and Nader said he will only call it a massacre.
O’Reilly would not let it go, and kept talking about the Fort Hood shooting, even though Nader said he was not invited on to talk about it. Billy said Nader was dodging the issue, then repeated that statement 2 or 3 times trying to force Nader to answer him, and Nader got a little mad. Then he brought up how O’Reilly was wrong about Iraq, and that led to thousands of innocent people getting killed, so Billy admitted he was wrong and changed the subject real fast, then he told Nader to go ahead and talk about his book. Stupid O’Reilly tried to pull a bait and switch on Nader and he would not bite, haha, good for you Ralph. More guests should do what he did when O’Jackass pulls his bait and switch tricks.
This is an attempt by O’Reilly and his fellow conservatives to begin to build their case for attack President Obama by exploiting this tragedy at Fort Hood. It is deplorable for these conservatives to use this horrible crime for their own partisan purposes.
Fox News right-wing host Bill O’Reilly refuses to let the murdered Dr. George Tiller, who provided abortions, rest in peace. It’s not bad enough that O’Reilly frequently attacked Dr. Tiller who was murdered in vicious and cold-blooded fashion (at the hands of a cowardly anti-abortion bigot). Now, Bill O’Reilly is callously exploiting the tragic murders at Fort Hood (Texas) to again attack Dr. George Tiller (who was a family man in addition to being a doctor) and portray himself as a victim who is being attacked.
As Media Matters for America points out, it seems O’Reilly has ignored the right wing exploiting this tragedy to again launch bigoted attacks on Muslims and others they see as “extremists” in their narrow-minded view of the world. Instead of being balanced and fair, he has used this tragedy to again showcase his far-right bias and use his platform to attack people he sees as liberals.
Fox News right-wing talk show host Bill O’Reilly has a history of making racially insensitive comments (particularly ones directed toward black people). O’Reilly has joined fellow right-wing pundits in attacking Rep. Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, who is an outspoken critic of Republicans. To be fair, Rep. Grayson has rightfully come under fire for a series of comments during which he referred to Linda Robertson, who is an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a “K Street whore” as reported by POLITICO. Rep. Grayson has rightfully been smacked around for that one very poor statement and issued the following apology:
“I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke,” Grayson said in an emailed statement. “I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.”
In the emailed statement, Grayson gave further context to the comment, saying it was made “last month in the context of the debate over whether the Federal Reserve should be independently audited, was inappropriate, and I apologize.”
It’s good that he apologized because those kinds of comments are inappropriate.
Sexist example (O’Reilly’s attack on Helen Thomas and even sexist comment in reference to Sarah Palin, who he clearly likes):
Racism example (a video posted by Dr. Boyce Watkins with excellent notes):
O’Reilly’s right-wing rally energizer Griff Jenkins, again disguised as a legitimate reporter, to attempt to ambush Rep. Grayson, who maintained his cool and instructed Jenkins to request an interview formally (several times). But, quite frankly, Democrats should avoid Fox News until the network cleans up its act and lives up to its now phony billing as being a “fair and balanced” outlet for news.
O’REILLY: Now, how do we get to this point? Black people in this country understand that they’ve had a very, very tough go of it, and some of them can get past that, and some of them cannot. I don’t think there’s a black American who hasn’t had a personal insult that they’ve had to deal with because of the color of their skin. I don’t think there’s one in the country. So you’ve got to accept that as being the truth. People deal with that stuff in a variety of ways. Some get bitter. Some say, [unintelligible] “You call me that, I’m gonna be more successful.” OK, it depends on the personality.
So it’s there. It’s there, and I think it’s getting better. I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They’re getting away from the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They’re just trying to figure it out: “Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it.”
You know, I was up in Harlem a few weeks ago, and I actually had dinner with Al Sharpton, who is a very, very interesting guy. And he comes on The Factor a lot, and then I treated him to dinner, because he’s made himself available to us, and I felt that I wanted to take him up there. And we went to Sylvia’s, a very famous restaurant in Harlem. I had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful. They all watch The Factor. You know, when Sharpton and I walked in, it was like a big commotion and everything, but everybody was very nice.
And I couldn’t get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia’s restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it’s run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that’s really what this society’s all about now here in the U.S.A. There’s no difference. There’s no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment — people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you’re gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody’s skin.
[...]
O’REILLY: No, no, I mean, I like that soul food. I had the meatloaf special. I had coconut shrimp. I had the iced tea. It was great.
WILLIAMS: Well, let me just tell you, the one thing I would say is this. And we’re talking about the kids who still like this gangsta rap, this vile poison that I think is absolutely, you know, literally a corruption of culture. I think that what you’ve got to take into account that it’s still a majority white audience — young, white people who think they’re into rebelling against their parents who buy this stuff and think it’s just a kick. You know, it’s just a way of expressing their anti-authoritarianism.
O’REILLY: But it’s a different — it’s a different dynamic, though.
WILLIAMS: Exactly right –
O’REILLY: Because the young, white kids don’t have to struggle out of the ghetto.
WILLIAMS: Right, and also, I think they can have that as one phase of their lives.
O’REILLY: Yeah.
WILLIAMS: I think too many of the black kids take it as, “Oh, that’s what it means to be authentically black. That’s how you make money. That’s how you become rich and famous and get on TV and get music videos.” And you either get the boys or the girls. The girls think they have to, you know, be half-naked and spinning around like they’re on meth in order to get any attention. It really corrupts people, and I think it adds, Bill, to some serious sociological problems, like the high out-of-wedlock birth rate because of this hypersexual imagery that then the kids adapt to some kind of reality. I mean, it’s inauthentic. It’s not in keeping with great black traditions of struggle and excellence, from Willie Mays to Aretha Franklin, but even in terms of academics, you know, going back to people like Charles Drew or Ben Carson here, the neurosurgeon at [Johns] Hopkins [University]. That stuff, all of a sudden, is pushed aside. That’s treated as, “You’re a nerd, you’re acting white,” if you try to be excellent and black.
O’REILLY: You know, and I went to the concert by Anita Baker at Radio City Music Hall, and the crowd was 50/50, black/white, and the blacks were well-dressed. And she came out — Anita Baker came out on the stage and said, “Look, this is a show for the family. We’re not gonna have any profanity here. We’re not gonna do any rapping here.” The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn’t know, particularly people who don’t have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.
WILLIAMS: Oh, and it’s just so awful. It’s just so awful because, I mean, it’s literally the sewer come to the surface, and now people take it that the sewer is the whole story –
O’REILLY: That’s right. That’s right. There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, “M-Fer, I want more iced tea.”
WILLIAMS: Please –
O’REILLY: You know, I mean, everybody was — it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.
There is an example of O’Reilly perpetuating negative stereotypes of black people as being unsophisticated, rude, profane and uncivilized while portraying whites as being docile, having fun, civilized and cordial.
The point is that when Bill O’Reilly makes nasty, racist, racially insensitive, sexist or other controversial-type statements, he has a hundred excuses and brings people like Fox News analyst apologist Juan Williams (posing as a Democrat) on to apologize for him. O’Reilly asserts he is being smeared and taken out of context. When non-Republicans, like Alan Grayson make a statement in very poor taste and offensive, O’Reilly hammers the person repeatedly (even after an apology) and refuses to accept any context.
That’s what you get from “fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly.
Warren Ballentine, on The O’Reilly Factor, tells Fox News contributor and fake Democrat Juan Williams he can “go back to the porch.”
Obviously, that is not a kind statement and it will be interesting to see how people read between the lines to interpret what Ballentine meant when he said that to Williams, who is dishonestly portrayed as a liberal.
Another interesting comment, while in the debate with Williams in this clip, comes from Ballentine when he says “it is racial to real black people.”
Sandy Gholston
Here is Mike Thompson’s Detroit Free Press cartoon that apparently caused Bill O’Reilly to blow a nut.
