Bill O'Reilly's up to his old tricks. Basically, he either tells an outrageous lie or does something stupid and, when someone calls him on it, he's the victim of a 'smear campaign'. Bill makes a lot of his tough talk, but when it comes to facing up to his mistakes (to put it charitably), he's a nine year old girl.
Bill ironically titles this The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day (the day being 7/18/06):
As you know, I'm tough on newspaper reporters when they are dishonest, and that happens a lot in America, unfortunately. And not only here.
In the Irish Independent, a writer named Ian O'Doherty put forth:
"Bill O'Reilly, the hectoring blowhard on FOX, feels no discomfort at telling the son of a man who died on 9/11 that 'your father would be ashamed of you' because he opposed the war in Iraq."
That, of course, is a lie. Mr. O'Doherty flat out printed a falsehood.
Now the interview in question took place shortly after 9/11. Obviously, the Iraq war was not in existence. The Irish Independent should understand. Stuff like this is ridiculous and reflects very poorly on that newspaper.
Ahhhh, the Irish.
Isn't 'O'Reilly' irish?
Of course, it's Bill O'Reilly who's spouting flat out falsehoods. Glick was an antiwar activist who was opposed to the war in Afghanistan - for Bill, so far, so good. But anyone who remembers the run up to the war remembers that there was a lot of activism in an attempt to avoid war with Iraq. You don't have to wait for a war to begin to oppose it. O'Reilly's interview of Glick was in February '03. One month before the war.
It's not like everyone woke up in March and said, "Woah! A war! When'd that happen?"
The ad that O'Reilly invited Glick to 'discuss' was statement opposing a coming war in Iraq, as well as the war in Afghanistan. The 'discussion' turned out to be an opportunity for O'Reilly to have a fullblown hissy fit over the very idea that someone might have a differing opinion about the morality of military action.
Rolling Stone put things this way:
...In February 2003, he had on as a guest a young man named Jeremy Glick, whose father, a Port Authority worker, died in the World Trade Center attack. A self-described "radical leftist," Glick was invited on The Factor to explain why he had signed an anti-war statement by a group called Not in Our Name, which accused America of committing atrocities "similar" to the September 11th attacks in Panama, Iraq and Vietnam. O'Reilly was openly disgusted by Glick's politics and splutteringly furious at his guest's refusal to endorse the invasion of Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban ("Who killed your father?!" O'Reilly bellowed). When Glick tried, repeatedly, to be heard above his host's interruptions, O'Reilly shouted, "I don't really care what you think," and was soon yelling at Glick to "shut up!" He eventually told his engineer to cut Glick's mike. (Glick later said that O'Reilly told him, after the taping, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to fucking pieces" -- although Glick also admits that he baited O'Reilly, off-camera, with insults about his show.)...
CarpeIcthus has a transcript.
'No Spin Zone' my ass, O'Reilly. You even lie about who's telling lies.
--Wisco
5 comments:
it would be nice if you backed up your assertion of a lie.. with fact and not an opinion or a rape of another article.
I rally can't find anywhere here where you pointed out a "lie".
Typical, sensational headline, no substance (except hate)
Golly Anny, that's a real stumper.
I know it's real hard to follow, but O'Reilly claims that O'Doherty is lying. His 'proof' is that Glick couldn't be an Iraq war protester because there was no war in Iraq yet.
But Glick was protesting war in Iraq - that's what the 'Not in My Name' ad was about, for chrissake.
I myself spent some time protesting a theoretical, but almost certain, war myself during the same period. If someone would've asked me what I was protesting against, I would've said, "War in Iraq."
Even if Glick were A-OK with war in Iraq, O'Reilly's defense of himself would make no sense.
As it is, it makes no sense and is untrue.
The lie is claimed by BO here:
"'your father would be ashamed of you' because he opposed the war in Iraq."
That, of course, is a lie. Mr. O'Doherty flat out printed a falsehood.
Now the interview in question took place shortly after 9/11. Obviously, the Iraq war was not in existence."
BO is saying the writer for the Irish Independent is lying about the whole exchange because the Iraq war "was not in existence".
Only it was, and it was part of the original interviewee's point of coming on the show.
It's not a sensational headline. From where I'm sitting, it's more of a factual statement.
BO is from tabloid tv, he gets paid tons for lying.
Check out O'Reillys blustering about the US killing Nazi's near the end of WWII and dressing down a General about it not once, but TWICE..and being absolutely WRONG about the facts and having FOX change the transcripts of the show to remove his idiocy. He was wrong about it then wrong AGAIN months later, but would never admit it.
He's a liar and an idiot.
Oops, forgot the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_yMT5V8SI&search=bill%20o%27reilly
Post a Comment