O'Reilly endorsed assassinating Syrian leader if he "doesn't help us out"
On the October 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly called for the assassination of Syria's leader, Bashar al-Assad, if Assad does not help promote stability in the Middle East by maintaining Iraq's borders. O'Reilly claimed that "we could take his life, and we should take his life if he doesn't help us out." O'Reilly was responding to Fox News contributor Gen. Wesley Clark's suggestion that the United States use diplomacy to bolster regional support for the Iraq war among uncooperative neighbors.
From the October 3 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And joining us now from Little Rock, Arkansas, is Fox News military analyst General Wesley Clark, who has been thinking about Iraq policy. OK, General, go. What would you do if you were in charge?
CLARK: Bill, it's always taken a three-legged stool to succeed in Iraq. Leg one is the military, leg two is the politics inside Iraq, and leg three is the diplomacy in the region and especially with Iraq's neighbors.
Now, for the first year we were in Iraq, we only had leg one, the military. Then we added the political. The political is bringing a constitution to be voted on later this month that's going to really anger 20 percent of the population. And when it passes, which it probably will, we'll have deeper animosities inside Iraq.
So the mission is in trouble. You're right; it's a big mess. The reason is the Bush administration has never really grasped the diplomatic problem in the region. If we want to fix Iraq, we've got to work the diplomacy of the region. Now, how do we do it? We meet individually, we send emissaries in, we talk to Iraq's neighbors. Turkey, Jordan -- no problem. Kuwait -- no problem. Syria and Iran -- that's really tough. This administration doesn't want to talk to either one of them directly. And yet, they're part of the problem in Iraq. When we invaded Iraq, we let Syria and Iran know they were next.
We're putting the squeeze on Syria right now. We'd like to run -- the administration would like to run -- Bashar Assad out of town and get rid of this government in Syria. So he's got no incentive right now to try to help us work in Iraq. And as far as Iran is concerned, we've got a looming nuclear crisis with Iran, and we're not talking to them. So our military people, our mission in Iraq is being held hostage by the neighbors. We're going to have to talk to the neighbors if we want to make this mission work.
O'REILLY: All right. Well, Syria, I think you can probably make a deal -- is you spare Bashar's life if he cooperates with us. I agree with you.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. So let's sum up. So you want to -- you want to --
CLARK: Take that common interest, and build out of it a regional dialogue, and let the United States then train the Iraqi forces, step back as the guarantor of regional security in the region, and then let each of these countries guarantee Iraq's border, and let their --
O'REILLY: All right. It's an optimistic viewpoint that they would do that.
CLARK: It's a possible viewpoint, Bill.
O'REILLY: North Korea proves that, although we don't know if North Korea is going to do what they say they're going to do. So it's a dangerous world. But look, I'm not opposed to having conversations with Syria and Iran to try to help us out over there, but I don't -- Syria, I think you could do it, because as you said, you know, it's Bashar's life. I mean, we could take his life, and we should take his life if he doesn't help us out. Iran -- different nut.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
What with the immense numbers of articles MMFA writes on O'Reilly, I was almost inclined to skip this one.
Of course, with respect to O'Reilly's remarks, this will blow over much faster than did Robertson's. O'Reilly, while holding some level of power and opining to a similar audience as Robertson's, will not receive a similar amount of coverage for this. For one, I doubt al-Assad is as popular as Chavez (who, by the way, called for the UN to move out of NYC. Go to zmag.org for the story) in the eyes of Americans. Let's face it, the guy's a non-Christian rubber-stamped terrorist, though in reality he probably is one for real - unlike Chavez. Also, consider the principle of diminishing returns. It's a sort of "we've heard this before, don't bother me with the same old story." I wonder if the same applies for missing white girl and Frist on-screen diagnoses.
Frankly, I hope that this receives more coverage. O'Reilly needs to at least realize that people dislike him for a reason.
He saw all the attention Pat Robertson got for advocating the assassination of a foreign leader. He wants attention.
Well I would have THOUGHT that after the Pat Robertson fiasco involving Chavez that no one with HALF a brain would have suggested "taking out" another nation's leader any time soon...I wonder how O'Reilly would react IF some religious leader or foreign journalist suggested assassinating Bush? (though If I remember correctly some British journalist did just that).
I think on this subject (assassination) Bill should have taken HIS own advice and just SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!! ;-)
What was omitted where the ellipses are after the first bolded portion of OReilly's coments? The context of the discussion as transcribed makes it appear that Clark agreed with O'Reilly (or rather, that O'Reilly was agreeing with Clark). The omitted portion may shed light on whether the opinion is shared by both men.
O'Reilly suggests killing the Syrian leader who has been in power since 2000, not because of terrible crimes, but because he doesn't provide enough support to the US. What a wonderful foreign policy (sarcasim) - kill, overthrow, or denigrate (or let hurricanes hit) those you don't support you! It is a simplistic policy.
As "nsbmudshark" remarked above, I would like to see Clarks' reaction or non-reaction to the first time O'Reilly endorsed assassination in his dialogue. The fact that Clark is a paid analyst lending creditibility to Fox concerns me. Is he selling out? If so, he is selling his credibility.
[link to www.showbizdata.com]
Can you imagine what this guy would be like if he really had any power? Does he have any idea how idiotic he sounds? I wonder what the response would be from the tv talking heads if the head of another country advocated this about our president.
Unbelievable.
Great.
Soon, the abbreviation "U.S.A." will be known globally as Unilaterally Suggesting Assassination.
Good one!
I am looking to join the neo-conservative moment. So, I just want to say, "We should terminate any one who disagrees with our present agenda no matter how off the wall it is, how wrong it is, or how poorly it is excuted -- whatever it is because we are a beckon of freedom for the world! Wait, I am tearing up, I promised myself I would not cry. And yes, we have alway been at war with Eurasia."
I picked up that book and was done - eat, sleep and sports included - within, frighteningly enough, somewhere close to 1984 minutes (33h4m)
This might apply to those looking to think a bit:
'When I was arrested, Oceania was at war with Eastasia.
'With Eastasia. Good. And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, has it not?'
Winston drew in his breath. He opened his mouth to speak and then did not speak. He could not take his eyes away from the dial.
'The truth, please, Winston. Your truth. Tell me what you think you remember.'
'I remember that until only a week before I was arrested, we were not at war with Eastasia at all. We were in alliance with them. The war was against Eurasia. That had lasted for four years. Before that -- '
O'Brien stopped him with a movement of the hand.
I have to take issue with this language used in the text of your article "Fox News contributor Gen. Wesley Clark's suggestion that the United States use diplomacy to bolster regional support for the Iraq war among uncooperative neighbors."
Wesley Clark was referring not to bolstering support for "the Iraq war" but for a regional inclusion and contact group in guiding Iraq's future in hopes to avoid furthuring the Iraq war.
Hopefully the text of this article can be revisited.
This type of stuff underscores the complete and utter failure and/or lack of effective foreign policy in this administration. I know the talking heads are not, at least officially, part of the government, but it seems like every other week one of these clowns is suggesting we off the leader of a country that won't cooperate with US or has something we want (oil). Just another one of the many miserable failures of the reign of George II.
Just another one of the many miserable failures of the reign of George II.
by rufus t firefly - Wednesday October 5, 2005 08:10:06 AM
How exactly is George Bush even remotely responsible for the statements of O'Reilly and Robertson?
He's not responsible at all. There just seems to be a real 'off with their head' mentality in the public discourse lately and it occurs to me that maybe if this administration spent more time on basic foreign policy and less on corporate aggression and hegemony there would be less talk of assassination as a diplomatic tool. I also strongly feel that if this is being floated by the right wing media blowhards, there are no doubt those in the administration who silently agree. You think Ollie North wouldn't like a new, secret assignment?
You managaged to come up with an entire paragraph that did not say anything. Then you bashed North. Why? If you had some sort of theory about how the current administration could change their international policy in order to help our country. Stop throwing out propaganda and give us something legit. That makes for good discussion. Bashing O'Reilly or North is actually quite childish.
Whether my paragraph "said anything" is up for argument, but at least it's made up of complete sentences. How's the good old USA doing around the world these days, anyway? Pillar of liberty? Beacon of freedom? Looked up to, respected? The Bush regime has dragged our reputation to maybe it's lowest point ever, and yes, I do think it matters. My theory? Treat other countries and cultures with respect; stop blundering into wars whose purpose is nation-building. Show a little more conscience as a member of the world community and maybe there would be fewer people who'd like to take us down.
As far as Ollie North, his latest book sounds like it's about the very topic of this thread, namely taking out leaders of other countries, so he's a fair topic for this discussion.
Better stop, I feel a flag coming on.
Neither the comment nor the lack of response by other media or the public at large is surprising to me. What is troubling about aggressive words like this is that it merely inflames the "enemies" he is referring to to adopt similar stances. Say for example, that we did take his advice and had a Delta force team successfully take out the Syrian leader. Wouldn't Syria then be morally justified in attempting to kill Bush or declare an all-out war on the American people? While I know that Syria is part of the "axis of evil" and undoubtedly has many fanatical muslims and other wastoids who would love nothing better than to kill all of us devils, why spout off like this about something that would make their irrational hatred justified? Especially by a chickenhawk such as O'Reilly.
This is true, and yet the righty talkers drone on and on about how Cindy Sheehan, Abu Ghraib, etc, are giving support to the enemy and hurting our troops. Hypocrisy, thy name is O'Reilly. (Or fill in the blank.)
are these the new american taliban talking points ? assassinate middle east leaders ? but they are to be spoken only by the shills ?
Seems pretty clear the BO is advocating assassination of Assad. This is pretty irresponsible, I agree. But its hardly over a trivial matter as some of the above commenters suggest. Syria's active help given to foreign jihadis crossing into Iraq is a causus belli. Now how much Assad personally has to do with it is open to question, as he does not seem to have full control of his intelligence services, who continue to assissinate pro-independence activists in Lebanon. But it should be clearly understood that if US forces attack Syria proper it will not be because of Assad not going along with some nefarious neoconservative agenda, but because of acts of war perpetrated against the US.
www.postmodernspectator.com
It is wrong to assert that Syria has been aiding and abetting the entry into Iraq by radical Sunni groups. The reigning Baath party in Syria is Shiite, so it would not be in its interest to undermine the nascent rise to power by their brethren in Iraq. Furthermore, the border between Iraq and Syria is REMOTE DESERT, much like the U.S. border with Mexico. If the U.S., a powerful industrialized country, cannot secure its own borders, then why should it expect a poor country to be able to?
Hey people, you can see why the rest of the world doesn't take us seriously anymore. First Congress is compromised, then the Executive Branch, the Media and then the Judicial Branch, or maybe the last two simultaneously, point is, this is the reason we are not making any headway. "Stupid is, stupid does..." and we are showing ourselves to fit the bill. A fatwa on Bill O'Reilly's tall forehead.
As a post thought, I wish to point out O'Reilly is merely following the Neo-Con Agenda like a good little monkey by blindly pushing the cause for invading Syria, regardless of reason's falsehoods as Blueblood so astutely clarfies.
So now billy o'lielly has become a bona fide terrorst.
Arrest him, and be done with it!
1. Syrian leader should be assasinated. Just like Fidel Castro and Chavez.
2. If you keep up with O'Reilly he has stated on previous show what exactly is wrong with the Syrian leader. So here I am sure he didn't feel the need to go into it all directly since they are focussing on Iraq and what to do there.
3. What is this just bash anyone who has a different view then you guys do. What happened to respecting a persons point of view.
Our country used to be great once, now it is going down hill mainly due to liberl and far right sites, blogs, and idiots on TV that bash people for their point of views instead of pulling out fact.
The sad thing is he just said what many want to say but are to afraid of saying.
Domestic law forbids the threat of assassination of a foreign head of state by an American citizen. The U.S. government officially rescinded its policy of assassination under the Ford administration. If the U.S. tolerates direct threats of violence by U.S. citizens against foreign heads of state then it embarks upon a VERY slippery slope. It is a terrorist act, assassination, and anyone that supports its use is a terrorist, plain and simple, from the left or right.