O'Reilly on 2003 Glick interview: "If I could have whacked him, I would have"
On Fox News' The Lineup, Bill O'Reilly said that his 2003 interview of Jeremy Glick -- whose father was killed during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center -- was the interview he "got most offended by." O'Reilly said the interview was "just revolting," and made him "so angry and appalled" that, "[i]f I could have whacked him, I would have."
During the May 28 edition of Fox News' The Lineup, Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, informed guest host Megyn Kendall that his 2003 interview of Jeremy Glick -- whose father was killed during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center -- was the interview he "got most offended by." O'Reilly said the interview was "just revolting," and made him "so angry and appalled" that, "[i]f I could have whacked him, I would have." Glick appeared on the show to discuss his signing of the "Not in Our Name" petition, a statement that "call[ed] on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration."
O'Reilly has frequently distorted comments Glick made during the interview, repeatedly claiming Glick stated that President George W. Bush and former President George H.W. Bush were "directly responsible for 9-11." In his May 28 comments, O'Reilly revised his accusation, this time asserting that Glick "impl[ied] the U.S. government had something to do with" the 9-11 attacks. In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously documented, Glick noted U.S. involvement with training the Afghan mujahedeen during the late 1970s and early 1980s while discussing the 9-11 attacks and his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
During his February 4, 2003, appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, Glick argued that CIA support of anti-Soviet Afghan fighters in the '70s and '80s had provided the training for what would later emerge as Al Qaeda -- the organization responsible for the terrorist attacks. Glick stated:
GLICK: [S]ix 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 mujahedeen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
[...]
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.
While now professing the desire to "whack[]" Glick, O'Reilly has previously claimed that it was Glick who was "out of control." As Media Matters noted, O'Reilly claimed that "security actually had to take the guy [Glick] out of the building, he was that out of control." Yet, during the interview, it was O'Reilly who repeatedly told Glick to "shut up"; and ended the interview by saying, "Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father." According to Glick, as documented in the film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004), "The executive producer and the assistant encouraged me to leave the building because they were, quote, 'concerned that if O'Reilly ran into me in the hallway, he would end up in jail.' "
From the May 28 edition of Fox News' The Lineup:
KENDALL: How about this: most offensive interview, the one that you got most offended by?
O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick. This guy comes in after the attack on 9-11. His father was killed in the World Trade Center, and he comes in. He signs an advertisement that says America is a terrorist nation. I get him in here, and then he says the "alleged attack" on the World Trade Center, implying the U.S. government had something to do with it. I was so angry and appalled, and the far left has made this guy into a hero, this Glick guy. And, it was just revolting. And if I could have whacked him, I would have. I got 29 people in my area in Long Island dead, and this guy is saying the U.S. government -- implying, I should say -- the U.S. government had something to do with this? It was just off the chart! I am glad I gave him what-for. I did give him what-for, you might remember that. I'm glad I did.
KENDALL: I do. That was one of the more watched interviews. What about -- this last question: What about, you know, the one interview that stands out as sort of touching you -- somebody who really got to you. You interview so many people, so many families of people who died in Iraq or 9-11. Is there anybody stand out like that?
O'REILLY: Well, first of all, I have no feelings, as everyone watching the Factor knows. I mean, just totally numb. I am a sociopath. Look --
KENDALL: You said that, not me.
Finally Bill admits it.
...towards recovery. Is there a twelve-step program for sociopaths? I'd love to see Bill starting to make amends with all the people he's wronged.
Bill doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to make it past Step 4.
That Bill would be able to "recover" he is so far gone. Nice to see he has admitted this:
"Individuals with this disorder have little regard for the feeling and welfare of others."
Here are ten symptoms:
not learning from experience no sense of responsibility inability to form meaningful relationships inability to control impulses lack of moral sense chronically antisocial behavior no change in behavior after punishment emotional immaturity lack of guilt self-centeredness
Sounds like Bill exactly.
Notice they don't actually let you hear what Glick is saying? If I recall, he never said anything about the US orchestrating the attacks.
Anyone care to correct me?
close italics
IIRC, Glick was referring to the manner in which Bush 41, Rummy, Reagan, Cheney had all supported, funded, and trained OBL and Hussein back in the 80s and 90s (to fight the soviets and iran, respectively).
Bill Oreilly equated that with saying the U.S. government orchestrated 9-11
Glick never said or hinted such a thing. It's typical O'Reilly to tell his audience -- an audience of over 60 year old Coors guzzling geezers -- not to believe what he said on a previous show. The thing that a pathological liar must have, is a good memory in order to make his slop work. He doesn't.
"You might not catch a thief, but you'll ALWAYS catch a liar !"
"Well, first of all, I have no feelings, as everyone watching the Factor knows. " -- Bill O'Reilly.
Billy Goat didn't even get that right. He's not without feelings--he's full of anger, hate, and I think he's self loathing. That would explain his deep seated insecurities that surface and look like a huge ego.
[link to www.oreilly-sucks.com]
[link to www.propagandamatrix.com]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
There is some inconsistent info on whether he opposed the war in Iraq or Afganistan, but it appeared to be the latter.
It is time for action!
Lets storm the station, or something. Anything.
Got any ideas?
Seriousely !
[link to mediamatters.org]
This did not work apparently. I do not know if Glick has any ground for a lawsuit for slander. There are also other newsstations that might be interested in O'Reilly's bitch fits. Could we get any station interested in making a documentory on O'Reilly ala outfoxed?
Well, Bill, why didn't you whack him? He was sitting right there. It's not like your boys in "FOX Security" would have stopped you. Did you hesitate at the moment of truth because you're just a big blowhard?
according to those the guy was asked to leave to protect O'Reilly from having an aggressive attack and landing him in prison. Not sure whether that is true, though.
To keep Bill from getting his butt whooped on like a red-headed stepchild. Yeah, I'm sure they were worried about a coward like O'Reilly beating Glick senseless.
But where Bill comes from it's usually used in the "Goodfellas" sense, not in the "Whack A Mole" sense.
Is nitwit O'Reilly saying he should have killed Mr. Glick?
The way I read this, I think Billy O did mean it in the sense of wiseguys hitting someone. When O'Really gets really really steamed at someone, he has fantasized about killing them on air before. He described a Spaghetti Western shootout scenario when discussing Al Franken, saying he'd put a bullet between his head (If he can't describe it right, I'd hate to see him shoot!). Billyboy also told Andrea Mackris, when he wasn't talking about falaffel, that is, that Roger Ailes has powerful friends he could turn to for revenge against Franken. So I think you're absolutely right; Glick really got under Bill's skin, and when that happens, he fantasizes about doing the person in.
The hard right wants Americans to believe that the "surprise attack" on 9/11 came out of the blue and were conceived by people who simply hate our freedoms.
Glick had the temerity to try to shed light on the more complex motivations of the attackers. He also attempted to explore the history of our involvement in the affairs of Afghanistan and our past support of the Mujahideen.
It's easier for the right to ignore the consequences of our past attempts to influence other nations rather than face the fact that such efforts have often ended in failure and/or unanticipated consequences. Exploring actual history makes it harder to sell their "freedom spreading" agenda.
is that O'Reilly is right one one thing: there are left-wing conspiracy theories how Bush and his administration orchestrated the attacks.
Nothing to back these claims up and pretty sad.
There are left wing conspiracies about Bush being a part of it. There are also rightwing conspiracies about how Israel was a part of it, or that the UN orchestrated it as part of their drive for a world government (this theory is favored by those who don aluminum foil brainwave disrupters to keep the Koreans in black helicopters from reading their brainwaves as they fly over middle America mutilating cattle).
Conspiracy theories are inevitable when something so incomprehensible happens to such a powerful nation. Psychologically, it is difficult to make sense of how such a ragtag outfit as Al Qaeda could have pulled that one on the most powerful government in the world. So, psychologically, it becomes easier to believe that that government, or another powerful force, must have had a hand in it. Just as it is hard to believe that a marginal marksman/bumbling communist could have killed a great man like Kennedy with an aging surplus WWII rifle and cheap scope. Thus the conspiracy theories.
The point is that those who hold these conspiracy theories about 9-11 are fringes on either side.
maybe if there had been a thorough, independant investigation we would know if anything about these claims has merit.
although the conspiracy theories may not be true on the whole, there are many "holes" in the narrative of what happened that day. we may never get all the answers.
Yellowbird,
I always like your comments, keep them coming! Those of you who are skeptical about conspiracy theories should look up PNAC. Just simply google it. Read about it. The PNAC needed a 9/11 type of event to happen in order for it to get started. And suddenly, with the president coincidentally in Florida, and no one knowing where Cheney is, we are "attacked" Come on. Someone knew something. It's disgusting. Also remember that this administration lies constantly. They need to keep their agenda secret. Conspiracy theorists don't necessarily help matters with their suppositions. However, that being said, personally I think a lot of conspiracy theorists are people who are looking for the truth - and those of us who want to accept what is spoon-fed to us by the government (no matter what administration!) look down upon anyone who might be searching for truth that could be scary.
I seriously doubt Mr Bill would be able to confront Jeremy Glick and slap him...let alone even step toward him......
The one thing that has always been obvious about bully's and bloviators is that they have more bark than bite!
Besides......Glick Jr has had the last 2 1/2 years to calm down....but something tells me that if Glick Jr could .....(if given the chance).....he would beat the holy poop out of Bill in a heartbeat!
Bill was disrespectful as usual toward Glick........and if I where the DA in the town that Glick where to beat down Bill......I would press charges on Bill so fast.......
The charge........Assault with WMD.......(his mouth).....and make him pay for the injuries to Glicks knuckles!!
Ah.......we can all dream....can't we!!
More likely......Bill would approach Glick and offer some lame-ass appology....and say something like......."That was a good show......oh wait.....you aren't the Dixie Chicks...." Suck up to him with all his might.....and then on his show......tell his viewers that he put Glick in his place yet again......
Oh Bill........you are my hero!!
He's a bully & an intimidator, & such men are usually cowards when confronted by anyone who even remotely looks like they could 'whack' him back.
So, instead, he does what he always does: he lies. This has always been Billyboy's MO. When someone gets the better of him, he simply recreates the incident, casting himself as the martyr/hero, & his opponent as the ogre/villain. He's just a seven year old in man's body. If he was less viscious in his dealings with others, he might even engender a little sympathy.
O'lielley has at times referred to his own background. His father, according to Bill, was a harsh, bullying, unloving man, who Bill grew up hating. He could just never please the man, leaving him with feelings of frustration & rage.
Many people grow up in abusive households, & the influence of the abuse always lasts their entire lifetime. Some are able to learn from the pain inflicted upon them, recognising this malevolence for what it is, & manage to channel those feelings into positive directions. They become empathetic to others that are victimized by violence & abuse, & become gentle souls.
Others (& unfortunately O'Lielley is one of the) internalize the abuse, creating a lifetime of self-loathing & anger. As a means of escaping this inwardly directed rage, they instead begin to identify with their own abuser. After all, the abuser is the one with all the power. The easiest way to escape their own weakness is to emulate the perceived 'strength' of the bully. Just as most pedophiles were themselves once sexually abused children, so most bullies were themselves the victims of physical abuse.
As much as I feel for the tormented child that once lived in the O'Rielley household, I can't help but despise the adult that has emerged, for he is a thug who feeds off the pain of others. He is a psychic carnivore.
As the pressure is slowly ratcheted up on this man, we can look forward to more brutal freak shows from him, until the day comes that he loses it completely.
His legacy will likely be as the Joseph McCarthy of cable news.
Did he mean "smacked/hit"; or "whacked"?
...fugetaboutit.
I've been saying for years that bill o'lielly is nothing more than a pathological liar and a bully/thug. He confirms it with this statement--and his admission that he's a sociopath.
As others have suggested, let's get him off the air. We should get him locked up too. (With a phone, so he can continue to thrill himself with phone sex while in the lock up?)
And, a good point someone else made: billy's so touch. I WOULD have whacked him. But, billy, you didn't. You're touch as nails when it can't hurt. No balls, billy. Nothing but wind.
While I am NO fan of the Bloviator, I think the term "whack" has been taken out of context. It sounds more like he wanted to hit him than kill him.
That said, BO's sense of shock over someone intimating that our government would have any part of a terror attack on their own country, even complicity by not taking steps to thwart an attack (that would benefit Bushco's neocon agenda to a tee), well, I have just two words for Mr. BO: Operation Northwoods.
nobody from long island says "whacked." and doesn't mean whacked
If this "paragon of virtue" would describe the humiliation of teenage crack whores to elevate his ego with his pathetic attempt at literary noteriety, I'm inclined to think that he meant whack in the homicidal sense.
Psychologically, those who have been abused, sexually, verbally, physically, though aware on some level that the behavior is not normal, will often partake in the same type of abuse to make the behavior seem normal. "It happened to me, and look how normal I turned out..." At some point, every adult has to separate from his parents, acknowledging their shortcomings or even potential for inhumane behavior. Some people never quite make the separation, and thus become just like that parent.
Like all loud mouthed bullies he is simply a coward.