O'Reilly on Soros: An "incredible imbecile, with all due respect"; "a guy who doesn't understand evil," despite having "fled the Holocaust"
On the August 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly attacked billionaire philanthropist George Soros for an op-ed Soros wrote, published that same day in The Wall Street Journal, on the "counterproductive and self-defeating policies" inspired by the "war on terror." O'Reilly called Soros an "incredible imbecile, with all due respect," and went on to clarify his attack, saying: "I didn't mean to call him a name, but I have to put some kind of descriptive adjective on his analysis." After dismissing Soros's commentary as "gobbly-gook," O'Reilly claimed that "Soros is a guy who doesn't understand evil, doesn't really even acknowledge it," despite the fact that Soros is "a guy who fled the Holocaust."
Soros is a Hungarian-born Jew who survived the Nazi occupation of Budapest.
From the August 15 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK, so that's my analysis. And, as always, I could be wrong. But I'm not. In The Wall Street Journal today, George Soros, the far-left money man behind a lot of media in this country, puts forth that we can't win the war on terror. George says, just can't do it. Quote, "The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies." OK. "First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. Second, terrorism is an abstraction and inhibits much needed negotiations with Iran and Syria, because they are states that support terrorists groups. Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action, while most territorial conflicts require political solutions."
This isn't a territorial conflict, George, you incredible imbecile, with all due respect. It's not a territorial conflict. This is a religious, "kill the infidels" war. They don't wanna conquer Ohio. You know, I just, all right, Soros goes on. And I didn't mean to call him a name, but I have to put some kind of descriptive adjective on his analysis. "Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between us and them." Yeah, I would say. "We are the innocent victims. They are the perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process."
Yeah, OK. If you're gonna wage a war, you're gonna be perpetrators, because war is destruction. I mean. it's just like, oh. All right, as Soros sums up, "With American influence at a low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can only escape it if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate." All right, this is just gobbly-gook. Remember that? Your mother used to say "gobbly-gook"?
E.D. HILL (co-host): Um-hum, yeah.
O'REILLY: It's just gobbly-gook.
HILL: Was nonsensical.
O'REILLY: It doesn't have anything to do with people killing people. All right. It's not about territory. The Mideast conflict between Hezbollah, Hamas, and Israel, that has something to do with territory. But the war on terror that the United States is involved with has nothing to do with territory. All right? We don't need any territory in the Middle East. All we need there are nations that are not gonna try to kill us or choke us by blackmailing other nations to stop selling oil, which is exactly what Iran would do if it got nukes.
[...]
O'REILLY: Can you imagine if you had somebody killed on 9-11, and George Soros walked up to you and said, "You know, terrorism is an abstraction. It's a -- the war on terror is a false metaphor." You'd -- wouldn't you punch him? I mean it isn't, it isn't an abstraction. It's real. People dying. People in terror, living in, in a fear of even saying anything. You know, these people are evil. But Soros is a guy who doesn't understand evil, doesn't really even acknowledge it. And here's a guy who fled the Holocaust, this Soros guy. You know, when he was a kid, was caught up in that.
having survived the Holocaust, understands evil and thus spends millions and millions opposing BushCo.
Mr. Soros has insights that BOR can only imagine.
and they are running our country right now.
B.O. has an odd idea of what evil is, apparently. B.O. seems to be a cheerleader for the Iraq war and seems to rarely if ever point out any of the evil things the US did before and during this Iraq war.
You, Holly and Nerzog. Evil resides in each and every one of us, as does good. The difference is that some people know this and live their lives trying to be good and keeping the evil down. People like O'Reilly and bush are the kind of people who refuse to admit that they have evil inside them. People like these are capable of perpetrating and/or excusing the most evil things imaginable. All in the name of fighting that which they deem evil. It's kind of scary.
why right wingers get so annoyed about Soros? Isn't he just a liberal Richard Mellon Scaife?
Speaking of Scaife. It looks like he is having his own problems.
[link to www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws]
Billy the Bully has given up personal attacks. I guess if you call someone an "incredible imbecile" on the air and then say you didn't mean to do it, it's like it never happened. He needs to join Bullies Anonymous.
As a lawyer, I can tell you that when we preface a comment with (or add) "with all due respect" it's just a fancy way of saying "I'm about to insult you but I don't want to get any grief over it." Of course, Bill, I say that will all due respect.
He clearly states 'with all due respect.' In actual fact, that means its not a personal attack, its an, um,.......
O Reilly: "OK, so that's my analysis. And, as always, I could be wrong. But I'm not."
I always loved that one.
the next time I have an argument with my wife ;-)
"And, as always, I could be wrong. But I'm not."
Priceless!
Did you get my response on the JC Watts thread? Just curious.
I saw it yesterday afternoon and laughed. Of course Fearless Leader won't be too happy with you for BLOWING our cover! ;-) AND you're right --gotta always keep an ace up your sleeve to combat the arguments we both know are coming.
That CLEVER Snoopy figured out we used shoe phones and the cone of silence. Those Liberals are on to us!! LOL!
I've been so bogged down at work I haven't been able to spend much time HERE posting [or answering posts]--I've been just "hitting & running most of this week" ;-). I apologize to everyone who left me a post I didn't get time to respond to.
I like you guys, so as a woman and a wife I am going to give you fellas some advice: KIDS, DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME…unless you enjoy the couch (-: Hey who’s looking out for you now (-;
Um yeah you're right I've thought it over and DECIDED I might not want to try that. I'd love to, BUT my wife argues like a friggin lawyer and though I think she MIGHT see the "humor"...she might decide instead I deserve the Death Penalty :-O
Thanks for looking out for me :-)
You always hang in there when we try to beat you down. But now I'm thinking you may be just a bit crazy. Please, don't try this at home! Unless you can run very fast or can do the Ali Shuffle.
You may be right, I may be crazy [hey I think that's the first verse of a Billy Joel song!]
As I just wrote to my Guardian Angel [lostlogic] I've decided I want to LIVE, soooooo I'm NOT gonna try it. Of course that doesn't mean I can't be THINKING it ;-)
Imagine just flipping the two statements thus: "I'm not wrong. But I could be." Equally valid, but sounds even dumber.
Anyway, I'm guessing, Jeter, that your relationship with your wife must be pretty strong, since you were only joking about using O'Reilly's line on her. Please give her our best.
You're right--changing it around does sound even dumber!
My wife is an awesome lady [and a Democrat BTW!] with a great sense of humor AND might even laugh IF I ever said it. Our arguments are far & few in-between and never of a serious nature. Like we argue over WHO gets to hold on to the Clicker ;-) She gets annoyed cause I'm always flipping around the channels.
I'll give her your best [she used to post here] so she'll think that's nice :-)
If you use that line with her more than once or twice, I believe you meant to say your 'soon to be ex-' wife...
...but it's an obvious fact that doesn't seem to be stated often enough: Bill O'Reilly is not a smart man. O'Reilly is (rightfully) called a liar all day, every day, but it's also worth emphasizing just how dumb the man seems to be. Many of his attacks hinge on basic misunderstandings/misrepresentations of the positions put forth by his opposition. I used to think that he was doing this willfully--which would make him a somewhat clever liar--but his Soros rant really goes toward proving that there's nothing clever in what he does. His "just looking out for ya" man-of-the-people shtick is certainly calculated and insincere, but I think his stupidity is genuine.
This will inevitably be yet another instance that Blowhard will say, "Never happened. Never happened."
he called lamont "a rich guy who wants to pull american troops out of iraq....". this from mr. i-pulled-myself-up-by-my-bootstraps-in-private-school. i guess he doesn't have a problem with rich guy senate majority leader bill frist and his family using their company, hca, to bilk medicare out of hundreds of millions of dollars. he also said "iran is a true danger to the world". possibly so. but it is republican energy policy for the past thirty years that has stopped energy conservation, and kept money flowing to countries like iran.
Am I an incredible imbecile or was that a personal attack? Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly doesn't recognize this a personal attack because he tends to dehumanize those with whom he disagrees.
I thought Soros analysis was right-on-the-money. O'Reilly just doesn't like it. Based on their speech, I'd have to say O'Reilly is the incredible imbecile.
"This isn't a territorial conflict, George, you incredible imbecile, with all due respect..." -BO
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bill O'Reilly apparently thinks he can pretty much say whatever he wants as long as he ends it with ",with all due respect".
It reminds me of a scene in Talladega Nights.
"I didn't mean to call him a name, but I have to put some kind of descriptive adjective on his analysis. "
=
"I didn't mean to call him a name, but I meant to say exactly what I said. "
you are a sexual predator, with all due respect and court papers to prove it, but I will not stoop to name calling. Bill, actually, I would be thrilled that after your anal ysis that you WOULD be right at least 2 out of 100. Honest, just 2. I am sure that the Murdoch fellow truly understands evil because he exudes it daily through peons like you. Sorry, that is peon with all due respect because I truly respect you as a peon and a sexual predator. Bill. it is guys like you that talk and talk and talk but say nothing useful to help this country, our soldiers or anyone in the world. You only care about ratings. If I am wrong, prove it and help the troops win this occupation of Iraq with your brawn and brains rather than your duly respectful line of B.S. And help us win this "WAR on terrorism" by going to Iran, Syria and Lebanon and airing your show to show these people that they want to "kill the infidel" because of their religious beliefs. You are a guys guy Bill, you can do it....if not, you are a SISSY...................................with all due respect.
how Bill O'Reilly is completely unable to refute Soros' claims on a factual basis? He essentally says to Soros: "Nuh-uh, you poopy head, with all do respect."
Come on BO, can't you at least cite historical or current events to buttress your assertion that what the U.S. government is fighting are just a bunch of evil infidels waiving scimitars?
Iran is selling its oil to China and Russia, not the U.S. The only effect Iran could have on the America's energy supply is through its presence in OPEC or by closing the Straight of Hormuz, which is likely only AFTER an American attack.
The fact that Iran is making energy exploration agreements with Russia and China is a good part of the reason for the spate of beligerent rhetoric directed at that country by the Bush administration. To think that this whole conflict is just or even mostly about Iranian nukes and its internal political siutation is wrong.
using the term "gobbly-go*k" in place of "wrong" to end my previous post but was told it contained profanity. Perhaps Media Matters can understand that "go*k" is not being used as a racial slur here.
What did you say about my mother, BIll?
Seriously, my mother never used that term. She'd probably use the term "nit" to describe BOR.
when the material is above a 5th grade reading level.
How many times has BO said " I dont engage in Personal Attacks"
LIAR.
If Soros is an imbecile, then O'Reilly is a blithering idiot.
In the dictionary and everything. But you misspelled it, and made it two words; blame it on your mom, I guess. Your staff obviously isn't going to rescue you.
gobbledegook -- Unclear, wordy jargon.
Also, it's the proper name for "fake" copy blocks inserted into prop newspapers (where the headline and/or photo is the focus); it is unreadable nonsense ON PURPOSE.
Unbelievable! To think that the same George Soros that in 1986 tried to buy George W. Bush’s political influence by purchasing George Bush’s struggling oil company “Spectrum 7” is now pretending to be a friend of the Democrats. To think that the same George Soros that lobbied for the campaign finance reform act (the legislation that made the Democratic party weak by making union donations to political parties illegal) is now pretending to be a great friend of the Democrats. You would have to be a fool to believe George Soros is in this for anyone but himself.
I will admit that I am not a Democrat, as a matter of fact, I am a Michael Savage conservative. However, I am astounded that George Soros has bamboozled Democrats into believing he is their friend.
Let me give you a brief history of George Soros. On September 6, 1992, George Soros sold the Pound Sterling short in order to bust England’s struggling economy. This day will live in infamy as Black Wednesday. George Soros made a one-day profit of 1.1 billion dollars. George Soros also bankrupted the economies of Malaysia and Thailand for his own financial benefit.
Dear Democrats, George Soros is here to bankrupt your nation for his own financial gain. He is not your friend. Through the campaign finance reform act he lobbied for, he forced the Democrats to cave in to third parties with separate interests (such as 501[C] groups like Media Matters) in order to remain successful. The campaign finance reform act must be reversed and 501(C) groups must be shut down if we are to preserve the economy and political system of this country.
Please provide legitimate sources for your claims. I would enjoy reading your position.
You can't possibly just expect everyone to take your word for it.
George Soros that in 1986 tried to buy George W. Bush’s political influence ... George Soros that lobbied for the campaign finance reform act ... pretending to be a great friend of the Democrats ... George Soros has bamboozled Democrats ... George Soros sold the Pound Sterling short in order to bust England’s struggling economy ... George Soros is here to bankrupt your nation for his own financial gain ... etc., etc. - from Madchen2
Soros quite openly admitted that Harken purchased Spectrum 7 in part for political influence. However, the move was initiated by Harken executives, not Soros. Spectrum 7 was seen as undervalued due to mismanagement, and therefore a good investment as well. It was at that time that Soros became aware of Bush's poor management skills.
A wide variety of people favored the campaign finance reform act for a wide variety of reasons. Anyone can use his imagination to attach devious motives to another's decisions.
Soros was perceptive enough to take advantage of England's currency situation. It's just a wild accusation to claim his speculation was done "in order to bust England’s struggling economy." There might have been some ruthless disregard in his choices, but there's no reason to assume malicious intent.
For years Soros has helped direct hundreds of millions each year to charitable causes. If his only goal was self-enrichment those funds would have served the purpose better directed toward purchasing influence or for investment, for which no one can deny he has a knack.
Let's be rational. When people with a lot of money want to purchase influence for self-enrichment, to which party are they most likely to turn? I simply don't see how his generous charitable giving and support of Democratic causes will give him greater rewards than he's giving out. At least, not if those rewards are financial.
Call me crazy, but I just know George Soros is up to no good. I have a large distrust with anybody that says, "I am a market participant, I don't need to be concerned with the consequences of my actions." As much as I disliked the Democrats before Soros entered the country, I only thought of them as loyal Americans with another opinion. Since George Soros entered the country, I have suspected the Democrats of being outright treasonous. Moreover, because of the two party system and the lack of choice, the Republicans have become outright corrupt. And that's politics. One party gets caught in the middle of so many scandals that eventually the power reverts back to the opposition.
I fear that the Democrats have become the party of the Weimar Republic, while the Republicans are the party of the Felafel Republic. I can only hope human beings are not repeating history.
Call me crazy, but I just know George Soros is up to no good. - from Madchen2
I see. So you have no actions of his to which you can point. You have no statements that indicate a conspiracy. You can't point to any benefits he's received from his backing of Democratic causes. You can't identify any favors he's received for his efforts. You can't suggest any process by which he will gain future benefit.
You just seem to have a bad feeling about Soros.
There's not much any of the rest of us can do to ease your bad feeling. I'm going to persist in my fact-based existence. You can go ahead and enjoy your emotion-based conspiracy fantasies.
You're crazy.
For providing links to such great sources. Apparently you just pulled it all out of your backside database.
"as a matter of fact, I am a Michael Savage conservative. "
-----
Michael Savage wouldn't know a fact if it came up and introduced itself. Apparently, Bill O'Reilly has the same recognition problem with the concept of "personal attacks."
OK, here's MY analysis:
BillO: "And, as always, I could be wrong. But I'm not."
ME: So, you're WRONG when you say you "could" be wrong? Circular unreasoning.
BillO: "In The Wall Street Journal today, George Soros, the far-left money man behind a lot of media in this country, puts forth that we can't win the war on terror."
ME: George W. Bush said the exact same thing to Matt Lauer.
BillO: "George says, just can't do it. Quote, "The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies." OK. "First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. Second, terrorism is an abstraction and inhibits much needed negotiations with Iran and Syria, because they are states that support terrorists groups. Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action, while most territorial conflicts require political solutions."
ME: 1. GOOD POINT: Killing innocent victims places US into our own definition of "terrorist". 2. GOOD POINT: Terrorism, as this Administration applies the term across the board, broadly or narrowly depending on what point they're currently making (on a thousand occasions, American Democrats have been called terrorists, also Islam and Moslem have been used as all-inclusive of terrorists), indeed makes any diplomacy, peaceful means, or discussion impossible. 3. GOOD POINT: The "territorial conflicts" are between the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds in Iraq, the Jews and the Moslems in Lebanon, and these disputes ARE OVER LAND. While they have religious components, their SOLUTION is NOT to have all out war.
BillO: "This isn't a territorial conflict, George, you incredible imbecile, with all due respect.It's not a territorial conflict. This is a religious, "kill the infidels" war."
ME: Which ONE? Afghanistan? Iraq? Iran (soon)? Lebanon? Is your point, Bill, that RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS, or even territorial disputes with religious components, can ONLY be settled by all-out WAR? Imposed from outside, by US? That ALL Moslems are in "kill the infidels" mode, and thus ALL are terrorists, fair game to destroy?
BillO: "They don't wanna conquer Ohio."
ME: Good God, what a non-sequitor! The Palestinians want their own land, but unless they want OHIO, it's not a territorial dispute? This is your "LOGIC"?
BillO: "You know, I just, all right, Soros goes on. And I didn't mean to call him a name, but I have to put some kind of descriptive adjective on his analysis."
ME: You say you don't call names, but yet you do. That you admit being a LIAR is a good thing.
BillO: "Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between us and them." Yeah, I would say.
ME: If you used any thought process, Bill, Soros refers to the innocent Iraqis, the innocent Afghanistanis, the innocent Lebanese, whom we are alienating with our WAR stance (along with the rest of the world). Iranians, on the whole, were PRO-Western; we are destroying THAT advantage by tarring all in the Middle East with the "TERRORIST" label, and by bombing innocents.
BillO: (quoting Soros) "We are the innocent victims. They are the perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process." Yeah, OK. If you're gonna wage a war, you're gonna be perpetrators, because war is destruction. I mean. it's just like, oh. All right, ...
ME: Are you agreeing with Soros' point?
BillO: "... as Soros sums up, "With American influence at a low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can only escape it if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to deteriorate." All right, this is just gobbly-goo*."
ME: It makes perfect sense. That YOU don't understand is no guide to its clarity or validity; it only shows a comprehension disability on your part.
BillO: It doesn't have anything to do with people killing people. All right. It's not about territory. The Mideast conflict between Hezbollah, Hamas, and Israel, that has something to do with territory."
ME: Lemme get this straight: Is IS NOT about territory, but it IS about territory. Can you make up your mind in your sweeping declarations?
BillO: "But the war on terror that the United States is involved with has nothing to do with territory. All right?"
ME: NOT "all right", Bill. Whenever GROUND TROOPS are committed, it's ALL about territory. That's why they call it "boots on the GROUND".
BillO: "We don't need any territory in the Middle East."
ME: Then why are MOST of our troops in Iraq tasked to guarding the oil pipelines? Hmmm?
BillO: "All we need there are nations that are not gonna try to kill us or choke us by blackmailing other nations to stop selling oil, which is exactly what Iran would do if it got nukes."
ME: So, 2600 of our troops have died based on your future speculations about Iran? We aren't even IN Iran, Bill!
BillO: "Can you imagine if you had somebody killed on 9-11, and George Soros walked up to you and said, "You know, terrorism is an abstraction. It's a -- the war on terror is a false metaphor." You'd -- wouldn't you punch him?"
ME: I'd ask what he meant. And when he explained that my loved one could NOT be avenged by invading Iraq, because Iraq had no terrorists, I would agree with him whole-heartedly.
BillO: "I mean it isn't, it isn't an abstraction. It's real. People dying. People in terror, living in, in a fear of even saying anything."
ME: Are you describing Americans SINCE 9/11, with Bush pulling the "support the president or you are a terrorist" line?
BillO: "You know, these people are evil."
ME: Forrest Gump's mom said it best: "EVIL is as EVIL does." Soros doesn't want the USA becoming the greatest EVIL in the world, as Bush seems hellbent on us becoming.
BillO: "But Soros is a guy who doesn't understand evil, doesn't really even acknowledge it."
ME: Maybe after surviving the Holocaust, Soros sees "SHOCK AND AWE" rained down on innocent civilians as being an overtly EVIL act.
Is exactly the point. Thats why you can't win a war on terror, especially not by creating more 'terrorists' by invading countries (or 'territories') and killing innocent people, then calling the people fighting back 'insurgents' - against an occupying force????
I couldn't agree more with Soros' argument. This quote does it for me, from Howard Zinn's 'A people's history.'
‘We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism…Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children….In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth that the people need to hear.”
written in 1998 by a Vietnam Vet....
Obviously O'Riley thinks America can win the war on terror- yet since it began, many more 'terrorists' and their organisations have been created. The possibility that the solution is not racism and death clearly hasnt crossed his mind...
and get some laughs- he's basically a goofy scared little old man with the world view of a five year old.
He can p*ss me off at times, when spouting lies that could actually be dangerous to our country if enough of his audience votes.
The idea of him calling Soros an imbecile is just laughable. I don't know if Billdo really doesn't have the capacity to grasp the things Soros is saying, or if it's just "playing dumb" shtick for his faithful.Either way, pretty sad.
I have the same mixed feelings about the Oxymoron, Hannity,all of them. I have to think they're just dense,as it's hard for me to believe(having a little self-respect) that people would go on the public airwaves and pretend to be that clueless.
If you're actually bright enough to understand things, I don't care how much money the GOP is payiing you, how do you face your friends and family?
What struck me most about O'Lielly's rant wasn't the name calling... it wasn't the anger... it wasn't even the dismissive, distorting attitude that he showed toward Soros. It was the stammering incoherency of it. He literally can't put two thoughts together without his brain siezing up like an oiless engine.
O'Lielly may be ruthlessly driven to attack & smear all who disagree with him, but I think that this is because he lacks the mental chops neccisary to challenge the logic of their positions. Challenge them? He doesn't appear to have the capacity to COMPREHEND them!
When he was a child, O'Lielly was frequently abused by his father, who, no doubt, frequently called him stupid. This inevitably results in a scarred psyche, & I suspect that this eternal manchild is still trying to exorcise those demons by lashing out against everybody that makes him feel like... well, like the dumbsh*t that he's constantly proving himself to be. The stupider he feels, the angrier he becomes.
I'm sure that Faux News provides O'Lielly with full medical benifits. We can only hope that someday he will seek the treatment that he so desperately needs.
with his audience? It's actually quite funny, he's there debating with quotes he can select himself, and he's actually losing that debate. Soros isn't there, can't defend himself in any way, doesn't have any influence on what quotes o'reilly picks, and still soros wipes the floor with o'reilly in this 'debate'. How pathetic can you be?
Who is more foolish... the fool or those who follow the fool?
The people who listen to / watch O'Reilly and believe what he says are totally clueless, and the real reason why the country is going down the tubes. Not Ted Stevens' tubes either.
I love that I may be wrong, but I'm not, that is completely illogical, and Soros is as unfortunately Bill is allowed to state an opinion. at least Soros has some credibility on this issue, where our friend Hate and Scream Bill does just that Hate and Yell at people. I think Al Frankens book The Truth with Jokes has a pretty darn good pic of the the old piggo.
I'm hoping for a new headline: BILL O"REILLY IS FOUND INSANE, COMMITED FOR HIS OWN SAFETY.
If O'Reilly says they're not out to conquer Ohio, judging by his past record of accuracy, perhaps Cleveland and Toledo should start being extra-vigilant...