O'Reilly: Like Iran, "the reason North Korea is causing trouble is that it wants to influence the November election"
On the October 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "the reason North Korea is causing trouble" by allegedly developing and testing nuclear weapons "is that it wants to influence the November election." He added: "That is not a partisan statement. It is a fact," then concluded that North Korea "hate[s] Mr. Bush and want[s] to weaken him as much as possible."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted and as O'Reilly himself referenced, on the October 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly warned that "powerful forces want to influence your vote," and baselessly asserted that "Iran has ordered its killers to up the violence in Iraq for the next month" so that "Americans will hold President Bush responsible and vote in the Democrats, who the Iranians believe are not as aggressive in foreign policy."
From the October 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, the reason North Korea is causing trouble is that it wants to influence the November election. As we discussed last week, Iran's doing the same thing in Iraq -- ramping up the violence so Americans will turn against the Bush administration.
That is not a partisan statement. It is a fact. America's enemies are emboldened by the stalemate in Iraq and feel they can do anything they want to do. They also hate Mr. Bush and want to weaken him as much as possible.
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
North Korea does hate Mr. Bush no question. They also hate Americans in general and could care less about political party affiliation.
O'Reilly- Shut up .
I saw a statement by someone just before the election in 2004. They were implying t hat al Quaeda wanted Bush to lose because they were scared of him. What O'reilly is doing is either admitting that Bush screws up everything, or that Kim Jeong Il wants the Republicans to win because Americans will rally around the sitting president when something like this happens.
no doubt that could be true. As well, who has not turned against the Bush Admin............. LOL.....
You are right that it could be true, but the difference between you and O'Reilly's is that in O'Reilly's mind "it is a fact".
I have little respect for anyone on the right or the left that can appear to turn utter speculation into a "fact" like O'Reilly does so frequently.
I won't dispute that. However, using a "nucular" weapon test to influence the election is doubtful. It's possible the test could be perceived as another administration failure. Then again, it's possible that some voters may perceive this as a threat requiring a hardline response characteristic of the administration. In either event, Kim still has to deal with Bush for a couple of more years.
No, N.K. (specifically Kim) was simply acting out of what they perceive to be in their own interest with little regard to the effect on U.S. elections.
Who knew from the get-go that Bush was an incompetent moron and pathological liar didnt really lTURN against him. We never DID trust him
>>O'Reilly: "...powerful forces want to influence your vote..."
Yes, and none more insidiously so than the Fox News Channel.
No Billy-Boy, they--these 2 little guys, both in stature and their status when it comes to their rank among the world powers--want to PLAY with the Big Boys around the globe. Both are using the threat of nuclear weapons to join the "clique".
They couldn't care less WHICH party in the U.S. is in charge.
Nice try though Billy in your never-ending quest to spread GOP talking points. Here's some BREAKING NEWS for ya Billy--- MOST Republican/Conservatives with an ounce of intelligence and who have NOT been brainwashed by FOX are rejecting your propaganda B.S.....
That Marine Colonel in Iraq said it best:
"Biggest Outrage — Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest Offender: Bill O'Reilly."
[link to www.time.com]
O'Reilly is convinced it's a FACT that everyone is motivated to harming HIM and those things he supports, i.e. Bush and the Republicans.
Anything other than sycophantic subservience and unquestioning adoration of O'Reilly, Bush and his Republicans' policies is subject to this "FACTUAL" interpretation ... it was done to HARM in a "partisan" manner, and because all these people "HATE" Bush and O'Reilly.
Classic clinical paranoia.
Ergo, the only way to be "non-partisan" is to support O'Reilly and Bush. Get it? Sure, Bill. Lemme see that Republican Voter Registration card again ...
Think Progress has a clip of John Gibson suggesting that the nuclear tests were GOOD for Bush, et al. And here's non-partisan Bill suggesting that Kim Jong Il is practically a Democrat.
Which is it, Fox?
Ahh, Billy-boy... you may want to examine just how hysterically illogical your spew really is.
If Iran and North Korea really want to continue their schit-stirring by influencing our elections, who better to support than an administration dominated by graduates of The Attila The Hun School of Diplomacy?
My sincere apologies to hammers.
there's that deep, intellectual analysis of the facts for which O'Really is famous.
Apparently, North Korea, some 5 years ago or so, decided that they didn't like the republican congressmen in the US. But how to remove them from office? After much brainstorming, they finally decided that developing nuclear weapons could do the trick. A monumental task, to be sure, but one which would pay off great dividends could they pull it off. First step, divert a large chunk of North Korea's intellectual and financial capital to the task. Gradually, over the years, the people would go hungry, but the nation would ultimately feast on the fruits of removing republicans from the US Congress and Senate. Four years later, the bomb was ready. They waited until October, for maximum effect, and began boasting of its existence. Then they detonated it with perfect strategic timing, and the glory of the North Korean peoples republic was etched in its newly created underground glass tomb, and soon in the footsteps of the republican congressmen and senators as they retreated from Washington! Glory to Elvis...er....Kim Jung Il!!!
Yes, O'Really once again shows that his mind is truly "a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought- careening through a cosmic vapor of invention!
Ditto!
I don't often do this, but: ROFLMAO! Thumbs up to both of you for a much-needed smile.
. . .is I know my in-laws just swallowed that crap hook, line, and sinker.
Mix a little bit of truth (North Korea tests nuclear bomb in month of October) with a whole lot of paranoia and fear, and this is what you get.
Remember, if Democrats win any seats this November, it will simply be because we hate Bush , and want terrorists, illegal immigrants, gays, North Koreans, Shiites, Iranians, etc. to win. ;-)
This is yet another attempt to shift blame to Democrats for 6 years of ignoring North Korea.
If foreign entities have so much power over elections, why isn't John Kerry the President?
O'Reilly loves to sound tough, but this didn't make a lick of sense when he said it about Iran and it makes even less sense now that he's trying it out with North Korea. I'd love for someone to challenge him on this completely nonsensical theory...oops, I mean "fact." There's no possible way he could back it up.
yeah, their "balance" is "Fear AND Paranoia". Just thinking outside the Faux.
Anybody who believes anything this idiot says, deserves what they get. Nothing but right wing spin.
Bush has shown he will invade any nation, with no provocation. He calls it "preemptive war".
However, Bush will NOT invade nations which have nuclear bombs.
If you wish to maintain your nation, free of US occupation, what should you do? Bush has left you no choice; you must develop nuclear bomb capacity as soon as possible.
That's the problem with Bush's policies: they ENCOURAGE bad behavior, and do NOTHING to encourage good behavior.
Bush the teacher, seeing the results of his lessons to the world.
Incredible.
Were you as anti American in your hatred when Clinton invaded Bosnia, Tex? Amazing.
So your answer is to encourage the entire world to develop nucleur weapons to ward off the evil United States?
And when O'Reilly says that many want to see the U.S. lose and be punished, he should really put your posts up front and center.
Help us all if any of your far leftist fringe political reasonings ever see the light of day from any serious politician.
Tommy, you need to read what the guy wrote. He was only hypothesizing what it would take to keep from being invaded by the US, based on actual events which have occurred over the last few years with Bush in the White House.
I really think his point was sort of tongue-in-cheek, and I believe you took it to be some sort of call to all nations of the world?
........exactly what he meant. And what his point was. Tex is saying that Bush is likely to invade any nations without nukes so they should absolutely develop nucleur weapons to protect themselves. He absolutely believes that. You can spin it anyway you'd like.
Call it tongue in cheek, I stand by my assertion.
He's not encouraging nations to develop nuclear weapons.
He's saying it seems the only way for a nation to get any respect from us is for it to have nuclear weapons. We've been laughing off North Korea for the last few years, claiming it's all smoke and mirrors. Now that they possibly have the bomb, the entire game has changed with them.
is a con in sheep's clothing who always tries to deflect a thread whenever he can. He is somewhat more sophisticated in his tactics than others, but in the end he is nothing but a troll who should be roundly dissed. Please ignore the thing.
"To protect themselves" is the operative words there. If they are getting these weapons TO protect themselves (defensive) then their intentions are NOT offensive. It also concludes that there must be some agression from which they seek such radical protection, otherwise the investments would not be undertaken.
Why do they build this nuclear wall? Who is it meant to keep out?
Were you as anti American in your hatred when Clinton invaded Bosnia, Tex?
Bosnia and Iraq are hardly comparable. The issue is Bush's policy of preemption, especially considering it turned out that Iraq had no meaningful WMDs. The message to others is they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. So, they may as well at least try to do.
So your answer is to encourage the entire world to develop nucleur weapons to ward off the evil United States?
No. That isn't the answer. But Tex's point is - and as I've noted above - Bush is doing just that.
The rest of your post was emotional nonsense.
To sum up Tommy's post:
1. Anti-Bush = Anti-American
2. O'Reilly is right again and we're too liberal to know that we have enemies that want to kill us all, over and over.
3. Clinton started a pre-emptive war.
It should have been obvious that Tex was only criticizing US policy as apparently advanced by the current administration.
Where in Tex's post did he say anything negative about America? Do the Bush Administration's policies = America to you? Your assertions about him are simply baseless.
I didn't read anything tongue in cheek about it. The Bush Administration is definitely pushing countries to go "nucular" as fast as possible as the best defense against our seemingly otherwise flippant standards for invading them when they don't have nukes.
Our tough guy stance is having the opposite effect of what is intended much like the rest of the President's foreign policy initiatives.
Tex's point was obvious and I notice you didnt even TRY to rebut it. So being against Bushes policies is being anti American? Only in the world of ingorance and wingnuttery. Teddy Roosevelt said to say there must be no criticism of a president, that we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but also morally treasonable to the American public. Tommy, you should stop being unpatriotic, servile and morally treasonable.
Tommy apparently can't distinguish between someone describing Bush's actions and someone endorsing them. He just sees the words "you must develop nuclear bomb capacity as soon as possible" and then he sees Tex's name, and that's it. Naturally (heads up, Tommy, that's sarcasm) he concludes that this is what Tex wants.
YOU SAY: "Wow. Incredible."
RESPONSE: "Incredible" means that something lacks credibility.
YOU SAY: "Were you as anti American in your hatred when Clinton invaded Bosnia, Tex? Amazing."
RESPONSE: My anger at Bush nears hatred, since his idiotic policies are causing so much death and destruction, with no honest rationale and no end in sight.
That said, I am the OPPOSITE of "anti-American" -- I love this nation, and wish to protect it.
Perhaps you are unaware of the OATH taken by our servicemen? I'll quote part of it for you here: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Perhaps you are also unaware that the biggest enemy to our Constitution is the current Administration? They recently nullified the Bill of Rights, you know. Absent "habeus corpus," we HAVE NO RIGHTS, and Bush has usurped that right, the ability to cancel it at a whim without any explanation. This is purely ANTI-AMERICAN, and brands him (and those Republicans who signed on) as enemies of this country, domestic.
YOU SAY: "So your answer is to encourage the entire world to develop nucleur weapons to ward off the evil United States?"
RESPONSE: Not ME, but BUSH, has given this terrible choice to other nations. It's not ME that invaded Iraq for no honest reason (but, granted, a dozen DISHONEST "reasons"). It's not ME who did absolutely NOTHING to intervene, diplomatically or otherwise, into Iran and North Korea to prevent their development of nukes. It was BUSH.
YOU SAY: And when O'Reilly says that many want to see the U.S. lose and be punished, he should really put your posts up front and center.
RESPONSE: If O'Reilly wants to put "front and center" a LOSER who seems bent on punishing the U.S. and her citizens, a picture of G.W. Bush would do perfectly.
YOU SAY: Help us all if any of your far leftist fringe political reasonings ever see the light of day from any serious politician.
RESPONSE: So, you don't consider America needs "help" from Bush's failed foreign policy, failed "war" efforts, destruction of our constitution, our loss of status and respect in the world, corruption (financial AND sexual) wall-to-wall in Republican circles, and the PLUTOCRATIC policies that have the wealthy amassing huge fortunes at the expense of average American citizens?
The WAR ON TERROR should be fought against TERRORISTS, wherever they are. Expanded intelligence gathering, swift special forces using the best technology to sweep in and kill terrorist cells wherever they are found, COOPERATION with other nations, instead of alienation and bluster.
Bush is not fighting a war on terror, he is conducting RECRUITING exercises for terrorists -- and it's working very well -- and meanwhile killing thousands of brave American soldiers for NO REASON AT ALL.
You are correct, your comments are "incredible" ... that is, not to be believed.
I bet you read all the other people that replied to Tommy's comment.
You said it best (no disrespect intended to any of the other commenters!).
Where does he get this stuff? Is he on medication that makes him come up with these illusions of great wisdom? Or maybe, he forgot his medication before he went to bed last night and had dreams of Kim Jung Il telling him in broken english that his whole reasoning for testing the Nuclear bomb was to hurt Bushy Boy and the Republican par-tay. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send old Billy over to North Korea so he could get the complete story? I'll even chip in a few bucks to help pay for his trip.
Who else but O'Reilly could muster up the intellectual argument that the DPRK started developing nuclear weapons more than twelve years ago, to effect the outcome of the 2006 midterm congressional elections?
Yeah, I saw that but ommited from this report was right after O'Reilly commented, his crystal ball dropped on the floor and broke. :)
That, of course, is O'Reilly's intended message. How many times has this one been used as a reason to support Bush? Too many. Hey, Bill...Cram it, Clown.
I don't get this rant about influencing the elections because our enemies wanted Bush out of power. Please! They love George W. Bush. They love the fact that he has NO credibility with any foreign government or agency. They love that he's a big talker and a small thinker. They love to have a poster boy to inspire hatred for the US.
Remember before the 2004 when Osama released a video just a few days before the election? Some hypothesized that it was to influence the election against Bush. But why would OBL want Bush out of office? He loves GWB. You could just hear Osama saying, "Sure, George, attack Saddam. Bring your troops over here where they're easier to reach. Divert your attention from me and those who really attacked the WTC." Bush's misadventures in Iraq have caused far greater casualties to Americans than the terrorists could ever dream of creating. And for what?
If someone is trying to influence an election this time, I'm sure it's not to do any harm to Bush. Why would anyone want to hurt their best friend?
When you consider that Duhhbya sent Karen Friggin' Hughes to sooth the hurt feelings of the Islamic world, it's not hard to see that:
1 - he has absolutely NO clue of how the real world views him and his policies, or
2 - he really doesn't shiv a git because, after all, he's really on "a crusade."
...as it would to send Dr. James Dobson to meet with Human Rights Campaign.
It could hardly have gone worse, in fact.
After her first two forays, has she done anything since?
Hughes, and the Bush Administration "doctrine", has no one willing to listen to the baloney it seems.
The Atlantic had a great story about her and Bush's failed policies and initiatives.
[link to www.theatlantic.com]
They called it "Ears Wide Shut".
Bill O'Reilly knows what the Iranians are thinking. He knows what the North Koreans are thinking. He's got everything figured out and therefore must be smarter than the rest of humanity. So... why isn't Bill O'Reilly President?
the reason Bill O'Reilly is causing trouble is that it wants to influence the November election. That is not a partisan statement. It is a fact. He loves Mr. Bush and want[s] to strengthen him as much as possible.
As I have previously noted and most Americans have now confirmed, powerful forces want to influence your vote, and Fox has ordered its liars to up the BS on television for the next month so that Americans will hold President Clinton responsible and vote in more Republicans, who Fox believes are the rightful overlords of America.
"The Air-Sickness Bag of Truth!"
2 million daily viewing morons can't be wrong - - can they?
Most of the entire world hates NAZI war criminals like As*hole George B . And if I was the leader of a nation I would insist on developing nukes just to keep ElDiabloco and his likes at bay. I myself hope that Bush and his band of merry robbing murderers are all executed, after some very revealing court cases.
Quick, let's see how many lies or bias opinioned thoughts in this small article/excerpt. A) "That is not a partisan statement. It is a fact."(Bias/lie, it's Fox News come on/trying to dissprove the fact that America is weak) B) "They also hate Mr. Bush and want to weaken him as much as possible." (Bias) C) It came straight from the mouth of Bill O(ne side) Reilly(common sense bias, do you really think O'Reilly is going to blame any world problems on any republican you know) D) "the stalemate in Iraq" (Lie, America is losing, Baaaaadly, and we have no exit strategy) E) "The reason North Korea is causing trouble is that it wants to influence the November election"(lie, Mr. Reilly just wants to shift attention towards an imaginary ploy by dems to win seats by using Bush's failures)
Sounds like something out of a defunct football league. Let me think outside the Faux(as mentioned in previous post).
The election of 2004 was being affected by Osama because HeHateBush....Lil' Kim is affecting this election since HeHateBush...the Democrats are derailing this election because TheyHateBush...Anyone see a constant here. But why would anyone HateBush? Billy O' ,let me KNOW.
Maybe if we had someone who wasn't hated so much, something could get done. But following the BushHateHe theory, we don't talk to anyone until they decide to LoveTheDecider. Everything is backwards in the world of Sissy Bill as is the world of the NeoCons...bomb them til they LoveMe. That'll work everytime, won't it Billo
...is a frickin' genius!
THE....UNIVERSE....REVOLVES....AROUND....THE....UNITED....STATES!!! Any questions?
revolves around his head.
The real news point is that the nuke test appears to have failed, based upon the very small size of the resulting earth tremor (est. at 1 kt or less).
Correlation is not causation, anyways. Riley offers up nothing but temporal correlation w/election season. Null hypothesis of coincidence is just as valid.
But that wouldn't do crap for ratings.
"North Korea set off a nuclear device in violation of the spirit of international law", however, Bush has violated more international law since 2000 than North-Korea since its existence. "The transfer of weapons by North-Korea would be considered a great threat" but invading a country militarily like Bush did in Iraq may not be seen as a threat, instead great us like liberators! "Remember, these are the bad people, America's not creating any problems", ofcourse not, how is -torturing and detaining prisoners without trial, killing innocent lives, bombing places Americans haver never heard from, not respecting the non-proliferation-treaty, warrantless domestic spying, THEN claiming you are protecting us, making the world a safer place - creating problems? In other words, we should have no problems with this extreme level of hypocrisy, we should not be annoyed by the terrible lies we've all been told. All we need to do is have faith in our leader and everything will be alright. LMAO
Important to know that bill wouldn't stoop so low as to try to influence an election.
Does anyone take this moron seriously? Or just those who also take George Allen seriously? Hmmm... There's a few...
Simple logic, Bill-O, which always escapes ideologues: Whenever one of our enemies farts, Bush and the Republicans get an uptick in the polls. Therefore, if the North Koreans did do this to influence the elections, they're doing it to ensure Republican misgovernance for the next election cycle, not to help us clean up the mess in D.C.
The CIA determined that the tape released by bin Laden right before the 2004 elections was intended to keep Bush in office. Think about it, if you were fighting someone, wouldn't you want that someone to be an idiot? Need I say more?
...can we have a moratorium on the word "embolden"? I'm sick of hearing about our enemies being emboldened all the time. Remember, Bill, Rush, Sean etc: every time you use the word "embolden," someone throws up on the American flag.