O'Reilly is Olbermann's "Worst Person" for claim that Sunni and Shia kill each other for "fun"
On the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Fox News host Bill O'Reilly the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, "telling his radio listener that in Iraq, quote, 'the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun.'" Olbermann again cited O'Reilly's statement that kidnap victim Shawn Hornbeck, after his abduction, was in a situation that "looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents." Olbermann asserted, "We're now beginning to get a clear picture of what Bill thinks fun is: torture, killing, and child molestation." As Media Matters noted, Olbermann previously criticized O'Reilly for his comments about Hornbeck's abduction and stated: "It reeks of perversity and inhumanity. Simply put, Mr. O'Reilly no longer deserves any place on the public stage."
Additionally, Olbermann gave the "runner-up" position to Fox News for, as Media Matters also noted, announcing it would "run scenes deleted from the Disney propaganda film The Path to 9/11, produced by a right-wing nutjob who has convinced himself it was all Bill Clinton's fault."
From the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: OLBERMANN: Our runner-up tonight: the Fox Noise Channel. It will run the scenes deleted from the Disney propaganda film The Path to 9/11, produced by a right-wing nutjob who has convinced himself it was all Bill Clinton's fault. Of course, the scenes were deleted because even ABC thought they were so wrong that they might constitute slander. So, heads up, [former Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright, you could wind up owning Fox.
But the winner: Oh, he's back. Bill Orally explains the world yet again, telling his radio listener that in Iraq, quote, "the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun." Fun. That's the word Bill-O also used to describe what Shawn Hornbeck was having while being held prisoner for four years in Missouri. We're now beginning to get a clear picture of what Bill thinks fun is: torture, killing, and child molestation. Bill O'Reilly, today's "Worst Person in the World."
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
If liberals can accuse soldiers of having 'fun' killing people in iraq then what makes this so different? I know first hand there are people in the military who just want to kill and shoot things and they don't care who it is. This is a human trait and I am sure many of the muslims fighting eachother share it. I'm tired of you libs and the democrat party trying to make muslim jihad sound noble while at the same time sipping on your $3 mocha-latte at starbucks whining for peace.
Col. Roy Campbell
PS - don't vote for Barack HUSSEIN Obsama, we dont need a president who can legally use the name "Hussein Obama"! VOTE HILLARY!
So it's OK for O'Reilly to say something outrageous because someone else said something equally outrageous?
Fatuous Logic, I'd like you to meet Lower Standards.
no im saying that we know its a religious battle but im sure some of them are having fun doing it. this is a seperate point from oreilly, who is wrong to make that blanket statement, obviously.
Wait... are you saying it was wrong for O'Reilly to say they were having fun, or it was wrong for MMFA to point out what O'Reilly said, or that they are really having fun, or what?
im saying that we know its a religious battle but im sure some of them are having fun doing it.
"We" don't know anything of the sort. It's sectarian violence, primarly. Tribal. Not religious.
And any thoughts on whether anyone over there is having fun killing one another is pure speculation on your part, and ugly speculation at that. But thanks for giving us true insight into how people like you think.
So you're saying it's okay to point out that Muslims are having fun at war, and that it is a "natural ...human" emotion.
But.
You're tired of "liberals" saying our soldiers are "having fun" killing people?
Truly, I am getting a headache trying to comprehend all the many contradictions in your posts.
OH, BTW - ROY The Boy....
It's not "Democrat Party," it's Democratic Party. From now on I will more accurately call yours the:
REPUBLICAN'T PARTY
Be sure to have a good day Roy the boy.
I like the "Publican" party label.
I don't understand the upset between "democrat party" and "democratic party". The argument that it's the same as calling Republicans the "Republicant" party is dumb. It's not the same. "Democrat" is a shortening of the word "democratic". There is no shortening of the word "republican" that I know of but I suppose that you could call them the "republic party" or maybe the correct term is "republicanic party" and people never use the "ic" at the end.
Just thought I'd point out the obvious. If someone called the "democratic party" the "demostupidhead party" then your childish "republicant party" comparison would be solid.
Colonel,
You say "it's wrong for O'Reilly to make that blanket statement."
If that's the case, then why don't you focus on that, rather than the other nonsense you posted?
How is what he said completely outrageous? If it was FAR from the truth, I would agree with that term. But it is not far from the truth.
"Where's the misinformation?"
I suppose you have that signed statement from each and every Shia and Sunni in Iraq where they all agree that they kill each other for fun.
If you're going to argue that it must be fun because they're doing it, gee, my mother must have told me not to eat candy for breakfast because she got a kick out of being a control freak.
Blanket statements like "the Sunnis and Shiites enjoy killing each other" are a base and cruel way to dehumanize the slaughter in Iraq so O'Reilly and his vanguard of Chick Hawks can continue to shake their pompoms for "One, two, three, four! More death, more war!" then retire to their respective lairs for a good night's sleep.
Sunnis and Shiites have had fun killing each other for centuries.
I think it is just as fair as a description as any other term. I heard a U.S. soldier interviewed that said they "love" death. It is part of the culture to kill, so I don't see where "fun" is far off the mark.
COL.ROY CAMPBELL...?
You should be stripped of your rank and thrown in the brig!
Your man, - Billy-Boy Oh! Really? - is a Jerk, and that doesn’t therefore mean that it’s OK for others to be the Jerk he is. You don’t know this?
I’m a highly decorated War Veteran and I’ve never known my fellow veterans to enjoy killing anyone.
I know thousands of Liberals who can’t go to StarBucks. They can’t afford the prices there. When your at StarBucks they’re at home brewing up some words to rebut your cheap shots.
Who’s your commanding officer, GWB? What’s you problem with Obama? He’d be a big improvement over your GWB.
Your heart is so full of hatred that I decided to give you a small dose of it back.
OH, BTW - ROY The Boy....It's not "Democrat Party," it's Democratic Party. From now on I will more accurately call yours the:REPUBLICAN'T PARTYBe sure to have a good day Roy the boy.
Military duty does not excuse ignorance in some cases I guess.
Roy
Why do you insist on taking up bandwidth and possible server space writing your inane drival?
I believe every time I have seen a post from you, I have shuttered a little. I have met only one other person like you before. It is almost like you encase yourself in a shell of idiocy, from which all logic and reality is reflected and not allowed to enter.
Waitaminnit...
At first you chastise Liberals for accusing American soldiers of killing for fun, then you say that you know for a fact that it happens. Huh? You're the first person I've heard make that charge, Liberal or otherwise. Aren't you being just a bit hypocritical here?
im simply saying if liberals can do it and get away with it, and there is also some merit to the charge, then why cant ppl accuse muslims of killing eachother for fun without liberals being hypocrites?
You're the only one, liberal or otherwise, I've heard suggest American troops in Iraq kill for fun.
you'd have to be naive to think that there aren't any people in there like that. i've talked to them, they aren't good people.
Uh, like you?
"I know first hand there are people in the military who just want to kill and shoot things and they don't care who it is." - Col. Roy Campbell
Show me a direct quote from a "liberal" that says soldiers have "fun" killing Iraqis... I'd love to see an actual quote. Do you know why? This fictional quote, in your head, doesn't exist.
But magnolialover, that's the problem don't you see?
To O'Reilly and those like him, that does not matter. Their ability to read the minds of those they discuss and project their opinion of others as fact. That is reality for them.
Therefore if O'rielly says someone feels a certain way about an issue, well that's fact now. (i.e. "The boy was having fun...thats why he never escaped")
Go to dailykos and you can read it every day.
We are killing brown people for fun.
What I am tired of is you members of the ReNABLAcan party lying about liberals. I have never heard a single one accusing the soldiers in Iraq of having fun killing Iraqis. It is so much more entertaining hearing you wingnuts whining that what we really need to do is get as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq.
PS go away we dont need bigots in here telling us how to vote
Col. RoyCampbell is my favorite hysterical wingnut today.
I'm picturing Col. Sanders, but a few years older with a WWI helmet and no pants.
No such thing as a "mocha-latte".
But, Keith, you're quoting him out of context. Everything before and after Bill said that was about how the Sunnis and Shiites love puppies and kittens and are the bestest people in the whole wide world.
Bill-O is like this fake colonel, both talk tough and long for the loofah sponge.
For anyone who is new to the discussion, let me spare you reading the next three pages:
Tommy: "I don't like O'Reilly, but here's my topic diversion tactic of the day."
Everyone Else: Fact fact fact fact fact.
Tommy: Refined diversion.
Everyone Else: Quotes quotes quotes.
Tommy: "Olbermann should apologize."
That is a very succinct analysis of (most) of Tommy's threads...
Olbermann should apologize.
There's a fact for you.
Gee, you have a huge problem telling a fact from an opinion. I guess thats why you virtually never know what you are talking about.
Hi MARV...
You completely cracked me up! You should be the on air announcer for the “Republicants Tommy Show.”
Your Preview was right on the money. Your Prognostication depicted his exact style. He promptly made his appearance after your introduction. You should also do a blow by blow coverage and analysis of his complete show. At the end will he admit he’s wrong or will he just disappear.
Thanks, but I can't take credit for predicting what follows. Instead, I read along like most of us and that's what was there. No discussion of the article, but rather we ended up with a discussion of Tommy's "I'm not a Republican BUT..." position of the day. Just wanted to save the rest of you from having to wade through it.
Now I am no fan of O'Reillys, but this accusation against him by Olbermann of thinking that "child molestation is fun" is unfair, to say the least. I don't agree with his pontifications on the Hornbeck situation by any mean, he really blew it on that particular case......but to his credit, O'Reilly has been a staunch supporter of very tough laws on child molesters and regularly highlights injustices in this area.
Olberman should be ashamed of such an inflammatory and cheap shot.
Well Tommy,
Not to argue with you, but maybe to argue.
In our current media saturated world, where one slip of the tounge or an odd look (i.e. Hillary, during State of the Union) can cause far right media personalities to attack without regards to taste or logic. Maybe O'Reilly's one little slip was enough. And it was not such a little slip, he did make broad statements and stated his opinion as fact.
Tommy, I'm just saying that if a Democrat had said the same thing, Fox News would now be on hour 34 of the "Liberals Attacking Kidnapped Boys Situation?"
He didn't state any facts, they were not, and are still not known. It was his opinion and many, including myself, disagreed with him. But for Olberman to say that O'Reilly thinks child molestation is fun is a horrible thing to say.......he should apologize.
Tommy, I cant stand O'Reilly but I agree with you. Olbermann is getting more and more disgusting with his attacks. I am also tired of this website promoting this guy meanwhile his buddy Dana Milbank says some pretty bad things last week and gets on his show with no mention. His own network promotes Imus a racist and that he never mentions.
Doris,
Child molestation is one of the most horrific crimes perpetrated on anyone. It is nothing to be used to simply score media points in this silly vendetta between O'Reilly and Olberman........and for Olberman to say what he did is reprehensible.
Tommy....please...if you are going to say that what Olberman said, in one occasion, is REPREHENSIBLE, then you should be JUMPING OUT OF YOUR PANTS trying to get all the other horrendous remarks made by Rush, O'Blatherly, Coulter, etc..apologized by them...seriously, you seem to have a HUGE double standard going on because I have never read you asking for the others to apologize...
Show me one of their comments accusing another person of saying child molestation is fun, and I will be consistent in believing an apology is warranted. Not all insults rise to this level.
Hoooo-Hum.....so saying child molestation is fun is the WORST POSSIBLE INSULT EVER!!! I get it....nothing else EVER NEEDS TO BE APOLOGIZED FOR!!!!
Makes you wonder why its the worst insult ever.........and why it so pisses Tommy off?
O'Reilly stated, "I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances," adding: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."
I guess MMFA left out the part where O'Reilly said "EXCEPT FOR WHEN HE WAS BEING MOLESTED."
You're just plain wrong, Tommy.
Doris & Tom...
Keith focuses on Bill Oh-Really and not on Imus because Billy Boy is the most prominent spokesperson for the Republicants currently in power. Sorry Doris, but Imus is just not that important enough to warrant the valuable time of Olbermann.
Yes while child molesting is terrible it doesn’t rise to the level of the death and destruction that Oh-Really supports in Iraq.
Also if you guys want to hold Keith to a higher standard than his opponents, that would give him a disadvantage in his doonybrook with Bill and other disgusting Republicants.
True Republicans are even attacking Bill. He’s so bad that both sides can’t stand him. I find it amazing when people come here to defend the Republican’t Far-Right Pundits.
I could always take the Rush Limpy's Fan position and apply it to this, "But it was just a joke, lighten up Tommy."
But yeah I think maybe he went a little far. He does get worked up disliking O'Reilly, although I do think it he was trying to draw a comparison. Between the two outrageous situations (the "kidnapping" and the "like to kill" stories.)
(P.S. I have found that it is very difficult to make jokes about sensitive situations involving kidnapping/war/etc/. It just takes a misquote, misread, minor inflection error, etc and it turns a perfectly good joke into a incredible offense. I'll have to rewatch the episode to judge it.)
(P.P.S. I have yet to hear O'Reilly appoligize for any of the comments he has made recently, so should Keith be the bigger man? Or does he even need to?)
Diff,
Many jokes are harmless and people's sensibilities are far too enflamed on many PC things, in my opinion.....but when it comes to this issue particularly, and when someone accuses another of saying child molestation is fun, well, Olberman should have the integrity and the dignity to apologize. If he does or doesn't, that's his call. If and when O'Reilly makes such a scurrilous accusation against Olberman, I would expect him to make a similar apology.
But O'Reilly has made accusations against a number of people a number of times, no they were not about child molestation. But in many cases they were as bad as or nearly so.
Has he said "I'm sorry I said that, it was wrong." No, in fact he turns around and defends his position.
So two wrongs make a right?
O'Reilly is an ass. Keith thus far appears to have much higher standards--except when it come to O'Reilly. I'm not saying Olbermann needs to apologize to Billy-Boy, BUT I would hope that in the future he would be a tad more careful about his remarks. And yes O'Reilly should also--but that's probably not gonna happen. Keith is the better man between the two, so he should [try to] rise above the B.S.
Quite frankly I'm tired of the Billy-Keith 'You're a poopiehead...no you're a poopiehead' wars.
No he shouldnt O'Reilly as much as said EXACTLY that. He said he was having fun. Exactly what do you think the kid was kidnapped for so the guy could have someone to play arcade games with?
That child was probably molested, and Bill specifically said the kid had "fun". Olbermann didn't quote his exact words, but it was definitely implied.
Olberman made the statement that O'Reilly thinks child molestation is fun........if you believe that is O'Reilly's, or any human being with a shred of decency's, position - and not some idiotic, inflammatory spear in this ridiculous fued between two grown men thrown by Olberman.......well, that's exactly what it is.
It is the clear implication of what O'falafel said. On the other hand who ever said O'rielly had a shred of decency? That is assuming facts not in evidence
Exactly. I hardly see why Olbermann should apologize, when O'Reilly continues to refuse to. O'Reilly did say that the child was having fun, and he continued to defend that statement even after the child's parents claimed that their son had been sexually abused during his ordeal. Even without the parents' claim, O'Reilly's statements were way out line, and in fact out of character for someone who campaigns for stronger child abuse laws.
Show me evidence where O'Reilly specifically stated the boy was still having fun after the boy's parents explicitly said their son was sexually molested.
I said he "continued to defend" the statement, which he does to this day. I never said that he repeated it. Don't change my words to fit your argument.
You can't back it up. If he is defending it, then he still believes it to be true. Don't parse words to fit your argumentativeness. If you can't back up what you say, then move on.
If you're not familiar enough with this story, then you need to stop posting opinions on it. I suggest you go to newshounds.us to get yourself up to speed on the whole chronology. They've documented O'Reilly's coverage of the case from the day he first made the "fun" statement (1/15/07). Everyting I've written in this thread is backed up by the facts. Do yourself a favor and go educate yourself before attempting to get into an argument about something you know too little about.
Nice dodge - send me to your favorite left wing bashing website so you can squirm out of providing proof of your ridiculous assertion.
Do yourself a favor, unless you can respond to my posts with something other than your usual obsessive argumentativeness - don't bother.
Ridiculous assertion?! My god, why do I have to waste my time holding your hand through this? Are you incapable of doing a little research before trying to start an argument?
FACT: On 1/15/07 O'Reilly said, "The situation that [Patty] Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, she was a child of privilege, all of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs, and she enjoyed it. The situation here, for this kid, looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his 'old' parents. He didn't have to go to school, he could run around and do whatever he wanted, ... And I think, when it all comes down, what's gonna happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances."
FACT: From 1/16 - 1/25 O'Reilly continued to do segments on the Hornbeck case in which he not only refused to apologize for his 1/15 statement, but alternated between defending that statement and spinning it to appear that he was "just asking questions," "just stating facts," or "just reporting the story." On the 1/18 Factor, when confronted with his original quote and told he was blaiming the victim, he said, "That's not blaming him, Jane. That's doing my job. My job is to be a journalist."
And incidentally, many conservative commentators took O'Reilly to task for his statements and ongoing denials. It's not just "my favorite liberal websites."
You proved nothing. You said that O'Reilly defended his statement, in essence he still believes it, that the child was having fun and now thinks child molester victims have fun.......if you believe that, fine.
And you don't have to hold my hand for anything, thank you. Feel free to let go anytime.
You asked me to show O'Reilly defending his statement, and I did just that. If you want more quotes of O'Reilly defending his statement (and there are plenty more), then you can look them up yourself, but I've backed up everything I've written in this thread.
Thanks Casino...
I wish that I had the time and skill to do and say all that but I’m too busy. When I have the time I send various Media Matters Posts to many News Outlets, Senators and Congressmen to let them know what people are thinking. You prevailed with this one.
Sam I Am
It dosn't matter if he said it after the parents spoke out. The fact is he never went to the store, bought a pair and went on TV/radio to say "I'm sorry I said that, I was wrong."
And after relistening to the clip. I have to say, Keith does not need to apologize for anything. O'reilly is the one who made the claim and has not corrected himself.
If had done so before Keith's show, I would say it was unfair. But O'reilly left himself open for it.
You, and others, missed my main point........O'Reilly may have been totally wrong about the Hornbeck case, and you are right, he should apologize. But to assert that based on his comments on that case alone, thus rejecting his many examples of being a vigorous advocate for tougher laws against child predators, etc, that he now says it's fun for a child to be molested is wildly unfair.
But Tommy you miss the point. Keith's statements have nothing to do with any of O'rielly's past anti-child abuse stances. It is entirely to do with, as stated in the clip, the Hornbeck case and the statements made by O'Rielly.
Think of President Nixon. Whats the first thing to pop into your mind? Is it a good thing or something associated with his problems? Nixon did do some good stuff while President, but he did some bad stuff as well. Does that make the good stuff no longer exist because of hte bad stuff? Will he be remembered by some for the good stuff first? Yes.
Does O'Rielly's stupid comment erase his past actions? No
It works in reverse. If O'Rielly has done good stuff for kids in the past, thats good. But it does not erase a mistake made now. His future actions can reduce the mistake or even make it virtually disappear. But for now it exists.
Former Rep. Foley (R-Florida) was a protector of children too, how did that turn out?
Naturally, you've diverted the whole topic.
O'Reilly SPECULATED that the Sunnis and Shias are having fun killing each other.
That was ugly.
Previously -- and before he knew any facts apparently -- O'Reilly SPECULATED that the abductee was having "fun" for his four years of captivity.
That was ugly.
Now, perhaps O'Reilly assumed the boy wasn't molested. Didn't know. Whatever. IT WAS STUPID. And he hasn't apologized. Without retraction, he must still stand by his words, despite new facts having arisen.
But the ugly part is the speculation. All along, he speculates about stuff he can't possibly know. It's outrageous, ugly, and beyond contempt.
Olbermann has NOTHING to apologize for. O'Reilly hasn't retracted a thing. You, however, should apologize for disrupting this discussion with a completely off-topic hunk of nonsense.
Show me evidence where he apologized, or retracted his remarks.
O'Reilly said the child was having "fun" not being with his parents, which I can only assume was said without CONSIDERING that the child was perhaps being held for use as a sex toy, which, like it or not, led Olbermann down the path of accusing O'Reilly of thinking sexual abuse is fun.
The fault here is not with Olbermann daring to take Bill's position to its terrible, but logical conclusion but with O'Reilly once again allowing his jaw to flap while disconnected from an operational brain.
I already said that I disagreed with O'Reilly's initial assumptions on this case........he was off base. But to make the leap and state that O'Reilly now thinks child molestation is fun is ridiculous. If you believe that is a perfectly fair statement to make, that's your business.
There was no leap. It is the clear implication of what O'Reilly said. When a boy is kidnapped, other than reasons of custodial interference that is the non custody parent taking the kid, the obvious assumption of the REASON for that kidnapping is sexual perversion. O'Reilly knows that as much as anyone else. Yet he said before he had any reason to think the obvious wasnt true, that the kid was having FUN away from his parents. Olbermann is right. The appology should come from O'Reilly
No cheap shots but good documenting of media misinformation by the number one website: "Media Matters"
I agree, Marker. It's excellent work.
This is off topic, but who is that LDOREN character from Friday's media matters posting?I was reading the posts and couldn't believe the ignorance and lies...
Ldoren = Troll
Ldoren was a riot. I have to admit I like the ones who get whupped in every post and honestly thiks it's winning.
The ones that realize the talking points don't hold water usually fizzle out after a few posts, but you have to have admire the ones that can just keep ignoring reality for a couple of days, while half of their posts are telling everyone how decidedly they're winning the argument.
Wonder why these types like Bush so much?hmmm...
So Fox is licking its wounds (November election) by airing a completely discredited movie in the hopes of ....... people's outrage at Clinton for not preventing 911? Jeez, c'mon Fox, lets move on and forget the past and work on what's going on right now.
It didn't help matters much when the US began to train and equip the Shi'a death squads, otherwise known as the "police commandos". Some speculate that this was John Negroponte's "El Salvador option" being put into place. There were reports of US Special Forces being personally involved in a "police" massacre in a mosque where all the executed were unarmed civilians and had their hands tied behind their backs. There's an estimated 100,000 mercenaries in Iraq right now, most working for the US but none of them accountable to the US military. The CIA ran it's own mercenary death squads in Vietnam, I have no doubt that it would do the same in Iraq. There are the rumours of US and British black op operations, including car bombings...all aimed at stirring up sectarian hatred to keep the Iraqis from presenting a united front to the occupation. Some stories talk of recently-trained Iraqi policemen given cell phones and told to drive a car to a street and park outside a mosque, then call a number on the phone, which detonates the car bomb they are unknowingly sitting in...all this done on the command of their American trainers.
Also, the US occupation regime dividing Iraq politically along sectarian lines (Iraqi ID cards did not have the religious affiliation of the owner on them until Paul Bremer showed up) didn't help at all. The US seems to have done all it can to forment and exploit the sectarian divisions amongst Iraqis and to channel it into violence. Our government cannot be held unaccountable for all this bloodshed between Iraqis.
People, lets get real here. Firstly, to stick to the topic of what O'Reilly said about religious war being fun, i have to say: the only part that would be remotely fun is the fantasy built up by the young men who rush into this kind of nonsense because they sex the whole thing up. Once people start killing eachother, I would imagine that there is a small minority who like being away from their loved ones and in constant danger. It's not that this religious war is a game as much as it is a false ideal of duty built in the minds of religious idealists. That's what is sad about O'Reilly speculating; he is reducing such a complex problem that nobody can really explain to such a simply claim of people enjoying their own destruction. Secondly, I don't think I'm the first to say that I'm tired of Olberman passing himself of as someone who delivers news, when he just gives O'Reilly publicity with stupid music in the background.