O'Reilly: Helen Thomas "is consistently anti-American in her point of view"
Bill O'Reilly responded to viewer complaints about his calling Hearst Newspapers
columnist Helen Thomas a "pinhead," by saying: "This woman is a pinhead. She's
been a pinhead for decades. She will always be a pinhead. And I'm calling it the
way it is." O'Reilly went on to assert: "She is consistently anti-American in
her point of view." Fox News anchor Laurie Dhue then responded:
"And she certainly has
been in the last several years," adding: "Increasingly
so."
During the December 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, in his weekly "Dhue Point" segment -- in which Fox News anchor Laurie Dhue acts as the O'Reilly Factor ombudsman -- host Bill O'Reilly responded to viewer complaints about his calling Hearst Newspapers columnist Helen Thomas a "pinhead," by saying: "This woman is a pinhead. She's been a pinhead for decades. She will always be a pinhead. And I'm calling it the way it is." O'Reilly went on to assert: "She is consistently anti-American in her point of view." Dhue then responded: "And she certainly has been in the last several years," adding: "Increasingly so."
From the December 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: This week, some viewers were angry that I called Helen Thomas a pinhead after this exchange at the White House.
[begin video clip]
DANA PERINO (White House press secretary): Hopefully, in the future, we can bring home more, but it's going to depend on what General Petraeus reports, and remember, he will come back in March.
HELEN THOMAS (reporter): Why should we depend on him?
PERINO: Because he's the commander on the ground, Helen. He's the one who is making sure that the situation is --
THOMAS: You mean how many more people we kill?
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: With us now, Ms. Dhue. So what's the beef? Who has a beef with this? I called her a pinhead.
LAURIE DHUE (Fox News anchor): Who has a beef?
O'REILLY: Yeah.
DHUE: A couple of hundred people had a serious beef.
O'REILLY: And where do you think they all got that beef from?
DHUE: Burger King.
O'REILLY: The same crazy left-wing, loon website. Aren't you getting the con by now? I'm going to answer the question, but it's -- you're being conned.
DHUE: Well, I'm not being conned.
O'REILLY: All right. Go ahead.
DHUE: I'm most certainly not being conned.
O'REILLY: Give me the name and what they say.
DHUE: All right. Well, they're saying that that's not -- that you accused Helen Thomas of saying that American soldiers were targeting Iraqi civilians when, in fact, they say that's not exactly what she said.
O'REILLY: The woman said, "So we can kill more people over there?" Who's "we"? It's the military.
DHUE: It's the military.
O'REILLY: And who are they killing?
DHUE: Well, she says that they're killing Iraqi civilians.
O'REILLY: No, she's saying they're killing people, not terrorists, not insurgents, not the enemy.
[singing] People, people who need people.
DHUE: Now listen, "The Dhue Point" has no problem with this.
O'REILLY: All right.
DHUE: Because nobody gets a free pass on The Factor. Helen Thomas is no exception.
O'REILLY: Let me tell you what you can do with your "Dhue Point." OK? This woman is a pinhead. She's been a pinhead for decades. She will always be a pinhead. And I'm calling it the way it is.
DHUE: All right. Now maybe it's time to put in another interview request for Helen Thomas. What do you think?
O'REILLY: She's welcome on the program. She can call me a pinhead anytime she wants.
DHUE: And she probably will.
O'REILLY: She is consistently anti-American in her point of view.
DHUE: And she certainly has been in the last several years.
O'REILLY: OK. What else?
DHUE: Increasingly so.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
But I thought he does not do personal attacks?
I interviewed her for a college newspaper where she spoke in 1986 or so.
Oreillys viewers at Fox equate "anti american" with "anti Bush" or even "anti GOP." When all Thomas is really doing is asking the probing questions most of the others who value their press credentials are afraid to ask.
Really, though, why should we trust Petreaus? If one of Bushs generals transmits information not walking the administration line, they fire his azz. Petreaus has expressed ambition at higher goals, even political office. The GOP in the Senate tipped their hand last year, and we recognized that they knew what Petreaus was going to say, months before he said it.
Why will March be any different? Warner asked him THE question that gave him away as a pawn in the game. He changed his answer from NO to YES after getting a WH call. Y'all know the rest. We don't trust him; we know he can't be critical of this process.,
My sentiments exactly. You've effectively broken the FOX News code. Anti-American = Anti-Bush, States Rights=Right to Oppress, San Francisco Values=Godless, hedonistic liberals. Its the Frank Luntz bumper sticker approach to political discourse but only appeals to their logically-challenged core audience.
This has nothing to do with being anti-Bush or anti-GOP. Thomas claimed that our troops are purposefully killing innocent civilians in Iraq. Opposing the Iraq War isn't anti-American, but bashing our troops certainly is. This woman is a far left radical who deserves every bit of criticism she gets.
"Thomas claimed that our troops are purposefully killing innocent civilians in Iraq"
Pull the quote that says this. I want to see exactly where she says our troops are purposely killing civilians, no mindreading, no insinuations, I want the straight words.
Also, the ultimate sign of disrespect for the troops is voting for those candidates who slash their insurance and care when they come back.
Hello friedbergboy- you've reached the mailbox of Rinohunter. He's currently busy repeating something else Rush Limbaugh told him on another thread, and is unable to respond to your request.Your comment is important to him, and he regrets that he is completely full of sh*t, but please try again.
RINOHUNTER,INC.
If his mailbox is full, try using some of his other screen names...
lol HBL...
Wino, have you been dinking again? Smoking weed? Sniffing glue? Hitting the pipe? Go lay down and take nap. You'll see things clearer when you wake up.
No Rino that would be the good bunch of Xtian men who work for Blackwater.
Neither you nor Bill O'Reilly are fit to carry Helen Thomas' purse.
DORIS:
Personal attack? O'Reilly has a public forum to broadcast his "opinion", and using that position of responsibility, he calls for the death of an American journalist.
"Calls for her death?" you say. We're at war, and an American who is proven to be ANTI-American -- as O'Reilly asserts that Thomas IS -- are tried for treason, and executed.
Joe McCarthy even named his committee in the 1950's ... the committee that destroyed lives, ended careers (and lives), and terrorized fellow Americans ... called itself the "House Committee on UnAmerican Activities." They claimed to be seeking and identifying spies and traitors.
So when O'Reilly accuses Thomas of being "Anti-American", it's much more than merely an insult. It's an accusation of a CRIME for which the punishment is DEATH.
Dear Lord Tex,
Only you could extrapolate something as relatively harmless as O'Reilly's hyperbole, into a call for an execution.
One could make a case for the eyebrow-raising antics of the loony left based on your conspiratorial rantings, and make a pretty darn good one.
Geez Tex, what is with you today?
O'Reilly calling Helen Thomas Anti-American deserves condemnation, but for you to turn it into him calling for her execution is bizarre...even for you.
Seriously dude, go lie down & rest.
TOMMY AND JETER:
By all means, put me in my place.
Kindly instruct the readers here which part of my "analysis" is not correct.
O'Reilly DID NOT call Helen Thomas "Anti-American"? Is that it?
Or did he CALL her that, but didn't MEAN it? Did he have his fingers crossed, or something?
Or is it OK now to be Anti-American in America at time of war?
Or do you believe Anti-American to be somehow different from Treason? If it's different, where did O'Reilly make the distinction?
Or maybe it's that you do not believe America has a law against being Anti-American at time of war. Are the treason laws suspended for some reason, exempting Helen Thomas?
By all means, guys, be specific on why I'm way out of line taking O'Reilly's comments -- STATED AS FACTS -- to their logical legal conclusion.
Perhaps it's THIS: You simply believe O'Reilly and other rightwing pundits ought to be able to say whatever the hell they want without real world implications or responsibility?
Yeah, that's it. It's the classic case of the verbal bully who, when confronted, claims "I was just kidding" and "Can't you take a joke?" or "You just took what I said all wrong, don't be so thin-skinned!"
Gutless, mindless, irresponsible, petty, and mean spirited. That's O'Reilly AND you guys who defend him.
Put up or shut up, you measly ankle-biting whiners.
Ah Tex just more proof you are seriously demented.
IF you'd taken the time to read my posts on this topic, you'd have seen that I called O'Reilly an idiot in one post & a pinhead in another while I praised Ms. Thomas.
But why let facts stand in the way of yet another one of your colossally stupid rants.
I can't imagine how tiresome it must be for those that know you to be subjected to your deranged pontificating.
Reading them is bad enough. Hearing them must be maddening....
Tex, If you feel so strongly then take some of your own advice - put up or shut up. Unless you take your suspicions and death threats to the proper law enforcemnet authorities, then you are just a gutless, ankle-biting whiner.
I will wait for the results on Court TV.
Man Tex, normally I read your stuff and think "RIGHT ON! YOU TELL 'EM!" But... I have to agree with the opposition here. I think you're kind of out on a limb with this post.
(Man, I took Bill-O's side over Tex's? WHat's the world coming too?)
But yeah, BIll-O is a hypocritical baffoon. This is clearly a personal attack, and given his animosity for those who would question the GOVERNEMNT (who cares if it's run by the 'Pub's?) no one is more un-American than Bill O'Rielly.
Helen Thomas is an American icon IMO, like a Walter Cronkite.
I remember seeing her during JFK's news conferences when I was a wee lad.
My wife absolutely loves this lady. She wrote to her just before the Iraq invasion/war & Ms. Thomas wrote her a very nice e-mail back.
I've got nothing but respect for this fine reporter. She's NOT anti-American...she's honest.
She referred to George W as our worst Prez long before anyone else uttered the truth.
O'Reilly you're the pinhead.
i agree Jeter , I never saw her as Anti American she seeks the truth. Oreilly is way wrong.
Sueeld, Jeter you guys are correct, this is a fine American she seeks the truth and supports our democracy.
I agree with all three of you. If more of the media had half of Helen Thomas brains and a quarter of her integrity it would be good for America
I'm with you, Jeter.
I've always looked forward to presidential press conferences because of Helen Thomas.
She could always be counted on to make whichever president she was questioning, squirm. Whether he was a Democrat or Republican.
That's something they all needed. And it's probably why the current occupant of the White House ignores her most of the time.
They showed the seating chart at Bush's last press conference, and she scares this administration so much there was a big X through her name.
Repubs are nothing but scared little wimps, always in search of more power/money/death
They showed the seating chart at Bush's last press conference, and she scares this administration so much there was a big X through her name.
Repubs are nothing but scared little wimps, always in search of more power/money/death,m
They showed the seating chart at Bush's last press conference, and she scares this administration so much there was a big X through her name.
Repubs are nothing but scared little wimps, always in search of more power/money/death,
King,
I was in elementary school when JFK was elected, I think because of him my interest in politics actually began that far back. I recall the good-natured bantering between JFK & other Presidents with Helen Thomas, she could be tough, but they never avoided her like the current occupant & his Press Secretaries have done.
Remember when Ari Fleischer had her removed from her front row seat & ignored her questions? She was finally reinstated, but it spoke volumes about the Bush administration. Helen Thomas dared to ask the tough questions about Iraq that other reporters were too chicken to ask.
I guess this is why O'Reilly considers her Anti-American eh? He's such an idiot.
Helen Thomas is an American icon IMO, like a Walter Cronkite.
Jeter, BRAVO!!!
I agree with you 100%.
You know that Helen Thomas tells the truth by the amount of times Junior calls on her questions at his press conferences. She won't accept his lies unlike many other so-called reporters.
Pearlene,
I can't think of any current reporter, male or female, that would ever be able to fill Helen Thomas's shoes. She's one of a kind. I hope she's still a long way from retiring.
Daniel Shore from NPR is pretty darn good as well. He was a Murrow boy from way back in the day. Heard an interview with him just the other day on the Diane Rehm show. He's still pretty darn sharp, and asks some tough questions and is an actual real live journalist.
Helen Thomas is also a darned good one. Never one to back down from a fight. She's been asking the tough questions of everyone for years on end, and I hope that she doesn't retire any time soon. We really do need more like her. Many more like her.
Gee I didn't even know that Daniel Shore was still kicking around. Another one of the greats!
Sadly Shore & Thomas are among the last of their ilk.
If anyone wants to Google his name, it's spelled "Schorr," not "Shore."
"I've got nothing but respect for this fine reporter. She's NOT anti-American...she's honest"
So does this mean that you agree with her that our military is purposefully killing innocent civilians in Iraq? If so that's pretty sad.
Once again, she said nothing of the sort. Did you even read the article?
You do realize it's spelled RHINO. Or maybe you're a WINO hunter. They are close to each other on the keyboard. Either way, why are you hunting them?
edella, I think "rino" stands for "Republican in name only". It's a derogatory term, used by far right wingnuts who believe in some sort of great mythical Republican, toward the real-life Republicans of the last 20 years.
The funny part is most of those who use the term "RINO" aren't really conservatives, but bedwetting pansies who want the government to spend all of our taxes sending our troops to protect these rinohunters from scary foreigners, and using whatever's left over to have the Gov. tell people who they can marry and when they have to give birth.
They're a pretty sad little group.
Here's the quote:
"You mean how many more people we kill?"
She didn't say "how many more people the TERRORISTS kill." She said "how many people WE kill." She's accusing our military of killing innocent civilians instead of placing the blame on who's actually killing the Iraqis, the terrorists. That's an extreme anti-American view that should be condemned by everybody.
RH,
Here is the exchange starting with the question you posted:
Helen Thomas: You mean how many more people we kill?
Dana Perino: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position bestowed upon you by your colleagues to make such statements. This is. It is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive.
Helen Thomas: Do you know how many we have since the start of this war?
Dana Perino: How many… We are going after the enemy, Helen. To the extent that any innocent Iraqis have been killed, we have expressed regret for it.
Helen Thomas: Oh, regret. It doesn’t bring back a life.
She is not accusing American troops of murder! We are occupying a country that does not want us there. If we were invaded because another country thought they knew what was best for us, how would you take it? We have killed civilians. Its unfortunate, but its reality. Why are we still there, RH? We were told that Iraq presented a nuclear threat and that if we didn't invade, a mushroom cloud might end up in one of our cities. Since then, we have defeated Saddam's men and installed a democracy and WE ARE STILL THERE. Iraqis civilians don't want us there. Would you tolerate another country occupying us in the name of they know what's best for us? What if rebel factions started shooting on those occupying troops and they didn't always know who was who. What if they accidentally (accidents do not equal murder) killed someone in your family. If you fought back, would you be a terrorist?
There have been civilians killed and we still have no mission four years later! What will it take to get them home?
"Why are we still there, RH"
The reason we can't simply pull out over night is that we would leave chaos behind in Iraq and Al-Quaeda would have a safe haven. My position on Iraq is a moderate, sensible position that I believe most people have. It's simply that we can't pull out over night, but we can't stay there indefinetely either. I simply believe that we have to find a way to get out of Iraq without leaving complete chaos behind. That's a view shared by Joe Biden as well, and he's hardly a right winger.
Can you answer the rest of my questions?
Your analogy isn't valid. The Iraqi people were under a brutal dictator who gave them no freedom and mass murdered thousands if not millions of them. If I was living in a country like that I would welcome people who came to liberate me. But like I said I now realize that it's not our role to go around the world liberating people. I just think we owe it to the Iraqi people to clean up the mess we made.
How are you going to help?
By paying taxes to provide funds for our troops.
Quite the sacrifice you're willing to make there, RH. Typical reich winger...Thrusting your chest out and beating the war drums while you sit on your (presumably) fat arse while the real work is done by others! You are truly a brave lot. I suppose, like Cheney, you have 'other priorities". To the point of this post, of course Helen Thomas is not Anti-American. Asking real questions about the illegal invasion/occupation and the countless lives that have been squandered as a result, is nothing if not patriotic. My father, who served in Vietnam (unlike virtually anyone in the current administration) is on the verge of death and I know that he struggles with his role in that ill-begotten war and the millions of civilians who perished as a result of the second worst foreign policy disaster in our history. It is a sad world indeed when simply asking the tough questions places your allegiance and patriotism into question.
>>Your analogy isn't valid. The Iraqi people were under a brutal dictator who gave them no freedom and mass murdered thousands if not millions of them.
So which is it, RHINO, 2,000 or 2 million? There is a huge difference between the two numbers. I know, you just thought it would sound good to inflate things and quote numbers off the top of your head.
Saddam is responsible for killing 100,000, according to human rights reports. That was in the early 90s. By the time the US invaded, his killing spree had ended.
Studies estimate that the war in Iraq has killed at least 100,000. If the US had not launched its illegal and unethical war, 100,000 people would still be alive. The left had predicted that if the US launched a war in Iraq, a civil war would result. And guess, what, we were 100% right. And the Bush admin has been nearly wrong on everything.
If Iraq is an example of a country to which we have brought freedom, I certainly hope for the rest of the world we don't try any more freedom adventures again.
"The left had predicted that if the US launched a war in Iraq, a civil war would result"
Well, only about 15% of the American people were against the Iraq War at the beginning, so I guess that means that "the left" consists of about 15% of the U.S. population. As I remember, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others were advocating war and claiming Saddam had WMD's. Also, right wingers like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan were against the Iraq War from the beginning. So what was that you were saying?
Try to write a coherent post.
I was against the war. I stated reasons that were exactly correct.
You were for the war and supported it. If this war had not been waged, then 100,000 Iraqis would still be living.
I was right.
You were wrong.
Bush lied abou the war, and war mongers like you supported him. You owe a lot of people an apology.
Wow, again 85% of the American people are "war mongers" according to you along with half the Democrats in Congress. But whatever, you were right about Iraq and the 85% of us who supported the war at the beginning were wrong. Congrats on being right.
Yes, I was very, very right. And you were very, very wrong.
And you are a liar, and dishonest. 85% of the Americans did not support the war *before* it started. Once we invaded, people got behind the war, as they do. But the country was divided.
Again, you are arguing from an idiotic point of view with statistics. Even if 85% supported the war, how does that make me less right? What, am I supposed to hang my head in shame because i was brave and was against the war, even when it started, because I was right? Or should you be the one hanging your head in shame?
FP, I too was against this war from jumpstreet. RH and others like him are akin to a child who says, "So and So did it too" in defense of something completely idiotic that they took part in. I don't think that 85% of America agrees on anything and even if true, it was based on the lies of this anti-American administration. It is a fact that rational people will not act rationally when frightened and all of the 'mushroom cloud' talk clearly swayed many. I am willing to die for my freedom unlike these frickin' chickenhawks. A life lived cowering in the corner is not worth living. "Give me liberty or give me death" is more than an historical quote.
THAT is BS. A majority of Americans OPPOSED the war if fought without our allies or UN sanction. Also I NEVER saw support in the 80s for ANY reason you are repeating hivemind nonsense AGAIN
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=60
Weapons inspectors are currently working in Iraq. If the inspectors do not find a weapons program, but the Iraqi government can’t prove they do not have such a program would this be a reason to take military action against Iraq, or not?29
That is 29% in favor 63% opposed
Which comes closer to your view – the United States should invade Iraq when the Bush administration decides that it is time to do so, (or) the United States should not invade Iraq unless European allies like France and Germany have given their support?
39% in favor 57% against.
Invading Iraq as the Bush administration did it did NOT have majority support until the fighting STARTED.
The Iraqi people were under a brutal dictator who gave them no freedom and mass murdered thousands if not millions of them. ---rino hunter
=================================
Would that be the same brutal dictator Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with when Saint Ronnie sent him to Baghdad in the 1980s?
It's time for you guys to stop pulling out the "mudered his own people" card, Rino. I don't remember hearing any outrage from the right when that was going on ... You know, in the days when Saddam was our boy fighting the Iranians.
In fact, do you know what the response of the reagan Administration was to the news that Hussein "gassed his own people?"
They sold him more gas, and more helicopters to facilitate its use on more of "his people. "
"WE CAN'T JUST PULL OUT OVERNIGHT"
Doctor Bush has opened the patient up, claiming a strong belief of a rampant infestation of cancer tumors.
The patient is now split wide open, and no cancer was found. It was a mistake, and is an ongoing embarrassing mess.
Doctor Bush's supporters advise that the patient be left open, and we continue to probe through his innerds, days or weeks if necessary, continuing against all hope and odds to look for some reason to have cut him open in the first place.
Of course, throughout the operation, the invasive procedure has introduced bacteria which need to be fought as a matter of course.
Others advise to go ahead and close the operation, sew him up and then care for the trauma Doctor Bush CREATED for no reason.
If this were a medical situation, as this analogy suggests, Doctor Bush would be successfully sued to the point he would never be allowed to practice medicine again. He would be labelled as a hazard to anything and any one he touched.
Since he's President, and the only harm he's causing is death and trauma approaching a MILLION casualties, he just says "stay the course" ... and we LET him.
Those are OUR kids on Doctor Bush's operating table. For God's sake, STOP this man!
Baloney. Iraq was never Afghanistan. Al Queda isnt going to be welcome there. They are a country where women became judges, doctors, college professors. I know that mindless BS is what you were TOLD to believe along with the rest of the hivemind but please stop insulting our intelligence by acting like its something we should take seriously.
Wow you are breathtakingly dishonest. Just like when you tried to claim that Democrats support abortion in the third trimester, when in fact the Supreme Court outlawed it.
Because Helen Thomas said the American soldiers are killing Iraqis (which, if she is lying, then I guess the Bush Admin. is too), that means she accused the US of killing innocent civilians? You did notice that it was Perino who used the term "innocent civilians," not Thomas?
No it isnt. Just how dumb do you have to be to not KNOW we are killing people in Iraq? Nothing in that said purposely killing innocent Iraqis. YOU ARE A LIAR. Innocent people ARE dying that is the nature of war. You are so brainwashed its embarassing.
He is incapable of backing up anything he asserts. His suit is stuffed with stupid.
I think O'Reilly, et al should stop projecting their anti American and anti Christmas feelings onto others.
Merry Christmas, Julia! And all my fellow posting buddies.
You mean you aren't a Christmas hating SP? Ha! Happy....er...Merry Christmas to you too. ;-0)
Mary & Juliajayne, have a merry Christmas, for now. Until our war on Xmas destroys everything yuletide!
O'Reilly reminds me of Baghdad Bob, pumping up his chest and proclaiming the War on Xmas is not only over, but won by his side.
Little does he know that the war continues. Our side and the forces of darkness must never give up.
As long as they're selling 7 foot long inflatable Nativity scenes to put on front lawns, we must struggle on. We must remove this blight from the face of the earth.
NO MORE INFLATABLE XMAS DECORATIONS!
Artificial Christmas trees bug me, but I'll allow them after the rapture, but not the silver ones. I draw the line there...and please, no more frosty the snowmen.
Personally I'm celebrating Chrisramadhanukkwanzmas this year. Hope you all have a happy or merry one too. ;)
MoDem, your bigotry against Festivus is showing.
How can you not like a holiday when one of it's most important aspects (besides the feats of strength) is the airing of family grievances.
I guess the full context of the exchange isn't important either, is it Bill? Also, in the future, Mr. O'Reilly, could you give us EXAMPLES of her "anti-American" views. Has it gotten to the point with BOR that he thinks that any questioning of those in charge is Anti-American?
C'mon, Bill, apparently you are an Ivy Leaguer. Try using those skills to do more than just hide the ball!
It's not just a failure to provide an example of an "anti-American" view. He fails with examples all the time. For example, he asserts that Obama has to answer questions and he can't cite a single question that should be answered by Obama.
What is this pinhead business, I mean really. How "let's make this a completely black and white issue" can he make something? Pinheads vs. Patriots. Black vs. White. Red vs. Blue (where's all my halo fans at? ;))
I like Helen Thomas, I think she's one of the more on the level white house correspondents, even if she is incredibly old now. But her in that video during Colbert's White House Correspondents speech was priceless. Whenever I'm walking down the street, I'm almost afraid to look over my shoulder, for fear she's there with a pen and pad, waiting to grill me on some issue.
I saw that too. I hope I can still keep my sense of humor at her age. Especially with the job she's had.
She was probably the most respected person in the room.
I can remember seeing Helen in the front row when JFK had his ever popular TV press conferences. (I think JFK was the first to do this right?) The woman has always been the one to first ask the tough questions for all the presidents, regardless of their party, and in my mind is a true Patriot. I’ve always simply idolized the woman – and I think the majority of Americans who've "grown up with her" feel the same way!
So I think BillO has this one backwards. The pinhead label fits the guy who calls himself a patriot. I’d say something like “he couldn’t go any lower” – but there’s just no such thing as “any lower” when it comes to BillO. He always finds ways to outdo himself.
I don't always agree with Helen Thomas, but I believe she is an equal opportunity "griller" when it comes to both political parties and whomever resides in the WH. She cuts them no slack, and for that she has my admiration.
O'Reilly is so transparent in his Bush defense 24/7, and if he can categorize anyone who questions Bush as being anti-American, no matter how much of a stretch it is, he most certainly will.
It's good that she asks tough questions, but how is claiming that our soldiers are murdering innocent civilians not anti-American? Can you explain that?
If US troops are committing war crimes, it would be anti-American for the press NOT to publish the point. The reality is, US troops ARE killing 'people,' I don't see in this quote the bit where she says 'on purpose' but to be honest, in this occupation, in this quagmire, the reality is that innocent people are killed 'on purpose' IMO. For example, I heard on BBC world that US troops had shot a taxi driver circling a neighbourhood block, because they were panicking about his intensions. Personally, I don't blame the troops for that, because its a consequence of their circumstance. I blame the administration. Which is who Thomas is directly her questions too... so no, I don't think she's being un-American at all. I think its 'Un-American' to accept hook, line and sinker the word of your political representatives, espeically when they're proven liars.
All power to her.
RINO:
Explain to the class what exactly is involved in a "SHOCK AND AWE" campaign. In so doing, I believe you will answer your own question.
War is hell. But unnecessary war is needless hell.
When you start a war over WMDs and nukes and workable flying delivery systems and mobile poison gas labs ... and NONE of those exist ... WHO exactly takes responsibility for that "ooops"? It's one thing to "get it completely wrong" when ordering steaks for a party, or making copies of a flier with an obvious typo. It's quite another when your "oops", your miscalculation, your false rationales result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and the maiming for life of many hundreds of thousands more.
America, under George W. Bush's "leadership", has a lot to answer for in the world, and the world is not in the mood to listen to the Bush Administration's shifting excuses a la Maxwell Smart: "Would you believe Saddam has vast stockpiles of WMDS? No? Would you believe he has the ability to strike the USA? No? Well then, would you believe he had a pop gun and a rubber band?"
Denial may work for you, but "preemptive war" with NOTHING TO PREEMPT is a horror of judgment beyond measure.
I agree with you that the Iraq War ended up being a mistake, but where I draw the line is with our troops. We never intentionally target civilians. The bombs we dropped were meant to take out their military complexes. Yes, there were some civilian casualties, but that wasn't our intention. I believe that our intentions for Iraq were noble even though they were a waste of time and made everything worse. Trying to free people from a brutal dictator and give them democracy is a noble goal; however it simply isn't realistic. You can't force your own system of government on a people that have never had that form of government. But again, our troops are performing heroicly and they shouldn't be condemned for attempting to protect and bring freedom to the Iraqi people. The TERRORISTS are killing innocent Iraqis, not U.S. soldiers.
Rhino, first of all you can't "give" any Democracy, but this is a mental failing of conservatives who believe that AMERICA, Inc. is God's gift to the world and anyone who doesn't want it are ignorant and uncivilized. Second, we did target innocent civilians by bombing them. It is impossible to not target innocent civilians when you "SHOCK AND AWE" your way into a sovereign nation. Third, Helen wasn't trying to say that she believes all of our troops are running around Iraq murdering women and children for no reason. Anyone with any knowledge of Helen Thomas at all would know this, but Bill is a moron and you are one for trying to support this ignorant puke for saying something so juvenile. It's hard to explain to my 12 year old how a grown man on an apparently serious television show can talk like some bully in her sixth grade class. But I guess Junior High logic is right up your alley...
RH,
What kind of mission would the U.S. engage in that you would put your life on the line for?
I don't see the point of your question. It doesn't matter. I stated that the Iraq War ended up being a mistake. You and everybody else conveniently missed that. I couldn't fight in a war that I feel is a mistake.
It didn't "end up" being a mistake. It was a mistake from the beginning, and thoughtful people knew it before the fact and talked about it loudly.
You and your right wing friends owe the world an apology.
You still haven't explained how "how many more people we kill" equals "our soldiers are killing innocent civilians on purpose and I hate america."
"You and your right wing friends owe the world an apology"
So Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and half the Democrats in Congress are right wingers? How much more intellectually dishonest can you get? How about placing the blame on both the Republicans AND the Democrats who voted for the war? Are the Democrats somehow excused for their role?
Nope, anyone who voted for this war needs to apologize
What about Hillary and Obama refusing to say that they'll get all the troops out of Iraq by 2012?
How about RHINO, who supported the war? Why are you pointing your finger at other people? Is that a way to deflect the fact you were so absolutely wrong about this war?
I'm simply refuting your claim and others claims that it was only "right wingers" who supported the war. That's blatantly false. The vast majority of us were wrong, not just Republicans.
What "vast majority?" Again, you are making things up. Please link to a poll that shows beforehand that 85% of the public as for the war. You won't be able to do so.
You are wrong and trying to deflect your own culpability. I guess you think that if you say "well, everybody else did it," then it is okay.
By the way, over 90% of the world was against the war. You wouldn't listen to those 90% though, right? And now look what happened.
Not a fan of that plan either, RH. YOu never have mentioned the topic of this thread. HT never said that our troops were murdering anyone. She was talking about civilian casualties that happen in war. You say that she called our troops murderers, but never provided evidence.
RH, sorry if you think I am being personal, so maybe I should tell you this. I would NEVER send anyone to fight a war that I wouldn't fight myself. NEVER.
So I assume that means that you opposed the War in Afghanistan as well?
Why would you assume that? The two wars aren't the same. Going after Bin Laden was a worthwhile cause, and not a mistake.
Honestly, I don't think a war on the government was needed there. I think we needed the special operations to find OBL and we had/have the people in place who were working on this even previous to the Bush administration. Obviously, we haven't captured him, but I am not sure all-out war was needed. I will agree it was good to get rid of the Taliban in hindsight, but it seems they are making a comeback.
Well, you said that you would never support a war that you wouldn't fight in yourself, so I assumed that meant that you opposed the War in Afghanistan since you didn't go there. I'm just going by your own words and philosophy. If you supported going after Bin Laden you should have been one of the people going after him, simply going by your own words.
Read my post above. Brab jumped in on our conversation.
RH,
You said it ENDED up being a mistake. Why weren't you there in the beginning? Also, if you can't fight a war that "ended up being a mistake," how can you ask anyone else to fight that battle for you?
If you believe its a mistake, take steps to end it. If you don't continue on the path you are.
"You said it ENDED up being a mistake. Why weren't you there in the beginning"
Probably for the same reason that Hillary and other Democrats weren't. I thought that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat to us. I do think that we should take steps to end it, but it can't be done all at once. How much more simple can I make this. I'm really closer to the Democrats' position on Iraq than the Republican position. I believe that we should turn over the security and nation building process to the Iraqi troops and keep some troops in Iraq for a while to train the Iraqi troops and fight Al-Quaeda. I'm basically taking the same position as your Democrat heroes.
Uh huh. So you wee listening to Hillary huh? Please.
We were against the war, and if you had half a brain and had followed the debate the way that Bush lied about the threat (aluminum tubes?), you wouldn't have believed it either.
Yes, invading another country is a violation of international law, and the war was a mistake from the beginning.
Wow. So I guess 85% of the American people don't have half a brain. Nice one funny man.
Please provide a source for the 85% who supported the war. I am not talking about when the war began, because Americans will support a war once it starts. I want a quote that shows that 85% of the people thought war was a good idea before we invaded.
Rhino, you apparently don't realize how weak your position is. We who were against the war were right.
You were wrong. Very wrong. You were fooled. Your war mongering means that 100,000 Iraqis (maybe even more) are dead.
I'm not going to respond to any more of your idiotic posts. You're simply a liberal troll. If you want to call the vast majority of the American people "war mongers" go ahead. I'm through responding to your juvenile posts.
You are free to respond if you want to. That is how blogs work. You apparently don't know what a troll is.
Let me repeat: you were wrong, and your war mongering has cost at least 100,000 people their lives. We told you beforehand, but were so full of hubris you wouldn't listen.
And you are breathtakingly dishonest. Nowhere does Helen Thomas say what you claim. 85% of the people weren't for the war before we invaded. I challenge you to back that up, and instead you become indignant to try to hide your inability to do so.
Furthermore, to state that Clinton, kerry and other Democrats "voted for the war" is itself dishonest. They voted to sanction the use of force if diplomacy failed. Their rationalization was that it would force Sadam to allow the inspectors back in--which it did. Bush violated the Congressional terms as well as the U.N. resolution by invading, because he did not exhaust all diplomatic efforts and even had the inspectors kicked out, who were telling him that they were not finding any WMDs.
Of course, many of us knew that the Congress should never have authorized the use of force because we saw the writing on the wall that Bush and Cheney were determined to invade.
Nice job of finding excuses for your Democratic heroes. Fortunately, most people don't buy it. You should realize that you're being duped by Hillary and Obama. They WILL NOT get us out of Iraq if they are elected. They have promised to keep most troops in Iraq. They can't even promise to remove all the troops by 2012, which is completely ridiculous. You're basically supporting people who are Bush-light on the Iraq War.
>>Fortunately, most people don't buy it.
Is this something else you made up like the 85% of the people who support the war?
By the way, if these politicians are Bush-light, what does that make you, who was a gung-ho supporter of Bush and the war? Bush duped?
Let me just repeat that 90% of the population on planet earth was against this war. Which side were you on again?
Actually the highest polling in favor of the invasion was about 69 percent, which is still significant -- of course that would mean it would have been about 95 percent among FOX lemmings and that's where Wino gets his numbers. I believe the most vocal opposition among elected representatives was the Congressional Black Caucus. They also were most vocal in opposing the Supreme Court's appointment of Bush over Gore. So its seems that caucus is somewhat prescient.
I'm not going to respond to any more of your idiotic posts...I'm through responding to your juvenile posts.- RINO Hunter
Heh heh. Nice job, funnymanpants. I usually run out of patience, but that's as close as a dittobot gets to admitting he got his ass handed to him.
But don't worry, he'll be back shortly imagining that he has all the credibility in the world.
And we'll all get another clown show.
Another clown show? Your mentally unstable friend has the name Funnymanpants, and you're calling me a clown? What's it like living in Far Left Nutsville?
Rino
We're all still waiting for a source for the 85% figure that you've repeated so often. Your inability to cite ANY SOURCE for this figure clearly indicates that you simply MADE IT UP! This would define it as a lie. Your incessant repetitions of it... as well as your failure to own up to its fictitious beginnings... would further make you a liar.
You also claimed several times that Helen Thomas said that American troops were deliberately murdering Iraqi civilians, in spite of being unable to cite a single quote of her's that supports your charge. This would be another example of a lie on your part.
No matter how many times you try weave and dodge your way around this truth by reflexively uttering the name Clinton, people here will still see that... like Bush and O'lielly... your argument is completely dependent upon those lies. And, just as Bush and O'lielly are incapable of admitting to ever being wrong... so too do you persist in clinging to your lies.
Can't you see that your credibility... like Bush's... is evaporating by the hour?
heh. Sure , Mescal, but check out that manly screen name. RinoHunter!! Grrrrr!!
He may not have a lot of facts, but at least he doesn't have a silly screen name like that guy Funnymanpants who shut him down.
A Macho nickname, constant made-up stats about "vast majorities" and "everybody thought"...those seem to be pretty good substitutes for reality in righty world.
And the guy has the nerve to ask me about nutsville. Har!
Whatever his NICK is he mopped the floor with you.
He is not a liberal troll he is RIGHT. YOU are a conservative moron and are absotlutly wrong. You were SHOWN that you were wrong and typical for you repeated the hivemind LIE again anyway.
"we never intentionally target civilians"
What do call destroying civilian infrastructure i.e.,water treatment plants, electrical plants, bridges, hospitals, etc.? What do call sanctions(pre-Bush 43) that have resulted in millions of deaths, a majority of which have been children?
Your stupidity is astounding.
Any bombs that hit civilians were unintentional. We try to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. And you also didn't provide a source to back up your B.S. And your hero Bill Clinton came up with the sanctions which killed thousands of young kids. That was just as bad or worse for the Iraqi people than invading their country.
THAT is baloney. We started the war by dropping an MOAB one ton bomb on a CIVILIAN neighborhood. Thinking Saddam MIGHT be at a restaurant there. KNOWING it would kill a whole slew of civilians. Again you just repeat hivemind propaganda that NO ONE could possibly believe. We DID target civilian nieghborhoods. We KNEW shock and awe would kill civilians. It may be a cost of war, it may be a price we were willing to pay but we did NOT do everything we could to avoid civilian casualties.
"The bombs we dropped were meant to take out their military complexes."
Great in theory. But once those bombs hit, they are not to picky about who they kill or maim.
I know, I know. I've seen the sales pitch from Raytheon, describing the almost surgical precision of their munitions.
If only it were so. No one is saying that our military intentionally looks for innocents and kills them. What is being said, and denied by the government and RINO, is that due to the stress and fatigue levels and due to faulty equipment, there have been incidents where our military has indeed done wrong and in almost every instance, a cover-up is put into place.
This is nothing new. It's been going on for as long as men have fought wars.
RINO has bought the package. He believes that war is just, honorable and noble. It's not. it's brutal and ugly and anything but fair.
RINO needs to understand that.
"RINO has bought the package. He believes that war is just, honorable and noble. It's not. it's brutal and ugly and anything but fair"
Did you even read anything I wrote? I said that while it's noble to try to bring freedom and democracy to people that have never had it before, it's unrealistic and counter productive. The neo-con agenda is unrealistic and not one that we should ever follow again. Never again can we invade another middle eastern country and attempt to turn it into a democracy. You and others attack me for simply taking a moderate view on this issue. You should notice by my posts that I'm not a neo-con and am completely against nation building. But anything other than total conformity to a far left point of view is unacceptable to you.
RH,
We are on your case because you supported this in the beginning. You voted for the man who started it and you supported it until it didn't work.
I have this feeling, and correct me if I am wrong, but if this site continues for 30 or more years longer, you will be like some of the other posters and "regret" not being in the service.
If you can't support the occupation anymore, take steps to end it.
I know you are here because you like debating with those who don't agree with you, but, personally, I would like to see you step up offline and do something. That is why this country is great. I asked you a while ago to step up for free speech, but you declined. I am guessing you didn't because it was a Republican regime stifiling free speech. You spent hours and hours here when the Imus controversey was going down, but when the GOVERNMENT took the speech rights of civilians away, you stayed silent. Why?
You advocated a war that you wanted others to fight, but you would not step up. You know say you can't fight a war/occupation that you don't agree with, but you want others to do what you won't. Why?
If you want to debate the actual issue of whether or not we should be in Iraq, fine. But leave the personal stuff out of it from now on. What someone does in their personal life has absolutely nothing to do with what the government's policy should be. You and others simply use ad hominem attacks to make your point rather than debate the actual issue and what's best for our country. You're using the logical fallacy called ad hominem attacks to make your point. I hope you realize that you are using a logical fallacy over and over again. You're simply attacking the messenger rather than debating the issue.
For the record, I probably have a more "liberal" position on the war than Hillary or Obama. Neither of them could even promise that they would remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. I think they should all be out before then. We shouldn't have a permanent military presence in Iraq. We shouldn't build an empire. And we should remove our troops from the large number of other countries where we no longer need them and bring them home.
For the record, you might want to look up what an ad hominem attack is, because friederg did not make such an attack. He was trying to appeal to your better nature.
How about if the next time a president starts war mongering, you actually *listen* to those on the left who were so absolutely, factually correct. In fact, why don't you do a little more listening in general. The fact that you attack Helen Thomas and accuse her of saying something she didn't shows you haven't learned anything about the Iraqi fiasco. And the fact that you mislead with statistics shows you don't really want to learn from a debate, but simply spread your own misguided idealology.
So, RH, are you voting for someone to bring them home or someone to stay the course. I see you are thinking of Ron Paul, but how far up the list of your priorities do you place the war?
Also, do you feel like you have to eat some crow around here? You were totally wrong on the war and are now finding an excuse in "the Democratic Senators were wrong too." RH, I didn't support them, and the Coloradoans I voted for didn't vote for it either.
You have never addressed the good points people have made about HT and this article. She did not call the troops murderers at any point and you acknowledged that civilian casualties are an unfortunate byproduct of war/occupation. Isn't that perhaps what HT meant?
Also, I would like to see the Republicans/war supporters (yes, that includes anyone who would keep troops there until 2012) to come up with some standards that would allow the troops to come home. I think that's more than fair at this point
To me the way that Thomas phrased it made it sound like "we" are the ones killing civilians in Iraq. She insinuated that we are murdering them. You have a different view of what she said, fine. If she didn't mean to insinuate that our troops are murdering innocent Iraqis she certainly could have phrased her question in a different way.
The war is pretty important to me. I want someone who makes it clear that we won't have a long term presence in Iraq. We need to start pulling out of there. You probably think that it should be done faster than I do. I just don't want to see a mass slaughter in Iraq. Things would get really bad if we simply left over night. I also want somebody who makes it clear that we don't need to get into another war. That's one reason why I'm thinking about voting for Paul, as the other Republican candidates seem too eager to start up another war with Iran.
To you it seems that way either because you WANT it to be that way or you were TOLD to believe that as a loyal member of the Limborg. There is no other reason to read that into what Helen Thomas said. She didnt say what you claimed nor is any rational reading of what she said indicative of what you claimed she said. She is under no obligation to be obeseint and prostrate herself to the rightwing agenda, qualifying each statement in such a way that it cant be twisted by the Oxymoron or YOU.
Three things:
1) RH, I never attacked you personally. I merely asked you what causes would be important enough for you to take the fight off of the internet and even to the ballot box or the streets or for you to write a letter. Nothing more, nothing less. If you feel that was an attack, I apologize. You seem very passionate on this website, but I would be curious to how you would back up your strong opinions here.
2) Now you seem to have said that HT might not be anti-American, but phrased her question poorly. Which is it?
3) If RP is not the nominee and the other Republican candidates, in your perception, continue to look for war with Iran, will you consider voting for a Dem? Why or why not?
Again, nothing was meant to attack you. I know that I only speak for myself, but I have taken steps based on my political beliefs and just wondered which beliefs you hold would make you do the same.
Well, it could be that Thomas didn't mean her question to sound like that, so it could've just been a poorly phrased question. I'm not sure. It's just that she has taken a very anti-Israel and pro Muslim stance in the past on many issues. That isn't necessarily anti-American, but I don't believe it's good to bash our own allies.
On Iran, Hillary Clinton has actually been about as bad as some of the Republicans on Iran and other foreign policy issues, so it wouldn't do any good to vote for her. And to be honest I could never vote for a liberal Democrat for President. I just disagree with them on too many things. But Giuliani actually does scare me as he's the most pro-war of all the candidates and most authoritarian. I would possibly vote for a third party, probably the libertarian candidate, if Giuliani was the nominee because of his pro war stance and also his pro abortion stance. I think that Romney and Huckabee are more sane in that area and wouldn't push a war with Iran. I would probably vote for either of them.
Happy to hear your calmer take on HT. If you would like me to stop asking you about what views you would actually stand up and fight for (letters, protest, etc.), I can.
Also, what do you think of the huge embassys being put up out in Iraq?
Are you the same RINO Hunter that we've been arguing with for more than a year?
The one who used to defend this war?
The one whose job it was to weed out any Republicans who didn't toe the neo-con line?
You've had a change of heart about the war then?
Not only should we never do it again, we should have never done it the first time. It's a mistake now, it was a mistake in 2003.
Yes, I now believe it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I don't believe we should ever again invade a Muslim country and try to convert it to a democracy. I'm 100% against nation building. I'm even border line on supporting Ron Paul in the Republican primary. I disagree with him on a few issues like the Patriot Act and NSA Surveillance, but I love his views on economic issues and his stance against nation building. But I haven't completely made up my mind yet.
Ron Paul would also like to outlaw social security and medicare. Might bother a few poor old folks, the mentally and physically disabled, but heck? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
He wants retired people who have been paying into the system their whole lives to receive their checks. He's not going to take away their SS checks. That's simply a scare tactic. He just wants to give younger workers the OPTION of getting out of it and putting THEIR OWN MONEY in a private account.
That would enrich wall street and eliminate social security, so we'd be back to having the elderly die of starvation and hypothermia, as they did before Roosevelt's old age insurance. When this neo-con con game was enacted in Chile, it ruined their social security system.
Helen Thomas wrote about this in 2001, for your information.
http://www.ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/socialsecurity/resources/op_eds/readarticle94.cfm
Nice Scrooge refernce there Mary
I love how people like you try to paint liberals as 'far left'. When, in fact, we are more in line with a centrist view. The far left is communism and liberals are not communists...Much to your surprise I'm sure. Communism (like monogamy) goes against human nature! The founders of this country were liberals for Christ's sake. Speaking of Christ, do you think he was far left? What about Jefferson?
The founders of our country were libertarians, not liberals. They were against big government. They would be appalled at the enormous federal government that we have today. Christ wasn't a liberal or a conservative. He preached about helping the poor, but he never said it should be done through the government. He never talked about politics.
You are out of your mind. The founding fathers were absolutly the liberals of their day, its ludicrous to say otherwise. Jesus was also a liberal of his day. You just believe things because you WISH they were true.
They were TRADITIONAL liberals, which is the same as modern day libertarians. Liberals didn't use to support big government as they do now.
No traditional liberal is NOT the same thing as libertarian no matter WHAT the hivemind is telling you this week.
You already admitted that innocent people may get killed, so your point was?
We never intentionally target civilians.
"Shock and Awe" did precisely that. It targeted residential neighborhoods.
Despite what they tell you, there is no such thing as a "surgical strike" using large bombs dropped from a distance.
Our intentions were NOT noble. Bringing democracy was NOT a priority it was only talked about when the other reasons for invading faded into fairy dust. Like the dutiful hivemind parrot you expect us to FORGET all the reasons that this war was sold on and Democracy wasnt at the top of the list. Had we REALLY wanted to install democracy as a priority why did we cancel the early municipal elections when we didnt like how we thought they would turn out why did we CLOSE down a newspaper that was critical of the occupation. You believe that for the only possible reason YOU WANT TO. NOTHING supports it.
Where in that quote does Helen Thomas claim "our soldiers are murdering innocent civilians?" You are lying right through your teeth.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Beautifull blonde spanks Bill'O and then he has his way!
She dominates him until he insists on having his way!
Is this anything other than a dripping fantasy acted out on his own show? Soooooooooooooooo nice to be King, or Bill'O!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Helen Thomas is an American Icon of journalistic integrity.
Bill O'Rielly is a propagandist fanatic!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Anyone who tells you he is a patriot, IS NOT.
Anyone who questions someone else's patriotism is ANTI-AMERICAN.
the proverbial grain of salt is in order here
especially when we consider the source, seeing as how O'Reilly is a hypocritical falafel molesting d**chebag of a tabloid reporter turned wingnut propagandist.
I have to admit, I enjoy Billdo's "pinhead & patriot " segment. Well, not so much the segment, but the teaser before the commercial. The tension that builds with his unpredictability, that fair & balanced reporting that makes every one of these a surprise.
"Coming up next; Michael Moore and Oliver North- which one's the pinhead and which is the patriot?"
Don't leave us hanging, BilldO!
Didn' t Bill O. simply copy this "segment" from Olbermann's "WPITW" segment?
As time goes by Bill and Keith seem to be morphing together!
I think his "most ridiculous item of the day" got too ridiculous. He had to come up with something, so I think he decided that politics wasn't divisive enough, and wanted to make everything into a black and white issue, with no gray in the middle.
Ever notice that O'Lielly's Patriots, more often than not, achieve that 'hallowed' status by saying something in support of loofah boy... or at least have attacked one of his ever-growing legion of enemies?
O'Lielly, in his extreme & creepy narcisism, equates criticism of himself with treason. Supporting him is therefor an act of patriotism. He uses his self-absorption as a justification for his neo-McCarthyistic practices.
Man, but he is one sick f*ck.
Falafel boy doesn't have a clue as to what being Anti-American really is.
I think you are wrong. He's intimately familiar since he practices being un-American every day. He's just in denial and projecting on everyone else like all persons afflicted with narcissistic personality disorder.
helen thomas is everything that an american should be, and represents the best this country can be. an old woman read to kick ass and take names. if she makes anyone in either party uncomfortable, she's earned the right.
Hear hear!l Bill O just doesn't know the meaning of respect.
should say ready to kick ass. gotta preview.
Billy boy isn't a fan of a journalist who actually does her job? Say it ain't so!
I always look forward to a column by Ms. Thomas. Sod off Bill.
On a reoccuring subtheme, bringing suit in court for defamation. I'd like to see Zippy the Pinhead bring one against Bill for this. This could be satisfying in a very surreal way.
Bill O'Reilly has become not just a parody, but a bad and tragic parody. This country has had such idiots before, and, no doubt, we will continue to have them. However, they are remembered as the fools and village idiots they were. O'Reilly is our village idiot.
Did he really break into song? Colbert could not have done a better parody.
What in the hell is the point of the Dhue Point and why is she overdosing on botox?
If you didn't know this was BillO talking you would swear it was Ted Baxter...and you'd laugh, which is exactly what you should do. Anytime BillO calls anyone a pinhead we're way beyond irony and into the outer limits.
From day one, speculations were that the Iraq invasion would lead to “another Vietnam”. There is now no denying it has – in more ways than one. Not only has it further divided Iraqis, but this nation as well. Arguments shown here are just the same old, same old.
The Republican hawks wrap themselves in the flag and insist we all only focus on the “good things” that have come out of the war - like a new school being built, for example. Then if anyone reports that a week later insurgents bombed the school and killed dozens of innocent civilian children – that reporter is an Anti-American pinhead.
People like Helen Thomas tell it like it is, while some others tell it like they want it to be.
Helen Thomas is the last independent voice in a long and great tradition of real and meaningful journalism. I kind of think of her as an American version of the late, great Orianna Fallaci -- who took on saints, sinnners, despots and political icons with equal zeal, intelligence and forthrightness. The conservative movement hates real journalists. As Neil Cavuto unapologetically stated during the lead up to the Iraq war, "I'd rather be a good American, than a good journalist," which seems to be the newsroom philospohy over at Fixed News. They don't realize that by being good journalists they are being good Americans . . . and, yes, even patriots. By not taking their "profession" seriously they are little more than propagandists.
As Neil Cavuto unapologetically stated during the lead up to the Iraq war, "I'd rather be a good American, than a good journalist
Not surprisingly, he ended up being neither.
Just what is a "pinhead" anyway? How can anyone who talks like this be considered as having any integrity whatsoever? They obviously do not. That Bill O'Reilly is popular means that those who agree or like him are -- gee, can I call them "pinheads?" What if I call O'Reilly fans a name like that? What will, then, those fans think of me? Hypocrites? Or morons?
But it's all a game, really. Bill's online persona, as he told Stephen Colbert, is an act. His is a formula, and that formula is to be an on-air, arrogant prick solely to generate controversy and coverage and ratings, and his producers have no integrity as they do not care about anything he says as long as it generates revenue.
The problem with O'Reilly's fans -- those that agree with him -- are dupes; they have been conned; they are ignorant of their own ignorance of what "Trash Radio/TV" really is: ENTERTAINMENT; and thet they are really nothing more than ADVERTISER FODDER.
Really Bill? Then why did Limbaugh call her "our lady in Washington" during Monicagate?
HELEN THOMAS IS A PRODUCT OF THE MEDICATION SHES TAKING
Perhaps you should resume taking yours.
Democracy is a work in progress.Thomas keeps working and working and long live the tough cookie.Public financed campaigns next O'rielly.
On behalf of the United States, I would like to apologize to the world for the stack of excrement known as billo riley. While usually found sexually harassing young women in the employ of faux, he ocassionally will stop to make asinine statements or repeat lies for the chimp. He is easily recognized by the mass of liver spots on his jowly face and pudgy body. He lacks muscle tone, has small hands. This parasitic beast is mostly harmless, but can be very annoying to all but the most primitive invertebrates.
If we can't agree that O'Reilly or Helen Thomas is good, who then consistently speaks the unbiased truth and serves as an undisputed example of American values? Petraeus/military officers? H. Clinton? Congess member?
What can we agree on?
Seriously, are there any sane people who even cares about what O'Reilly thinks anymore? I mean outside of the right-wing echo chamber.