About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

O'Reilly: "I woulda dunked that guy in the water 1000 times to save your life"

April 22, 2009 9:09 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Henican tries to explain to O'Reilly that Blair said that use of torture "wasn't worth it"

Previously:

Politico omits Blair's reported statement that costs of techniques "far outweighed" the benefits

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (April 22, 2009 9:12 pm ET)
         
      I'm so f_cking tired of listening to what these Chickenhawks "woulda" done.

      They've all got great big retro-active balls. But when it was their time to show they had them, none would.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 12:46 am ET)
          2
        Yeah , kind of reminds me of President Barry and Clinton too,
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (April 23, 2009 7:31 am ET)
             
          You've got to be the most reading comprehension challenged person commenting here.

          The key word in my post was Chickenhawks. Here is a definition of the word:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

          Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of draft age.

          How does either Clinton or Obama fit that definition?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by paullyg22 (April 23, 2009 9:55 am ET)
               

            Because they're pansy's, after Clinton let Osama go, he said he would have killed him when he had the chance.

            Bill O'Rielly never stated or disavowed water-boarding (which is not friggin torture), ergo he's not a chicken hawk!

            Bill O'rielly never actively avoided service, he just did not join (significant distinction), I don't expect your "Monkey-Brain" to comprehend context.

            Now, as for Barry (President Obama), he's not a chicken-hawk either, he never joined, so the comment is invalid in his case.  But Billy qualifies because he dodged the draft http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

            Whether or not you agree with the allegations of Billy's dodging, no one is accusing President Obama of dodging.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)

             

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (April 24, 2009 12:09 am ET)
                 
              Waterboarding is torture. The reason our Navy Seals go through SERE training is to make them familiar with torture techniques like waterboarding.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
              1
            Well I certainly think that Clinton's support of the Bosnia action would qualify and he was a true draft dodger.   And isn't Obama supporting the war in Afghanistan? http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/05/7493
            Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (April 23, 2009 9:39 am ET)
             
          I'll give you that Clinton dodged the draft, but he was no chickenhawk.

          How does Obama even come into this equation? He's not a chickenhawk, and by the time he was old enough to be drafted, there was nothing to be drafted into.

          You should really stop while you're behind.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (April 23, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
             
          Glad to at least hear you agree that O'Reilly is a gutless chickenhawk, "fair" liberal.  Well done.  That is progress for you.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (April 22, 2009 9:36 pm ET)
         
      How would dunking a guy 1,000 times save anyone's life?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by paullyg22 (April 23, 2009 10:23 am ET)
           

        The whole concept on interrogation is to "Wear" down the individual being interrogated.  By design, the wearing down process implies greater than 1, 2 a few, many, a lot, 180... whatever it takes.

        The biggest issues here is whether or not Water-boarding, caterpillars, music, sleep deprivation constiutes torture.

        It does not!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (April 23, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
             
          So we were the bad guys after World War II then?  Are you denying that we prosecuted the Japanese for waterboarding during the war?  Or are you saying we were wrong to go after them?  Why do you hate our soldiers?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (April 24, 2009 12:12 am ET)
               

            Yeah, I'd love to hear or read an explanation of that. But it never comes. Either it's torture, and we were right to convict the Japanese, and we were right to sign the Geneva Conventions and say our nation would not torture (btw, it doesn't matter if anyone else would torture, it's about our behavior, not theirs). Or it's not torture, and we shouldn't have tried any Japanese soldiers.

            Which is it?

            Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (April 22, 2009 9:40 pm ET)
         

      So if something completely different had happened, and O'Reilly had been a completely different person with a completely different job, and if waterboarding someone 1000 times would save the life of one man, then this fictional version of O'Reilly would have done it.

      I'm so glad we have him on the air, because I have long wondered about this particular hypothetical situation.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (April 22, 2009 9:42 pm ET)
         
      Man, O'Reilly really has a short temperament. It's funny when he asserts a "fact" that is nothing but a fact.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by harley (April 22, 2009 10:30 pm ET)
         

       

      If you needed to waterboard someone 1000 times, apparently it doesn't work, you cowardly teabagging redneck terrorist.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 12:48 am ET)
           
        Another intellectual posting from the paragon of progressive thinking and expression.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by TheDayV (April 23, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
             

          "I don't expect your "Monkey-Brain" to comprehend context."

          Careful lest you be further discredited.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by budrykzp9226 (April 22, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
         

      "...but not if you're San Franciscan, since I'm on record as saying they deserve to be killed by terrorists."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 12:49 am ET)
           
        Wow, did he say that, would you show the link please.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mescal (April 23, 2009 2:29 am ET)
             
          As a Faux News employee, Fauxliberal, you are very aware of O'Lielly's embarrassing Coit Tower fandango. Use the Google if your memory is really that impaired.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 11:15 pm ET)
               
            I am well aware of what he said and he never said that anyone deserved to be killed. Did you notice how the poster used quotation marks to state something that O'Reilly never said. The poster was lying in that sense.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mescal (April 25, 2009 2:05 am ET)
                 

              Are you really this dishonest, Fauxliberal, or just genuinely that stupid? You're claiming that O'Lielly was advocating for al-Qaeda to launch one of their famous NONVIOLENT terrorist attacks on San Francisco? They were supposed to blow up the city WITHOUT HARMING ANYONE? And you expect to be taken seriously?

              Yeah, let me konw how that works out for you.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by fawltylogic (April 23, 2009 2:39 am ET)
             

          http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008

          O'REILLY: Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead."

          And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.

          All because SF didn't want high school and colleges on-campus military recruiters. What a great patriot this man is.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fawltylogic (April 23, 2009 2:41 am ET)
               
            By the way this reminds me how O'Reilly seems to love to fantasize about what he would do if he was another person. I would say he really, really doesn't like himself very much.Can't blame him.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (April 23, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
               
            Love to hear the pretzel twists of logic necessary to defend those statements by the gutless chickenhawk smear merchant.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Broadway Carl (April 23, 2009 11:32 am ET)
             
          http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008 

          http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/12/oreilly-responds/ 
          Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (April 24, 2009 12:16 am ET)
             

          He was giving a potential sample comment from O'Reilly, given his previous comments.

          What a tool that you think it's important to question the use of quotation marks when the import of his comments was clearly expressed.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (April 24, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
               
            Oh I get it, now you are criticising potential comments, good strategy.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 12:55 am ET)
         
      Another example of the one sided programming of Fox news.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (April 23, 2009 11:49 am ET)
         
      Yeah.  Why not 2000?  The thing I find really disturbing is the lack of comprehension on the right.  If something doesn't work the 183rd time it's probably not going to work the 1000th time either.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MrBrown (April 23, 2009 11:50 am ET)
         

      Soro...Moveon...Soros....Moveon...Soros...Moveon...

      Did I forget anything else from Billo's nightly programming???

      Report Abuse
      • Author by budrykzp9226 (April 23, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
           
        You forgot using "loon" and "villain" as insults, like anyone under 60 is devastated.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (April 23, 2009 11:17 pm ET)
             
          At least you got the quote right this time, not the lie you previously posted.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (April 24, 2009 12:14 am ET)
               
            So he shouldn't have used quotations. So what? He encapsulated the import of what O'Reilly had said.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (April 25, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
               
            We all noticed you did not respond to the actual O'Reilly quote.  Is it because there is no explanation for it "fair" liberal?  Could it be that you are running out of pathetic excuses for your master, O'Reilly, and his insane, incorrect comments?
            Report Abuse