O'Reilly again falsely accused former guest of claiming that Bush "orchestrat[ed] 9-11"
On the September 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly revived his false allegation that Jeremy Glick, a former guest on the program whose father was killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, "accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11" during his O'Reilly Factor appearance.
In fact, Glick did no such thing. During his February 4, 2003, appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, he argued that CIA support of anti-Soviet Afghan fighters in the late 1970s and 1980s had provided the training for what would later emerge as Al Qaeda -- the organization responsible for the terrorist attacks. Glick stated:
GLICK: [S]ix months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahideen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
[...]
Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.
Glick was incorrect in claiming that the president's father, George H.W. Bush, was CIA director while the U.S. funneled support to the anti-Soviet Afghan forces. CIA assistance to the Afghan fighters began in 1979; Bush was CIA director from 1976 to 1977. However, Bush was vice president under President Reagan, whose administration dramatically increased aid to the anti-Soviet Afghan forces during the early 1980s. The State Department and the CIA maintain that this aid went only to ethnic Afghans, and not to "Afghan Arabs" such as Osama Bin Laden.
Despite O'Reilly's claims to the contrary, Glick never suggested during his appearance on The O'Reilly Factor that President Bush had orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks. Media Matters for America has documented two previous examples of O'Reilly repeating this or similar falsehoods:
- September 19, 2003: O'Reilly stated: "Glick was saying without a shred of evidence that President Bush and Bush the elder were directly responsible for 9-11."
- September 18, 2003: O'Reilly claimed Glick "came on the Factor and accused President Bush of knowing about 9/11 before it happened."
Media Matters has previously debunked several of O'Reilly's false claims about Glick.
From a discussion with former talk show host Phil Donahue on the September 21 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
DONAHUE: Now listen. Listen. You wouldn't send your children to this war, Bill.
O'REILLY: My nephew just enlisted in the Army. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
DONAHUE: Very good. Congratulations.
O'REILLY: Yeah, and he's a patriot, so don't denigrate his service or I'll boot you right off the set.
DONAHUE: I'm not -- I'm not --
O'REILLY: That boy made a decision to serve his country. Do not denigrate him or you're out of here.
DONAHUE: I'm not Jeremy Glick, Billy. You can't --
O'REILLY: That's right. You're a little bit more intelligent than he is.
[...]
DONAHUE: How many more young men and women are you going to send to have their arms and legs blown off --
O'REILLY: This is a war on terror.
DONAHUE: -- so that you can be tough and point at people in a kind of cowardly way, take people like Jeremy Glick who comes on to -- in memory of his parents --
O'REILLY: Oh, bull.
DONAHUE: -- and you go off on him like a big --
O'REILLY: Jeremy Glick --
DONAHUE: -- like a big bully. Billy, you have to be -- you have to feel sorry about that.
O'REILLY: Mr. Donohue, with all due respect --
DONAHUE: Did you apologize to him for that?
O'REILLY: Baloney. Jeremy Glick came on this program and accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11. That's what he did. Right in -- after 9-11 happened. Do you know what [sic] the pain that brought the families who lost people in 9-11?
DONAHUE: This war --
O'REILLY: You buy into left-wing propaganda, and you're a mouthpiece for it.
From the February 4, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book Another World is Possible [Garrett County Press, 2001]. I'm surprised you signed this [ad opposing military action in Iraq]. You were the only one of all of the families who signed --
GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.
O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?
GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrows, which represents 9-11 families, were also involved.
O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.
GLICK: As an individual.
O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.
GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro-Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period. Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.
[...]
O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far-left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.
GLICK: It's marginal -- right.
O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.
GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.
O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but --
GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush --
O'REILLY: -- I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.
GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.
O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed --
GLICK: What I'm saying is --
O'REILLY: -- this, and that absolutely said that.
GLICK: -- is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahideen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.
GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan --
O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
GLICK: The people in Afghanistan --
O'REILLY: Who killed your father.
GLICK: -- didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did. The Al Qaeda people were trained there.
GLICK: The Al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?
O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand mujahideen who were --
O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
GLICK: Well, I hope she is.
O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.
GLICK: OK.
O'REILLY: In respect for your father --
GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?
O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.
GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.
O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians --
GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government --
O'REILLY: Out of respect for him --
GLICK: -- not the people of America.
O'REILLY: -- I'm not going to --
GLICK: -- the people of the ruling class, the small minority.
O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of The Factor.
GLICK: That means we're done?
O'REILLY: We're done.
"...revived his false allegation that Jeremy Glick...'accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11.'"
That's correct; Glick did not argue that point. The organization he signed his name to did that.
according to kenkong, the ad that jeremy glick signed accused bush of orchestrating 9-11. i read it and i don't see it. o'reilly continues to lie.
Glick signed his name to an organization? How do you do that, exactly.
Phil Donahue continues to proves he's more out of touch than almost any American alive. Regardless of your views on O'Reilly, you'd have to be out of your mind to believe anything Phil has to say. I am so very thankful that he is not championing any cause for me. HE's the liberal-fanatics' version of the right's 'Bible-thumper'.
not that you actually comment on anything donahue has said. he's just a "liberal-fanatic".
There's no need to. I'm sure all of you saw and heard it for yourselves since you are commenting on this topic...
Yeah, like when Phil said Bush was responsible for 9-11. Oh, that's right he didn't say that either. C'mon PG, you can do better than that can't ya? Better hurry up, or we'll cut your keyboard!
you'd have to be out of your mind to believe anything Phil has to say. I am so very thankful that he is not championing any cause for me. HE's the liberal-fanatics' version of the right's 'Bible-thumper'.
You sound a lot like O'Reilly with this statement. You don't mention anything Donohue says that's wrong or extreme. You merely attach an extreme label to him.
Glick made more than just the one factual error that Media Matters attributes to him. In all, in the span of two minutes, Glick:
... referred to the 2000 presidential Florida election as a "coup";
... he called September 11 an "alleged" assassination and murder;
... he falsely accused Bush the elder of training 100,000 moujahadeen while head of the CIA; and
... he attacked the personal integrity of O'Reilly by postulating that he "evoke[s] 9-11 (and the 9-11 families) to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialist aggression worldwide."
The interview was cordial up until the point when Glick personally attacked O'Reilly. O'Reilly wanted to wind down the interview, but Glick kept pushing and would not stop talking.
It was not O'Reilly's best moment, but Glick came across as strident and erratic.
...
It was not O'Reilly's best moment, but Glick came across as strident and erratic.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can't dispute that there's plenty to criticize about what Glick said...so why did O'Reilly have to tell him to "shut up" and cut off his mike? Why does he have to continue to lie about what Glick said? When there are legitimate issues to challenge a guest on, why does O'Reilly have to use these kind of tactics instead of using FACTS to challenge a guest?
Wanderwomen,
BO believes that whomever screams the loudest and is the most aggressive wins the debate. Did you see his debate with Paul Krugman? BO made a complete fool of himself, arguing economics with an economics professor. All BO did was scream and point his finger at Krugman, I thought he was going to slug him one time. That's the same debate that he called MMFA an extremist organization just like the KKK. Later on his show, BO said he wiped the floor with Krugman. As I said earlier BO is an aggressive delusional man.
As I said earlier BO is an aggressive delusional man.
by Lynn - Thursday September 22, 2005 10:00:13 PM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lynn -
My personal favorite BO moment was when he quoted the "Paris Business Review" regarding his boycott of France. Delusional is absolutely right!
You are either nitpicking or wrong. So what if he called the Florida elections a coup? He's certianly entitled to his opinion, and the ruling by the Supreme court putting Bush in was a very poorly reasoned one, and blatantly partisan.
I'm not sure what how "alleged" was used. If I say Osama Bin Laden "allegedly" murdered 3,000 people, I am not factually incorrect. Newspapers regulary used alleged for anyone accused but not proven guilty in court.
I don't know if O'Reilly uses 9/11 for demogogic purposes like Bush does. If O'Reilly does, why shouldn't Glick bring this up?
You are basically inflating Glick's claims, making it sound as if Glick personally attacked O'Reilly or fabricated. He didn't.
>> ... he attacked the personal integrity of O'Reilly by postulating that he "evoke[s] 9-11 (and the 9-11 families) to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialist aggression worldwide."
That one's true.
Whether Glick's statements are right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is Glick never said Bush orchestrated 9/11. Bill is making a false statement when he says Glick said that.
Glick should sue Bill for defamation. Glick is a private figure and it would be easier fo him to make out a prima facie case.
Glick is also making a false statement; the CIA helped Afghanistan out, but so did other countries. The CIA did not prop up Osama bin Laden. [link to usinfo.state.gov]
It seems to me Glick has stronger claim against O'Reilly for defamation than the CIA has against Glick for not including everyone who might have "helped Afghanistan out."
One cannot really say either one is superior to the other; i.e. O'Reilly and Glick both sunk to the lowest level. O'Reilly went through his usual bait and switch tactics, and Glick DID make some pretty far out accusations-it's true we help support the Afghans against the Soviets, but not to the degree that Glick claims, as evidenced by a link in the article [link to usinfo.state.gov]
You state a government document as proof that the US government didn't do an action? What next, are you going to use OJ's testimony as proof he didn't murder Nicole?
A two minute search on the web refutest he US government's claim:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
The article continues with sources to back up this claim.
funnymanpants,
wikipedia is B.S. ; they let anyone edit it, so for all you know it could be misinformation.
Right, unlike those government docs you were handing out as "evidence."
The site gives several sources.
"they let anyone edit it"
Which is exactly why there are so many sources in the articles. If you can look for yourself and see what's being said is true, where's the issue of trustworthiness?
1428a - Thursday September 22, 2005 08:49:12 PM EST
We helped them a lot, I am not even criticising, at the time I wasnt really against it but we DID help a lot. We gave them money, the CIA built training bases in Afghanistan, we brought Muhajadeen to the US for special insurrgency training. We did quite a bit to help.
Hey, I have an idea. Since O'Reilly is no better at producing facts than Glick, let's not give either of them a daily news show.
all one needs to do is read the headline. o'reilly accused glick of something he never said. and o'reilly knows this, it's been discussed many times. mmfa isn't defending glick's words. o'reilly repeats a lie he knows is untrue. that's the point.
O'Reilly was on last night talking about his "conversation" with Donahue. Some quotes I remember off the top of my head (I apologize if they're not exact, it's all from memory):
"Disagreeing with somebody is perfectly okay. Questioning the character of the person you disagree with is not."
and
"Irresponsible fanatics have no place in the No Spin Zone." (referring to Donahue)
I laughed out loud at both of these statements, because they could easily be applied to O'Reilly himself. If "irresponsible fanatics" don't belong in the No Spin Zone, perhaps someone else should be the host.
I'm not that big a fan of Donahue but O'Reiilyy came across as a complete bully. Did you see his finger shaking when asked about his nephew? He came across as a barroom bully stripped of his bravado.
My favorite moment was when O'Reilly bellowed at Donahue," You people have no effective way to fight terrorism!" What General O"Reilly failed to point out is that he has none either!
He spent the whole last month attacking Cindy Sheehan and then lecturing people on poverty. In the words of Dr. Demento,"They are coming to take me away."
I don't see how the article linked makes the case the author intended.
The author used only a partial transcript, less than Media Matters, and the part that was used does not in any way indicate that Glick is accusing Bush the elder of ORCHESTRATING 9/11.
He is accusing Bush the elder of helping train members of Al Queda - which is an insiduptable fact.
Right-wing blogs are saying Media Matters is lying about this article. Read this link here:
[link to ivorypower.com]
This seems pretty clear. What do you guys think?
i read the ivorypower.com article and the problem is that it does not provide the complete transcript, which should tell you they're trying to hide something. mmfa provides the complete exchange and it's clear that glick and o'rielly are talking about the origin of alqueda and the war in afghanistan pre-9-11. bush's involvement is in the context of that war. nowhere, nowhere does glick accuse either bush of orchestrating 9-11. more disinformation.
YEah I know, I am working on a little bit of a reply to that site right now.
o'reilly is always the tough guy when he's in sole charge of the microphone. like a couple days ago, when he said he took clinton apart. of course, clinton was not on, and o'reilly would run the other way rather than face the big dawg. that's why o'reilly turned fifteen shades of purple in that debate with franken. he couldn't control it. and franken's invitation to come on his show is still in effect, little billy.
I'm astonished that Bill O'Liely still has an audience... and then I remember that he has a forum on Faux News. If BO is a "fair and balanced" journalist, then god help the state of US journalism!
I'm astonished that Bill O'Liely still has an audience... and then I remember that he has a forum on Faux News. If BO is a "fair and balanced" journalist, then god help the state of US journalism!
by fooled once
___________________________________________________________________
Bill O'Reilly's audience doesn't care about the facts, they just care that O'Reilly tells them the Liberals are evil, mean-spirited, un-Patriotic/anti-American, and so forth. Mix in some news that reaffirms the values and beliefs of the audience (true or not), and the type of people who watch will keep coming back.