Brock to O'Reilly: Stop distorting Jeremy Glick's words
September 27, 2005
Bill O'Reilly
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Once again, you have revived the false allegation that Jeremy Glick, a former O'Reilly Factor guest 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 appearance on your program. This is at least the third time you have made this false allegation about Glick:
- On September 21, you made this outrageous claim during an exchange with Phil Donahue, saying that "Jeremy Glick came on this program and accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11."
- On July 20, 2004, in the course of criticizing New York Times chief film critic A.O. Scott's review of the documentary film Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, you again falsely attacked Glick:
But who is this guy, really? Well, on this program, Glick said President [George W.] Bush and his father [former President George H.W. Bush] were responsible for his [Glick's] father's death. He said George W. Bush pulled off a coup to get elected. He implied the U.S.A. itself was a terrorist nation. And he called his father's death at the hands of an Al Qaeda "alleged assassination." He said America itself was responsible for the 9-11 attack because it is an imperialistic, aggressive nation. Glick was dismissed from The Factor because he was completely off the wall. Security actually had to take the guy out of the building, he was that out of control.
- When you were interviewed by Terry Gross on the public radio program Fresh Air on October 8, 2003 (the interview from which you stormed off the set), you claimed of Glick: "[H]e proceeded to blame President Bush and his father, Bush the elder, for orchestrating an attack on their own country."
But Glick never said that "President Bush and his father were responsible for his [Glick's] father's death." He never "accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11." What Glick did say, on the February 4, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, was the following: "[O]ur 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." Your claim that Glick "implied the U.S.A. itself was a terrorist nation" is also a distortion. In 2003, you said to Glick, "I don't think he'd [your father] be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are." In response, Glick specifically told you that you mischaracterized his position: "Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that. ... What I'm saying is ... 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 mujahedeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government." Media Matters for America has noted that Glick's assertion was inaccurate, but that does not change the fact that over the last two and a half years, you have repeatedly misrepresented what Glick said on your show.
You show your viewers disrespect by repeating the same falsehood, even after it has been brought to your attention. Please stop doing that, Mr. O'Reilly.
Sincerely,
David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America
I know David Brock is not holding his breath in anticipation of a coherent response from Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly has made a career of spinning a no-spin image and being disingenuous. Why should he stop now? Franken appropriately named him O'Lielly.
Distorting Glick's words
Is just another symptom
Of his psychosis
If BO does answer this on-air, expect at least one "far-left bomb throwers" and a "Soros-funded web site" or two.
What's more, don't expect BO to "stop distorting" anytime soon - there's not much of a market for facts at FOX.
You're right, Glick never said any of what O'Reilly said he did. The memo Glick put his name on (which was what got him on O'Reilly's show in the first place) did that.
Link please. I'd like to read this memo for myself to determine if it actually says what you imply.
You mean this ad? [link to www.notinourname.net]
Could you point out the part where Bush is accused of orchestrating anything?
O'Reilly calls the signers "pinheads" here: [link to www.notinourname.net]
He didn't think it accused Bush of orchestrating anything until later. THAT night he said:
So he's referring to this part of the ad:
So O'Reilly thinks it's obscene to feel bad about the loss of innocent lives in war unless the dead come from your own country? Gotcha.
O'Reilly continues with, you know, his real complaint. Liberals are being meanie heads to poor sweet President Bush. Notice his fashionable use of the 9/11 families reference.
This is the second time you made this claim, and the second time you have failed to back it up, even when other posters have given you the chance.
funnymanpants - Tuesday September 27, 2005 08:25:57 PM ES
Propaganda parrots only record and regurgitate, they are incapable of any other action. When called upon to perform any other function they quickly show that they simply dont have the equipment necessary
I think this single comment is a problem and a contradiction on the right. They speak about personal responsibility. However, when it comes to the United States of America taking responsibility for the skills that they have farmed out into the world, the right wing goes completely insane and begins to distort what people say. And then their side says that this IS the way things are...only problem is they aren't that way. That isn't what Mr. Glick was saying. Listen to what he says half as much as we listen to you and take personal responsibilty to global level. That's all that we are doing...
Given O'Reilly's recent record of responding to complaints and hate-mail, I wouldn't be surprised if he made fun of the wording Brock put into this letter.
He'll take the "You show your viewers disrespect..." and turn it the other way around. Why? Because he says so, end of story. He'll then take the "Please, Mr O'Reilly..." as some sort of Oliver Twist grade begging, doing little more than a meek attempt at bullying David Brock. (Speaking of which, whatever happened to that 'coward' piece? It applies quite nicely in the midst of all this Sheehan smearing)
I wouldn't be surprised if this actually happened. What O'Reilly needs to hear is more from the Phil Donahues and Viggo Mortensens.
MD
p.s. we're due for a Coulter column. Last I heard, she was blasting Sean Penn (how much money has he given to the [Katrina] victims?) despite his being in New Orleans, giving his time and hands in the relief effort. Colmes, I think it was Colmes, of course didn't bother to ask how much Ann had contributed.
First O'Reilly will read Brock's letter on air, then he will misrepresent Brock's specific charges (probably while throwing in an insult at MMFA). O'Reilly will then smash the straw-man argument HE put together (avoiding answering the actual charges and maybe even playing a clip of the Glick interview to answer a question that no one has asked). He will then insult MMFA once again only more harshly (probably without naming them or intentionally fumbling their name), declare victory for himself and move on as if nothing had just transpired.
Does anyone expect O'Reilly to actually admit that some "leftwing loonies" he has been complaining about are actually right? I don't think he will ever admit he is wrong. I doubt he is even capable of such a heresy.
You cant fool all of us liberals. O Reilly is standing ip for Americans against the Greedy Oil Companies, where is MM in this ?
Maybe you should read Blinded By The Right and you would understand the position Mr. Brock was in when he wrote that book. Obviously he regrets some of the things he wrote and now we are very fortunate to be guests on his website that points out such misinformation. Do you have any skeletons in your closet? I surly do. Mr. Brock seems to have gumption that many he associated in those seedy circles with will never have.
As stated under MMFA's 'About' link, their mission is "comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
So don't be surprised when MMFA doesn't report when Bill says something that does make sense and doesn't pander to the Bush cronies.
Another outright lie Billy (I can't get Phil Donahue's nickname for O'Reilly out of my head) told about the Glick interview is that Billy asked Glick for evidence to back up his claims and Glick never gave him evidence. I think Billy said this in the famous Terry Gross interview on NPR. But looking at the trancript, Billy never asked Glick for evidence.
"Please stop doing that, Mr.O'Reilly."
It is amazing how nasty O'Reilly is when he talks on the air, does it get his goat when he is addressed in such a polite manner? I hope so.
Haha! "does it get his goat"!
Billy will get his goat someday when the SCOTUS tells him its okay. Too funny!
O'Reilly says something asinine about this letter in 3...2...1...
Jeremy Glick should just sue.
Jeremy Glick should just sue.
by steve expat
--------------------------------------
Despite all of Fox's ranting, (especially in the area of medical malpractice) about lawyers, it's a given they have an army of them. Glick would not have a chance.
Considering the incoherence of Glick's comments, it's a marvel that anyone can claim to understand exactly what he was saying. While the meandering ambiguity was no doubt crafted by his handlers to provide a fig leaf of respectability, Glick is saying that the "alleged assassination and murder of his father and countless others" was the result of this country's policies. He is blaming 9/11 on America rather than the scum who actually carried it out. That he pointedly fingers both Presidents Bush while leaving out the eight years of an intervening administration merely confirms that his despicable comments are primarily partisan in nature. O'Reilly isn't lying and was completely right in throwing Glick off the set, if that is what he did. If he pays attention to Brock’s silly letter he’s a bigger fool than even his worst enemy could hope.
"Glick is saying that the "alleged assassination and murder of his father and countless others" was the result of this country's policies. He is blaming 9/11 on America rather than the scum who actually carried it out." --Cerberus
-------------------------------------------------
You are accurate in your assessment that Glick was pretty incoherent. I shudder to think how any of us would look on a nationally televised show. No one is defending that and it does not excuse Bill O'Reilly's mischaracterization either.
There is some support for (what I believe is Glick's) view that a group founded by bin laden called the Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) was allegedly partially funded by our government to support the insurgency against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The MAK splintered and formed the core of what became Al-Qaida. (I am assuming this is part of the policy Glick is referring to).
I believe your "he's blaming America" comment is masking Glick's (admittedly feeble) attempt to point out that our policies (specifically Bush administrations) have had at least something to do with what happened. Blaming policy is not blaming America. There is a sizeable difference.
Do you deny that our policies have had a direct or even indirect effect on the formation of any militant radical islam in the Middle East?
Most (if not all) of these events happened before Clinton even became president. It would be logical that the current President Bush would be somewhat aware of what had happened under his father's watch. It seems understandable that at least on this part of the history that Glick directs his anger at those administrations.
Do you deny that our policies have had a direct or even indirect effect on the formation of any militant radical islam in the Middle East?
***********************
open_mind,
I understand what you are saying here, although I also believe that they hate us simply because of our freedoms and our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the region. But even if I do accept your premise that our policies somehow managed to rile up hatred against us, therby "causing" 9/11, it is really irrelevant anyway. To explain, by using your assumptions then in order to avoid future attacks against us we need to alter or change our foreign policy - otherwise, we can expect more from these thugs down the road.
Certainly you don't advocate basing our foreign policy, in any manner, shape or form, on the whims or directions from terrorists - because the logical extension of what you are saying is exactly that. If not appeasement, how do you propose we continue foreign policy?
"But even if I do accept your premise that our policies somehow managed to rile up hatred against us, therby "causing" 9/11" --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------------
That wasn't my point, but I can see how you got there. I believe we helped create Al-Qaida, but it was not our intention at all. We were using them as a proxy to fight the Soviets and we were not aware that we were the ones being used. It is more of an embarrassment that I believe is often covered up. The main lesson I would garner from this is the same lesson we should have learned in the Philipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran and many other places: it is not a good idea and it is pretty short-sighted to support insurgencies and strong-man dictators at the expense of promoting democracy and choosing our allies more wisely.
~
"To explain, by using your assumptions then in order to avoid future attacks against us we need to alter or change our foreign policy - otherwise, we can expect more from these thugs down the road." --Tommy
--------------------------------------------------
I don't really care what the terrorists want us to do and none of my opinions are affected by theirs in any way. We should simply learn from our mistakes. Mistakes should be simply defined by policy decisions that keep us from achieving our short term and/or long term goals.
Bush's promotion of democracy in the region (if it is sincere) goes a long way towards correcting the way we have conducted policy in the past and I applaud it. I don't see it at all as a concession to the terrorists either. Democracy is our best bet to destroy terrorism.
I hope that clears things up a little bit. I make no excuses for terrorists, but it is important to understand as much as we can about them the same way a doctor should know as much as he can about cancer so it can be defeated.
Democracy is our best bet to destroy terrorism. by open mind
As I stated below I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, just check out how many times I misspelled Hussein. But I do consider myself fairly well informed about some aspects of this topic.
First of all I stated below that shoving democracy down the throats of muslim nations should be corrected with the "Arab world", of course they are not all muslim and thats part of the difficulty we face with our current policy. First of all it should be noted that elections in the Arab world are highly celebrated and have a much higher turnout than ours albeit not all are fair elections by our standards. Also I must disagree with your statement that democracy is our best bet to destroy terrorism. This just isn't the case and as a matter of fact democratic elections in many countries in the Arab world produce Islamist regimes that do not regard the United States favorably and are much more likely to support terrorism. This is something our administration doesn't to take into account when they say democracy will solve the problem of terrorism. It goes well beyond the fact that lack of democracy doesn't in itself make a country less susceptible to terrorism, it is the complex nature of the thinking of many leaders in the Arab world that claim they are upset by domination from foreign power. The conclusion that that democratization will solve this problem is misguided to say the least and it is to bad Glick wasn't prepared with some of this ammo when he faced O'Reilly because our previous policies, along with our current effort in Iraq, are now regarded by many foreign policy experts as a policy based on old assumptions that have never worked out especially in the Arab world. What has been observed by experts on this subject is that during any transition towards a democracy turns out to be a dangerous time and is when countries have been very vulnerable to terrorism, this is only part of the problem in Iraq. The other problem is we are there with our military and that obviously just doesn't sit well with many in the region, this is when they can point out an occupation by foreigners and garner more support for their terrorist actions. Again the cakewalk talk from our leaders before the invasion just makes no sense when it comes to that part of the world, it is much more complex than they wanted us to believe.
Dee,
You make a very good argument. I was over simplifying when I said that democracy will destroy terrorism.
I do believe the statement is true and I stand by it, but it may take many years/decades. Much of the way the administration has gone about this whole thing is wrong including the invasion itself. I think even conservatives are just now figuring that out. The problem is where do we go from here. The past is not open for debate it has become the "given" for the problem.
The transition to democracy will be difficult if not for the mere fact Iraqi's will need to substitute their urges toward violent political change with the democratic process. I hope it will happen because the alternative will be a regime that will make Saddam Hussein look like Albert Schweitzer.
"If not appeasement, how do you propose we continue foreign policy?" by tommy
Very good question and this is exactly why I mixed apples and oranges by mentioning some of the things we supplied Iraq to fight Iran and getting a bit off-topic doing so. I know Glick wasn't talking about Hussain, I brought up the nerve agents to point out our policies didn't really work out as planned. I have not the expertise to answer your question, it is a very important one. But if we could learn from previous mistakes and forgo getting involved with disputes we should stay out of and giving WMD's countries that will use them erratically against innocent people that might help. The question you asked is obviously very important and it seems as though we don't have a very coherent policy in that region. Shoving democracy down the throats of muslim nations isn't working very well so what is your answer?
>>Considering the incoherence of Glick's comments, it's a marvel that anyone can claim to understand exactly what he was saying.
Yes, who could possibly understand him? Except you yourself! Because in your same post you state:
>>Glick is saying that the "alleged assassination and murder of his father and countless others" was the result of this country's policies.
You also illogically state that Glick's "meandering ambiguity was no doubt crafted by his handlers to provide a fig leaf of respectability."
That makes no sense. If Glick had handlers--which an assertion you conveniently don't back up--they would not make him meander. They would make him sound coherent.
So Glick is both inchoherent and coherent at the same time. In other words, you are name calling to pad your argument.
Glick did not blame the US for 9/11.
Read the article again. At worst, Glick can be accused of blaming the US's policies on helping create Al Quaida--an assertion backed up by even some CIA members.
However, Oreilley claimed that:
"Jeremy Glick came on this program and accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11."
Surely you can tell the difference between someone blaming the US's policies in helping create a diaster, and a conspiracy theory in which you say the US planned that diaster?
Cerberus you are correct that Glick made some incoherent comments and MMFA has pointed this out in the past as well as today. But do you remember our support of the mujahedeen as well as Saddam during various conflict in those regions, do you deny we helped the mujahedeens fight the Soviets? Do you remember the Stinger shoulder fired missile launchers. How about the nerve agents we gave to Hussain? He then used them on Kurds in a genocidal manner. This is what Glick was trying to point out and when he said things that were flat out wrong it seems as though you and others, O'Reilly, wish to discount the fact that we did help train and give weapons to the mujahedeens as well as give nerve agents to Hussain. Our policies have come back to bite us and that is just fact.
Open Mind's post above has it, in my view, just right. O'Reilly does this over and over. I'm sure he will follow the techniques of deception Open Mind lists. The key is always the obscuring of the facts. This will begin with the misrepresentation of MMFA's complaint. In any case, we can be sure he will not actually answer any of the charges. Of course this is what is most contemptible about these tireless blowhards: their utter contempt for their audience; their presumption that the members of their audience will never ask why he does not address the charges MMFA justifiably brings forth. Epithets will rule the day.
Brock's just doing, what he's supposed to do. Unfortunately, The letter will likely be pre-sorted and tossed. Especially, seeing Bill O' Reilly's high opinion of Media Matters.
one can agree or not with jeremy glick's politics and who he blames for his father's death. but o'reilly is clearly lying when he claims glick's contention is that the bushes "orchestrated" the 9-11 attack. orchestrated means that the bushes planned and carried out the attack. nowhere in glick's comments can anyone come to the conclusion that is what he was saying. and i always love reading about how he stormed off the set of the interview. he can't handle it. that's why him saying that he took clinton apart is a joke. he's scared witless to take on clinton man to man.