O'Reilly's interview with Bush: Softball questions, misleading assertions, and attacks on Democrats
On the October 16, 17, and 18 editions of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly aired portions of his October 16 interview with President George W. Bush, which consisted of such "tough questions" as whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is "soft on terrorism," whether "the anti-Bush press" is responsible for popular opposition to the war, and whether Bush was aware that critics "are trying to destroy you." O'Reilly also asked Bush, "[Y]ou work hard, right?"
In his introduction of the interview on October 16, O'Reilly stated, "This is my third interview with the president. He does get a fair shake here, but he also gets tough questions, as everybody does." He explained that "[b]ecause every presidential interview is finite," he would concentrate on "what is happening now." Absent from the interview, O'Reilly stated, would be any questions that "look back," because "What good does it do to rehash WMDs?" According to the on-screen text, "Looking back doesn't do anybody any good." Later in the same show, during a discussion with author and Washington Post assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, O'Reilly further announced: "I'm worried, though, that all of the politicizing of this topic, the war, makes it more difficult to win the war. ... I think that the harping and constant, 'Bush lied and they're screw-ups and they don't listen.' This all helps these horrible people."
After airing the second portion of the interview on October 17, O'Reilly hosted Fox New political analyst and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) to comment on the interview. Gingrich congratulated O'Reilly for "manag[ing] to get him [Bush] not with talking points and kind of speeches but really talking from the heart," and informed viewers: "People -- it's worth looking at a second time at that interview just now. ... [T]his guy is telling you, as president of the United States, as commander in chief from his heart he believes that is what it takes to defeat people who want to kill us and destroy us." Gingrich concluded: "I thought it was a very compelling." O'Reilly agreed with Gingrich's praise, saying: "I spoke to the president before the interview began, and I said 'Listen, Mr. President, this is the third time we spoke, and the first two times, it came off great because you didn't give me rehearsed answers. You know, you just spoke from the heart of what you really believe, and that's what I hope we can accomplish today.'"
"Tough questions"
Throughout the course of the interview, O'Reilly asked Bush a series of open-ended, supportive, and softball questions, with little follow-up, and even Bush took issue at least twice with some of O'Reilly's harsher comments. For instance:
- O'Reilly asked Bush: "Sixty percent of Americans are now against the Iraq war. Why?" After Bush replied, "Because they want us to win," O'Reilly pressed Bush further, asking: "Is one of the reasons they've turned against the war in Iraq is that the anti-Bush press pounds day in and day out in newspapers, on the network news, in books like Bob Woodward's, that you don't know what you're doing there?" Bush replied: "I'm disappointed that people would propagandize to that effect because the stakes are too high for that kind of illogical behavior." [10/16/06]
- O'Reilly then asked Bush "Why doesn't Russia, France, China see it your way?" and asserted, "If they would help the United States, particularly with Iran and if they would help inside Iraq, we would win this thing very quickly." Bush responded that he "would give them more credit than" O'Reilly was, stating that he had spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin "about the Iranian issue, and he knows full well that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon." [10/16/06]
- While discussing North Korea, O'Reilly asked Bush about China's vote in favor of United Nation sanctions against North Korea followed by its refusal to inspect cargo going to or coming from North Korea: "You are saying they are not 'no-spin' guys over there in China?" Bush replied: "I think there may be some 'spin' guys over there in China." [10/16/06]
- O'Reilly asserted to Bush that "it looks like in Iran and North Korea, that both Russia and China want the USA to be weakened." Bush, to O'Reilly's apparent surprise, "strongly disagree[d]" with O'Reilly's assertion, adding: "I think you're wrong on that." [10/16/06]
- Leading into further questioning on North Korea, O'Reilly asked, "Ever think about this North Korean leader -- 'Is he just insane?' " Bush replied, "We will see." [10/16/06]
- Discussing Bush's recently enacted Military Commissions Act of 2006, O'Reilly asked: "You think Hillary Clinton is soft on terrorism?" [10/17/06]
- While discussing the Iraqi insurgency, O'Reilly asserted: "I think the bottom line is this crazy insurgency on the Islamofascists, as I call them, it's never going to end in our lifetime," and that Iraqis were "scared" of the insurgents because "these guys will kill you and your family and every kid you have. And they'll cut your head off." Bush replied: "In a minute. ... Not only will they kill their families. They'll come and kill us." [10/17/06]
- After addressing Bush's low approval numbers, O'Reilly asked: "Is it discouraging that more people don't see why you're doing what you're doing?" [10/18/06]
- O'Reilly then steered the conversation toward Bush's critics, telling Bush: "I'm just wondering, psychologically" how Bush responds to his low poll numbers, stating: "You work hard, right? ... I don't think you can ever take a day off, right? ... Seven days a week, bang, bang, bang. You're in the most intense time -- one of the most intense times in U.S. history. And then you're getting pounded day after day after day, pounded, pounded, pounded. How do you process that?" [10/18/06]
- While discussing Bush's critics, O'Reilly claimed that, next to Bush, O'Reilly is "the second most criticized person in the country," and stated that "I get really furious, especially if it's [criticism] dishonest. ... But you don't -- you're different than I am. You're more philosophical. See, I'm sitting there going, 'Oh, if I had this guy's neck.' You know?" Bush replied that he was "not as big as you are, so ... I wouldn't be able to get away with that." [10/18/06]
- Continuing to discuss Bush's critics, O'Reilly asked: "You don't take it personally. ... Because they are trying to destroy you, you know that?" [10/18/06]
- O'Reilly then used the interview as an opportunity to promote his book: "[T]here's also something else in play here, Mr. President. The secular progressives -- I just wrote a book called Culture Warrior. And we sent you a free copy, by the way. ... The secular progressives don't like you because you're a man of faith. ... They think you are some kind of evangelical, who -- God tells you what to do, and you go out and do it. And they hate that." [10/18/06]
"You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States"
On October 16, O'Reilly asserted, "You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States." Indeed, O'Reilly gave Bush ample opportunity to attack Democrats, distort their positions, and make otherwise false claims, unchallenged. For instance:
- O'Reilly
asked Bush to comment on Sen. Clinton's remarks regarding the Military
Commissions Act, stating: "Let me read to you what Hillary Clinton, who
could be the nominee for presidency in 2008 on the Democratic side, said about
this bill that she voted against, this detainee bill you're signing today.
Quote, 'If enacted, this law would give license to this administration to
pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them
indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse.' " Bush
responded, "You mean pick the enemy up off the streets?" When
O'Reilly then stated that "she [Clinton] says people," Bush
replied: "I don't know who she's talking about." O'Reilly
then asked Bush if Clinton
is "soft on terrorism." [10/17/06]
As Media Matters for America has noted, the Military Commissions Act effectively grants the president the authority to detain any noncitizen in the United States or outside its borders, for any reason, indefinitely. Several Senate Democrats highlighted this provision in their denunciations of the bill. Moreover, as Media Matters has further noted, Bush has asserted the same authority with respect to U.S. citizens, a claim that the bill leaves unaddressed. [10/17/06] - Discussing the Bush administration's proposals for trying terror suspects, O'Reilly asked: "Your administration has been accused of being fascist, violating human rights, ignoring the Geneva Convention. And it's been a fierce campaign against this policy. Why has it been so fierce?" Bush replied: "I don't know," and suggested that there may be opposition to his policies because "maybe there are some in this country who say, well, they're [terrorists] not coming again." O'Reilly did not ask Bush who these people may be. Later in the interview, O'Reilly also did not question Bush's baseless assertion that the Democrats who voted against his military tribunal proposal are "opposed [to] questioning people we've picked up on the battlefield." [10/17/06]
- O'Reilly
repeatedly suggested that, despite evidence to the contrary, "Iran
... is behind the insurgency in Iraq"; "that U.S. forces are now
fighting an insurgency fueled by Iran"; and even that Russia was
complicit with Iran in allegedly providing weapons to the Iraqi insurgency.
After Bush stated that he had a "good talk" with Putin about
"the Iranian issue," O'Reilly, presumably referring to Russia's support for Iran, asked: "So why are they
selling them all kinds of weaponry? ... They are killing our people in Iraq.
They are sending the weapons over. They are sending bombs over to Iraq.
And, Putin is arming them. Why is Putin arming them?" Earlier in the
interview, Bush appeared to agree that Iran was partly behind the Iraqi
insurgence, stating "[w]e are concerned about some Iranian
involvement. Particularly in the delivery of certain kind of weapons."
But Bush disagreed that Putin was "arming Iran
to the point where they are using a lot of Russian weapons in the
theater."
In fact, while several Russian companies have allegedly provided weapons to Iran, British troops in southern Iraq investigated Bush administration claims that Iran was providing weapons and support to the Iraqi insurgency and found those claims to be without merit. The Washington Post reported October 4, "British commandos in the deserts of far southeastern Iraq have been testing one of the most serious charges leveled by the United States against Iran: that Iran is secretly supplying weapons, parts, funding and training for attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq." According to "several senior military officials" the British troops have "found nothing to support the Americans' contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq." [10/16/06] - Discussing the Iraqi insurgency and the effectiveness of the Iraqi government, Bush asserted that the way to halt the insurgency is to have "a political process that says, Sunni and Shia will participate in a new government, in a new country," and falsely claimed "it was about six months ago that we had elections where 12 million people said, 'We want it to happen.' " In fact, the Iraqis last held nationwide elections more than 10 months ago, on December 15, 2005. O'Reilly did not correct Bush's claim. [10/16/06]
From the October 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: With his poll numbers down and a crescendo of criticism directed his way, President Bush wants to tell you a few things. So this morning, we were invited to the White House to speak with him. This is my third interview with the president. He does get a fair shake here, but he also gets tough questions, as everybody does.
Now, interviewing a president is not like interviewing anyone else on the planet. You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States. You can be direct, but you can't be disrespectful.
Over the next three nights, President Bush will have his say. You will know exactly where he stands on the most vital issues facing America and the world. Because every presidential interview is finite -- that is, time is always a concern -- I decided to concentrate on the conflicts -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and terror -- rather than on domestic issues.
Also, I think it's important to look ahead rather than to look back. What good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good? So the questions are about what's happening now and whether we are winning or losing the high-stakes battles we are fighting.
[...]
O'REILLY: Fox News military analysts say Iran now is behind the insurgency in Iraq to a large extent. The war has morphed, it's shifted, and that U.S. forces are now fighting an insurgency fueled by Iran. Is that true?
BUSH: I think the enemy is more complex than that. We are concerned about some Iranian involvement. Particularly in the delivery of certain kind of weapons. But the violence that the American people see on their screens is some sectarianism, some criminal activity, and Al Qaeda.
[...]
O'REILLY: But if you continue to have insurgents blowing up buildings and kidnapping people, you can't police that insurgency. It's impossible. You have to get the insurgents to stop.
BUSH: No question about it. And that's why there needs to be a political process that says, "Sunni and Shia will participate in a new government, in a new country."
O'REILLY: But why should we be, after three and a half years, encouraged that that will happen?
BUSH: Well, because it was about six months ago that we had elections where 12 million people said, "We want it to happen."
O'REILLY: Just because they want it doesn't mean it's going to happen.
BUSH: Well, it can happen if we continue -- look, the alternative is to say, "It's not worth it. Let's leave." In other words, ignore the fact that 12 million people voted, ignore the fact they got a constitution, ignore the fact they got a unity government, and say, "We leave." And that's not going to work.
[...]
O'REILLY: Sixty percent of Americans are now against the Iraq war. Why?
BUSH: Because they want us to win. They believe -- they are wondering whether or not we have the plans in place to win. They want to know whether or not we have the flexibility on the ground to constantly meet the enemy.
And I can understand why there's frustration, because the enemy knows that killing innocent people will create a sense of frustration, and they know that they know America. They know that we're a conscience-driven people that value life. And the more people they destroy and the more innocent lives that are destroyed, the more likely it is we will retreat, in their way of thinking.
This is what Osama bin Laden and [top Al Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-] Zawahiri have plainly stated, that it's just a matter of time before America loses her nerve and leaves.
O'REILLY: Is one of the reasons they've turned against the war in Iraq is that the anti-Bush press pounds, day in and day out, in the newspapers, on the network news, in books like Bob Woodward's, that you don't know what you're doing there. You have no strategy. You don't listen to dissent. You've got this thing in your mind and you're stubborn and you just can't win it.
BUSH: Well, I'm, you know, I'm disappointed that people would propagandize to that effect because the stakes are too high for that kind of illogical behavior. We have got a plan, we've got a -- first of all, a stated goal.
And I have said to our commanders on the ground, you achieve that goal, and we'll give you the tools necessary to do it. I have faith in [Gen.] John Abizaid, with whom I have constant -- he is the head of CENTCOM, and [Gen.] George Casey, who is the general on the ground. We've got fine people there, all who are working with the sovereign government in Iraq to achieve a common objective, which is a country that can govern itself and sustain itself. A country which will serve as a huge defeat for a group of extremists and radicals who have made it clear that they want to establish a caliphate, a governing structure, a point of view that is opposite our point of view, all throughout the Middle East.
Here's the stakes, as far as I'm concerned. It is conceivable that within decades, the Middle East will be a place where moderate governments have been toppled, extremists and radicals will have gained control of oil resources, and then will use that to create a blackmail situation against the West. And Iran will have a nuclear weapon, to complicate the mix.
And 20 or 30 years from now, if that were to be the case, people would look back and say, "What happened to them? How come they couldn't see the threat?" as a generation of Americans are dealing with something much more violent than we're seeing today.
And so to the critics who say we don't listen: of course we listen. I listen to the most important people of all, the people on the ground who are actually in Baghdad making the difficult decisions necessary to help this government succeed.
O'REILLY: Why doesn't Russia, France, China see it your way? If they would help the United States, particularly with Iran, and if they would help inside Iraq, we'd win this thing very quickly. France, Russia, and China do not help here. Why not?
BUSH: I think they will help with Iran in terms of the Iranians ending up with a nuclear weapon.
O'REILLY: Tough, though. It's not easy. It's not like they want to help. They are jumping on that, you know --
BUSH: No, I think I actually would give them more credit than you are, from my perspective. I had a good talk with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin the other day about the Iranian issue, and he knows full well that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Those weapons can fly west or they can fly north. And he is fully aware of the threat of --
O'REILLY: So why are they selling them all kinds of weaponry? I mean, they're killing our people in Iraq. They're sending those weapons over. They're sending bombs to Iraq, and Putin is arming them. Why is Putin arming them?
BUSH: Well, I don't think he is arming Iran to the point where they are using a lot of Russian weapons in the theater. There were a lot of Russian weapons in Iraq before we even got there. What I -- and of course that would concern me if there is a lot of evidence that he's doing that.
I am concerned -- I do believe, however, that he understands the strategic importance of making sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. Let me say this. To the extent that we find anybody helping the enemy inside of Iraq we bring our concerns forward.
[...]
O'REILLY: Was Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter last week in The New York Times says, Bush administration is screwing up because they won't talk to them one on one.
BUSH: I just disagree with him. I think it is a much more effective policy to have China using her leverage, South Korea using its leverage, Japan using its leverage to say to the North Koreans, "Give up your weapons programs." As a matter of fact, I'm confident that this is the way to go to solve this issue peacefully.
O'REILLY: China says they're not going to inspect. You know, you got the U.N. mandate, and everybody was happy for about 10 minutes and then China says, "Well, yeah, OK. We're on board with the mandate, but we're not going to inspect."
BUSH: I -- we're -- Condi Rice is going out to the --
O'REILLY: But why would they do that?
BUSH: Well, you know, I haven't seen the comments. Sometimes there are, you know, different levels of, you know, government saying things, Bill, you know. I'm sure they look at the United States government here --
O'REILLY: Are you saying they're not "no-spin" guys over there in China?
BUSH: I think there may be some "spin" guys over there in China. As I understand it, and I am going to learn more about exactly what their complaints are. First of all, I usually don't react to the first comments coming out of a government source. I do know that the Chinese are deeply concerned about North Korea having a nuclear weapon. I know they're concerned about the statement that came out of Japan today that said Japan is now rethinking its position on nuclear weapons.
O'REILLY: Of course they don't want -- Japan and China historically hate each other. But here's -- maybe I'm wrong on this, but it looks like in Iran and North Korea, that both Russia and China want the USA to be weakened.
BUSH: I don't think so.
O'REILLY: Really?
BUSH: I strongly disagree with that. I think you're wrong on that. And as a matter of fact, I'm pretty confident you're wrong. China and the United States share the same objective. They understand the stakes of North Korea having a nuclear weapon. They're worried about nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. They're deeply concerned about countries in the neighborhood deciding to arm up in order to protect themselves against North Korea. They understand the consequences of an arms race in the Far East.
O'REILLY: Ever think about this North Korean leader -- "Is he just insane?"
BUSH: We will see. We will see as he reaches more decisions.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now what about the posture that goes against your book? I mean, this is the clash. President Bush made it clear that Casey and Abizaid, the two military men in charge of the Iraq campaign are saying to the commander in chief, "We're going to win. We're going to win this. OK? It's painful. It's going to take a little time, but we're going to ultimately prevail." This is the president's thesis. So that he, the president in Washington, is going to allow those men the room to win. Anything wrong with that?
WOODWARD: No. But what my reporting on this and what the book shows, he referred to this -- that these books or something propagandizing.
[...]
O'REILLY: Continuing now with analysis of President Bush's statements. Today, we're talking with Bob Woodward, the author of the book State of Denial. By the way, if you're just tuning in, my interview with President Bush is posted on billoreilly.com so you can see it this evening.
OK. Is it fair for you and me, who don't have the intel, we don't have obviously the war plan, we don't get the dailies, to not undermine, but to question the war effort in a way that makes it more difficult to wage the war?
WOODWARD: Well, but -- you are absolutely right. I don't have all that information, but in the course of reporting, John Negroponte, the top intelligence person, the director of national intelligence, I report that he says we have a policy that is not working, that we need to shift, that we have repeatedly underestimated and miscalculated this insurgency. It's not somebody coming in who's a Democrat or a critic. General [James L.] Jones, the NATO commander, four-star Marine officer, been the commandant of the Marine Corps, is quoted in the book saying that he's worried Iraq -- this is last year -- will be a debacle.
[...]
O'REILLY: I'm worried, though, that all of the politicizing of this topic, of the war, makes it more difficult to win the war. Because President Bush made --
WOODWARD: That's a fair point. But we can't win the war --
O'REILLY: But he made a very good point when he said, "Listen, all they want to do," they being the insurgents, who are basically operating in concert with Iran, because Iran wants to dominate the region, and if Iran does, Barbra Streisand and her pals are going to get a shock they won't believe, trying to run those mansions out there. OK? So --
WOODWARD: OK.
O'REILLY: You -- he basically says, "Look, what their strategy is, is just to blow up as many people as they can on a consistent basis, like they did in Northern Ireland, like they did in Algeria." OK? They ain't gonna win. They'll break -- they'll break our spirit to confront them.
That's what President Bush is worried about. And I think that's the big enemy right now, in addition to the insurgency.
WOODWARD: Yes, I think there are many enemies out there, and you have to sympathize with it. I mean, look, it's a political season. The president is the commander in chief, he bears this burden.
But we can't have blinders on, as [former White House chief of staff] Andy Card is quoted in the book saying, when he goes to the president and says, "You need to get a new defense secretary." This is a couple of years ago. And he goes again --
O'REILLY: But he disagreed. I mean, the last time we talked, I asked you, point-blank, are we losing in Iraq? And you said, point-blank, no. So --
WOODWARD: That's right. I'm saying the exact same thing. I'm saying --
O'REILLY: We're not losing the war. But we're making it harder -- and believe me, I sympathize with the troops.
WOODWARD: I do, too. And I get emails from them.
O'REILLY: I'm not Mr. Hawk here. But I want to win it, and I think that the carping and constant, "Bush lied and they're screw-ups and they don't listen." This all helps these horrible people. I'll give you the last word.
From the October 17 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Today, you're signing the bill that overwhelmingly passed in the House and Senate that gives the Bush administration and subsequent administrations the military tribunal option in bringing suspected terrorists to justice. Your administration has been accused of being fascist, violating human rights, ignoring the Geneva Convention. And it's been a fierce campaign against this policy. Why has it been so fierce?
BUSH: I don't know. That's what observers of our society like yourself can help figure out. I -- you know, I -- look, after 9-11, I vowed to protect this country. And when we pick up somebody on the battlefield, we want to know what that person knows. And we can find information without torturing that person. And we have found useful information necessary to protect the American people.
As you know, we picked up a fellow named Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Intelligence folks believe or suspect that he was a person that masterminded the 9-11 attacks.
I want to know what he knew in order to prevent another attack. Now, maybe there are some in this country who say, "Well, they're not coming again. And therefore, all this is unnecessary."
I believe they are coming again. And I believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect our people. And, therefore, had a program in place that said we will question these people.
[...]
O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?
BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum, no matter how hard you try. Because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.
But what the American people need to know is we've got a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people. And we've used it to stop attacks.
The intelligence community believes strongly that the information we got from the detainee questioning program yielded information that made America safer, that we stopped attacks.
Secondly, the courts. Yeah, I believe that it was necessary to have military tribunals because I ultimately want these people to be tried. And it took a while to get these tribunals in place.
The Supreme Court ruled that the president didn't have the authority to set up these courts on his own, that he needed to work with Congress to do so. And we did.
What's interesting about these votes that took place in the Congress is the number of Democrats that opposed questioning people we've picked up on the battlefield. And I think that's an issue that they're going to have to explain to the American people.
[...]
O'REILLY: Let me read you what [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY], who could be the nominee for presidency in 2008 on the Democratic side, said about this bill that she voted against -- this detainee bill you're signing today.
Quote, "If enacted, this law would give license to this administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse," unquote.
BUSH: You mean pick the enemy up off the streets?
O'REILLY: She says people. Pick people up off the streets.
BUSH: I don't know who she's talking about. But this law will enable us to find people who would like to kill Americans. You know, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda affiliates, and be able to find out their plans. And be able to -- more protect this country. I have no idea who she's talking about.
O'REILLY: You think Hillary Clinton's soft on terrorism?
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. I think the bottom line is this crazy insurgency on the Islamofascists, as I call them, it's never going to end in our lifetime.
BUSH: Well, I think that's an interesting question, an interesting point. The question is how do you marginalize them?
O'REILLY: Right, how do you control them?
BUSH: I think this is the big ideological debate of the 21st century. And that is extremists, Islamofascists as you call them, radicals aiming to topple moderate people. And it is a massive challenge for the free world and for Muslims who cannot -- who want to leave in peace. By far, the vast majority of people want to have a peaceful existence.
O'REILLY: But they're scared.
BUSH: Yeah, they're scared.
O'REILLY: Because these guys will kill you and your family and every kid you have. And they'll cut your head off.
BUSH: In a minute. In a minute. And that fundamentally asks -- that means what's the U.S. role? Not only will they kill their families. They'll come and kill us.
The biggest issue we face for this country is how do you protect yourself? And our strategy is twofold. One, get on the offense and stay on the offense and bring them to justice. When we find them, bring them to justice.
And secondly, defeat their ideology by helping moderate people, particularly in the Middle East, to come up with competing systems that actually speak to people's hopes and aspirations.
And I've been widely criticized for promoting liberty, but I believe it works as an antidote to the dark visions of these radicals. And I know this, if the United States becomes isolationist and pulls out, a generation from now, people will say, "They lost their way. They forgot what caused America to be created in the first place. They lost their faith in liberty."
O'REILLY: But in the back of your mind, there must be some Muslims want Sharia. They don't democracy.
BUSH: Yes.
O'REILLY: They want to be in a theocracy. They want to be told what to do.
BUSH: Some do, but it's a small number compared to the vast majority of people who just want a peaceful way. They want to be able to practice their religion.
See, this is not a struggle of religion in my judgment. This isn't Christianity versus Islam. People in the Muslim world need to look at the United States. We welcome Muslim-Americans. They're free to worship the way they so choose.
This is a struggle between people who have subverted a great religion to meet their own ambitions and kill. I don't believe religious people kill innocent people. I don't believe that.
I believe these are totalitarians who want to impose their vision on others. And they use murder as a weapon to achieve it. And the fundamental question facing all civilized world and facing nations in the Middle East is can we have systems in place that end up marginalizing radicals and extremists? It's really the call of this generation, Bill.
O'REILLY: Brutal.
BUSH: Well, it's brutal, but it's necessary.
O'REILLY: But it is brutal.
BUSH: It is necessary.
O'REILLY: Absolutely.
BUSH: And I clearly see the problem. And look, I understand there's a lot of second-guessing because I'm asking the American people to -- and our military and intelligence services to do hard work. But I believe it's necessary work now so a generation doesn't have to deal with it in a much more violent form.
[...]
GINGRICH: Let me say first of all -- I just want to say for the audience, I have looked at that interview and I think that I don't remember very often seeing the president as comfortable and as engaged as he was. I think it got stronger the more he talked with you.
And really I'm looking forward to tomorrow night's segment because it seems to me you managed to get him not with talking points and the kind of speeches he gives, but really talking from the heart. I mean, people -- it's worth looking at a second time at that interview just now.
Whether you like him or dislike him, whether you agree or disagree, this guy is telling you, as president of the United States, as commander in chief, from his heart he believes this is what it takes to defeat people who want to kill us and destroy us. And I thought it was a very compelling -- just at a national security level, very compelling.
O'REILLY: Yeah, I appreciate that. That's exactly the feeling that I got. And I spoke to the president before the interview began, and I said, "Listen, Mr. President, this is the third time we spoke, and the first two times it came off great because you didn't give me rehearsed answers. You know, you just spoke from the heart and what you really believe, and that's what I hope we can accomplish today."
And tomorrow, when he talks about his faith and the personal attacks, you'll be -- you'll be surprised. But it is clear to me -- two things are clear to me. Number one, he believes every word he says. He's not a liar. He's not a manipulator. He didn't fake anything. This is what he believes.
And number two, he doesn't know whether we're going to win or not. He's going to go out and give it his best shot, but he doesn't know, although he can't ever say that. He's got to say, "We're going to win. We're here, we're there." But I think that there is some doubt.
GINGRICH: Well, you know, you've heard me say before, Bill, I think that President Bush finds himself much like President Lincoln in that he's on a journey that he can't avoid, he can't get off of. It's not how he wanted to spend his presidency, but the threat to our nation is so great and the problem is so hard.
From the October 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Is it discouraging that more people don't see why you're doing what you're doing?
[...]
O'REILLY: I'm just wondering, psychologically --
BUSH: Yeah?
O'REILLY: You work hard, right?
BUSH: I think I do.
O'REILLY: I don't think you can ever take a day off, right?
BUSH: That's true.
O'REILLY: OK. Seven days a week, bang, bang, bang. You're in the most intense time -- one of the most intense times in U.S. history. And then you're getting pounded day after day after day, pounded, pounded, pounded. How do you process that?
BUSH: I believe in what I'm doing. If I didn't believe in what I'm doing, I guess the pounding would end up affecting me. But when you believe in your soul, in the very fiber of your system, that taking on these extremists and radicals in the Middle East is necessary to have peace in the long run for our children, then you move on. And you -- and this is a job where you have to do what you think is right. I get a lot of advice. I listen to a lot of smart people, but ultimately, it's the president's job to make the decisions.
O'REILLY: But then Woodward says you don't listen to anybody. You just blow them off.
[...]
O'REILLY: Continuing now with the president of the United States, who is under attack on the personal front constantly.
O'REILLY: When people criticize me, I think I'm the second most criticized person in the country. You're first by a large margin, but I'm second.
BUSH: Yeah.
O'REILLY: I get really furious, especially if it's dishonest.
BUSH: Yeah.
O'REILLY: But you don't -- you're different than I am. You're more philosophical. See, I'm sitting there going, "Oh, if I had this guy's neck." You know?
BUSH: Well, I'm not as big as you are, so I can't -- you know -- I wouldn't be able to get away with that. I -- look, I understand politics. Remember, I'm a man who watched a guy I love dearly go through the same thing I'm going through. And that's my dad. And I -- it's much harder when you see somebody you love being criticized than when you yourself are criticized.
O'REILLY: Now, did you get angry about that?
BUSH: I did get angry about it. And --
O'REILLY: But when it's you, you don't get that angry?
BUSH: No, not really, not really.
O'REILLY: You don't take it personally?
BUSH: No, I don't.
O'REILLY: Because they are trying to destroy you, you know that?
BUSH: Well, it's too bad. And I think most Americans don't want to see the president destroyed. I think most Americans want this country to come together and work for the common good. I suspect a lot of Americans are sick and tired of Washington politics.
O'REILLY: Oh, you bet.
BUSH: And my job is to, again, talk as clearly and plainly as I can to the American people about the stakes in the Middle East and the stakes in the Far East and the stakes in this economy and the stakes in making sure our children get an education, and try to defuse the politics as best as I can.
The problem is is that we're now headed into a political season.
O'REILLY: You bet.
BUSH: And, you know, it's just -- it's -- listen, I hear the criticism, but I believe -- it's just like these polls you asked me about. If you do not believe in what you stand for, in other words, if you're somebody that doesn't stand on principle, then all that matters. If you believe in what you're doing and believe in the principles by which you make a decision, such as freedom is universal. It's a principle. Some don't -- some say, "Well, that may be not the case." But I believe that.
O'REILLY: You stand -- yeah, you sink or swim on your principle.
BUSH: That's it.
O'REILLY: But there's also something else in play, here, Mr. President. The secular progressives -- I just wrote a book called Culture Warrior. And we sent you a free copy, by the way.
BUSH: That's good.
O'REILLY: The secular-progressives --
BUSH: Might entice me to actually read it.
O'REILLY: The secular-progressives don't like you because you're a man of faith.
BUSH: Yeah.
O'REILLY: You know that.
BUSH: Yes. That causes me to be sad for people who don't like somebody because he happens to believe in the Almighty.
O'REILLY: But you know that's in play.
BUSH: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: They think you are some kind of evangelical, who -- God tells you what to do and you go out and do it. And they hate that.
BUSH: I guess that I have pity for people who believe that. They don't understand the relationship between man and the Almighty, then. And --
O'REILLY: Don't believe it?
Foley and fallafels. That's what it's come to for bush and bor. Baghdad has become bush's Stalingrad. Of course, it's not like it's his blood being shed. Since '45, the repos never saw a war they didn't like. Just don't ask them to fight in it. They never saw a deficit they didn't want to run up, either. Just don't ask them to pay for it. Let the Democrats clean it up. You know, like they did when the repos gave us the Depression.
No, you moron, you've been criticized for lying to us and starting an UNNECESSARY war, which has only made things worse in the Middle East. Moron.
Falafel Man will never learn. Even Joe Scareborough and Tuckie Carlson think he nuts. Why aren't there any SMART conservatives on cable news networks?
Smart conservatives can't be controlled, and might actually let a little truth slip out. Since their target audience is conspicuously devoid of rocket scientists, these guys serve their purpose.
Yep the media can not except the truth coming out. Oh well it makes us look better to know the right is represented by pompous fools like O'Reilly, Hannity and Glenn Beck...
That seems to me to be the difference between MSNBC's conservatives (Carlson, Scarborough) and others (Billo, Hannity, Rush, etc.) - those two guys come off as somewhat reasonable and are willing to attack other conservatives (case in point: Carlson's "Beat the Press" segment). Of course, these guys are on MSNBC and are somewhat counterbalanced with KO.
I am sorry, this has got to be O'Reily at his absolute worse. The leading questions, the attacks on Democrats, what is wrong with this man. He then has to gall to call everyone else in the journalism buisness(other than his buds at FAUX) biased! This man is an absolute joke, smart republicans, and democrats know the truth about this guy. He is the biggest partisan hack out there. I still do not understand his ratings. Are there really that many stupid and uniformed people in this world?
...yes.
Wow I did not know the answer was so simple...
The latest DAVE- guy trolling around is living proof...
If there weren't, would Bush ever have made it to the White House?
Promoting BushieCo in the way he did IS a "Fox Exclusive." And CNN, NBC, CBS ad nauseum.
the short villiage idiot says that Democrats have a problem with the military questioning detaimees. Not only does that make it sound like they are not practicing and allowing torture, but it makes opposition out to be anti-American.
Q:" Why are 60% of Americans against the Iraq war?"
A: " Because they want us to win."
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?
And the other 40% want us to lose? Great job Bush, you started a war that a large segement of the US population thinks was a bad idea, no matter how you spin it!
Bill: "Now we all know how you rebelled against the ultimate good in the universe, how you caused Original Sin and the fall of all mankind, and continue to corrupt our race of peoples even after thousands of years. So, with that in mind... why do Democrats hate America?"
Keith Olbermann has correctly named O'Reilly the worst person in the world on numerous occasions. He is a hate monger. No legitimate president would grant this interview.
#6 in the 14 points of fascism:
A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
...what is up with that ridiculous grin? O'Reilly is asking questions about Iraq and Bush is sitting there grinning like he's being told a "you know you're a redneck" joke. And he does this in EVERY interview. I worked in a psychiatric hospital for 10 years and I simply can't begin to comprehend the pathology behind all those grins and giggles.
Whether he's talking about Supreme Court nominees or dead children in Iraq, that Puddinhead-George smirk is ever present, occasionally iced with a moronic little chuckle, like those bufoons we all know who laugh at their own jokes.
I think it's the sign of a shallow, non-introspective mind. But, I could be wrong; he may just be stupid.
Bush's perpetual smirk is a sign of his total lack of empathy for other human beings. Bush is a psychopath, same mental illness as a serial killer.
o'reilly to bush: "you work hard, right?" please, he's been asleep for six years.
Its either hate or jealousy of course Bill still gets invited everywhere and has a top selling book.
Sorry MMFA , your hate is making you petty.
Come on Dave, that was just pathetic. The reason why thier is dislike towards this man is because he continues to spread lies and hatred to America. This man is a loon who has a large number of not to bright viewers. He is not a fair journalist, for if he was he would not be so controversial. This man has a hatred for dissent and opposing views, and yes I do take that personally...
Your stupidity is showing. Where would that book be without bulk buying? O'falafel gets invited where he wants because he carrys Bush water. So what it has NO relevance to the stupid things he says and lies he tells. Nor to the plain inanity of this interview,
Come on MMFA, your documentation and thorough research is making the current administration and their followers look pathetic.
BTW, Dave's post was sarcastic, right? I can't imagine anyone reading through all of that and then thinking MMFA is petty. If Dave was serious, then he reminds me of the young boy (early teens) in my neighborhood with an angry white father. No clear argument, just "the left hates America" speech.
In all probability, he works for O'Lielly. Why the hell else would he be quoting "Cultural Wanker"s sales figures? It was completely off topic &, more to the point, just plain creepy.
I'm still convinced that O'Lielly himself used to post here under the guise of Finallyinsf. He parroted O'Lielly's every position, showed a weak stab at irony by putting sf as part of his handle, & frequently quoted O'Lielly's ratings, regardless of whether or not it was germane to the topic. This new guy is probably a Factor intern, & part of his job is trolling at "leftwing smear websites", defending his twisted boss from all those mean progressives ("America hating SPs", in O'Lielly-speak.)
Not to worry, though. He doesn't seem too bright & is waaaay too obvious. He'll pop up here & there for awhile, spouting the usual demented neocon talking points, & then fade from memory.
And then a new Faux flunky will take his place.
Wasnt very bright either and destorying his weak arguments wasnt much of a problem. You are probably right.
Trying to remember that name. Thanks for reminding me. FinallyinSF was just one of the names he's used in the past. I thought he might be Bill OReally too.
You sad, sad man!!!
o'lielly has the interviewing capacity of a supermarket tabloid; his "top selling" book is a poorly written mess of buzz words every other of which is "secular progressive" and sells to those who desperately need some "authority" to tell 'em what to think.
And you defend the moron?
Oh, so you follow him. Josef Goebells would smirk and chuckle at you.
O'Reilly is a fascist propagandist scumbag who wants the US to live under a political system akin to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, an enemy of the Bill of Rights who demands one-party totalitarian rule....is that why you defend him?
#1 was how Bush look reasonable, intelligent, and sane compaired to O'Liely. A real accomplishment.
#2 was how he asked Bush something like "You refuse to talk one on one to DPRK?" to which Bush replies "No Sir." The logical follow-up question, the one I wanted to know was "Why?". O'liely failed to go any further.
#3 was the new level of the blowhard asking leading questions.
The reason we hate O'Liely, Daveblazo, is because of the extreme damage he and the controlled media are doing to the country. It's not especially personal, as we know they are just controlled by what Jefferson called the "monied interests." Try reading some news sources that aren't controlled by Murdoch or the other corporate whizz bangs sometime.
....by Bill O'Reilly.
This sham can't be an actual, serious interview, can it?
Why do you hate America Mr. President?
I don't care about the Iraqi people, do you?
Why don't you talk mano a mano to the DPRK?
Does Tony Blair leave hairs when he sits on your lap?
Why do you think all these people are so critical of you?
Will you nuke Iran to save the election, or let Israel do it?
What can we look forward to in the coming year?
Were you ever sexually abused as a child?
"You are saying they are not 'no-spin' guys over there in China?" Bush replied: "I think there may be some 'spin' guys over there in China."
What the HELL does that mean G.W.? He was asking you about China not inspecting North Korean shipments.
that"looking back doesn't do anybody any good." What the hell does that mean? Is the WMD myth just something that the 2700 dead soldiers families should forget? A little later, you bring up the tactics of those in N. Ireland and Algeria and compare them to the insurgents today. Bill, it is called history. Yep, something that happened yesterday and is recalled today. To simply give a pass on the initial reasons for this death trap called Iraq is treason. At least a lie. Bill, you are not these second most criticized person in America...you are just considered a jerk by most people. Get your facts straight.
P.S. your term SP will never be a catch phrase for hating people who disagree with you. My Republican friend said that your SP is reflection of yourself.....Selfish Paranoid. And she used to listen to your show..now that is funny.
And why does Fox continue to use this criminal Newt..he is a criminal but the righteous never ask him about it.
"BUSH: Because they want us to win. They believe -- they are wondering whether or not we have the plans in place to win. They want to know whether or not we have the flexibility on the ground to constantly meet the enemy."
This is why 60% of the people are against the war. Because they are not assured that we can win. Well golly gee Mr. Bush, why don't you try to convince people that we can win the war and that we're doing so? What's that? You've been doing that practically every day for the last three years? Well I'd have to say that shows the American people don't believe you. They don't like the war because they think you're a liar. That's a much better answer, isn't it?
The answer is simply idiotic anyway. During WWII I imagine I wouldn't be sure that we had the flexibility or capacity to win, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't approve of the war! Being against the war has nothing to do with being unsure of winning, it's about not supporting the reasons we're there. Lack of faith in the plans would be disapproval of how the war is being run, not of the war in general.
I don't know which is worse, the idea that Bush is that stupid, that dishonest, or that either way nobody who would call him out on a ridiculous answer like this is allowed to interview him.
180,000,000 Americans are against the war in Iraq, because they want us to "win"? What the hell does "winning" mean to the Bush Administration? Besides having our military presence in Iraq spawn enough anti-American sentiment to rally an entire nation against us.
I don't get what the end-result is going to be. No more terrorism? No more mock-governments? Probably not.
I will not allow television news on in my house. It has less substance than porn. So I watch clips here and on related pages.
I cannot watch o'lielly "interviewing" the resident. First, he stated out with a caveat. Something wrong there? "I can't be disrespectful." Tell that to the families of those who've been killed in Iraq. Or those who've returned without an arm or a leg.
Face it. o'lielly is the court jester. That's why Busch and those who control him are willing to have the jester come by and talk.
This country is getting worse by the day, and people take a court jester with the intellectual capacity of a Matchbox toy...both of them, o'lielly and Busch...seriously.
Pathetic.
Sounds like O'Reilly was tougher on Andrea Macriss...
Let's discuss Bush's goals for failing in the future.
Bush: "Because they want us to win."
OK . . . that made even less sense than the time when Bush said in his campaign, "Give me a chance to be your president and America will be stronger and safer." {Mind you, he made this statement during the 2004 RE-ELECTION campaign, at which time he had BEEN president for three-and-a-half years. . .}
I remember a few years ago, during Clinton's first term, he had made the statement, "All I know is, I work very hard at this job." He was responding to criticism of his management style in the WH early in his term . . . the Reader's Digest magazine, in an article about Clinton, took this statement and claimed that "Clinton . . . sounds like a per hour wage worker . . ."
Yet . . . Bush once said that being president is "harrrd worrk." [pronounciation emphasis mine.] And O'Really seems to want to reemphasize that in his "direct" interview: "You work hard, right? . . . "I don't think you can ever take a day off, right?" . . . "OK. Seven days a week, bang, bang, bang . . ."
Odd how one president can make a statement regarding his labors and be villified, while another can make the same statment and be praised . . .
The difference is that everyone could plainly see how hard Clinton worked, while it is just as evident that Bush has spent an inordinate amount of time on vacation, clearing brush that doesn't need clearing. Now, like a teenager caught slacking off on the job, he feels the need to repeatedly point out how hard he's working.
This interview is what would be expected of a dis-interested thrid grade boy wanting it to be over as quick as possible since the recess bell rang, and all his buddies are outside on the play ground.
Not one question that would bring any critical thinking into the conversation.
Pathetic as allways, Billy needs a loopa and a submissive girl to help come up with real questions for the President.
Finally, Bill has met his intellectual equal.
Finally, George has met his intellectual equal.
My favorite part of the interview? "I just wrote a book..."
Who interviews a sitting president and plugs his own book during the interview?
The only thing hard hitting about this interview would be how many times you'd have to hit the bong for it to be considered a hard hitting interview.
Does anyone find it disturbing that when O'Reilly is mentioning the comments (or at least the comments I suspect in his mind, O'Reilly is known for pulling facts and statistics out of his wazoo) about fascism, torture, and Geneva convention violations Bush just grins and nearly bursts into laughter? Does he think the comments are amusing or is he just now realizing his actions and thinks they're pretty funny? How can anyone be confronted with those sorts of accusations and smile at it?
Ever heard of the book "Bush on the Couch"? Personally, I have never been able to read the book. However, I have heard the man that wrote the book (Justin Frank) interviewed on Randi Rhodes' program several times.
[link to wilem.com]
Here's a link to one of the interviews. I was pretty shocked to hear some of the things. It's no wonder he turned out like he did..
O'REILLY: The secular-progressives don't like you because you're a man of faith.
Of course, the "secular-progressives" are merely a figment of O'Reilly's diseased imagination, but this statement would be incorrect no matter what group you put in there. The people who dislike Bush don't do so because he's a man of faith. They dislike Bush because of his snarky manner, his incredible record of incompetence, his contempt for those who can't afford to attend his fundraising dinners, his dismantling of basic rights, and that despite all this, he claims to be a man of faith. Based on what we've seen of his actions, I find it very difficult to believe he has any faith at all.
BUSH: Yeah.
Like a parrot, only birds don't have stupid-looking grins.
O'REILLY: You know that.
Don't bet on it.
BUSH: Yes. That causes me to be sad for people who don't like somebody because he happens to believe in the Almighty.
What unbelievable bull. Bush could believe in Zeus and I wouldn't like him any less. Actually I might because he wouldn't be making my fellow Christians look so bad.
O'REILLY: But you know that's in play.
Here's another softball, George. Hit it!
BUSH: Absolutely.
"Brawwwwk! Georgie wanna cracker!"
O'REILLY: They think you are some kind of evangelical, who -- God tells you what to do and you go out and do it. And they hate that.
Wrong as usual, O'Reilly. We hate religious hypocrisy. And you know what? So did Jesus! Read up on it at Matthew 6:1-18, Matthew 15:7-9, Matthew 23:13-33, and many others.
BUSH: I guess that I have pity for people who believe that. They don't understand the relationship between man and the Almighty, then. And --
What we don't understand is how anyone who can name of the name of Jesus shows no sign of it in his actions. If Jesus Christ had been our president these last 6 years, wouldn't things have been a lot different. No war in Iraq, to start with. No lies, no stupid answers, no trying desperately to avoid accountability.
By the way, what's with this coy "the Almighty" stuff? Is this his way of proclaiming God's name without actually doing so? Sounds rather politically correct to me, George.
O'REILLY: Don't believe it?
Of course, since O'Reilly has publicly aligned himself against those he perceives as "secular," it must follow that he considers himself "religious." Okay, Bill, just what church do you darken the doors of on Sunday? But be careful, if you claim one and it turns out to be untrue, it will sink your reputation even further. Your friend Ann Coulter tried it and failed, remember?
that O'Reilly's book(which has been out for over six months is just now starting to show up on the radar of most literary best seller lists when for most of that time it has been virtually comatose. In fact, many book stores and retail outlets I've visited had it in the discount bins at 30% off. If it is truly showing high sales now at this late date I would guess that it's due to other unknown factors. (excuse the pun)
"In fact, many book stores and retail outlets I've visited had it in the discount bins at 30% off."
-----
If they cut out the other 70% of the pages, It might contain every great thought he ever had.