O'Reilly falsely claimed he warned of the dangers of Iraqi looting "on the night that Saddam's statue fell"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that, "on the night" Saddam Hussein's "statue fell" in Baghdad at the beginning of the war in Iraq, he publicly criticized the Bush administration for not having a postwar reconstruction plan for Iraq. In fact, on that night's edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly made no mention of looting or the difficulty of reconstructing Iraq, though he did ask a guest to comment on plans to "stabilize Baghdad."
During a discussion with Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) on the November 28 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that, "on the night" Saddam Hussein's "statue fell" in Baghdad at the beginning of the war in Iraq, he publicly criticized the Bush administration for not having a postwar reconstruction plan for Iraq. O'Reilly stated: "I hate to blow my own horn, Colonel, but ... on the night that Saddam's statue fell ... I said on the air [on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor], 'Hey, look at these guys looting the armories. What's that all about? You can't let those people do that.' ... As soon as I saw that, I went, 'Holy you-know-what, there's no plan to institute martial law and to take step-by-step reconstruction of this country.' " In fact, on the April 9, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, on the night U.S. Marines assisted in tearing down a statue of Saddam in central Baghdad, O'Reilly made no mention of looting or the difficulty of reconstructing Iraq, though he did ask a guest to comment on plans to "stabilize Baghdad."
Rather, during his April 9, 2003, show, O'Reilly hosted several segments listing the "winners" and "losers" of the Iraq war and praised President Bush for "prov[ing] he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do" and for "rid[ding] the world of an evil dictator." O'Reilly attacked many opponents of the invasion, such as "Saddam enablers" Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Jacques Chirac, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, plus "newspapers who wrongly predicted doom" and "the hysterical Hollywood celebrities who voiced strident protest, [and] obviously, have lost much credibility."
For instance*:
- While discussing the "sporadic fighting" that "continues throughout Iraq" with Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt (ret.), O'Reilly briefly touched on "stabilizing Baghdad" but made no mention of looting. O'Reilly asked Hunt: "So, basically, the armor, the infantry are going to be used for security now, they're going to be used to stabilize Baghdad, the other cities, and the Special Ops will hunt down fanatics?"
- In his "Talking Points Memo", O'Reilly declared that "President Bush stayed the course under withering worldwide criticism and vicious ideological attacks back home. He proved he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do." In addition to referring to Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder as "big losers" of the Iraq war, O'Reilly also stated that "The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and other newspapers who wrongly predicted doom" have "lost much credibility."
- O'Reilly then hosted a segment on the "winners and losers in the Iraqi war" featuring author and Tulane University history professor Douglas Brinkley and Fox News political analyst Dick Morris. Brinkley declared then-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) and Al Jazeera to be "losers." For his part, Morris announced that the "losers" were the "established media," whose coverage of the war would lead to "[t]he death of network news," the "United Nations" because "[t]he Security Council is no longer ... relevant" and "the whole liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
- Finally, O'Reilly hosted a segment with former House Speaker and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich (R-GA) during which the two bashed the BBC and The New York Times for their coverage of the war. Gingrich said that the Times had "become a discouragingly left-wing and isolationist newspaper that wants a timid, weak America that will somehow be so pathetic that even the French will love us."
From the November 28 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: But let me just finish. So, if you have that scenario, which is true, all right, then it is a responsibility of the press to report that. Now, I agree with you that there's far more in play than just reporting. That The New York Times and the other secular-progressive, far-left press -- NBC News -- basically don't like Bush. They have never liked him, and they're gonna use any reason to undermine his policies, whether it be a tax cut, anything. And that's what's in play here.
However, they have bushes to hide behind because -- pardon the pun -- because there wasn't an effective pacification plan.
PETERS: Well, look, I certainly agree and, at the time, I deplored not having enough troops. Security was essential. And I think the Bush administration, actually, after 9-11, did a great job until they got to Baghdad.
O'REILLY: Right.
PETERS: And then when things didn't turn out exactly as [former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister] Ahmed Chalabi told him that it would, I would say, or anxious to believe, suddenly they all collectively became the, you know, the deer caught in the headlights of history and never recovered. So, absolutely --
O'REILLY: Well, they wouldn't -- they wouldn't acknowledge the mistake. They weren't nimble enough to say, "Hey." You know, I saw -- I hate to blow my own horn, Colonel, but I don't know whether you were watching the Factor on the night that Saddam's statue fell, but what I said on the air, "Hey, look at these guys looting the armories. What's that all about? You can't let those people do that." And our guys were standing there letting them do it. As soon as I saw that, I went, "Holy you-know-what, there's no plan to institute martial law and to take step-by-step reconstruction of this country."
From the April 9, 2003, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly, reporting from the Factor Southern Command Center in Miami. Thanks for watching us tonight. In just a few moments, we'll take you live to Baghdad for the latest sights and sounds.
But first, a "Talking Points Memo": a no-spin analysis of the huge coalition victory -- the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain.
President Bush stayed the course under withering worldwide criticism and vicious ideological attacks back home. He proved he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do. And whether or not you agree with his policies, the president and Tony Blair have rid the world of an evil dictator.
Not since World War II has the American military enjoyed such enormous prestige. The image of U.S. soldiers in [sic] through the roof. Expect enlistments to rise, but much more importantly, respect for the men and women who defend us will also rise.
The major losers, of course, are Saddam and his sons, who at this very moment may be enjoying their new home in hell. Also losing big are Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder, the Saddam enablers. The world will not forget the actions of these men.
Back in the USA, the hysterical Hollywood celebrities who voiced strident protest, obviously, have lost much credibility. And so have The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and other newspapers who wrongly predicted doom. On March 17, The New York Times editorialized: "Washington would be wise to drop the talk of eminent hostilities and come up with a resolution that leads to disarmament and consensus. The current path is reckless." Serious Americans will remember how this war was covered by the press, both print and TV.
And on television, CBS and ABC News actually declined in the ratings during the war, which is incredible. NBC News was up only slightly. Ratings for all three cable news channels went up dramatically, with Fox News well ahead. So, there you have the scorecard. We will have more winners and losers later on in the broadcast.
[...]
O'REILLY: On the "Impact" segment tonight, as we said, lots of winners and losers in the Iraqi war. We all know President Bush, Saddam Hussein, all of that, but there are other less obvious choices. We'll look at the losers first.
Joining us now from New York City is Fox News contributor Dick Morris, never shy, and from New Orleans, Dr. Doug Brinkley, who teaches history at the University of New Orleans.
Doctor, we will begin with you. Give me some losers here that may not be as obvious as the president and Saddam Hussein.
BRINKLEY: Well, I think Al Jazeera, the broadcasting network that began in the Middle East in 1996. You know, Saudi Arabia had at one point refused to allow them to have an office in their country; Bahrain, where a fifth fleet station banned them from having bureaus there, as have Kuwait and Jordan.
And I think we saw that they gave a very slanted reporting, that today two of their journalists were chased out of southern Iraq into Kuwait with a mob after them. And I think they can't be considered a credible news network anymore after the way they have portrayed and helped Saddam Hussein and also Al Qaeda and others over the past year.
O'REILLY: That means only CNN will use them, right? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. But, all right, they're a big loser. Who else?
[...]
O'REILLY: OK, Dick Morris, a couple of losers for us, please?
MORRIS: Well, I think the big losers are that, for 30 years, there's been a divergence between the attitudes of the American people and attitudes of the established news and entertainment media. And this was actually the last straw. This was the divorce.
We read in The New York Times every day and the L.A. Times how this war was in difficulty and in peril, and then we saw on TV that it wasn't. We heard all of our cultural icons in Hollywood standing up and saying this was an unjust war, this was immoral. And then you see these people throwing flowers at our troops because we've liberated them.
I think that this will lead to the same kind of denouement of the established media that the Wall Street scandals led to with the brokerage houses. There will be a really feeling --
O'REILLY: Really?
MORRIS: -- that enough is enough, and there will be a mass exodus away from them to organizations that are proven more truthful. This was --
O'REILLY: We've already seen that, as I just pointed out.
MORRIS: You could see the reality, so you didn't need to swallow the propaganda.
Bill: No, I know. We've already seen that network news ratings are stunning, that [then-CBS Evening News anchor] Dan Rather would be down 15 percent in the biggest story in years.
MORRIS: The death of network news.
O'REILLY: Yes, it is. I think so, too. All right, who else do you have on the losers?
MORRIS: I think the other big, big loser, obviously, is the United Nations. The Security Council is no longer a relevant, international forum for important issues. If you want a multinational forum where all nations can express their views, meet in the Oval Office because that's where, fortunately, our president and our administration lets that happen.
But the idea that we're going to vest dictatorships like China and oppressive regimes like Russia and disgruntled malcontents like France control the global priorities anymore, that idea is over.
O'REILLY: Or at least in this administration it is. Doctor, I will go back for one more loser and then we'll come back to Dick for one more, and then we will take a break and go to the winners. Go ahead, Doctor.
BRINKLEY: I think in the Democratic Party, Howard Dean is going to come out a loser. He really built his long-shot campaign as Vermont government as being the voice for the anti-war movement, while senators like [then-Sen. John] Edwards [D-NC] and [Sen. John] Kerry [D-MA] and [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman [I-CT], who are also running for president, signed on to the resolution in the fall. And I think Dean is going to find that this issue of Iraq is not the winner that it was in the early months of --
O'REILLY: Funny -- funny you should mention that, Doctor. We called Governor Dean to have him come on the Factor, and he flat-out turned us down, whereas before the war, he was very anxious to come now. Now, he's not. So, I agree with you. That's very astute. I think Dean is done. His credibility is shot. Dick, do you have one more loser before we get to the positive notes?
MORRIS: Kerry, [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA], the whole liberal wing of the Democratic Party. They're going to get a double shock. The first was that people saw how important the liberation was today on the TV footage. And then, over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so, the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.
O'REILLY: Yes, I do think the Democratic Party will now be controlled from the center. All right; very good, guys. Hang around. In a moment, we will be back with a look at some of the winners in this war; not the obvious winners, but just as you saw with the losers, some not so obvious choices.
[...]
O'REILLY: Continuing now with the "Impact" segment, we're talking about winners and losers in this war with Dick Morris in New York and Dr. Doug Brinkley in New Orleans. All right, Dick, how about the winners here? Do you have a couple for us?
MORRIS: Well, I think the biggest winners are the people of North Korea, of Iran, of Syria, of Libya, of Sudan, who had to get a message today: Help is on the way.
I think the second big winner is the level of trust of the American people in their government. The alienation that started with Vietnam and Watergate and then continued to pace with the Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, I think, has now narrowed. The synapses are more narrow, and it is now credible to say, "I'm from the government. Trust me."
[...]
O'REILLY: In the "Unresolved Problems" segment tonight, sporadic fighting continues throughout Iraq. Joining us now from our New York studio is Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt.
I have to tell the audience, Colonel -- I know you will get embarrassed -- but I think you've been the best analyst. I really do. You've really been on it. You broke a huge story last week with the Third Infantry, and you have really been good.
[...]
O'REILLY: All right. So, basically, the armor, the infantry are going to be used for security now, they're going to be used to stabilize Baghdad, the other cities, and the Special Ops will hunt down fanatics?
HUNT: Absolutely. I -- the mech guys puts pressure, as they have. As we said before, you're not going to put them in the sea unless you have to. A little bit more like Basra than it was to Baghdad. There's a bit -- little difference in tactics.
[...]
O'REILLY: Did you know -- did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the BBC didn't run the statue, cut away to an earthquake in India instead of running the most visual moment in the last 10 years -- the BBC?
GINGRICH: Sure.
O'REILLY: The BBC!
GINGRICH: Now, look, the BBC has been for years totally owned by left-wingers who are viscerally anti-American. The BBC American channel may be the most anti-American channel, at least as anti-American as Al Jazeera.
It's an ideological bias of the British left. They hated [former British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher. They hated [former President] Ronald Reagan. They cheerfully hate George W. Bush. I'm talking now about the BBC's left-wing board of directors and the BBC's left-wing reporters. That's just reality.
The New York Times -- worried desperately about Afghanistan. When we won in Afghanistan, they warned us that Iraq would be harder than Afghanistan and not to mistake it. I am confident that whatever we do positive next, The New York Times will worry about. That's the nature of The New York Times.
It's become a discouragingly left-wing and isolationist newspaper that wants a timid, weak America that will somehow be so pathetic that even the French will love us. That ain't going to happen. So I start from a different vantage point.
* A Nexis search of terms, "show: (O'Reilly Factor)" for April 9, 2003, yielded these results.
His source of meth was just shut down in NYC. Detox is a bi@tch, I'm told!
So you know for sure that O'Reilly is a meth addict or are you just pulling that out of your posterior. They're also not performing labotomies in NY anymore, which is bad news for you.
Please don't feel left out.
We don't like you either.
With discovering the wheel.
This guy is INSUFFERABLE.
I can't believe I watched this guy faithfully for 5 years!
I'm in rehab now ;-)
I meant to write discovering fire & inventing the wheel. I'm tired...need coffee.
Lol how did you survive? I could not manage more than one episode... Oh well, I am still entertained by the crazy things Billo says...
O'Reilly was actually a little refreshing at first. He had a unique point of view. He really seemed like an independent. He used to give everyone a hard time in the first few years and I didn't mind that at all.
After a while, his show changed. He just started becoming more partisan. Maybe I am just too sensitive on some issues, I don't know, but his demeanor with guests became annoying as well. I would say the growing obvious disparity in the way O'Reilly treated his guests is what finally drove me away for good. O'Reilly interupts, contradicts (often falsely) people he disagrees with, but gives softball questions to people he likes.
Was there even any reports of widespread looting of armories being reported elsewhere on the date in question-- I guess April 9, 2003? The reason I ask is that Bill may be a bit confused.
If I remember correctly, the looting and unrest involving the armory in Baghdad happened a few weeks later, not on the same night the statue fell. I'd be curious to know what O'reilly said on that night?
This could easily be a case of O'Reilly pumping himself up (after all according to him he saved Christmas this year) or it could be cloudiness over dates from three years ago.
Is one of the defining characteristics of rightwing screech monkeys. Its only a matter of time before they claim the Iraq war was all the Democrats idea and that we would have had a functioning democracy in Iraq and the Garden of Eden type Utopia all over the middle east withing two weeks except for the lefts interference and collaboration with al Queda
to look back at all the assinine comments and predictions they were making back then, for example, Dick Morris saying something about how we were about to find all those chemical weapons Saddam was amassing, and how it was the end for Nancy Pelosi. Is that guy ever right about anything? And what about all those "newspapers who predicted doom"?
The statue didn't fall. It was pulled over by our heavy equipment. There was a guy banging a shoe on it before it had help "falling". If the people had pulled it down, that would have been something to remember, but they could not, and did not, topple the statue.
This was one of the early Kodak moments of the war. An image manufactured by the media to sell the war that was manufactured by the administration.
Fools like O'Really fell for it, some saw that we were being manipulated. The looting didn't take place until later. We were told while the countries historic treasures were being looted, that freedom wasn't pretty or some such nonsense from either Cheney or Rumsfeld. The armories were looted later than that. Bill seems to be giving us the Reader's Digest, condensed version of what for him passes for truth.
I do remember the guy with the shoe, and the statue being pulled down, and a picture of Saddam being stomped on now. There were like 8 Iraqi's in the street (far fewer than the number predicted by Cheney).
I also appreciate you clarifying that the looting started later as I seemed to remember it.
Without proper context, it is so easy to be mislead by O'Reilly attempt to make it seem that he was the "first" to notice their were problems in Iraq.
I also wanted to add that I took the title of my post from a song by John Lennon. I was starting to type the attribution and hit the wrong key sending the post before it was ready. I always like to attribute words I've lifted from those better than I.
It didn't fall? How did it end up on the ground? If it was pushed, pulled or tugged, it still fell. What's your point?
Lets not forget, that when you talk about the looting, it was none other than Republican Presidential Hopeful Rudy Giuliani that blamed the troops (our troops) for the looting. He excused presient Bush and said the finger should be pointed at the men and women in uniform and ask why they didn't secure the weapons dump at Al Quaqa. That's right, Republicans are and have always been the "Blame the Troops First" crowd. Remember it.
to see what all these blowhards were saying at the time. another one was columnist kathleen parker. they all talked about the people who "wrongly predicted doom". i never thought we would have any problem getting rid of saddam. the problem, as predicted, was thinking that there was going to be a quick and easy western syle democracy take root. that was the "doom" that most of us were predicting, the fact that it was not going to happen. all the cheerleaders who got us into this mess were wrong, but to hear them tell it now they were right all along and we critics don't know anything. excuse me if i refuse to take you iraq shills seriously.
from "The O'Reilly Factor" to "The OhReally? Fact or Fiction" (with a big emphasis on fiction)
That's even crazy coming from Falafel Man.
Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ it must suck to be married to this clown.
Billo's wife must have gone completly delusional by now I am betting. If I was married to a person like him or Mann Coulter I probably would not be alive right now...
Iraqization is coming soon, to a TV near you, Easter Sunday 2008.
i think orielly is as bad as if not worse than mccarthy but mccarthy was much easier to dispense with we are stuck with orielly maybe for the next 20 years he has to lose so much audience for fox to fire him he has no shame at all he will say anything and as long as a small percentage of over 55 white males (which i am) continue to listen fox will keep him in their employ no lie seeems to be enough to get him fired no insult enough to upset the powers to be the only saving grace is that his advertisers will soon be depends and viagra exclusively
I think that you just set a record for writing the longest paragraph ever without including a period. Way to go! With skills like these you could possibly go back and graduate from Junior High!
an anal retentive English teacher going over each and every post ru shure your not a nun
History has proven McCarthy to be right. Hollywood and our State Department was crawling with communists at the end of WW2.
I was in my 30's during the Mccarthy hearings. History has proven him to be right about the infiltration of communists into our government and about the number of "fellow travelers" in Hollywood. Mccarthyism is used as a predjorative by the uninformed on the Left.
While this quote from O'reilly seems to be similar to the typical nonsense that comes out of his mouth, this one actually contained Bill's biggest lie to date: "I HATE TO BLOW MY OWN HORN..." It is truly unbelievable that anyone could take this guy seriously.
There was a question on whether or not looting was common place at the time of O'Reilly's statement on April 9th, 2006.
1. Reuters journalists watched cheering crowds sack the U.N. headquarters in the Canal Hotel to the east of the city center. One witness saw looters ransack ... 4/9/2006
2. BAGHDAD (AP) - More than 100 children held in a prison celebrated their freedom as US marines rolled into northeast Baghdad amid chaotic scenes which saw civilians loot weapons from an army compound, a US officer said.
These are just two, but they are from Reuters and AP reporters at the time. I believe it was very well known at the time that looting was going on by the time O'Reilly made his statement.
Rumsfeld classic statement in regards to the looting during a press conference occurred on the 11th : "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said. "They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here." (CNN April 12th, 2006)
But the main point by mediamaters.org is that O'Reilly is claiming he was critical of Bush's handling of the post-war Iraq from the start. It is obvious it shows that he was in fact celebratory and ignored stories of looting and mayhem going on in the city.
It might be noted that on the 8th a Red Cross caravn of trucks and emergency vehicles were attacked and eight workers killed. An investigation by the army reported that they were attacked by looters/bandits. O'Reilly actually praised Rumsefeld when looting when he made that statement, blaming the looting not on American failed post-war policies but on terorists.
I could have told you that.
Bill O'Reilly reports that the chocolate ration this day has been increased to an unprecedented 20 grammes!!!
A strict reading/hearing of O'Reilly's radio comments tells us that only the first statement was something he said on the air. He was probably at home polishing the old Peabody when he grasped the full measure of how disasterously bullheaded President Bush was being in Iraq.
So now O'Reilly is claiming to be a doom predictor on the night that he was actually chiding people for being doom predictors. Thank goodness for this last election! Now O'Reilly doesn't have to suck it up to be a water carrier for these stupid Republicans anymore... no, wait, that's Rush.
There's a difference?
He claims his "postwar reconstruction plan for Iraq" [lack thereof] comments were on the 9th, but really those comments were aired on the 11th of April 2003. B@stard.
O'Reilly goes after judges who sentence child molesters to probation, and has been the chief advocate of introducing Megans Law to the states that don't have it.
Another day; another MMFA mislead.
It is true that O'Reilly did not make such comments on April 9th regarding the dangers of looting and chaos. It is ALSO true that O'Reilly DID make such comments on April 11 (2 days after the statue fell on the next episode of the O'Reilly factor):
BILL O'REILLY: But in order to fully win the peace, discipline and order must quickly be imposed by the coalition. There should be martial law, and lawbreakers must be arrested by coalition forces. Chaos always leads to more chaos. If the USA really wants to help the Iraqi people, it must immediately establish a firm rule of law.
And continued thereafter:
BILL O'REILLY: As we told you in the "Talking Points" memo, law breakers in Iraq have embarrassed the coalition forces... does the U. S. Military have the capability to police a country as complicated as Iraq?... they quoted some Marine commanders and even some Army guys, and they said they didn't have enough people. Because there were actually Iraqi citizens saying, would you please stop it? They are breaking into my store, and they are taking my stuff. And the guy said, look, I don't have enough people....
COL DAVID HUNT: ...these are Iraqis, oh, by the way, looting their own country... We don't want soldiers in the middle of a fight to all of a sudden turn to a looter.... You don't want American Marines and Army guys in the middle of a firefight stopping someone taking a porcelain sink.
O'REILLY: Here's why I think you're wrong. This is like a contagious disease. If the 5 million residents of Baghdad see that the coalition forces are going to allow illegality, all right, they are going to allow chaos, then more of it will happen.... The U. S. comes in, they don't have control, they'll lose the peace.... the Ministry of Information, or some such, on fire. All right? Somebody set this fire. OK? And there are no firefighters to put it out.... I think the coalition has to quickly reorganize and protect all structures...
Lexis/Nexis Transcript: The O'Reilly Factor, April 11 2003