O'Reilly falsely claimed he "went on facts and facts alone" in his statements supporting Iraq war
On the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly denied the assertion by Marvin Kalb, lecturer in Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a senior fellow at the school's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, that prior to, and during, "the first year or even two after the [Iraq] war got started, Fox and many other people associated with Fox ... said all kinds of things in support of the war, which were not being borne out by the facts." O'Reilly replied: "No, I didn't. I went on facts and facts alone." In fact, in the lead-up to, and following, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, O'Reilly made several false claims and misleading suggestions regarding the threat posed by Iraq. Notably, O'Reilly repeatedly suggested a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, despite numerous reports undermining this claim.
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
Prior to the invasion, O'Reilly frequently repeated the Bush administration's claim that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Both claims -- that Zarqawi had prewar connections to Al Qaeda and that Saddam had a relationship with or harbored Zarqawi -- were discredited following the invasion. However, this did not stop O'Reilly from continuing to cite Zarqawi as proof of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.
In the lead-up to war, O'Reilly frequently pushed the story that, in 2002, Zarqawi had his leg amputated at a Baghdad hospital operated by Uday Hussein, Saddam's son, as evidence of the Iraqi government's complicity with Al Qaeda. (While O'Reilly repeatedly claimed that Zarqawi's leg was amputated in Baghdad, that particular claim was later debunked. As Newsweek reported in March 2004, Zarqawi may have received medical treatment in Baghdad, but he did not appear to have had his leg amputated.) For instance, during the February 4, 2003, edition of the Factor, he asserted: "If this guy Zarqawi got injured in Afghanistan, had his leg treated in Baghdad, that's an Al Qaeda link right there."
The following day, Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council and discussed Zarqawi at length, claiming that Zarqawi had helped establish Al Qaeda "affiliates" in Baghdad. That evening on the Factor, O'Reilly praised Powell's mention of Zarqawi, stating: "You know, look, I mean if the guy's getting his leg amputated in Baghdad, you know, Saddam Hussein is going to know about it. He's an Al Qaeda big shot coming off the battlefield of Afghanistan. Yes, maybe he made a stop in Tehran, but who -- does that surprise anybody?"
But as The Christian Science Monitor reported at the time, several of Powell's claims about Zarqawi's connection to Saddam appeared not "to be true." According to the Monitor, the "International Crisis Group (ICG), a research organization in Brussels whose analysts are very familiar with the region, has cast serious doubt on the US claims" because "when talking about the Zarqawi network, Powell was referring to 'Ansar al-Islam,' a Kurdish Islamic-extremist group," of which "there is little independent evidence of links between Ansar and Baghdad." Moreover, as numerous news outlets reported in October 2004, a CIA report released to policymakers in August of that year found no conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi or gave him aid. (The Senate Intelligence Committee would later assert in a September 8, 2006, report that Saddam's "regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." The report also noted that "postwar information from an al-Qaeda detainee revealed that Saddam's regime 'considered Zarqawi an outlaw,' and blamed his network, operating in Kurdish-controlled northern-Iraq, for two bombings in Baghdad.")
Further, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, numerous reports published in 2003 and 2004 undermined the idea of any meaningful association between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion:
- In a June 22, 2003, article, The Washington Post reported that by the time Bush referred to Zarqawi in an October 2002 speech urging Congress to support a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, "U.S. intelligence already had concluded that Zarqawi was not an al Qaeda member but the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al Qaeda adherents."
- Citing interrogations of Zarqawi associate Shadi Abdallah, Newsweek reported in June 2003 that "Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members."
- Roger Cressey, a former Clinton counterterrorism official at the National Security Council, was quoted in a June 25, 2004, New York Times op-ed as saying that Zarqawi's training camp in Afghanistan operated "as much in competition as it was in cooperation" with Al Qaeda.
Nonetheless, in 2004 and 2005, O'Reilly continued to claim that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq proved complicity between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, as Media Matters repeatedly noted. For instance:
- On the May 25, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly stated: "He [Zarqawi] has direct ties to Al Qaeda." Earlier that day on his radio show, O'Reilly had claimed that "after [Zarqawi] was wounded in Afghanistan, [he] went to Baghdad. This is the second Al Qaeda big shot."
- On the June 3, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly said that "Zarqawi is what, second or third in command of Al Qaeda." The next day on his radio program, O'Reilly asserted: "They've [Europeans who opposed the Iraq war] never heard about Zarqawi, the third in command in Al Qaeda getting his leg amputated in Baghdad."
- In his September 16, 2004, nationally syndicated column, O'Reilly wrote: "I mean, this guy [Zarqawi] is one of the most vicious Al Qaeda thugs in the world. ... In early 2000, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to assume a leadership position in an al Qaeda training camp."
- On the September 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly asserted: "I'm just going on what U.S. intelligence told my researcher face-to-face, that Zarqawi was a major Al Qaeda trainer in Afghanistan, was wounded on the Afghan battlefield, went then for treatment in Baghdad, where he remains, in Fallujah, beheading people. ... I want to make this clear. Zarqawi, according to U.S. intelligence -- and we spoke to them directly, this isn't taken from The New York Times or anything like that -- trained Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That's where he trained them from the year 2002-up, until the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. forces. He was wounded on the battlefield, then he went to Iraq, where he was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein."
- On the October 5, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly dismissed the CIA's failure to find conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi as "a bunch of nonsense. ...There's no question he was in deep with Al Qaeda." That same day on his radio show, O'Reilly was confused by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's admission that he had seen "no strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam to Al Qaeda because "the Factor did its own independent investigation and the smoking gun is this guy, Al-Zarqawi."
- During the August 16, 2005, edition of his radio show, O'Reilly again claimed that Saddam had "allowed Ansar Al-Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate, to exist in Northern Iraq," when, in fact, Saddam had no control over the Kurdish region of Iraq.
Other claims
O'Reilly has also made numerous other false claims relating to the Iraq war, as Media Matters has documented:
- On the April 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Paris Business Review had documented the success of O'Reilly's boycott against France for not sufficiently supporting the United States in its fight against terrorism and in Iraq. According to O'Reilly, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.' " As Media Matters noted, a Media Matters search found no evidence of a publication called the Paris Business Review at the time. Also, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, U.S. imports from France actually appeared to have increased during the time in which O'Reilly conducted his boycott.
- On the September 27, 2004, edition of the Factor, in response to Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) criticism of Bush's use of the phrase "Mission Accomplished," O'Reilly falsely claimed that Bush didn't say "mission accomplished" during his May 1, 2003, speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, in which Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq. In fact, during his speech, Bush said: "America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished."
- On the July 12, 2004, edition of the Factor, O'Reilly falsely claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq "says he [Bush] didn't lie" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, the report did not address the accuracy of Bush's public statements regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities.
From the April 24 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
KALB: What was true was that, when the war was being set up, and in the first year or even two after the war got started, Fox and many other people associated with Fox or the Fox point of view -- let's put it that way -- said all kinds of things in support of the war, which were not being borne out by the facts that the two of us --
O'REILLY: No, I didn't. I went on facts and facts alone.
Let the revisionist history begin. The liars are lying about the lies they told.
I won't believe O'Reilly until he shows me really definitive proof, like a chart.
Sorry Falafel Boy, no sale until I see the smoking red arrows.
LOL.
I was trying to resist, but I finally had to present the rock-solid findings of my own HBL investigation, in this chart.
Excellent chart HBL!
Pretty good.
Keep it up HBL - you're on the list.
Media Matters, please keep hammering these bastards on this. Cheney and the Bush toadies have perpetrated a horrific crime on the American people and the Iraqi people. The Mainstream Press is obviously not going to investigate the distortion of prewar intelligence until the public demands it. The sad thing is that the story is just laying there in plain sight, waiting for someone with the courage to run with it. Whoever finally does will be unmercifully attacked by the Karl Rove Flying Monkeys, but we can't let these cretins get away with it.
There was an excellent op/ed piece by Greg Palast in today's L.A. Times discussing the failure of American journalists, by and large, to investigate stories rather than cop out with the "he said, she said" pieces that fails to offer readers the truth. I read the actual paper so I can't provide a link.
Well, it sounded like "facts"...
BO and the rest of the teleprompter readers at the premier outlet of the Rovian Ministry of Propaganda went on "FAX and FAX alone."
And it's quite likely that every FAX was written and/or approved by Cheney.
Glad I could clear that up for you Bill.
Very good Drafted, very clever.
And when the RNC, the GOP or the White House aren't feeding FOX, Billo and his fellow FOXies do all of their research on FOXNews.com. Check out BOR's Talking Points Memo from last night (Apr 27). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268979,00.html You don't have to suffer through the whole thing, just scroll down to the in-story links to Media Matters, the Tides Foundations, and the Open Society Institute. These links don't take you to the organizations' websites though. No, all three link to a "search results" page for...wait for it, wait for it... FOXNews.com!! In fact, the Media Matters link is to any FOXNws.com stort with the words "media" and "matters" in them! LOL These FOXies feed off of each other.
And when the RNC, the GOP or the White House aren't feeding FOX, Billo and his fellow FOXies do all of their research on FOXNews.com. Check out BOR's Talking Points Memo from last night (Apr 27). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268979,00.html You don't have to suffer through the whole thing, just scroll down to the in-story links to Media Matters, the Tides Foundations, and the Open Society Institute. These links don't take you to the organizations' websites though. No, all three link to a "search results" page for...wait for it, wait for it... FOXNews.com!! In fact, the Media Matters link is to any FOXNws.com story with the words "media" and "matters" in them! LOL These FOXies feed off of each other.
Give Uncle Bill a break here; he is very busy these days graphing far left financier's donations, while connecting dots of propaganda outfit's contributions to smearing websites who funnel out of context hate to the mainstream media, particularly NBC, this week anyway.
It's a vile web being spun and exposed exclusively in the "No Spin" zone (even though that seems contrary in itself)...........he's looking out for us all.
Tommy,Seriously this man must be hurting deeply. BO seems to have desperately wanted to be venerated and thought of as wise old sage. I think he fancied himself becoming another Walter Cronkite. Ah, but he did this to himself, he ruined his own credibility.
I think Mike Wallace is who he really aspired to. Nobody went for the jugular like Mike did, only he did it without yelling on camera or whining about his critics.
More like charles manson. Only goes after liberals and makes it really messy.
I think Mike Wallace is who he really aspired to.
Is that where he got "SHUT UP!" from?
Like I said, he only aspired to be like Mike Wallace, but he turned into a completely different monster.
You are probably right. He can also wish he were a Prima Ballerina, neither is ever going to happen.
Someone should just roll all the archival footage. It would be like watching a video of your mother telling you santa clause exists when you were four.
Then on to the revivisionist spin. I love the lie they always use "that everyone else was fooled". BO, Hannity and all those guys repeatedly try to squirm out of thier past deceptions with that one.
A good piece would be to show the archival footage of the right wing war mongering and alternate it with quotes and footage of those who got it right but to this day remain obscure.
I think that is an untold story that the media does not want to focus on: That back in 02 and 03 many credible observers and intellegence analyst got it right and were marginalized. Someone should showcase who these people were that were trying to speak out and review what they were saying at the same time BO was shouting down any dissenting views and cutting the mike.
Lets face it the MSM dropped the ball on this one when they gave the likes of BO and "3 hours a day is all we ask" hannity their microphones without any significant opposing views. Could it be they were more worried about their position in the market than the truth? Ask phil D.
Back in 03 I remember even Dr. Phil got in the act. He had a bunch of war protesters on his show and presented them like they were freaks and insulted them. Viewing that now would ironic and I am sure Dr. Phil would never want that one to go out.
We never had a real debate in the media or in congress or in the administration.
Didn't you see what happened on "Clockwork Orange"? Whoever is forced to sit through that will be permanently brain damaged.
Revisionist history is right.
Many people thought that Saddam was a huge threat.
They were all wrong. The Bush Administration knew this before they invaded. They knew that the conventional wisdom was wrong, but they still invaded. All the other people who thought that Saddam had WMDs didn't invade.
The blame lies fully with Bush and he cannot be allowed to continue to fall back upon the excuse that everyone else thought that Saddam was a threat.
Did anybody catch Bill O go postal on Jane Hall the other night when she defended Bill Moyers for cutting down a sound bite? He almost cut her mike.
Still O'Reilly has come around to calling the Iraq War a loser - I don't know if he is now a "bad American."
I hope everyone here takes the time to watch Bill Moyer's excellent analysis of the media and the run up to war on his new PBS show "Bill Moyers Journal".
You can watch the entire episode of "Buying the War" online here. Most of this information is known, but Moyers does an excellent job of bringing it all together for the first time on broadcast TV.
Bill Moyers is one of the last good journalists.
Ever catch some of Moyer's speeches on the class war being waged by DC and Wall Street against the US people? He knows the score, he's one of the People, a real progressive. If he ran for President, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Thanks for the info. on the Excellent Moyers Show. I will be a regular watcher. When will Judith Miller be subpeonaed?
Open_mind:
I'm not only watching Moyers Journal, but I'm recording each and every show. I'ts not easy to report the truth in todays Media Climate, but Bill Moyers gets to the truth, reports it, and then he gets attacked for it.
Telling the truth today is quickly attacked. Your unpatriotic, your a damn lair, your biased, and a long list of much worse and ugly names and labels.
I'm delighted he came out of retirement. He won't win any ratings war, but excellence in journalism never does win ratings. I'm so happy to have someone reporting the truth again. Everything else is spun left or right and many folks buy into the lies and never know or admit what is really true.
Please watch Bill Moyers Journal ... Friday Nights on PBS
YES!
I saw both Moyers' reports and O'Lielies whining about it. My mom visited Friday night and I practicly tied her to a chair to get her to watch the journal. After the Stewart interview I told her she had just watched the best two TV journalists in the country.
Didn't ol' Bill-O say he'd never believe the Bush administration if they were wrong about WMD?
Now now, you're taking him out of context. He believes he really said he'd never believe the Bush administration wrong about WMD's
If O'Reilly went on facts and facts alone he would have figured out that a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam is ludicrous from the start. If he knew anything about the two at all.
First of all Al Qaeda is a religious fundamentalist organization and would like to see nothing better than a theocratic government; on this ground alone Saddam would have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is to much of a wild card for Saddam to even get involved with.
O'Reilly, if he knew what facts are, would have been one of the first to come out and state there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and what are the chances that Fox Station would even allow him to do that?
Kind of puts the Bull in the same league as the majority of Congress in the leadup to the conflict.
The Majority of the Democratic Congress voted against the War, while an almost total majority of the Republican Congress voted in favor of the War!
Is MMFA suggesting that Billdo would claim he didn't really say something that he actually did say? Pshaw!
Facts ?
BO continues to lose it, in all seriousness this was a man who still does not get what this war has done to our country. None of these conservative msm types get it.
Your comment contains a false premise - that Orally actually cares about harm to the country. He cares about himself and the wingnut ideology he spews. He is a nasty, evil bully with no integrity, that's why his reputation is so important to him. He can pretend to rectitude while using his position to sexually assault (verbally) an unwilling producer with his peversion. He can propagandize in favor of the cabal destroying the economy, the military, democracy and the country itself while pretending to patriotism.
This pervert who claims that a boy kidnapped and raped for years liked something about it or he wouldn't have stayed and then planned to give a keynote address at a "Center for missing and exploited children" gathering demonstrates the inadequacy of the discriptive value of the word hypocrite.
PS: Not jumping on you Doris, I think you may agree. Just seemed like a good place for that rant.
I think one protest too much
O'Reilly falsely claimed he "went on facts and facts alone"
Technically, Bill O'Reilly's claim is not false. There are "facts", and there are "Bill O'Reilly's facts". In O'Reilly's egomanical mind, he calls the shots... he's the boss. He'll cut your damn mike off if you cross him. In a sense, O'Reilly is delusional. The world is as he alone sees it. Period... end of story. I can't say I'm sad to see his world starting to crumble... Sure, he'll always keep a certain number of die-hard, brainless followers, but O'Reilly is increasingly becoming more and more of a pathetic symbol of the lying Republican bullsh*t people have now become increasingly aware of. Think about it... Every day you blame all the country's ills on the Democrats... and the people elect a Democratic Congres. And then the polls start showing an increasing majority of the population agreeing with the Democrats on the Iraq war. Oooops... not a good sign for right wing talkers. Their "message" apparently isn't getting through.
Technically, Bill O'Reilly's claim is not false. There are "facts", and there are "Bill O'Reilly's facts".
Right you are. Billdo, unlike the rest of us, is entitled to his own facts and his own definitions. Therefore he's being totally honest when he says he relies on "facts and facts alone," and when he claims that he never engages in ad hominem attacks.
It seems so simple, why do we have such a hard time accepting it?
"Technically, Bill O'Reilly's claim is not false. There are "facts", and there are "Bill O'Reilly's facts"."
testify. check out 2'30". out of his own mouth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g
The right whiner version of the circle of life. Power feeds misinformation (lies) to a media that appears to be all too willing to accept that misiformation (lie) as fact (damn lie) because such acceptance either serves their own jingoistic purposes, or because they are too lazy to seek out the truth for themselves. Then power points to the facts (its own lies) as they appear in the media in order to support their own position. If ever this administration is brought to account for its duplicity certain members of the media (Beck, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly are only a few of the more prominent co-conspirators) should be right there in the prisoners' box as accessories before, during and after the fact.
Delusions of grandeur. He was never elected to represent any one's views. And Keith Olbermann showed a video recently of O'Reilly stalking a lady in a parking lot. This guy is totally delusional and masquerading as a purveyour of truth.
I would love to see that clip - can anybody provide a link?
One of the "Other claims" is incorrect. President Bush didn't say "that mission has been accomplished" during his May 1, 2003, speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, he said it in a speech in Qatar on June 5, 2003, as MediaMatters has noted before.
I'm a "nobody" who would never be asked to appear on Olielie's show. so I know that this is easy for me to say but I would never appear and subject myself to his bullying tactics or lend credibility to his BS.
I love reasoned debate and debated with some success in HS and college. I have no doubt that in a fair format, I could whip his lying ass. To appear however, in the format he provides - where he reserves the right to shout you down, cut off your mike and insult all opponants is just silly. To appear on this bully's program knowing that he calls those who refuse to submit to these tactics "cowards" is to knuckle under and justify his tactics.
I used to be a frequent caller to various local talk radio call in programs. They loved me because I would pick a slow time and call to espouse a controversial position that would keep the phone lines lit up for days. It was good for ratings and everybody was happy. I had one rule though. Cut me off, misrepresent what I said, or call me names after I was off the air and I wouldn't call back - ever. Did that make a difference? Actually, in some cases, I think it did. These were local programs and I knew how to stir things up.
I call on all progressives to stop lending their credibility to this perverted fascist bully. Please, Mr. Brock, withdraw your offer to appear on his program - publicly.
By appearing, you and other progressives allow the continuation of the facade of reason, fairness and balance O'Reilly pretends to. You give him the opportunity to twist and distort your words while making the ludicrous claim that he is a proponant of reasoned discourse.
The tide has turned. The day has passed when our viewpoint was that of a small minority and we had to snatch crumbs of airtime from the likes of Olielie to be heard at all. The country is ready to listen now and Bildo becomes less relevant by the hour. Think about it.
MMFA Distortion #1: "Prior to the invasion, O'Reilly frequently repeated the Bush administration's [link to www.whitehouse.gov] color="#0052a3">claim that Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. "
Really?? Funny how I don't see a single quote/transcript/video of Bill O'Reilly citing Zarqawi-Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. All the links provided are from 2004 and 2005 AFTER the invasion. Yes, O'Reilly cited these claims after the invasion and after the credibility of them had been undermined (according to MMFA). But MMFA does not provide any transcripts showing O'Reilly using these claims pre-invasion.
MMFA Distortion #2: to O'Reilly, "they've lost billions of dollars in France according to 'The Paris Business Review.' " As Media Matters noted, a Media Matters search found no evidence of a publication called the Paris Business Review at the time.
The publication is not called "Paris Business Review" It was called the Movement of French Enterprises. http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/16/news/companies/french_wines/O'Reilly got the name wrong, but his point was not incorrect.
I dont know about #1 perhaps he made this discredited claim AFTER the invasion instead of before the claim however was also discredited according to the Senates investigation
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”
Point #2 is non-existant. O'Reilly DID say according to the Paris Business review. MMFA said they couldnt find any such periodical, there isnt one, they were right. Your claim is really that he MEANT Movement of French Enterprises when he SAID Paris Business Review? I can see those two names are virtually identical, no, on second look they aren't even close. I would be as likely to mistake CNN for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Also left out of your attempt at a point is that Bill wasnt just making the claim that France was losing money because of their non support for the Iraq invasion, which is what your group attributed it to, rather he was trying to claim the loss of revenue was due to his call for a boycott. Your link does nothing to support that theory. Not even close.
"MMFA said they couldnt find any such periodical, there isnt one, they were right."It was actually quite easy to find such an organization. I went to yahoo put in "french wines iraq war". and the page came up. Of coures, the crackpot staff of MMFA couldn't actually figure that out.
"Your claim is really that he MEANT Movement of French Enterprises when he SAID Paris Business Review?"
Yes, exactly.
The main point (which again you "idiot liberals" fail to comprehend) is that O'Reilly's point (French wine sales have suffered due to Iraq War aftereffects) was true (at least according to Movement of French Enterprises). MMFA uses the fact that they aren't able to find O'Reilly's claim cited anywhere (which took me all of 10 seconds) as proof that the idea behind his claim was false (which it was not).
This is identical to MMFA first ever post about George Bush inheriting a recession from Bill Clinton (which is technically false). Yes, it is true that Bush did not inherit a recession (it didn't start until March 2001). The point that people were making when they said "Bush inherited a recession" was that the economy was already weak when Bush took office and had very little control of it from the point he becomes president. But MMFA (and other Democrats) were using it to tie the recession to George Bush (which clearly he had very little impact on). Someone speaks incorrectly or falsely in making a point, but the point is a truthful, valid one.
And just to give you some further proof, you might like to read this article:
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_115131100.html
Here are some highlights: *The call to boycott French wine in retaliation for France's opposition to the war in Iraq put a cork in demand that may have cost millions in sales, researchers say.*Two Stanford University economists found that weekly sales of French wine dropped an estimated 26 percent at the peak of the boycott and resulted in a 13 percent slip for the six months or so that it lasted.
OK RINO clearly you are a moron. Bill did NOT claim France was losing money due to their lack of support for the war but due to HIS BOYCOTT. Its hardly my fault you have such a problem with reading comprehension. MMFA didnt CLAIM that NO periodical ANYWHERE made the claim France was losing money. They made the claim O falafel cited a NON EXISTANT periodical. That is true. The man makes millions of dollars a year and has a research STAFF it isnt too much to ask he cite the PROPER source. Your weak attempt at mind reading doesnt PROVE that O falafel really MEANT the organization you cited. The same with your next incredibly weak attempt to show MMFA wrong when they werent, moron. The CLAIM was Bush inherited a RECESSION he didnt. Its that simple. MMFA didnt claim there was a strong economy THEIR claim was correct, the claim they were criticising WASNT. What part of THEIR CLAIM WAS NOT ACCURATE are you having a problem comprehending? Its not our fault you are so dumb this kind of thing needs to be spoon fed to you. In each case MMFA waas correct. In each case the claims they were criticing were WRONG. It is the JOB of these people to put out accurate information and if they are going to put their spin on it the least they can do is spin ACCURATLY. O'falafel cited a periodical that didnt exist to back up a claim that his boycott was hurting France which is supported NO WHERE. The claim that Bush inhereted a recession NOT a weak economy is FALSE. Its not up to MMFA to ignore FALSE information if it happens to push spin your tiny mind likes.
<p>
Some industry experts suggested that if the backlash explodes into a boycott of French products, it has the potential to affect $47 billion of bilateral trade between the United States and France.
<p>
---"The publication is not called "Paris Business Review" It was called the Movement of French Enterprises. "---
First of all, the Movement of French Enterprises is not even a "publication", it is an organization. Furthermore, the CNN article appeared one full year before O'Reilly made his laughably false statement about the non-existent "Paris Business Review".
Lastly, the French--as it turns out--were right all along about the folly of invading Iraq. And to that, I hold my glass of French wine high and say "Merci beaucoup!"
"the CNN article appeared one full year before O'Reilly made his laughably false statement about the non-existent "Paris Business Review". "
So what??? If anything that would bolster the fact that O'Reilly was citing an actual study/organization/reputable source.
Let's toast a glass to all the money they made from Saddam off the Oil-for-Food scandal as well...
O'Reilly claims it's a publication. That's false.
O'Reilly claims it's the Paris Business Review. That's false.
You claim his source is a 'publication'. That's false.
The organization (not 'publication') makes their statement one full year before O'Reilly *doesn't* cite it. And the statement doesn't really even substantiate what O'Reilly said. And O'Reilly, well-aware he's made a false claim-never claims he intended to mention the organization that you claim was what he meant to cite. And you have NO supporting evidence to back up your claim that this is what O'Reilly really meant to say. (In other words, you seem to have pulled it out of a certain portion of your anatomy).
To all this you say, "So what?", and then suddenly you abandon your flimsy case and try to divert the subject to 'oil-for-food'.
My, my: that's really some piece of convincin' lawerly-like argument you got there.
O'Reilly's argument "French wine sales have been hurt due to Iraq War boycotts"
Evidence:
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_115131100.html
Here are some highlights:
*The call to boycott French wine in retaliation for France's opposition to the war in Iraq put a cork in demand that may have cost millions in sales, researchers say.
*Two Stanford University economists found that weekly sales of French wine dropped an estimated 26 percent at the peak of the boycott and resulted in a 13 percent slip for the six months or so that it lasted.
Any questions???
keep on pulling, what comes out mught someday not stink as much. You still have not shown anything that begins to justify Bull's asertions or make his case in way at all.
I guess you missed this part
"Two Stanford University economists found that weekly sales of French wine dropped an estimated 26 percent at the peak of the boycott and resulted in a 13 percent slip for the six months or so that it lasted."
We didn't miss that part. You were unable to understand that part.
You ignorantly thought that part was relevant. O'Reilly specifically cited the "Paris Business Review," a non-existent publication, to support a false claim that a non-existent boycott called for by O'Reilly was having an effect on trade with France.
The fact that you continually keep blatently lying to try to support a blatent lie made by O'Reilly tells me that you are a typical wingnut, unable to argue any point at all without lies.
--"Any questions???"--
Let me see.....
O'Reilly's claim that there is a Paris Business Review = false.
O'Reilly's claim proven by a publication = false.
Your claim that O'Reilly really meant to cite a different French publication = false (it's an organization).
Your claim that the French organization proves O'Reilly's boycott worked = false.
Correction or clarification by Bill O'Reilly of what he meant by Paris Business Review = non-existent.
Your claim that O'Reilly really meant to say something other than Paris Business Review = not based on any evidence whatsoever, except whatever you pulled out of your a$$.
Your hardon for Bill O'Reilly = very touching, but inexplicable and doubtless unrequited.
So, no. I don't have any questions, thanks.
MMFA's claim "U.S. imports from France actually appeared to have increased during the time in which O'Reilly conducted his boycott."
False.
Rinos claim in this post?
FALSE
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4279.html
AND during that time total French imports INCREASED MMFA link
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4279.html
None of which is relevant to the FACT there is no Paris Business review. JUST LIKE MMFA SAID. MMFA's claim was correct AND accurate O'falfels wasnt. Its really just that simple. Wine sales figures dont change that in ANY way.
---"I don't see a single quote/transcript/video of Bill O'Reilly citing Zarqawi-Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. All the links provided are from 2004 and 2005 AFTER the invasion."---
Re-read. Media Matters does, in fact, contrary to what you claim, quote O'Reilly in this item, pre-invasion. (No links, very likely because Media Matters didn't exist in 2003.)
2/4/03, O'Reilly: "If this guy Zarqawi got injured in Afghanistan, had his leg treated in Baghdad, that's an Al Qaeda link right there."
And:
2/5/03, O'Reilly: "...[Zarqawi is] an Al Qaeda big shot..."
"2/4/03, O'Reilly: "If this guy Zarqawi got injured in Afghanistan, had his leg treated in Baghdad, that's an Al Qaeda link right there."
Dave, notice the word "IF" there???? Didn't think so.
"2/5/03, O'Reilly: "...[Zarqawi is] an Al Qaeda big shot..."
That quote makes no reference to Iraq/Saddam Hussein....Curious how that quote makes a direct connection with Iraq-Al Qaeda-Zarqawi, when it mentions Iraq/Saddam nowhere in it.
Nice try though..
O'Reilly: "You know, look, I mean if the guy's getting his leg amputated in Baghdad, you know, Saddam Hussein is going to know about it. He's an Al Qaeda big shot coming off the battlefield of Afghanistan. Yes, maybe he made a stop in Tehran, but who -- does that surprise anybody?"
Zarqawi. Hussein. Baghdad, Iraq. I see all three persons and places there.
Yeah, O'Reilly said "IF" the guy got his leg amputated. So that sure negates the whole statement and gets O'Reilly off the hook! In no way, of course, did O'Reilly really mean any of this! It was all a big "if".
The faster he spins, the louder he whines.
Really, he's whining. He's baffeled, confused, and whining like a spaniel on his way to the vet...