Glass houses? O'Reilly derided "talk show nuts" who believe U.S. will "nuke Iran"
On the May 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing May 17 Senate negotiations on a comprehensive immigration bill, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly asserted: "Now, the far right, the hard right, somehow believes that, in the United States of America, the federal government at some point is gonna form federal squads to go in and grab people where they live or where they work and throw them out of the country. These are the talk show nuts who are telling you that they're gonna nuke Tehran." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly is among those who have predicted that the United States will eventually bomb Iran. O'Reilly's statements include:
- On the December 5, 2006, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly asserted that "we may have to" "level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of people," which, he explained, the United States has "already done in Germany and Japan." O'Reilly then offered a hypothetical scenario that, he argued, would result in such an attack: "If Iran takes over Iraq and then fosters a revolution inside Saudi Arabia ... and gets control of all the oil and says we're not selling to the USA, we are going to level that country, because you ... need gasoline to live."
- On the January 10, 2006, broadcast of his syndicated radio show, O'Reilly declared: "[I]t's a matter of time before the United States of America and Great Britain will have to bomb the country of Iran. Get set. Get set. 'Cause they're not gonna leave it to Israel to do it this time, because you can't allow that country to get nuclear weapons." O'Reilly's remark came during a discussion about Iran's removal of seals on equipment and materials related to uranium enrichment at a plant in Natanz, after more than two years of suspending enrichment-related activities.
From the May 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, the far right, the hard right, somehow believes that, in the United States of America, the federal government at some point is gonna form federal squads to go in and grab people where they live or where they work and throw them out of the country. These are the talk show nuts who are telling you that they're gonna nuke Tehran or, you know -- I don't know why anybody would listen to these people, but the far right, some on the far right, actually believe that this might happen. It will never happen in this country, ever. And according to a new Gallup poll, only 24 percent of Americans want to see it happen. So 76 percent of Americans don't want flying federal squads running around grabbing these people and throwing them out.
This guy has cajones the size of Texas. Dang.
Oh Bill look in the mirror and what do you see?
Talk Show Nut extraordinaire :-)
This could be my favorite MediaMatters post in a long time.
It's interesting, Bill says 76% of Americans don't want something to happen, so it won't. 70%+ want us out of Iraq, but I see nothing resembling an exit strategy. C'mon Bill, get on the wagon. Wipe away your sins and SPEAK FOR US!!!
At least he knows how much of the country isn't watching him...
So why is he deriding his base?
'flying federal squads running around grabbing people...' Methinks Bill O'Really finally saw Minority Report... and I like how he strawman's 'it will never happen in this country ever' because 'a poll says people don't want it to happen...'
Bill has some wiggle room with MMFA's argument.
Neither of the Bill O'Reilly quotes specifically mention "nuke" or "nuking" Iran. They do refer to "leveling" cities in Iran, but in his defense, O'Reilly may have had conventional bombs in mind to do the job. Whatever that distinction is worth.
It is a subtle difference, but I think it does give O'Reilly some room to wiggle out on a technicality.
Bill did mention Japan and the only leveling we did to that country happened during WWII. Hiroshima, anyone?
We did alot more bombing to the Japanese mainland then just Nagaski and Horoshima.
O'Reilly also mentioned Germany, which leads me to believe O'Reilly may have been referring to conventional weapons as Japan was the only country on which we used nuclear (OMG I actually typed "nucular" the first time!) weapons (along with a large number of conventional bombs).
Which brings to mind some German-language "spam" as made the rounds in 2005, coincident with the 60-year anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, taking issue with the Allied firebombing of Dresden and Leipzig towards the end of World War II.
Which, in turn, was traced to the far-right German National Party (NPD, in its German abbreviate) hacking into university computer and e-mail networks.
Some of you may still remember it, especially considering where the message was in German.
You are right in fact the reason we didnt nuke Tokyo was that it had already been completely basically destroyed by firebombing.
Yeah, I guess when O'Reilly says thing like "You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth." He was thinking a massive carpet bombing campaign where there would be lots of casualties due to Iran's AA defense system vs. nukes which would give us a score of USA - 0, Iran - lots.
Don't rule out a silly explanation from O'Reilly. Would you really be all that surprised?
It must have been a joke, don't you think? Like referring to right-wingers as "they"...
I think O'Reilly likes to "contrast" his own opinions with those on the left and those on the right in order to give himself the delusional argument that he is somewhere in the middle.
Of course, MMFA makes a good point that O'Reilly is not nearly as close to the middle as he would like us to believe as there is not much contrast between his opinions and the Rightwing fanatics he is complaining about.
Maybe he meant we should huff and puff like the big bad wolf.
Wow, MMFA is getting more desperate every day. O'Reilly is right, this is a left wing attack smear site.
"O'Reilly is right"
-----
Correct. About as far-right wacko nutjob as one can get.
Like , wow dude. MMFA just replays Billo's own words.
I think you missed the point. Did you read the whole article?
BO is completely contradicting himself.
Can you say "doublethink," boys and girls?
You should spend more time ensuring the integrity of those tiles, cause your posts here are a waste of time.
I think there are some loose tiles below the urinal that may need some attention.
LOL. Makes me wonder why he still has a job, given what happened to Columbia.
There once was a talk nut named Bill
Who drank from the media swill
Hubris is his strong suit
His point is just so moot
Since Iranians he wants to kill
There is an obvious disconnect between the part of O'Reilly's brain that speaks and the part that hears, otherwise, he'd realize how much of a buffoon he is DOCUMENTED to having been.
I think the disconnect is caused by the disease called "Arrogance"Right Wing Dictionary:Smear Site: Noun. To record the exact words of someone and provide recordings of them on the internet.
Maybe I missed it but did anyone else notice in the quotes above Bill never advocated nuking Iran? I don't know about you, but it seems like a rather salient point to me.
I'm no BO fan and I never watch his show but it seems to me MMFA is doing its best to again mislead.
Besides that it seems to me that MMFA is missing the point of Bill's bloviating which is to criticize fellow right-wingers. Oh well, I've come to expect that.
Open_Mind,
You were quicker. :-)
Thanks, AA
: )
Open _mind beat you to it:
Bill has some wiggle room with MMFA's argument.
Neither of the Bill O'Reilly quotes specifically mention "nuke" or "nuking" Iran. They do refer to "leveling" cities in Iran, but in his defense, O'Reilly may have had conventional bombs in mind to do the job. Whatever that distinction is worth.
It is a subtle difference, but I think it does give O'Reilly some room to wiggle out on a technicality.
BO is still a huge hypocrit though.
So in your opinion his choosing to use the words "leveling" as opposed to nuking to reach the exact same outcome of "wiping out" Iran makes all the difference between a hard right nut and a moderate?
Your logic is confusing. So he could have said wipe out Iran with chemical weapons and massive bombings therefore he is not a hard right nut?
Either way Iran is destroyed.
Shockingly, I can't agree with AA or open-mind here. It appears O'Reilly is being duplicitous here.
I disagree. There is a massive amount of nuclear contamination that results from the use of nuclear weapons on a large scale. The effect on the environment (especially globally) would be quite different between the two propositions.
That factor alone would seem to make use of nuclear weapons an even more extreme position -- although I regard both propositions as extreme.
Fine ,your choice of death would be, death by concussion, death by fire, or death by radiation. Course a nuc can do all three to you, in that case it would be over before you could register anything. I don't see any humanitatian motive at this level of anticipated violence. There's varities of pain involved regardless, and certainly no shortage of suffering, or death either.
to be honest, the only aprt of that which I particularly cared about was where he acknowledged that one can be "far right".
I was also surprised to hear him point out two options trumpeted on the "far right" which seem to represent the sentiments of most of the republican candidates in the last debate (Kick the immigrant out, bomb iran)
Lyn, BilldO actually mentions the "Far Right" pretty regularly. They seem to be an imaginary entity that places him somewhere in the center. You wouldn't think anyone would buy it, but apparently a certain poster doing some remodeling at NASA proves that it works.
I recently caught O'Reilly's show as he responded to an email asking him why he doesn't criticize the wacko far right.
BilldO's response; the fwr right isn't a factor and have no power, while the far left dominates media and culture.
It's all a product of his sliding scale that creates a mythical far right that is more zombified than he is, and frames the majority of Americans as far-left moonbats.
He probably has a chart to illustrate the whole thing.
I have seen the chart. It is very convincing and red. Probably the reddest chart I have ever seen. If you see the chart and deny its obvious redness, they you are just a leftwing loon!
MMFA isn't content just going after right wingers, they go after people that are middle of the road like O'Reilly. You leftist koolaid drinkers need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Bill O'Reilley is middle of road like box wine is to Dom Perignon. Quit drinking the box wine. It gives one a headache.
Are you off you meds today.? BO been well documented on this site just take a look at the archive.
Monknj80, He's too busy installing tile at NASA.
Oops, sorry Snoop. Didn't realize you'd already said it.
That's OK. I just hope it isn't shuttle tile, seems they fall off a lot.
Bathroom tiles, perhaps?
" You leftist koolaid drinkers need to wake up and smell the coffee." -tileboy
please read that again.
What a mixed metaphor. As for your claim that billo is centrist, that was the biggest laugh I've had in a while. Thanks, I nearly fell out of my chair and landed on my dog.
As we have stated to other "posters" such as yourself. Provide evidence, people here are a lot more open than you think. If you can provide accurate evidence (not the ridiculous links provided by another poster, which actually more often than not prove him wrong) we will consider it and debate it (so don't get all offended if we ask you hard questions, like some do. we are just trying to understand).
HAHAHAHA. Either you are a complete moron or as funny as Robin Williams.
O'Reilly was commenting on what MIGHT happen and MMFA twists it into O"Reilly ENDORSING it.
Show me exactly where MMFA even implies that Bill ENDORSES nuking Iran.
The point here is Bill has stated cases where he sees the US attacking Iran. Now that others on the far right are saying the same thing, Bill is now looking down his nose at them. He's being hypocritical and MMFA is calling him out on it.
O'Reilly has commented on how he could see a situation where the U.S. could take such action. That is not the same as CALLING FOR such action
MMFA isn't saying Bill is CALLING FOR attacks on Iran either!
I can't spell it out any clearer than I already have. I refuse to argue with someone who cannot see reason or the obvious. I'm done with you.
Yes, run away and get some more kool-aid
I think what he is trying to say is your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.
The issue has basically been spoon fed to you.
I think it might serve everyone better if YOU skipped away and played with the other children on the shortbus
Nate: 1/10/2006 "It's a matter of time" Something about that confusing?
So Bill can predict the future huh.
Well you just call in and ask Swami what the hell should be do in Iraq
Sorry I meant what the hell we should do in Iraq but since Bill's a physic hell know what I talking about.
So if he said terrorist might attack the United States again, will MMFA say O'Reilly supports terrorist?
Are you trying to antagonize people, or are you truly and irreparably thick-skulled? The point here is that on numerous occasions, O'Reilly has called for a military response to Iran. Now, he says it's a hard right-wing talking-point. Either O'Reilly is a "hard" right-winger, or disingenuous.
Nobody said "supports".
Don't you have some grout to mix?
Don't you have some tiles to install on that bridge you live under?
I'm sure someone must have pointed out that 72% or so don't want the Iraq war. Now what kind of nut job would go argue with that?
Say it with me now, "Commander Ko-Ko Bananas Bush" (attributed to Homer Simpson)
O'Reilly's defenders are hiding behind semantics. As someone pointed out earlier, this is a distinction without a difference. "Nuking" or "leveling the country and killing hundreds of thousands" are fairly equal on the Right-Wing Nutometer.
Installer,
I don't like to be rude. I read these posts for enjoyment and to gain a little knowledge but I must say..I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Therefore, I, as a Prince, declare you an wordless-infidel.
"I read these posts for enjoyment and to gain a little knowledge..."
LOL! You shouldn't have taken that left turn at Albakirkie.
Where ever the hell that is... yinz' better git back to class, nasa, they're passing the glue around, again...
I think you could spot the Tile Cleaner the Q's and the U's and he still couldn't find the place on a map.
I'll bet he can spell Mississippi!
I must make a correction...reading your posts have not affected my knowledge...I think it has driven it backwards....
How did you know that I lived in Albuquerque for a number of years? On that point, you are amazing. Did you know that is a state?
Installer
Are you an actual salaried employee of the O'Lielly Factor, or merely an unpaid intern trying to make his bones?
Either way, they're not getting their money's worth.
Love that "we" BO & others talk about. When push comes to shove, he won't go in to nuke or fight. Didn't do it when he was younger; won't do it now.
Enought with the "we;" if someone says "we" may have to perform some warlike function, they mean someone else.
And NO to this bellicose talk and those who promote it. Let "us" put an end to endless war.
But Mary, Billo and his ilk have their manhood all tied up in that bellicose talk. What would they be without it?
I am optimistic that in some future lifetime, they will be something else. :)
Nuke is slang that usually but not always refers to nuclear power or weapons. One of its dictionary definitions is
So when BOR or some "far right...talk show nut" says:
...he may be paraphrased as claiming "we may have to nuke Tehran" even if he does not necessarily mean or advocate bombing Tehran with nuclear weapons.
Interesting how O'Reilly does not mention who the "far right" talk show hosts by name. C'mon falafelman, name names.
Interesting how O'Reilly does not mention the "far right" talk show hosts by name. C'mon falafelman, name names.
skeptic, I think BilldO may have been watching one of Bin Laden's videos and mistaken it for a talk show more conservative than the Factor.
I've often wondered what unites right-wing talk show wackos. I used to think it was insecurity or hatred--well, I guess I still believe that those things unite them. But beyond these, they all seem to share a disbelief in video and audio recording technology. Does O'R realize that we now have the means to retrieve his past statements? and then to compare them to more recent statements? I can't help but think that part of O'R's absurd hostility to Media Matters has to do with his bewilderment at how they recall his past statements.
Gotta love how he has tried to suggest he knew Iraq would descend into chaos at the time of the invasion. what a clown.
Omigawd, you people need to get a life! BOR is not worth spending the time to watch much less debate about his opinions on the Iranian nuclear weapon threat. O'Reilly is irrevelent!
Well than, as Tommy would say, "if you don't like it don't 'watch it'
We like to talk about these people you call "irrelevant."
Why you may ask? Because these people shape public opinion and alter the political landscape. The very reason for this site is to try to inject a little truth into the media.
Although I do have to add. Until about a month ago we used to talk about these people and actually debate issues. But recently (due to the Don Immus thing and O'Really's fantasies regarding MMFA and Soros) we have had a number of "individuals" appear who have caused discussion on the board to be lowered a little. No longer do we talk about ideas, but we instead spend far too much time arguing with people who come here with the sole purpose to irritate posters and to launch into long and illogical attacks against the Clintons.
Just my take on the situation, others may add more or say it in more insightful way.
The trolls are back. They ebb and flow from time to time.