O'Reilly now attacks NY Times, though he previously urged "hand[ing] over everything to the Iraqis" ASAP
Following the publication of a July 8 New York Times editorial asserting that "[i]t is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit," Bill O'Reilly attacked the Times on the July 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor for "declar[ing] defeat in Iraq yesterday on its editorial page." O'Reilly claimed: "It is beyond disappointing this campaign is not succeeding, but I'm still praying for a miracle, as a stable Iraq makes the world a safer place. I believe that prayer is not being shared in some precincts here in America, but of course I could be wrong." However, as Media Matters for America documented, on the February 20, 2006, edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, O'Reilly said that the United States ought to "hand over everything to the Iraqis as fast as humanly possible" because "[t]here are so many nuts in the country -- so many crazies -- that we can't control them."
O'Reilly began the July 9 program by declaring that the "far left" is "gleeful over the chaos in Iraq." Later, O'Reilly stated: "[T]here's no question the anti-war movement has momentum. Iraq is a mess and most Americans want out after four years of great sacrifice." He claimed that "[t]he USA can't control the country" and that "the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true." He added: "And so there is joy in Far Leftville. The Bush haters have won a victory. Iraq is not going to become a functioning democracy any time soon. And President Bush will have that on his resume forever."
During a discussion of the topic later during the program, O'Reilly asked former deputy undersecretary of defense and American Spectator contributing editor Jed Babbin if he believed "there's anybody in the media who's rooting against America in Iraq." Babbin stated: "Of course I do. ... I think the editors of the U.S. -- of The New York Times want us to lose in Iraq, and I think they don't really care if we lose the overall war." O'Reilly told Babbin that his claim was "provocative" and said that Babbin was "almost accusing them of being traitors," to which Babbin replied: "Well, I -- let's go pretty close to that. I mean, these people are so active in the med -- they're not reporting the news. These guys are media activists. They want to get George Bush out of the White House and the Democrat in there. They don't care what the price is, Bill." Babbin concluded: "And they'll do anything, leak anything, publish anything in order to get that to happen."
Babbin has previously attacked the Times, falsely accusing the paper of providing misleading data in its reports on homicides of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Media Matters also noted.
From the July 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: The O'Reilly Factor is on. Tonight.
NEAL GABLER (media critic and Fox News Watch panelist) [video clip]: When we get terrorist threats in this country, I mean, they are hyped. There's hysteria.
O'REILLY: The far left continuing to downplay worldwide terrorism and are gleeful over the chaos in Iraq. We'll have analysis.
[...]
O'REILLY: Tonight's "Talking Points Memo," blood in the water over Iraq. The New York Times declared defeat in Iraq yesterday on its editorial page, and there's no question the anti-war movement has momentum. Iraq is a mess, and most Americans want out after four years of great sacrifice.
The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The USA can't control that country. No nation could. "Talking Points" laid out that scenario three years ago. Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.
And so there is joy in Far Leftville. The Bush haters have won a victory. Iraq is not going to become a functioning democracy any time soon, and President Bush will have that on his resume forever.
Not content with the Iraq debacle, the far left is also trying to diminish the overall war on terror. This movement is led by The New York Times and NBC News in the mainstream media.
When the London car bomb story broke, NBC News actually put a guy on the air who said, quote, "You have a non-event in London, and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the old hairy eyeball to every Muslim?"
Non-event? And that statement wasn't even challenged on NBC's air. Incredible.
Over at The New York Times, columnists Paul Krugman and Frank Rich are doing everything they can to downplay the war on terror. Left-wing zealot Krugman now puts a "TM" [trademark symbol] next to the war on terror in his column. How clever. How clever. And today, Krugman stated, quote, "These days terrorism is the first refuge of scoundrels," unquote.
Now Krugman and many at the Times believe the Bush administration hypes the danger from terrorism in order to impose fascism or something on America. The 9-11 conspiracy theory has more credibility than this dopey stuff, but it's out there in droves, and since Iraq has not worked, this kind of far-left insanity is gaining traction.
There's no question that time is running out in Iraq, but all Americans should honor the sacrifice our military has made. It is beyond disappointing this campaign is not succeeding, but I'm still praying for a miracle, as a stable Iraq makes the world a safer place. I believe that prayer is not being shared in some precincts here in America, but of course I could be wrong. And that's the "Memo."
[...]
O'REILLY: You don't believe there's anybody in the media who's rooting against America in Iraq?
PATRICIA DeGENNARO (New York University instructor): Against the Americans in Iraq?
O'REILLY: Correct.
DeGENNARO: Well, I would have a hard time believing that.
O'REILLY: Do you believe it, Jed?
BABBIN: Of course I do. Look, you look at just The New York Times for one example. They have leaked --
O'REILLY: Now, wait, wait. I want to be very -- I want specific. You believe the editors of The New York Times want the USA to lose in Iraq?
BABBIN: I think the editors of the U.S. -- of The New York Times want us to lose in Iraq, and I think they don't really care if we lose the overall war. Bill, these people have --
O'REILLY: Really?
BABBIN: They have leaked -- and published the leaks actually, not leaked, but they have published the leaks --
O'REILLY: Yeah, but they say the people have a right to know. But to your -- that's a provocative statement.
BABBIN: But even in -- yes.
O'REILLY: You're almost accusing them of being traitors.
BABBIN: Well, I -- let's go pretty close to that. I mean, these people are so active in the med -- they're not reporting the news. These guys are media activists. They want to get George Bush out of the White House and a Democrat in there. They don't care what the price is, Bill.
O'REILLY: All right.
BABBIN: And they'll do anything, leak anything, publish anything in order to get that to happen.
I have to give BO a pass on this one, its really not easy to keep so much bullS*** in order. I can see how he might have some consistency issues. [sarcasm]
Amazing guy, that BilldO - accusing his fellow reality-based Americans of treasonous wishes, because he's praying for victory.
Maybe, like Hannity, he just doesn't remember anything that happened more than ten seconds ago.
I watc b.o. every nite (except when he as one of his other extreemist quest hosts on when he is having his coolaid IV drip feed changed). This guy is extreemly dimwited when defining the left, Iraq, bush, and anything for that matter. He practices gross generalizations, doublespeak and his falacious fox facts. He is so over the top in his arrogance. He has his pet talking points down to a tee however. If b.o. is so insistent in waiting to see if the "surge" is going to work and let more young men die (our troops) then he hates the troops and he hates America and reality. ( I already figured out he hates reality. Every thing in his books can be found in: Acres of Diamonds, Think and Grow Rich and how to Win Friends and Enfluence People. I bought his first book on tape at a second hand store for a dollar. After listening to it (and throwing up 3 or 4 times) I realize I got ripped off for my dollar. I watch b.o. for the same reason I watch any person making a fool of themselves. I am a "Rubber Necker"
C'mon, his crack team of researchers could have kept it heh kept it... he heh heh...
Sorry, I thought I could get through that one without crackin' up.
But you made the effort and that's what counts. To be honest I laughed while typing it. I just didn't include it in the text (but my hands were shaking like mad).
I have to give BO a pass on this one, its really not easy to keep so much bullS*** in order. I can see how he might have some consistency issues. [sarcasm]
Well it isn't easy to remember everything one says if you're talking out of both sides of your mouth as well as your ass ;-)
Exactly and he also has to deal with that smell. On a steady diet of Falafels how could anyone think straight with that odor permeating the air.
It's not easy to remember if you're dishing it out on TV and the radio day after day, week after week, all in the name of advertising revenue and vane self-promotion. He spews so much of it that he can't keep any of it straight.
Babbin is a babblin' fool...
He wouldn't happen to have a book out that he's trying to promote or anything, would he?
You know... my local paper 'leaked' today that it may be sunny- AND THEY WERE CORRECT!! Terrorists, all of them...
So, we're down to prayer now. I'll get my rosary.
BABBIN: And they'll do anything, leak anything, publish anything in order to get that to happen.
Here we go back to the old Vietnam rhetoric that the war that was lost over here and not over there because of the media, blaming Americans instead of accepting the realities of a situation in a foreign nation that they still cannot seem to understand.
Bush's Iraq bloodbath was doomed from the start. Take your pick, poor planning or nonexistent planning.
The realities you speak of are undeniable. We need only to look at history. France and Britain know all too well about invading and occupying Middle Eastern nations. Somehow, these lessons have yet to be learned by the American right.
"the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true." - Bill O'Rielly
Where were you in 1920 Bill?
In 1920 the People of Iraq drove out the Brits in the same manner the United States is getting driven out. Bombings, attacks, to be followed by power plays between the tribes.
Machiavelli did say that a monkey could get high ratings if he waged a war, which in Both Bush Sr and Junior's case was the only time they got high ratings.
But Father Bush was smart he knew when to quit. But Junior he knew nothing.
Machiavelli did have this caveat, "if a country has shown to be subservient when beaten attack that country otherwise when a country has shown to be hell on wheels when beaten stay away from that country."
Napolean didn't listen to Machiavelli when Napolean attacked Spain. Napolean couldn't get rid of the headache called guerilla warfare. The name "guerilla" coming from Spain.
A French war expert back in WWII has stated Civilians fight more fiercely than soldiers. So when the Iraqi army was banned our soldiers had to face an all civilian opposition.
Bush has made the existence of West Point obsolete because he thinks he is the military wonder boy and will fire anyone that doesn't Seig Heil to his stupidity.
But oh check out this generalization:
O'REILLY: The far left continuing to downplay worldwide terrorism and are gleeful over the chaos in Iraq.
This is present nday trench warfare.
The General Staff has no ideas, and just keeps throwing troops up the center, where the enemy is strongest, where the only idea is that they csan kill more of them before they day.
They sit in their palaces and spout about the brilliant courage of the troops, all the while throwing them into a meat grinder.
To disengage, to seek to flamk the enemy, to try any maneuver that would show intelligence would be 'cowardly.'
Field Marshal Joffré destroyed France militarily sough thoroughly that people today don't believe that France's army once dwarfed England's.
In the same way, thhe jingos from their air-conditioned offices cast military tactics in 'moral' terms, and say that any approach other than throwing m,en straight up the middle to die would be 'cowardly.'
Thus do nations fall.
No.
Nations fail because they are forced to fight under ridiculous rules of engagement. This war would have been over years ago if our soldiers could fight like the enemy, could fight like previous US soldiers.
But instead, their hands are tied: don't shoot until fired upon. Don't shoot unarmed combatants, even if they are walking a mule loaded with TNT and IDE's, don't shoot across the Afghan/Pakistan border... if they run, too bad if you can't get the shot off until after they cross over.
THIS is why we are losing. We are not allowed to truly fight.
Still pushing the tired and ludicrous meme that the problem in Iraq is that we just arent killing enough innocent people.
Billdo is right again, most here want the US to lose and be force out of Iraq. Well Lady's, print this post, hang it on your wall to remind yourself WHY the US is in IRAQ, THE US WILL BE IN IRAQ FOR DECADES TO COME NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN CHARGE. REASON.....OIL! Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and the Stans cannot be left in control of 1/2 of the worlds oil.
Wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Wouldn't do any good anyway.
Nice post cannonball...it's tough to win a war when the politicians at home are jacking off.
“Nations fail because they are forced to fight under ridiculous rules of engagement. This war would have been over years ago if our soldiers could fight like the enemy, could fight like previous US soldiers.”
Bush invaded a country he had no business invading and the people of that country want the invaders/occupiers out. The Iraqis are killing the troops to show their displeasure at being occupied. And the troops are faced with a major dilemma of trying to figure out how to deal with people who don’t want them in their country. The troops should be brought back home (Bush shouldn’t have sent them in the first place) and let the Iraqis sought things out for themselves. It’s foolish and deadly to keep them there.
What is it with you and the rules of engagement?
Americans have never fought a war without rules of engagement. Without them it would be nothing but savagery.
We're supposed to be in Iraq, liberating the population. Indiscriminate murder will do nothing to win the hearts of the people. If we don't have the people on our side, the people will be fighting against us. Is that what you want?
Why is it that the only people who have a problem with rules of engagement are the ones who have never had to serve under them?
"The far left continuing to downplay worldwide terrorism and are gleeful over the chaos in Iraq."
"And so there is joy in Far Leftville."
Read it again. Joy and glee.
Fox News has succeeded in turning outrage over this debacle into "joy" and "glee".
Show me one person from this "far left" who is expressing joy and glee over American soldiers coming home in coffins.
Show me one person from this "far left" who is expressing joy and glee over thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.
I agree with Bill on one thing, we do need a miracle.
Generalizations agains the left good against the right bad this is what is know as fair and balanced.
The war is Conservative's alchemy. They change caskets into oil wells.
",,,I'm still praying for a miracle..."
I'm glad to know that you have a Plan B, Bill. I'm sure the 150,000 American soldiers, 100,000+ contract workers, as well as the thousands of State Department workers and others appreciate your thoughtfulness on this. I'm sure that during the mortar attacks, IED explosions, and ambushes, they can rely on your words of faith to get them through a few troubling moments.
Sleep well.
Billy is reaching out to evangelicals.
Like a good conservative.
Yeah, praying for a miracle, that sounds like sound military strategy.
Billy is hedging his bets..."I could be wrong," O'Dork warns.
Why not pack it in Bill? You've got enough dough, haven't you? I guess the best you can hope for at this point is that you move from being an object of derision to one of pity.
Here are some words from a Navy SEAL that served there: Marcus Lattrell - "Lone Survivor"
" In the global war on terror, we have rules, and our opponents use them against us. We try to be reasonable; they will stop at nothing. They will stoop to any form of base warfare; torture, beheading, mutilation. Attacks on innocent civilians,women and children, car bombs, suicide bombers, anything the hell they can think of. They're right up there with the monsters of history. And I ask myself, Who's prepared to go the furthest to win this war? Answer: They are.... And they don't have rules of engagement. "
Yeah thats the problem in Iraq we just arent killing enough innocent people if we would just throw off civilized behavior entirely kill them all and let God sort them out our problems would disappear. The only question is are you a sociopath or completely delusional?
Unfreakin' believable, ain't it?
He wants to turn Baghdad to be another Dresden or Tokyo or Stalingrad. As you said, "Unfreakin' believable" that a mind could be so savage.
turn into...
There is that little problem of our moral standing in the world when we dictate how we want our military and civilians treated by captors.
So, where did you serve?
Your views on the conduct of war are .... interesting, to say the least. And in your case, maybe the less said, the better.
So, in your mind, in order to "defeat" these people we must become them.
When doing battle with monsters, one must be vigilant that one not become a monster himself. When you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares back into you.
Loose rendering of Nietzsche's aphorism that we should all be keeping in mind. If we sink to the level of the terrorists, then how do we claim to be superior to them, what makes our side right? The terrorists will have won by destroying what little is left of the ideals America supposedly holds dear.
Genocide for victory! By the Goddess, all you righties want to do is KILL people.
God in the form of a white dove, came before Americans and said, kill, kill, kill all unfree, undemocratic people in my name.
do i have this right? cannon wants us to attack innocent women and children?
Just what part of " torture, beheading, mutilation. Attacks on innocent civilians,women and children, car bombs, suicide bombing" are you suggesting we adopt in order to win the "war on terror"?
O'Reilly certainly has a raging hate for a select list of people and organizations. I believe the NYT may be in second or third - right after the ACLU and Rosie O'Donnel. It appears to be a deep and consuming obsession with him, and that he will hold those grudges for the rest of his life no matter what. He's a very complex and pitiful man.
He is pitiful.
I'll give you that.
I don't think he could be complex though. Complexity implies intelligence, so Bill is disqualified.
NEW ELEMENT "Du" DISCOVERED A major research institution (probably funded by a government subsidy) has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Bushcronium". Bushcroniumhas one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311. These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. The symbol for Bushcronium is "Du", as the symbol "W" was already taken by Tungsten. Bushcronium' s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass". When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as many morons. The "nucular" reaction alluded to below where Du combines with Foxnewsium (Fx) when bombarded by a moron beam yields: Du + m (morons) + Fx = DumFx which is sometimes phonetically pronounced to describe the nature of the isodope produced.
Although Faux Noise is the only “news” element mentioned in the formula, any other “news” element, i.e., CNN, ABC, CBS, WoPo, WSJ, etc., could be used just as well and get the same isodope.
I would like to say that I come up with this witty but overlooked scientific discovery. However, it was sent to me and I know not from where it came. I just want as many citizens as possible to think about it and ponder its message.
once again media matters take things out of context because they just have to expose their so-called news aggenda-PLEASE. i listen to orielly everyday and this couldnt be taken anymore out of context. but, the zombies that actually get their news from this site wouldnt know any better and are to lazy too for that matter. what a bogus site. i get a kick out of this site every single day. its so foolish and transparent and it doesnt take a genius to see this either. only the zomby left sees this as credible.
OK, so enlighten us. Give us the context that shows MMFA has twisted the meaning of O'Reilly's words. Tell us what he really meant.
Get real, Clams
You're asking for a reasoned and thoughtful answer from someone who could write such utter drivel as that. I was thinking of re-writing his post to show how to present something worthy of discourse, but who's got the time?
Well, at least we know there's someone on board that even Max and AutoPsychic are the intellectual superiors of. Goodness, Leatherhelmet is brilliant by comparison.
KBELX1029: “Zombies” yeah. More like wimps. The same kind of wimps who voted out the Spanish government a couple of days after the Madrid bombings killed over a hundred fellow citizens. Reason for the switch: appeasement.
History shows appeasement has never worked but the wimps never seem to give up hope that it will. That’s why Europe is about to go Muslim in a major way in the next ten to twenty years. The problem with the left is that they have no stomach for war. Hell, they won’t even admit that we’re IN a war.
"Appeasement"?
You mean like how George W. Bush "appeased" the saudi 'royal family' after they murdered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001...
..."appeased" them by forgiving them. More than forgiving them, covering-up for them.
Whether what George W. Bush did for those saudis who financed and directed the attacks of 9/11, was "appeasement" or just simply what he wanted to do for his "good friends" and business partners, well either way, it was a disgrace and sickening and a crime.
"Appeasing" saudis who murder Americans: That's George W. Bush for you.
Right on. I couldn't agree more that it was appeasement. But only temporary I think. At some point, assuming that we really have the will to win this war, the Saudis will pay the price. The reason they have gotten away with their support for the jihadists so far is no mystery: OIL!
Geez how low can BO go. Asking God to intervene with a miracle to kill more. I hope I am not standing next to this guy come judgement day. I think some God''s wrath will deflect off him and hit me.
BABBIN: "...they're not reporting the news. These guys are media activists."
Cool New Term: "media activist"
New to me anyway, I hadn't heard it before.
I'll take a stab at formally defining it...
media activism noun : a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous media action, esp. in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial media issue. media activist, noun or adjective; media activistic, adjective
Cool New Term... perfectly describes what they do at Fox News Channel.
[I just saw something about Merriam-Webster adding about 100 new words to their latest edition. Stop the presses! Add media activism to your dictionary! It's a real word, with a real meaning... a meaning important and topical... not like the idiot word "ginormous".]
What's new about media activism? The NYT and CNN have been actively promoting and passing off the liberal agenda as news for years.
A liberal agenda and a reality agenda are pretty much the same thing, so it's all good.
Could you give a bit more of a clue as to what you mean by a "reality" agenda? I don't see that liberals face up to reality, so much as deny it.
and everything all the conservatives have said about iraq has not been a total denial of reality?