About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Two months after giving Iraqis "two more months" to pass oil bill, O'Reilly silent on their failure to do so

August 20, 2007 7:48 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: On his radio show on June 20, Bill O'Reilly asserted, "I'm gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They've got two more months. And if they don't step up and help more than they're helping" on oil legislation and security, "in two months, it's over. Come September and October, we're pulling back, and that's the truth." August 20 marks the end of the two-month period, but O'Reilly is yet to mention the Iraqi government's failure to reach an agreement on oil legislation or his claims about the need for improvements by the Iraqi Security Forces.

111 Comments

On the June 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly asserted, "I'm gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They've got two more months. And if they don't step up and help more than they're helping -- and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie." He added, "Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don't do it in two months, it's over. Come September and October, we're pulling back, and that's the truth." August 20 marks two months since O'Reilly's comments, yet during the August 20 edition of his radio program, O'Reilly neither mentioned the Iraqi government's failure to reach an agreement on legislation regarding oil revenues nor his claims about the need for improvements by the Iraqi Security Forces within two months.

The White House's July 12 Initial Benchmark Assessment Report stated that the Iraqi government had made "unsatisfactory" progress in "[e]nacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi'a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner." It added that "it is too early to tell whether the Government of Iraq will enact and implement legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all Iraqis." However, as an August 11 Associated Press article noted, "Iraq's parliament went on vacation for a month [starting July 30] after failing either to pass legislation to share the nation's oil wealth or to reconcile differences among the factions."

On the August 11 edition of CNN's This Week at War, Rend al-Rahim, former Iraqi ambassador to the United States, asserted, "[W]hat we're talking about is specific legislation, as [CNN correspondent] Michael Ware said, about the oil, about de-Baathification. There are deep divisions inside the country about the utility of these laws and how to approach those laws. And the divisions are not just about the framing of the laws or the phrasing, but about what kind of Iraq you need to see." Earlier, Ware had said, "Dividing up the oil evenly, that's going to be a hard sell at the best of times." Rahim added, "What are the relationships within Iraq of the central government and the federated regions or the other regions? What is the power-sharing relationship between the different communities of Iraq? Those are what is going to determine these laws and how we pass those laws rather than simple phrasing or articles in those laws."

Blogger Steven Young noted O'Reilly's comments in a June 20 entry on The Huffington Post.

From the June 20 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

CALLER: Listen, I read the CENTCOM, the Central Command newsletter. It comes out every week, and there was a story in it sometime -- and this was a long time ago, though. It talked about how Iraqis and Americans built a power plant somewhere in northern Iraq. I don't remember the name of the city. Big story about how hundreds of people who never had power before now have power. A couple weeks later, Al Qaeda blew it up. That made the news. Nobody said a damn thing -- sorry, nobody said a thing about, "We built it." All right. They only report the bad news.

If NBC wants to be fair and balanced, why don't they take some of the source from the CENTCOM newsletter? We're talking about things that we're doing over there that is good all the time, all the time.

O'REILLY: Well, look, there -- it's not everybody at NBC News. It's not everybody, but there is a strain there that tilts it.

Now, I'm not one of these guys that say, "OK, because the United States built a school here and a dispensary here and a power plant here that that has to override the arch that this is a mess." I'm not that kind of guy. All right, I'm gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They've got two more months. And if they don't step up and help more than they're helping -- and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie. Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don't do it in two months, it's over. Come September and October, we're pulling back, and that's the truth. That's what's going to happen. It's all on the Iraqis' plate right now.

And, you know. So what I report on Iraq, I tell you where it is, and that's true. Do I want America to win? Of course I do. Should you? Of course you should. That's best for the world, but I'll tell you what, there is so many people rooting against us, it's unbelievable. It is unbelievable.

From the August 11 edition of CNN's This Week at War:

RAHIM: Indeed, that's true. And, in fact, I would say the deals are made outside of Parliament by political leaders who may not be part of the parliamentary process. Having said that, it's -- we should also remember that Parliament has said that they were on standby, as it were, if anything urgent comes up. But that is meaningless. The fact is, the issues are much deeper than Parliament right now. They are on a national scale, they're on a political scale, and they're not just an issue of this legislation or that legislation.

FOREMAN: All right. Michael, is there any sense in the street, then, that these issues, these deeper issues are being addressed while Parliament is out?

WARE: No, not really. I mean, I'm sure there's some discussion behind the scenes, but let's face reality. These are American benchmarks. They're not Iraqi benchmarks. The Iraqis view this very, very differently, and, indeed, on many of the issues that the Americans are expecting success or demanding success on, the Iraqis don't share American interests here or Iraqi insights.

De-Baathification? I'm sorry, this government's just not even vaguely interested in it. Dividing up the oil evenly, that's going to be a hard sell at the best of times. There's a lot of stuff that has to be sorted out, and it's not going to be to an American timetable.

FOREMAN: Rend al-Rahim, here's what I don't understand about that, though. Not settling these issues brings continuing battle upon the country of Iraq. Do not the Iraqi people see that and say, "Whether we want to or not, we must settle this"?

RAHIM: Yes. But what we're talking about is specific legislation, as Michael Ware said, about the oil, about de-Baathification. There are deep divisions inside the country about the utility of these laws and how to approach those laws. And the divisions are not just about the framing of the laws or the phrasing, but about what kind of Iraq you need to see. What are the relationships within Iraq of the central government and the federated regions or the other regions? What is the power-sharing relationship between the different communities of Iraq? Those are what is going to determine these laws and how we pass those laws rather than simple phrasing or articles in those laws.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by onionhead (August 20, 2007 8:03 pm ET)
         

      What's the big deal here?  Bill O'Reilly is a very patient and reasonable man.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DTRAIN (August 20, 2007 8:16 pm ET)
           

        </sarcasm>

        :) 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by onionhead (August 20, 2007 8:25 pm ET)
           

        But seriously folks...

        Things have changed in two months.  Two "liberal" guys from a think tank said so.  Of course we will probably not know if the surge is truly "working" for a few more months.

        Maybe by then, after many more civilian and troop casualties, we will finally know if we will achieve our Pyrrhic Victory.

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by tex (August 21, 2007 10:02 am ET)
           

        THIS IS THE BEST KIND OF COVERAGE.

        MMFA does this SOME, but could do it so much more and better: the posting of the OLD record alongside the NEW record.

        For God's sake, the GOP were UNITED in their opposition to everything Clinton did, including military action against terrorists. There are tons of quotes MADE BY REPUBLICANS CURRENTLY IN POWER that directly contradict their "feelings about military action" they expressed during the Clinton years (back then, opposition to terrorism was dismissed as "WAG THE DOG" ... remember?).

        Rush Limbaugh even published IN HIS BOOK his ironclad "rules" about when and how to engage troops, and WHEN NOT TO. According to Limbaugh's "rules", there had to be clear goals, a clear definition of "victory", and an established "exit strategy" ... all of which are absent in the current Iraq war.

        Bush said of the War on Terror, "We can't win it." Rove said of Plame, "She's fair game." There are thousands of examples, but they fade from memory unless we are reminded that these rightwingers are disingenuous and opportunistic hypocrites and liars.

        Hannity goes back DECADES for such quotes, and carries them around in a clipboard, because a great deal of his presentation is to deluge guests with quotes from others. Of course, Hannity is seeing his "tactics" FAIL, as support for the rightwing dwindles ... so we shouldn't duplicate HIS efforts.

        But still, there should be an archive which contains rightwinger's quotes THEN and NOW, showing their unprincipled and strictly partisan views which change entirely depending on who they are talking about. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by stevensm (August 21, 2007 11:01 am ET)
             

          In addition to this most recent 2 months deadline, don't forget that on Jan. 24th, Ellis Henicann called O'Reilly out for moving the Iraq deadline goalposts. MMFA documented it:  http://mediamatters.org/items/200701250014

          O'REILLY: They've got six months and that's it.

          SCHWARTZ: Is that it? Six months -- done. And then we're done?

          HENICAN: At every step of the way -- I mean, we've had this -- you and I have been down this, because you said that 18 months ago and 12 months ago --

          Now that his latest "deadline" has past, I guess he'll extend it ANOTHER 6 months? Well, whatever he says or doesn't say about his deadline passing, it's obvious O'Reilly doesn't know jack. He's just bloviating out his a$$.

          In my opinion, nothing sweeeter than when MMFA posts O'Reilly's own words in context to show his hackery. Yet O'Reilly calls it an "attack" on him. Imagine that, O'Reilly is being attacked by his own words! LOL!

          Report Abuse
          • Author by august west (August 21, 2007 5:13 pm ET)
               

            Maybe he should just go with the "Friedman Unit," i.e., six months. 

            Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 4:23 pm ET)
             

          According to Limbaugh's "rules", there had to be clear goals, a clear definition of "victory", and an established "exit strategy"

          Those are key portions of the Powell Doctrine -- a little something this President tossed aside when invading Iraq.  I hope Limbaugh gave credit where credit is due.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by neondesert (August 20, 2007 8:28 pm ET)
         

      O'Reilly silent!

      Anybody else get a warm feeling, like urine running down their back when they read that? 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (August 20, 2007 9:13 pm ET)
         

      Perhaps he meant a Biblical two months. Seven days equals 5 Billion years, or better. Hes got plenty of time.

      Good catch MMfA. Will futher predictions bite the dust here? I hope so. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by therick (August 20, 2007 11:44 pm ET)
           

        On JUNE 20th, O'Reilly said; "...the Iraqis have two more months...in two months, it's over. Come September and October, we're pulling back..."  [bold mine]

        So either BO's math skills are lacking, or he doesn't know how to read a calandar.  Is there anything he IS good at?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 4:28 pm ET)
             

          He also seems to have the chain of command a little mixed up.  The way he talks, he sounds like he thinks he was sworn in as Commander in Chief.

          Sorry.  Didn't mean to make you all mess yourselves at the thought of President O'Reilly. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (August 20, 2007 11:47 pm ET)
         

      "Two months" plus a grace period of say 6-8 months. (Could that really be what the Bull had in mind?)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (August 21, 2007 12:16 am ET)
         

      now we have a pretty good idea where the boundaries of O'Reiily's influence are.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 21, 2007 2:08 am ET)
           

        Not so fast- working days or calendar days? Minus Christian and Muslim holidays? Two consecutive months? There are so many ways you pinheads could misinterpret the giant mind of BilldO.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by AussieBob (August 21, 2007 9:37 am ET)
           

        Maybe he should boycott Iraq...

         I love BillO, and I'm neither conservative nor American.  YOU'RE DOING GOD'S WORK BILL!

         

        Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not), but don't 'Sunni' and 'Shi'ite' refer to branches of Islam rather than different Arab ethnic sub-groups? I'm pretty certain on this one because one of my best and dearest friends is a Sunni, and she's a Keralite Indian.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (August 21, 2007 10:23 am ET)
             

          I think you are correct on that one...maybe like Catholics and Protestants. There may be some ethnic/cultural divisions that are mixed in, but my understanding is that their differences are primarily religious.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 21, 2007 11:56 am ET)
             

          Maybe he should boycott Iraq...

          He is. The Baghdad Business Review says it's having a huge impact.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 4:35 pm ET)
             

          I think the warring between sects has a fairly strong tribal aspect to it, too.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (August 21, 2007 7:14 am ET)
         

      o'reilly is a forgiving guy.  remember when he said that if no wmd were found he would never believe the bush administration again. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by neondesert (August 21, 2007 9:27 am ET)
           

        To be fair, they're still looking.

        Give 'em another...oh...two months or so.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by CaseySpring (August 21, 2007 7:34 am ET)
         

      Thanks to MMFA for reminding BO, now lets see if he mentions it this week.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (August 21, 2007 8:16 am ET)
         

      Nice work by the "trackers" at mmfa...kinda like the cop standing patiently by your car as he waits for the meter to expire...and then gleefully slapping a ticket on your windshield.

      I can only imagine the cheer that went up in mmfa headquarters as the clock struck midnight. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 21, 2007 9:12 am ET)
           

        Sort of like the cheering at GOP headquarters when Bush got his "trifecta"?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 10:59 am ET)
           

        Wahhh! Don't expose us right wingers as liars! It's unfair!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by Blue Fielder (August 21, 2007 1:16 pm ET)
           

        Don't drown in your tears just because one of your hatemonger heroes got exposed for lying AGAIN, Whiny Wesley.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 4:40 pm ET)
           

        Nobody's cheering the 3700+ deaths, Wesley, except your President and his "BRING 'EM ON" crap.

        Those of us who were against this stupid, inhumane, unjust invasion the time it was first proposed predicted the horrors that would follow.  And we got much of that information FROM THE VEEP HIMSELF and the previous Bush administration.

        So don't put this on us in any way.  We didn't want this from the start.  You and yours dragged this country into it.  Try being a man, admit you were wrong, and call for your people to get us out so that a few lives can be saved. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 9:20 am ET)
         

      It's funny that MMFA and all of you BO haters were patiently waiting for the exact day when 2 months expired to pull this out.  I'm sure you had this date circled on your calendars.  Do any of you find this a bit ridiculous.  MMFA feeds you a fastball about someone you all love to bash, and you take off with it, not even stopping for one second to realize how foolish you all sound right now.  It's 2 months and 1 day people!! Oh my goodness.... the audacity!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (August 21, 2007 9:27 am ET)
           

        Schmitty, give it a rest. You know, as well as we do, that if any Democrat had laid down such a deadline, you and the other Flying Monkeys would have been all over it a week ago.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by neondesert (August 21, 2007 10:02 am ET)
           

        So I was "fed" a "fastball", and I "took off with it".  I don't know whether I should sue for attempted poisoning, go opposite field, or be arrested for kidnapping.  I've seen mixed metaphors before, but rarely have I seen a poor overdriven mind frappe one to show "how foolish [we] all sound".

        Obviously, when O'Reilly made his prognostication on "the fudge factor", he tacitly included a margin of error of a Friedman Unit (F.U.) or two...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (August 21, 2007 10:36 am ET)
             

          Smitty's on to us. Oh, how the past two months crawled by as I marked the days on my moonbat cave wall.

          Pretty clever of the lefty machine, tricking BilldO into that deadline.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (August 21, 2007 11:00 am ET)
               

            At least you had a rock...I had to dip my finger in Moonbat guano and smear it on the wall.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by neondesert (August 21, 2007 11:22 am ET)
                 

              By the way, I just LOVE what you've done with the cave.  My wife's been on me to get our master bedcave redone, so I'm eager for tips.  Did either of you have to use an oil-based guano for the fresco?

              I'm working with a pre-cambrian sandstone, FYI.  Lot of silica, very little organic matter.  TIA!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 11:34 am ET)
                   

                Dude,

                Do not go with a guano for the fresco. I tried that, and it looks so 4,000 BC that my neighbors couldn't help laughing. I think bull dung is the way to go, IMHO. I hear that Bill O'Reilley has plenty for free. 

                Report Abuse
          • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 3:26 pm ET)
               

            What deadline?  Is there really a deadline that was set here by BO?  And if so, who is enforcing it?  What were the exact terms? 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 4:48 pm ET)
                 

              See all those funny markings up at the top of the page?  Those "words" as we in the "reading" biz call them.  That's an "article."  It contains groups of words strung together into "sentences" which, when strung together themselves form "paragraphs" and in some cases coherent thoughts.

              This is from the second paragraph, I believe.  You didn't even have to read far. 

              On the June 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly asserted, "I'm gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They've got two more months. And if they don't step up and help more than they're helping -- and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie." He added, "Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don't do it in two months, it's over. Come September and October, we're pulling back, and that's the truth."

              Report Abuse
              • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 9:25 am ET)
                   

                Thanks for the grammar lesson.  If you're so good at reading those things you called, what were they, sentences, you could have realized this isn't a deadline.  It is simply BO trying to explain what the situation is over in Iraq and with our military.  And I've asked this all over the forum, and no wants to answer me.  What did BO say he was going to do after the "2 month deadline" was up? 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (August 22, 2007 12:00 pm ET)
                     

                  Sure, you've got two more months...isnt a deadline, and water isnt wet and Thursday isnt a day of the week.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 12:31 pm ET)
                       

                    Again, not answering my question.  What did Bill O'Reilly say he was going to do after the "2 month deadline" was up? 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (August 22, 2007 2:39 pm ET)
                         

                      How is that relevant to whether THEY HAVE TWO MORE MONTHS is or isnt a deadline?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 3:01 pm ET)
                           

                        Because all of you yahoos want to hold him accountable for something, and I'm still baffled as to what that is.  What exactly are you wanting to hold BO accountable to?

                        Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (August 21, 2007 5:51 pm ET)
                 

              There have been several deadlines by Billy O'falafel, and they seem to get forgotten immediatly after the time runs out. Just like he forgot that he said if we didnt find WMDs in Iraq he would no longer support the war and would never trust the Bush administration again. O'Liely just goes to the memory whole and dumps his inconvienient stipulations counting on his base audience to be too brainwashed to hold his feet to the fire. As for who would enforce the deadline since Bill made it I guess that would be up to him since it was HIS deadline, by no longer carrying  water for the war like the servile propagandist he is.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (August 21, 2007 10:18 am ET)
           

        Smittymatt,

        And your point is?? I ask, did he or did he not say it? Or are you the cerebrial(?) type who is guessing that everyone was standing around waiting to judge one of Billie's outrageous statements. We could do that every waking moment of our lives. I ask, how long have you been waiting to throw out your question? Probably for two months thinking Billie was right. Now, I am trying to be cerebrial(sic)

        Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 11:05 am ET)
           

        Yes, I think O'Reilley went out on a limb so now the ball is in his court, if he doesn't whiff and miss. He didn't look for he leaped, so now the donkeys are coming home to roost. He counted his money before the chickens hatched so now he has the bull by the tail. 

        Seriously, besides your confused use of cliches, what exactly his your point, besides you right wingers are a bunch of babies who can't stand it when the a demogouge gets exposed? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 12:34 pm ET)
             

          It's a very simple point really.  My point is that all of you BO bashers sit around waiting to critique anything and everything he says.  The man said something 2 months ago, and 2 months and 1 day later, you're all over his behind.  My point is that you all sound childish and petty.  My point is that you all (and MMFA) don't care what BO says, you will slam him for what he says, without considering what he says.  I don't love BO, but to hear and watch how quickly you go for his throat on everything he says is rather amusing, and yet discouraging at the same time.  Discouraging because I would have taken you all for adults if I hadn't read your petty and whining posts.

          If the man only spews b.s. all day, then why are you so threatened?  Surely you will trust in Americans' intelligence to decipher what is truth and what is the crap BO is trying to shove down your throats, right?  I hear a lot of crying from all of you, and it's really annoying.  Commence your shredding of this post. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 1:08 pm ET)
               

            I think you're the one doing the crying.

            Waaaa!

            Gentlemen, we know have a new criteria to judge if an article by MMFA is WITH (Why is this here?)  We must not hold conservative commentators to their own words. That is just unfair and shows we sit around all day with nothing better to do, and that we don't trust American intelligence, and that we must really fear these conservative commentators.

            So from now on, no criticism of conservative commentators, and by extension, politicians. If they promise us that WMDs will be found in Iraq, and then none are found, aren't we being too touchy to point that out? Aren't we just sitting around with nothing better to do?

            By the way, do you realize that "commence" (as in "commence the trashing of this thread") is a connonym, having two meanings that are completely opposite? Do you mean we should start trashing your nonsense or we should stop?

            Or should I wait for a fastball to land in my court so I can watch the eggs hatch to get my answer?  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 1:52 pm ET)
                 

              Seeing how intelligent you are, I hoped you could catch the tone and understand that I anticipated someone to rip this post, as does everyone when someone posts a differing view on here.  So, "commence" would mean "to begin."  And thanks for the lesson about the word having 2 meanings.  You're making my world better everyday.  (are you smart enough to catch that sarcastic tone?  or do you want that one explained to you too)  And what words would you be holding BO to? 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by AussieBob (August 22, 2007 6:42 am ET)
                 

              I didn't know about commence having two meanings, cheers for that little tidbit.

               

              The troll is right (pun unintended), besides being a fulltime education student, teaching migrants and international students English (again thanks for the info) and effectively running a friend's small retail business I really don't have anything to do besides hang on Bill's every word waiting (not very long) for the inevitable slip up.

              In fact, it's my job, no wonder I seem to be so busy nowadays...

              Report Abuse
          • Author by Blue Fielder (August 21, 2007 1:17 pm ET)
               

            Would you like a crying towel, troll?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 3:06 pm ET)
                 

              Again, it's funny that you call me the troll when you swoop in, make a comment like that, and then head out.  This is a very mature conversation we're having.  Shows the true colors of some of the people who post here. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 3:33 pm ET)
                   

                Waaaa!

                I can accuse others of crying, but when others do the same, I want to accuse them of not having a mature conversation.

                What a big, big, baby!  

                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 3:52 pm ET)
                     

                  Here you go again. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:11 pm ET)
                       

                    Yup. You accuse others of crying, what did you expect? You right wing nut cases are all big babies. You call others cry babies but then can't understand why no one takes you seriously. 

                    Do you have any point at all to make?  

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:17 pm ET)
                         

                      I don't remember "crying" about anything.  I only remember wondering why some people get bent out of shape at anything BO says.  Especially when he makes deadlines (which really aren't deadlines at all) and then people call him on those deadlines 1 day after the supposed "deadline."  It just seems silly PunyManParts.  That's all.  No crying here, but I will admit it does get annoying.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:22 pm ET)
                           

                        You don't remember crying about anything? Funny, I accused you in this post of accusing others of crying. Here is what you said:

                        "I hear a lot of crying from all of you, and it's really annoying.  Commence your shredding of this post. "

                        I know. For conservatives like you and Bill O, words have no meaning. 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, whatever. Deadlines don't mean deadlines. And fastballs are--well, I can't even decipher what you mean.

                        Obviously, Bill O is full of bs, which doesn't bother some right wing nutcases.

                        So maybe you should stop your whining and admit that Bill O is absolutely wrong.  

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:29 pm ET)
                             

                          I'll admit that he's wrong when you tell me what statement he made that was wrong.  Go ahead. 

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:31 pm ET)
                               

                            Read the article and stop playin games. 

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:34 pm ET)
                                 

                              I did, and apparently I'm not intelligent enough to read and know what falsehood he fed us.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:37 pm ET)
                                   

                                Wow! You finally admit something that is true.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:39 pm ET)
                                     

                                  And you still didn't answer my question.  What did Bill O say he was going to do?

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:42 pm ET)
                                       

                                    And still you are posing a dumb question which I refuse to answer.

                                    Bill O said 2 months.

                                    Two months is up and Bill O is silent.

                                    Bill O is wrong.  

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 9:11 am ET)
                                         

                                      Smart one, I know he said two months.  I'm asking you what he said he would do after two months that you want to hold him to?

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by nomobush (August 23, 2007 9:02 am ET)
                                           

                                        Hold him accountable for what he said?What a novel idea! How come no one else ever thought of that before?Guess what? MMfA holds people accountable for what they say. This is that accounting.He's accountable for saying that they had two months until he was going to do something, and he has not done anything and the two months is up. I don't care what he does. He's the one who said that Iraq had two months. If what he said meant anything, it would mean that after two months, something would change after he initiated that change. He did nothing to change anything.Could you contribute any less to this forum?

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by smittymatt16 (August 23, 2007 9:38 am ET)
                                             

                                          "He's accountable for saying that they had two months until he was going to do something, and he has not done anything and the two months is up."

                                          I know the quote, and I'm asking you, and anyone else, to tell me specifically what he said he was going to do.  Stop hurling insults, and just tell me what he said he was going to do after 2 months dang it!!  The problem is, you are avoiding the quesion.  I know you want to "hold him accountable", but to what?  You still won't tell me that.  You can't tell me that, because he did not say that he would do anything.

                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by nomobush (August 23, 2007 1:45 pm ET)
                                               

                                            He didn't say what he was going to do.

                                            What he was going to do after those two months is totally irrelevant to the fact. He has done nothing. That's the whole point.

                                            If a parent says to a child "be home in two hours", and then the kid isn't home in two hours, and the parent does nothing, does it matter that the parent didn't tell the kid what their punishment would be if they weren't home? Of course it doesn't. If that parent says that there's a deadline, and then when that deadline comes and goes, and the parent fails to do anything, then the parent has failed in their responsibilities. The parent need not have said specifically what the penalty would be.

                                            O'Reilly didn't say what the punishment would be - what actions he would take. It doesn't matter what he planned on doing after two months. What matters is that he said that was a deadline, and then when that deadline came and went, he did nothing.

                                            You trying to claim that we must identify what he said he would do is a strawman argument. Me saying that you are not contributing to this forum is not an insult. An insult is unfair. My comments were totally fair. You have shown a total lack of contribution. Your points have been without merit.

                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 23, 2007 2:34 pm ET)
                                                 

                                              If you read later in the transcript, he mentions September/October.  From June 20, September is slightly over 2 months away.  If you are blaming him because he didn't stop in his tracks to count on his fingers how many months away September is, then you have too much time on your hands.  Mentioning September/October (i.e. 2 months) is BO referring to a general timetable, because he knows the progress in Iraq will be reevaluated. And if Iraq hasn't stepped up and met us half way on certain issues, then we will put out.  And that is exactly what BO said in the first place.  He said that in September/October, we (being the U.S.) are going to pull out because Iraq is obviously not helping in sustaining their own security for their country.  I don't see what the fallacy here.  Even if BO does nothing, he was right in saying that we will pull out because they are not helping.  WE includes, you, me, BO, Bush, the military (i.e. the entire U.S.)   BO was obviously talking about what WE  would do as a nation, not what BO himself was going to do.  What does Iraq care if BO makes "deadlines".  He is simply summarizing what will happen come September/October.  (apparently if you miscount months, you will be hung around here) 

                                              Report Abuse
          • Author by Szin (August 21, 2007 1:36 pm ET)
               

            Do you mean the 'American Intelligence' that the bottom 30% of bush supporters are using?

            Just wondering...

            Report Abuse
          • Author by tweakthetroll (August 21, 2007 1:57 pm ET)
               

            smitty....drink the kool-aid....its OK, believe me. This site has its share of aspiring comedians but most are harmless...when your in the business of parsing 1 day is all it takes unless you know what the definition of "is" is then it could be a little longer.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 3:32 pm ET)
                 

              Hey, its the troll himself, who never can add anything to the conversation! Are you going to ask me what I'm wearing today like you did last post?

              Yes, kooi aid means actually holding O'Reiley accountable for his own words. Imagine the nerve of us! 

              Report Abuse
          • Author by nomobush (August 21, 2007 2:01 pm ET)
               

            We care about our nation, and people like Bill O'Reilly getting away with saying such nonsense without getting those things pointed out has hurt our nation.

            Why are you so willing to allow liars to go unchallenged? Why do you think that people who don't tell the truth shouldn't have their deceptions pointed out? What Bill O'Reilly does is not innocuous.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tweakthetroll (August 21, 2007 2:26 pm ET)
                 

              Right back at ya their slick......Keith Olbermann should face such scrutiny here.......come on MMFA....step up.....give it a shot.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 3:04 pm ET)
                 

              What lie did he tell us in this clip?  Don't feed me a bunch of fluff.  Tell me the lie he fed us. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by nomobush (August 21, 2007 3:23 pm ET)
                   

                That he was going to call them to account in two months.

                Just like he was never going to trust the Bush admin if they found no WMD's.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 3:31 pm ET)
                     

                  So, you're telling me that, because he made a passing comment on his radio show, that according to you and everyone on MMFA doesn't mean a thing, he is going to be held to everything he says?  Was he elected into a position of power where we are holding him accountable to this?  And because he is 1 day after the 2 month deadline, you're going to hang him on a timeline that I'm not so sure he meant to be as specific as the 61 days you want to hold him to.  Did you notice that after he said 2 months, he mentioned September and October....referring to Congress' timeline of Gen. Patraeus report?  If you count 2 months from June, you notice it is August, not September or October.  So could he have actually been speaking in generalities here?  Yet many of you aren't smart enough to comprehend that someone, who is opinionated, may speak in uncertain terms and not everything he says is to be taken literally? 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 3:38 pm ET)
                       

                    Keep spinning, Smitty.

                    A passing comment? Two months really means 3 or 4? But I guess in the right wingnut world, that is the way math works. And accountability. O'Reilley says he will never trust the administration again, but doesn't follow up on his words. In other words, he doesn't really mean what he says. Imagine! 

                    But of course, we're the ones who lack in intelligence, not the person who feeds us a fastball which we run with. Not that person who mixed 3 metaphors in one sentence. Not the guy who thinks he can throw out insults instead of reason.  

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:01 pm ET)
                         

                      Plainly, your reasoning sucks.  He made a statement wanting the Iraqi people to step up to the plate and defend their country and make more of an effort to secure their own country.  He says this because he knows that in September, the US will rethink their strategy to determine whether it's working or not.  If the Iraqi people and government didn't show signs of sustaining themselves and making more of an effort, then it was his opinion, and that of many others, that we were going to pull out because our presence there was no longer needed/wanted.  Was it really a 2 month deadline he was giving, and does he really have the power to give 2 month deadlines?  You're giving BO more power by even bringing this issue up. 

                      I ask you again, what did BO say he was going to do after the 2 months?  What did he promise that we're going to hold him accountable to?  Don't attack me PunyManParts.  Debate the issue at hand here.  What power does he have and who gave it to him to make such deadlines?  Or is it actually possible that he is only a talk show and radio show host who has opinions? 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:15 pm ET)
                           

                        No, plainly your reasoning sucks. He said two months. You would like to re-write what Bill O said to make it sound more reasonable.

                        Sorry, but this isn't *1984* (the novel).

                        And I find it humorous that you accuse me of having poor reasoning powers, and then claim that Bill O didn't give a deadline because he doesn't have the power to do so. Really, that's what you wrote, despite Bill O giving a deadline. How am I supposed to debate such nonsense.

                        Sorry, but I'm not going to debate a non point. Either Bill O said this, or he did not.  

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:27 pm ET)
                             

                          So are you validating this "deadline."  Is it even an actual "deadline" set forth by Bill O?  Or was he referring to the September time table at which we are going to reevaluate our efforts in Iraq?  When did Bill O begin to set deadlines for US military forces, and when did he begin setting "deadlines" for the Iraqi government?  Because if his "deadlines" are of substance, then I will start paying attention and also holding him accountable.  But as long as the man is referring to time tables not set in stone by himself, I will consider most of what he says opinion.  You are an amusing fellow PunyManParts.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by funnymanpants (August 21, 2007 4:30 pm ET)
                               

                            Sorry, but I am not fooled.

                            Bill O said that in two months time. That means something to the rest of us who aren't right wing cry babies.

                            Two months is up, and Bill O is silent.

                            He is wrong.  

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 21, 2007 4:33 pm ET)
                                 

                              Do you really think BO has the power to tell the US gov't when to pull out?  You really are a foolish man.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by nomobush (August 23, 2007 1:48 pm ET)
                                   

                                He was not talking for the US government, thank GOD!

                                He was talking for himself. He said that they had two months. He was the one giving them two months.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 23, 2007 2:38 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Again, you are foolish to think that Iraq is quivvering because BO said they have "2 months".  Do you really think they are listening to BO's radio broadcast? 

                                  Report Abuse
                            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 10:04 am ET)
                                 

                              And I'll ask again, now that the "2 months are up", what did BO vow to do? 

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by nomobush (August 23, 2007 1:49 pm ET)
                                   

                                He gave a deadline. He did nothing when the deadline was up. That's the issue, not your dishonest framing of the issue.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 23, 2007 2:36 pm ET)
                                     

                                  Was this even BO's "deadline", or his reference to our September reevalution in which we would reconsider our efforts there?  Again, BO didn't say he would do anything.  He is summarizing what the U.S. will do come September/October.  Good gosh, why can't you see this. 

                                  Report Abuse
                    • Author by AussieBob (August 22, 2007 7:02 am ET)
                         

                      2 + 2 = 5

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by MoonbatYouBet (August 21, 2007 4:54 pm ET)
                       

                    Bill does this kind of thing all the time.  He is always setting some sort of demand or timeline and making vaguely threatening statements that there will be "consequences" for failure to meet it.

                    Sure, we all know that Bill doesn't have any power to enforce the commands he broadcasts and, unless he is really as delusional as some critics make him out to be, Bill is aware of that too.  And yet he still puts out his own "fatwas" to his listeners all the time so that they can see that he is "looking out for them."

                    It's a hilarious and yet sad metaphor for the impotency that his core audience of true believers must feel as everything they thought was right is proven wrong by reality.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by AussieBob (August 22, 2007 7:19 am ET)
                         

                      Does this remind anyone else of a certain pertinent vaguely worded UN resolution?

                      Report Abuse
          • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 4:52 pm ET)
               

            Surely you will trust in Americans' intelligence to decipher what is truth and what is the crap BO is trying to shove down your throats, right?

            It's been demonstrated that the least well informed of our populace are those that say they keep abreast of current events by watching Fox News.  Given that, No, we can't trust in American's intelligence to decipher the truth if they're watching O'Reilly.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 9:34 am ET)
                 

              You know what, and every person who doesn't like what Keith O says will say the same thing, and that because you get your news from him and the mainstream media, you are being led astray and can't decipher what truth is.  So, I would hope that you can see past both left and right, or Dem and Rep, or blue and red, and find a person giving an opinion, statement, or something else of value and use your brain to determine, without prejudice, whether that person if offering a good word or suggestion and agree, or respectfully disagree.  But for some reason when someone is labeled Right or Rep, you bash them immediately, without taking a moment to actually think about what that person said.  I know it may be difficult for you to think, but I don't agree with everything a conservative says.  I fully disagree with some of their views actually.  Because I find if incredibly irresponsible to agree blindly with anyone simply because an (R) is positioned behind their name.  That's foolish. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by nomobush (August 23, 2007 9:06 am ET)
                   

                What's apparent is that because you like being led by your nose, you accuse us of behaving in the same way.

                We don't.

                FoxNews viewers are the least well-informed Americans of anyone who tries to get at least some of their news from the television. OReilly's viewers are misinformed because he doesn't always give them the truth, he rarely gives them the whole truth, and he doesn't give factual corrections when he is wrong. MMfA documents this time after time. There is no one on the left who is similarly monitored and corrected based upon facts who fails to uphold the truth in an analogous way.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by smittymatt16 (August 23, 2007 9:46 am ET)
                     

                  "What's apparent is that because you like being led by your nose, you accuse us of behaving in the same way."

                  I'm accusing MMFA of putting this topic up here for no reason.  And you nit pickers sit and wait for the clock to run out on "deadlines" that weren't even deadlines to begin with.  This topic is ridiculous, and pointing that out is my objective. 

                  "We don't."

                  Simply put, you do.

                  "FoxNews viewers are the least well-informed Americans of anyone who tries to get at least some of their news from the television."

                  This is your opinion, so you can think that if you want, but this holds no water. You can have your opinions, but apparently you don't want me to hold any.   

                   "OReilly's viewers are misinformed because he doesn't always give them the truth, he rarely gives them the whole truth, and he doesn't give factual corrections when he is wrong. MMfA documents this time after time."

                  Much of what MMFA "documents" (what a joke) is based on their bais.  They don't like the way BO delivered a message, or they don't like what he said, so they will find "factual" reasons why his statement was false.  It's getting ridiculous how obsessed MMFA is with BO, and anyone who even mentions anything about agreeing with conservative views. 

                  "There is no one on the left who is similarly monitored and corrected based upon facts who fails to uphold the truth in an analogous way."

                  That's because no one really wants to take the time to do what MMFA does because many see what MMFA does as petty and childish.  Tattling on people and lying when the don't like what someone said.  It's just getting ridiculous.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by nomobush (August 23, 2007 2:01 pm ET)
                       

                    "What's apparent is that because you like being led by your nose, you accuse us of behaving in the same way."

                    I'm accusing MMFA of putting this topic up here for no reason.  And you nit pickers sit and wait for the clock to run out on "deadlines" that weren't even deadlines to begin with.  This topic is ridiculous, and pointing that out is my objective. 

                    No, what you're doing is exactly what I said you were doing. Here are a couple of examples of that from the post you made that I was replying to. "every person who doesn't like what Keith O says will say the same thing" "you are being led astray and can't decipher what truth is" "I find if incredibly irresponsible to agree blindly with anyone simply because" and finally "you bash them immediately, without taking a moment to actually think about what that person said." What I said had nothing whatsoever to do with what you just dishonestly tried to frame it as.

                    "We don't."

                    Simply put, you do.

                    Simply put, we don't. Just because you would and you do doesn't mean that everyone does.

                    "FoxNews viewers are the least well-informed Americans of anyone who tries to get at least some of their news from the television."

                    This is your opinion, so you can think that if you want, but this holds no water. You can have your opinions, but apparently you don't want me to hold any. 

                    No, that's not my opinion. That's been documented by several surveys in the past few years. It's a fact, not an opinion. Just goes to show us that you are similarly ill-informed, if you don't know that widely-known fact!

                     "OReilly's viewers are misinformed because he doesn't always give them the truth, he rarely gives them the whole truth, and he doesn't give factual corrections when he is wrong. MMfA documents this time after time."

                    Much of what MMFA "documents" (what a joke) is based on their bais.  They don't like the way BO delivered a message, or they don't like what he said, so they will find "factual" reasons why his statement was false.  It's getting ridiculous how obsessed MMFA is with BO, and anyone who even mentions anything about agreeing with conservative views. 

                    O'Reilly has conservative views, so it's not surprising that those agreeing with him would have conservative views too! MMfA does a bang-up job of documenting stuff, and they talk about facts, not their liberal bias, nor the conservative bias of the people they cover. It's too bad that the facts demolish your argument.

                    "There is no one on the left who is similarly monitored and corrected based upon facts who fails to uphold the truth in an analogous way."

                    That's because no one really wants to take the time to do what MMFA does because many see what MMFA does as petty and childish.  Tattling on people and lying when the don't like what someone said.  It's just getting ridiculous.

                    Of course. Why didn't I see that for myself? It's because no one has taken the time to debunk the liberals. If only they'd take the time to do it, it'd be easy as pie! If only your insults (these smears of MMfA are true insults, and you might learn something if you understood what a true insult is) about MMfA were true, you might have a point. What you did was throw mud, and hope some might stick. It didn't.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by smittymatt16 (August 23, 2007 2:42 pm ET)
                         

                      You are truly amusing, and there's no sense in talking to you.  You are so bias, it's almost unbelievable. 

                      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (August 21, 2007 11:08 am ET)
         

      On the flipside, does anyone here doubt that, if his deadline had been met, he'd be crowing that they had responded to pressure from "The Factor" ? You know he would.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by TheBlur2002 (August 21, 2007 1:09 pm ET)
         

      Maybe he should boycott Iraq...

      Hey Bill-O, if we boycott Iraq, do we have to start calling that tasty dish, "Freedom Falafel?"

      Report Abuse
      • Author by AussieBob (August 22, 2007 7:22 am ET)
           

        I'm still waiting on "Freedom Poodles"...that and "Freedom Polynesia". Boy is MY atlas out of date...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (August 21, 2007 4:08 pm ET)
         

      On his radio show on June 20, Bill O'Reilly asserted, "I'm gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They've got two more months. And if they don't step up and help more than they're helping" on oil legislation and security, "in two months, it's over. Come September and October, we're pulling back, and that's the truth."

      Bill O'Reilly wouldn't recognize the truth if he took a shower with it and washed it with a falafel....

      :-)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (August 21, 2007 4:56 pm ET)
           

        I'll bet the Iraqi government is shaking in their boots because tonite, on National TV, Bill-O is announcing that we are pulling out in September or October. Hooray, the war is over. Not be military means, not by negotiations, it has ended because the BILL-O has spoken. Now, if he can put a deadline on the War on Christmas, I will feel better.

        P.S. Bill is full of something, I think the S-word is too kind. But admittedly, he is making a fortune and his O fans are still buying his PREMIUM web crap....Congrats Bill, I am jealous.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 5:03 pm ET)
           

        Please, you made me paint the picture in my brain.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by daganium4595 (August 21, 2007 5:02 pm ET)
         

      You must understand:

       Since the wicked Media Matters is reporting something BillO said, then it's meaningless because we all know Media Matters is a "far left hate site."

       The fact BillO said he would be done with Iraq by now is beside the point.

       The point is "far left hate sites" will report BillO said it, thereby revealing to the world how hateful far left hate sites can be.

       So (in BillO's mind at least) the issue is not that BillO is going to be shown for the hypocrite he is, the point is amoral hate sites like MM has the audacity to remind eveybody BillO said something that makes BillO appear foolish.

       And making BillO appear foolish by posting verbatim what BillO once said is far more the egregious than BillO having said it in the 1st place.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bittermarv (August 21, 2007 5:05 pm ET)
           

        we all know Media Matters is a "far left hate site."

        Dude, they're just like the KKK! 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by johnrtorres638 (August 21, 2007 5:29 pm ET)
         

      MMFA made another bad call on this topic.   First, I'm no fan of blowhard BO. 

      However, BO's comments were not about his position.  His comments were more along the lines of analysis - he was basically stating that if things did not change by September/October the political climate would be so bad that we would have to quit Iraq.

      In other words, this is not BO's desire - he was merely trying to describe the reality of the situation.

      Again, I'm no fan of BO - but maybe instead to trying to attack BO, people on the left should occasionally try to be fair to BO.

       

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (August 21, 2007 6:09 pm ET)
           

        You guys just love to spin your rightwing bloviators out of ANY accountability. This wasnt his first deadline. IF it was just analysis then why wouldnt he NOW analyze what the consequences might be of them MISSING his latest deadline,  why didnt he do that the last couple of times he put out such deadlines? Why is he still trusting the Bush administration when he said if we didnt find WMDs there he would never trust them again? Because its all about the propganda and he couldnt care less about truth or reality. Only about what story is most serviceable to carry rightwing water.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by johnrtorres638 (August 21, 2007 6:41 pm ET)
             

          Look - forget BO - He's a blowhard. 

          Many conservatives have argued that because of the unpopularity of the war in Iraq that we would have to begin to bring the troops home within a few months.

          Please don't mix up a prediction with a person's wish  or desire for something to happen.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nomobush (August 21, 2007 7:26 pm ET)
               

            No, we're not going to forget O'Reilly.

            Ignoring idiots like O'Reilly and the idiotic, deceptive and disingenuous arguments that they made has done America no good.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (August 21, 2007 9:43 pm ET)
               

            Many conservatives want the war to end. Check, irrelevant to my point. Something about the diffrerence between a desire and a prediction, O...K... irrelevant to my point. O'falafel keeps making these predictions then convieniently forgetting them once they pass away into the fairy dust from whence they came and continues unrelentingly to carry water for the war. So O'Reilly is a blowhard, check and that WAS my point so what is your problem with my answer then?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by AussieBob (August 22, 2007 7:32 am ET)
               

            I don't WANT to forget O'Reilly, he's just too entertaining for me to ignore him. Blowhard, yes, but he's blowing me laughing gas all the way.

             

            Truth be told the main reason I joined MMFA (being an Aussie and all) was because he charges a subscription to join his own forums and I live below the poverty line, meaning I don't have the spare funds to enjoy his unique brand of wisdom from it's source. That and the occasional Coulter cameo.

            In a way, BillO himself drove me to MMFA (thanks again MMFA for letting me enjoy my shameful little pleasure).

            Report Abuse
      • Author by smittymatt16 (August 22, 2007 9:20 am ET)
           

        Thank you for showing some intelligence in this forum.  You're the only other one.  I don't see what fallacy he "predicted" here.  And is it now true that if the situation in Iraq is not better come September/October, we will in fact begin to pull out?  I don't see why everyone is so upset about his comments on trying to, as you put, explain the reality of the situation. 

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Bill O'Reilly
    oreilly@foxnews.com
  • The Radio Factor
    Westwood One
    Bart Tessler
    Sr. VP, Network News / Talk Programming
    202.457.7998