O'Reilly: "I respect dissent on the Iraq war"
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer who asked him to "stop labeling those who criticize our continued stay in Iraq as anti-American" by asserting: "I respect dissent on the Iraq war." After Fox News anchor Laurie Dhue stated that "[w]e welcome dissent in this country," O'Reilly replied, "We do. And on this program." In fact, O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked both the members of the anti-war movement and the media for their coverage of the war, asserting that they are "declar[ing] defeat" and "rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq."
On the September 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, responding to a viewer who asked him to "stop labeling those who criticize our continued stay in Iraq as anti-American," host Bill O'Reilly asserted: "Well, this is a total propaganda thing. I don't -- I've said, what, 3,000 times that I respect dissent on the Iraq war." O'Reilly continued: "I have criticized the Iraq war. All right? It's only when you cross a line and you are a provocative presence, saying, 'The U.S. military is immoral, they're killers,' this, that, and the other thing, you make stupid propaganda movies, that's when I come down." O'Reilly added: "This guy knows that. That's from far-left Loonville." After Fox News anchor Laurie Dhue, whom O'Reilly referred to as "your new ombuds-gal," stated that "[w]e welcome dissent in this country," O'Reilly responded, "We do. And on this program." In fact, contrary to his assertion that he "respects dissent on the Iraq war," O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked both the members of the anti-war movement and the media for their coverage of the war, asserting that they are "declar[ing] defeat" and "rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq."
O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked "far left" critics of the Iraq war, referring to them as "kooks" and claiming they "are actually hoping for defeat":
- On the September 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked: "Do you really think for a moment that any improvement in Iraq would be acknowledged by the far left, which believes the war on terror is largely America's fault? Those people will declare defeat no matter what happens. MoveOn and the others are actually hoping for defeat."
- On the September 10 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly asserted: "I know that MoveOn is rooting against us." He continued: "The leftists are rooting against their own country, because they're using this not only as a war but as a much bigger issue, that if they can pin this on the Bush administration and Republicans, they can damage the party so severely that the left can move in and then build the country up in their vision, which is a frightening vision."
- On the August 8 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that "the cut-and-run club, led by [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] and Congressman John Murtha [D-PA] continues to pound the drum of defeat in Iraq." He later said that PBS journalist Bill Moyers "symbolizes those Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq based upon a hatred of all things Bush." He continued: "But most Americans salute and admire our military people for making such a great sacrifice, for trying to bring freedom to a people who have been brutalized for decades. How on earth could you root against that?"
- During a discussion with former CIA director George Tenet about his book At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA (HarperCollins, April 2007) on the May 2 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that at the beginning of the war in Iraq, "everybody in the country [was] behind it, except the kooks." However, 23 senators and 133 members of the House of Representatives -- including a majority of House Democrats -- voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. Additionally, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of California on September 23, 2002 -- six months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- former Vice President Al Gore denounced President Bush's Iraq policy, saying, "I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."
O'Reilly has also criticized the media for their coverage of the war, asserting that they are "declar[ing] defeat" and "rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq":
- 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," O'Reilly attacked the Times on the July 9 edition of The O'Reilly Factor for "declar[ing] defeat in Iraq yesterday on its editorial page." O'Reilly later asserted: "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."
- During the "Talking Points Memo" segment on the June 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly responded to a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism that found Fox News spent less time covering the Iraq war than CNN and MSNBC in the first three months of 2007. O'Reilly asserted: "In my opinion, CNN and especially MSNBC delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded." O'Reilly also stated that he "can't speak for Fox News" but that his program does not "highlight every terrorist attack because we learn nothing from that. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. I mean, come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything other than 'War is hell'? No, it does not." Additionally, O'Reilly asserted that "CNN and MSNBC put [coverage of the Iraq war] on because they want to give the impression that the war is a loser and Bush is an idiot," adding: "Now, that may be true. The war is a loser, and Bush may be an idiot. OK, I'm not -- that's for you to decide. But that's why they're doing it."
- On the November 28, 2006, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly criticized NBC News' decision to refer to the conflict in Iraq as a "civil war," and asserted that "the American media is not helping anyone by oversimplifying the situation and rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq."
From the September 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: "Back of the Book" segment tonight, "The Dhue Point." Fox News anchor Laurie Dhue is your new ombuds-gal. That is, if you have a complaint, question, or comment about The Factor, she is on your side. And you can reach Laurie at DhuePoint@FoxNews.com. So here she is.
[...]
DHUE: OK, next, changing gears to start talking about Iraq. OK, here we go.
"Please, Bill, stop labeling those who criticize our continued stay in Iraq as anti-American. Your argument that it demoralizes the troops is silly. How do you disagree with a policy and support the troops?"
O'REILLY: Well, this is a total propaganda thing. I don't -- I've said, what, 3,000 times that I respect dissent on the Iraq war.
DHUE: Yeah.
O'REILLY: I have criticized the Iraq war. All right? It's only when you cross a line and you are a provocative presence, saying, "The U.S. military is immoral, they're killers," this, that, and the other thing, you make stupid propaganda movies, that's when I come down. This guy knows that. That's from far-left Loonville.
DHUE: Yeah, I mean, if you're criticizing the government, it does not make you anti-American --
O'REILLY: No. I mean, dissent is great.
DHUE: -- just in general. We do not live in communist China. We welcome dissent in this country.
O'REILLY: We do. And on this program. What else?
DHUE: And I do think that you -- they're not mutually exclusive. You can disagree with the government's policy and support our troops. And I think our troops know that we support them. We're behind them 100 percent.
O'REILLY: Do you want to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner"?
DHUE (singing): Oh, say can you --
O'REILLY: There you go. What else do you got?
DHUE: You asked.
O'REILLY: Come on, quick.
From the September 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Tony Snow in a moment.
But first, using Iraq as a political tool, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." With almost 200,000 American military people in combat zones right now, it is wrong, wrong for politicians to use war as a vote-getter. That is opposing or supporting the war in raq because you think it'll get you votes. That is immoral and cowardly.
But that's what's happening in Washington. On the Democratic side, you have politicians condemning General Petraeus even before he said a word. On the Republican side, you have politicians saying the Iraqi government is doing OK. Blah, blah, blah.
Both of those positions are harming the country. Because Iraq has become the central issue in the upcoming presidential election, the American people and the military are being manipulated by callous, dishonest politicians seeking power. It is almost impossible for the folks to get the truth about Iraq or the war on terror in general. Because there is so much misinformation and propaganda being spit out there by the media and Internet partisans.
Do you really think for a moment that any improvement in Iraq would be acknowledged by the far left, which believes the war on terror is largely America's fault? Those people will declare defeat no matter what happens. MoveOn and the others are actually hoping for defeat.
On the other side, we have Americans who simply will not admit the Iraqi government couldn't care less about democracy. For most of them, it's about power and revenge.
Sadly, our brave men and women in the theater are protecting a crew that embraces corruption and murder with a vengeance. However, the USA right now is really fighting for itself and Iraq. And that is the key issue here.
Cutting and running will lead to another terrorist sanctuary dominated by the most dangerous country in the entire world -- Iran. The far left doesn't even think Iran's dangerous. And some on the right are in denial as well. I believe my interview with Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX] on Monday demonstrated that. And we have a link to the interview on BillOreilly.com if you want to see it.
Finally, Iraq is the most important issue in America today by far. And you deserve the truth about it, not dishonesty to further political agendas. Americans are dying over there. And in 14 months, a new commander in chief will be elected. It is vital we all pay attention and call out the people who are trying to deceive us wherever they may be. And that's the "Memo."
From the September 10 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Well, you know, look, I'm sympathetic. I just want the best for America. I know that MoveOn is rooting against us. The leftists are rooting against their own country, because they're using this not only as a war but as a much bigger issue, that if they can pin this on the Bush administration and Republicans, they can damage the party so severely that the left can move in and then build the country up in their vision, which is a frightening vision.
From the August 8 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. Iraq impeachment and the media, that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."
Even though the cut-and-run club, led by Barack Obama and Congressman John Murtha continues to pound the drum of defeat in Iraq, things may be improving in that god-awful place. According to analysis by the Associated Press, the surge is working. Writer Robert Burns says, quote: "In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists, and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year. It is a phase with fresh promise," unquote.
Now, the article goes on to say that despite the improvement, the Iraqi government's still a disaster. It would be awful hard for those who have declared Iraq as a "no-win zone" to acknowledge any improvement whatsoever. Does anyone really think these intense hate-Bush newspaper and TV commentators would be glad to see the tide turn in Iraq?
Take for example Bill Moyers of PBS, a relentless anti-war guy and Bush-basher. Moyers recently ran a program about impeaching the president after which PBS ombudsman Michael Getler said, quote, "There was almost a complete absence of balance [in the presentation]," unquote.
O'REILLY: Surprised? We're not. We called Mr. Moyers for comment, but he declined. So his pal, Factor producer Jesse Watters, paid him another visit.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, the reason we're bothering Moyers is that he symbolizes those Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq based upon a hatred of all things Bush. As mentioned, this situation is clouded by the failure of the Iraqi government. Those people are now on vacation, while there is no vacation for the brave American and British military people fighting for Iraqi freedom. That is unsettling, no question.
But most Americans salute and admire our military people for making such a great sacrifice, for trying to bring freedom to a people who have been brutalized for decades. How on earth could you root against that? And that's the "Memo."
I think Bill's version of the "dissent" he respects is dissent on tactical/strategy matters, vs. whether we should be there or not. I know what he means, but I think he's giving himself a bit too much credit by speaking in such general terms as his comment about "respecting" dissent.
I'm not quite sure of that. I would consider a partial withdrawal or a full withdrawal a part of "strategy", but Bill dismisses it as "cut-n-run". I don't think that is respectful or tolerant either.
And those assassions on the left.................................
So now it is wrong for O'Reilly to say correct things like he respects dissent on the Iraq war? is there not bigger fish to fry than OReilly?
So basically you are saying you don't see the blatant hypocracy here? Do you really think he's not gonna turn around tomorrow and condemn anyone who dissents as traitors again?
Saying you do don't something while having a long, documented legacy of actually doing it is otherwise known as dishonesty.
NO what I am saying is basically OReilly can not say anything without being attacked. I am sure tonight Olbermann will name him Worst Person in the World for this.
If by "anything" you mean lying, misleading, exploiting, exaggerating, smearing, turning isolated incidents into national epidemics, and just generally being a grouchy, delusional bag of wind, then yeah, you're right, he can't.
"Olbermann"
Aren't there bigger fish for you to fry than Olbermann?
At first I didn't understand why anyone would post what you did in your first comment.
So now it is wrong for O'Reilly to say correct things like he respects dissent on the Iraq war? is there not bigger fish to fry than OReilly?
Then you made your second comment, and it seems clear that the first was only the lead-in to this comment where you brought up Keith Olberman.
Has Media Matters not covered Keith enough for you recently? Are you going through withdrawl? Because otherwise there was no reason in the world to bring him up. If Media Matters covers it when Keith highlights the lunacy of O'Reilly, then it would be fine to mention Keith, but he has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
O'Reilly was not mentioned unfairly. He was not correct. He said he respects dissent, and he does not. This was a perfect example of why Media Matters is here.
Apparently your comment is a perfect example of why you're here. Your avocation is slamming Keith Olberman.
Maybe now OReilly does respect dissent?
Here's the quote from O'Reilly. Did you even read the comments and the quotes that MMFA posted above?
"I've said, what, 3,000 times that I respect dissent on the Iraq war."
He's not saying that he is now beginning to respect dissent. He says that he respects dissent, and he says he's said that 3,000 times.
So why are you suggesting that because he's now willing to respect dissent it's okay, when the facts are that he currently doesn't respect dissent, has failed to respect dissent in the past, but he has continually claimed that he does?
The issue here is his hypocrisy. He says one thing but does another. Even if he began, today, to fully respect dissent, it would not diminish the point made here by MMFA one iota. MMFA was talking about his behavior and his comments from the moment he made this most recent comment backwards. They were right.
You need to get a new schtick. Some people might think you're a fool. When you type crap like you did, you remove all doubt.
"Maybe now OReilly does respect dissent?"That's fine with me if he does. But first he should apologize to all those people he denigrated on a daily basis for the last five years. That would include all the people whose mikes he cut-off, Cindy Sheehan, and anyone who was called "pin-head" or "looney-left". If he had done these things, then he wouldn't look like such a phony hypocrite.
You mean maybe he had an epiphany and it somehow magically happened that in the last ten minutes he gained a newfound respect for American values? I guess thats POSSIBLE. If so he really ought to explain why he gets it NOW and didnt get it THEN so we dont get narrative whiplash
sueeld the troll
Anyone who holds themselves up as some type of moral superior and frequently attacks the morality and character of others is fair game, especially if they were caught red handed sexually harassing a young female who worked for him. Seems to me you should never challenge anyones character once yours has been shown to be severly lacking.
Okay Sue, enough! He is an influential commentator and the marquis brand for a partisan media outlet. His ilk is why this site exist. So we'll confront, reveal and skewer this bufoon everytime he DESERVES it. Accept that or, if offended, find more fertile soil to sow your seeds of plausible deniabilty
"is there not bigger fish to fry than OReilly?"
Poor, poor, picked-upon Bill. All he's doing is lying, and what right-winger doesn't do that?
Well, theres - uh, no, not him. I meant - oops, not him either. How about - oh, I forgot, he's out...
C'mon Snoop, be fair you forgot about...oh wait, not him but there is at least...oh no not her either uhhhhh
And you forgot the classic, for a given deffinition of lying.
his ratings are heading down
"And it is our duty as loyal Americans to shut up once the fighting begins, unless—unless facts prove the operation wrong, as was the case in Vietnam."
—Bill-O, Feb. 27, 2003
Wow, I'd never seen that quote before.
When O'Reilly said he would have an ombudsman now, someone who was supposed to fairly examine his commentary, I knew that it would be a sham. I was right.
Man, I'm so tired of the attempts of the far right lunatic fringe to try to conflate disagreeing with the politics of George W. Bush and not wanting to defeat terrorists.
As we should all be. This is just one example of how the Republicans have become so adept at framing the debate. By equating criticism of George Bush with "not supporting the troops" or "being soft on terrorism", they keep Democrats perpetually on the defensive, and inocculate Bush politically. It's all about power and politics...it has NOTHING to do with patriotism or fighting terrorism.
Billdo:"Well, this is a total propaganda thing. I don't -- I've said, what, 3,000 times that I respect dissent on the Iraq war."
To be fair, he introduced this comment with a disclaimer.
True, but a large part of why the Dems behave this way is because the MSM refuses to investigate the claims that Bush's policies "have made us safer," and then compound that error by serving as an echo chamber for the right's talking points.
That, and the Dems cowardice in not trying to counter this claptrap.
Makes me think they -- at least the strategic leadership of the party -- really agree with Bush but merely differ to a small degree.
What people here don't seem to understand is that, for a right-winger like O'Really, and apparently for commenters like Sueeld, there is no direct connection between what they say at one minute and what they do at another.
The fact that Bildo says he does something that we should all applaud -- respecting dissent -- should be enough to garner him respect. Never mind that he doesn't ACTUALLY respect dissent; at least he knows that he SHOULD and therefore claims that he does.
We should give him mad props for that. Right, Sueeld?
No, but maybe he has had a change of heart, if this is the way he feels now he should be applauded. How many people here hate this man and would love to see him gone?
How about we criticise him now for lying and then back you up when he actually says anything that confirms your opinion?
He didn't say anything about a "change of heart". He didn't acknowledge not respecting dissent in the past.
He once again said something about himself that is completely divorced from his previous public behavior. Given his record of saying things that are, shall we say, at odds with the truth, I choose not to believe that he's "turned over a new leaf", thanks.
I like to give people the chances , I think we all have something good in us.
"I like to give people the chances. I think we all have something good in us."
I'm going to file this noble, generous sentiment away. I'm sure Sueeld has, like O'Really, turned over a new leaf and will no longer be criticizing progerssive figures but instead looking for the good in them.
Kudos for you, Sueeld!
Funny, I am a progressive. I did not realize if you take a stand on an issue that goes against the grain you are automatically labeled a right winger .
Thanks for completely missing the point. I don't know whether that was willful or not, but since I too look for the good in all people, I will assume it was unintentional.
After all, you're a progressive too, right?
Correct my friend, you are forgiven by me.
Anybody who thinks Sue/El d is really a progressive, raise your hands.
Anyone who thinks you are a moron raise your hand?
Sueeld, shame on you and those "hateful" words you used.
What can I say, I take after OReilly.
Yes Sueld and O'Reilly are both progressives now. Moron? Moi? He he. So pithy. I am so offended :-0)
No I think OReilly is far from a progressive, silly you. I was talking about OReillys hate speech and my hate speech toward you. So Silly lad.
Juliajayne, I think Sueeld need her medicine. ;-)
No sue, it's clear you ARE O'Reilly
No worry Pearlene. I think Sueld is just a bit touchy because she's been caught lying. I think she is more the Freeper variety. She will deny of course.
Where exactly was the lie I told?
Oh you have GOT to be kidding. The key to successful insults Sue is some slight measure of credibility. Julia is no more a moron that George W Gump is a saint. An obviously very bright woman even those who completely disagree cant take THAT attack seriously. IF you are going for the insult put some thought, insight and originality into it.
I dont think Sue is really a rightwinger. I think she mostly annoys us by trying to get us to uphold HER standards and accept HER idea of what the right tactics are for the left.
Well, with friends like her, who needs enemies or Right Wingers. ;-)
I raised both hands Julia!
Sueeld
I am not a fan or OReilly, I think the man lies but I also agree to try and see the best in people. I am not sure that is the issue here though. You have broken cardinal rule number one on this site. You must never support OReilly, or you will be attacked. You also discussed Olbermann, some on here will attack you for that also. When will you learn to conform
J
Thanks, I forgot that rule.
So now it is wrong for O'Reilly to say correct things like he respects dissent on the Iraq war? is there not bigger fish to fry than OReilly? Sueeld
LOL, thanks for the laugh
NO what I am saying is basically OReilly can not say anything without being attacked. I am sure tonight Olbermann will name him Worst Person in the World for this. Sueeld
Your fixation with Keith is too funny. You would find and topic on the Easter Bunny and find a way to blame Keith LOL
You have broken cardinal rule number one on this site. You must never support OReilly, or you will be attacked. You also discussed Olbermann, some on here will attack you for that also. When will you learn to conform J Lyons
You Sueeld are welcome to support Bill anytime your happy little heart desires. We are welcome to tell you how wrong we feel you are for supporting Bill any time our happy hearts desires. For some reason both J Lyons and Sueeld think this forum is designed to have only agreeing opinions. For some reason when other tell you they don’t agree with your opinion you take it personally. This is not CAMP! ADULTS can have discussions with different opinions.
As far as the Keith fixation… I'll give you a line from an old song “It’s your thang, do what you wanna do”. LOL it’s just too funny.
For some reason both J Lyons and Sueeld think this forum is designed to have only agreeing opinions.
I do? Can you point where I ever said that? I am anxious to read it.
You have broken cardinal rule number one on this site. You must never support OReilly, or you will be attacked. You also discussed Olbermann, some on here will attack you for that also. When will you learn to conform
Yes? Where did I say we should not have opposing opinions?
I guess you didnt say we SHOULDNT you just SNIVELLED that we did
I did? Please point out where I did? I am not sure why the attempt to put words in my mouth.
You have broken cardinal rule number one on this site. You must never support OReilly, or you will be attacked. You also discussed Olbermann, some on here will attack you for that also. When will you learn to conform J Lyons
That was easy.
No, I never said we should not have different views, I welcome them. I was being sarcastic toward Sueeld. Why is everyone so touchy today?
You snivelled.
It's been put in front of you 3 times now.
Your continued denials of reality are evidence of your disconnect with reality, not ours.
Fight a war with someone who disagrees with you. If you do not know what sarcasm is then get a life.
So now that you have no recourse to confuse people, you try to put the blame for the 'misunderstanding' on me?
If you were being sarcastic, you could have/would have/should have said that in your very first response.
You didn't. If you were being sarcastic, you should have indicated that when you first said it. When Sue agreed with you, you should have said that she misinterpreted what you said as agreeing with her if in fact you weren't.
The flaw lies in your behaviors, not mine.
The flaw is in your behavior. Read my post and tell me where I ever defended or supported Bill O. As I said earlier attack people who are against you.
No, the flaw was, and remains, in your behavior.
The issue raised was your assertions about contrary opinions and their acceptance here, and not whether or not you supported O'Reilly.
If you were truly being sarcastic, when Sue responded, you would have pointed out her mistake in thinking you were being agreeable with her false impression, and you would have mentioned that long ago. You didn't, so you are not believeable. It's your behavior that caused the issues here.
Welcome back Ellie/Nothatgeorge/nomobush. Been a few weeks but I assumed you would come back.
You get scolded by a bunch of people and somehow I'm some banned poster returning to harass you?
You have less familiarity with reality than I imagined.
Wow it is you, Welcome back.
Sometimes you can't tell what Sarcasm's hidden agenda is. Many folks are not good at guessing what is really meant. Very often sarcasm is used in the following ways ...
Deadly - Savage - Painful - Biting - Taunting - mocking - etc. etc.
Hopefully in this situation it's intended to be in a good natured jest.
Wrong, JLyons. The "cardinal rule" that Sueeld broke in defense of O'Reilly is to misinterpret the MMFA report for one's own ends.
The defense of O'Reilly offered by Sueeld is that, even though he said he respects dissent "3000 times", perhaps he MEANT that he NOW respects dissent where he failed to in the past.
In fact, the actual story suggests not only that this interpretation is wrong, even fabricated out of flimsy cloth, but O"Reilly's own established patterns argue against this view as well. For instance, O"Reilly has made a habit out of saying he "doesn't do personal attacks" on his show, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
But go ahead, ignore all of the specific reasons stated for criticizing Sueld's position, and by all means, chalk it up to partisan lock-stepping. Because liberals do that so well.
You really take yourself too seriously and OReilly. Take a chill pill.
Thanks for the advice. You really are as generous as you say you are.
I know, I am only trying to help
Not very well you're not
sueeld and jlyons = trolls
get a new line mefirst.
you hate me pointing out the obvious, huh?
yeah whatever floats your boat.
Wrong, JLyons. The "cardinal rule" that Sueeld broke in defense of O'Reilly is to misinterpret the MMFA report for one's own ends.
So I am assuming you never understood sarcasm? I really could care less about O'Reilly or what Sueeld thinks of him, I just find it strange how so many people are fixated on OReilly and every little thing he says. The man lies, we all know it what else is there to say?
Fixated on every little thing? Are you STILL unclear about the objective of this site? Ok O'falafel lies, we are on the same page here. This site exposes those lies THAT is what they their mission statement IS, for you that is come kind of fixation? See to me that is, you know, DOING THEIR JOB.
This site exposes those lies THAT is what they their mission statement IS, for you that is come kind of fixation? See to me that is, you know, DOING THEIR JOB.
Exactly, that is the job of MMFA, what is your point?
You're kidding right?
Am I laughing? Where did I ever say MMFA should not expose this liar?
I just find it strange how so many people are fixated on OReilly and every little thing he says. The man lies, we all know it what else is there to say?
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Where did you say that MMFA shouldn't cover this? Well, that would be in this statement from you. What else is there to say? Exactly what MMFA says, that's "what else there is to say." MMFA covers his lies because that exposes him for the liar he is.
Exactly the man is a liar, what is your point? Are you trying to start a fight?
how many times now is it you've used that line "are you trying to start a fight"?
"I just find it strange how so many people are fixated on OReilly"
I can see where a right-wing O'Reilly apologist would find it annoying and inconvenient that so many people are fixated on media liars like O'Reilly. But "strange"?? That almost sounds disingenuous, and we know you're not the least bit disingenuous.
You understand sarcasm.
Exactly Dave. And we know you are always looking out for everyone.
We can all count on you to be vigilant over "strange" things.
I will I promise, more of his lies need to be exposed.
"I just find it strange how so many people are fixated on OReilly and every little thing he says."
Now that is funny. O'Reilly tells an obvious whopping lie, and we're all strangely obsessed with talking about him. He is, after all, the subject of the thread. Meanwhile, you're buddying up with Sue, who brings up Olbermann at every possible irrelevant opportunity.
Why don't you criticize her for being fixated?
You are of course 100% WRONG. The cardinal rule here is dont be ridiculous. Feel free to support even a malicious goon like O'Reilly but dont bend reality into some intellectual pretzel to do it. Even IF O'falafel had some kind of epiphany like Sue is saying this is STILL a legitimate piece as several posters have shown becaue he said he had claimed 3000 times he supports dissent when the record shows that is an OUTRIGHT LIE. You know the VERY THING this site was created to police. You guys little wounded martyr thing is actually pretty sad
So how many times do you hit yourself in the head with a brick before you say "Ow! That hurts!"?
No, but maybe he has had a change of heart, if this is the way he feels now he should be applauded. How many people here hate this man and would love to see him gone?
Again, did you read the comments and the quotes?
When the ombudsman confronted him with a question from a viewer, he said that he didn't need to have a change of heart. He said that he has said 3,000 times that he respects dissent.
When did you become a fortune teller, so that you can tell that O'Reilly is going to begin to actually respect dissent?
If he actually began to respect dissent, that'd be great. His lack of respect would not be highlighted here, because he would be respecting dissent.
My hard-assed dad used to tell me that he criticized bad behavior and didn't praise good behavior because good behavior is what I was supposed to do. He told me when I was doing something wrong so that I could make it right the next time.
It's not MMFA's job to tell O'Reilly when he does something right, and it's not their job to applaud him if he did become a respectful person.
I don't hate O'Reilly. I can't speak for anyone else, but this issue for me has never been hating anyone. MMFA points out his hypocrisy in that he says that he has long respected dissent but his actions speak louder than words, and his history, as documented by MMFA, shows us that he often does not respect dissent.
So, if you're psychic and you can tell that O'Reilly is ready to respect dissent, what are you doing wasting your time posting here instead of making money using that psychic ability?
No one's accusing you of hating anyone, Monkeyman -- except maybe Sueeld. And that's only because accusing someone of "hating" is easier than actually taking on their arguments.
See, if you "hate Bush or if you "hate" O'Really, then no one has to listen to you, because you're obviously deranged. See how that works?
I heard Limbaugh talk about Bush Derangement Syndrome the other day, and you're right, they do try to discount legitimate dissent and legitimate criticism by saying that the person making that criticism is solely motivated by their hatred of Bush rather than their legitimate criticism.
Why would anybody HATE O'reilly that didnt know him personally. He barely exists in my universe. He is this lying mouthpiece of a propagandist who I criticise regularly HERE.
Did hell freeze over and someone not tell me?
Oh wait that's right, Bill O' is just full of crap.
Yes, Billo is full of crap. Anyone thinking this blowhard has turned over a new leaf is beyond naive. Typically anyone who is sincere about these types of things would man up to the fact that he has not in the past been tolerant of dissent before making a statement of a change of heart. Billo is not capable of doing this and hasn't had any change of heart. He is a liar. You don't need to hate the dude to see that obvious fact.
I alway look for the sunny side of O'really! I like what he says sometimes but it always seems to turn out as just a facade.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope there's something good about the man.
OReilly says he donates his proceds from his stupid web site to charity, if he does that good for him. It however is no excuse for his lies. Its like Imus, thanks for doing nice things, that does not give you a free pass to lie and say hateful stuff.
Can someone point me to one of the other 2,999 times when he said that he respected dissent on the Iraq War? Please?
How do you do it Ted..er...BillO?
How does a guy your age travel from right-wing Loonville to left-wing Loonville in just a matter of seconds?
Your a better falafal than I am Ted...er...BillO.
O'Reilly: "I respect dissent on the Iraq war"
The same way he showed respect to that female producer of his by making lewd phone calls to her, including his wish to give her a shower with a "falafel"?????
:-)
OR the same way he spewed his hate at Jeremy Glick.
He does respect dissent on the Iraq war.
He feels the Iraq war is a superduper fun zone of democratastic happiness, which will end all poverty disease and solve the worldwide hunger problem.
However, he respects the totally crazy wackjob nutso extreme-left commie pinko bloggers who think the war is merely superfantastic amazingly awesome.
To quote Edward R. Murrow, a man that O'Reilly no doubt believes he is like,"If we confuse dissent with disloyalty — if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox — if we deny the essence of racial equality, then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the. . . confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought." –June, 1953.
Those words are as true today as they were 50 years ago. The O'Reillys, Limbaughs, Becks, and Coulters of the American media should learn to heed the words of Murrow, one of the last great American journalists rather than following the words of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels --"Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths".
I remember an O'Reilly Factor show in the run-up to the war around March of 2003 when Bill O'Reilly looked squarely into the camera and told his audience that there would be no more "antiwar loons" on his show. This was after he got his ass pasted by an antiwar guest a night or two night before. Does that really surprise anyone? This is allowing dissent?
Today, with the war being a utter failure, he constantly likes to remind his audience that he always qualified the success of the Iraq campaign on the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people, which is a total lie. Had he actually said those things back then in 2003 or early 2004, he would have long ago showed his lemming audience examples of this qualification, and also to placate his enormous ego about "how right he was once again". The man is a pathological liar who simply covers one lie with another.
exactly, remember it was no just Bill O in March of 03, the entire FAUX crowd and remember how MSNBC caved in and got rid of Phil Donahue who at the time was the only voice against the war.
Where’s the hypocrisy here? OR says he “welcomes dissent”. He is certainly critical of those who dissent with his view of the Iraq war but that’s not inconsistent with him welcoming them to dissent. I guess you’d say he’s welcoming them so he can lambast them:
He’s just using definition number 5. below from Webster to suit his opinion:
3.
to greet the arrival of (a person, guests, etc.) with pleasure or kindly courtesy.4.
to receive or accept with pleasure; regard as pleasant or good: to welcome a change.5.
to meet, accept, or receive (an action, challenge, person, etc.) in a specified, esp. unfriendly, manner: They welcomed him with hisses and catcalls.Now that is some brazen circular con logic. Twisted.
Now, Juliajayne, give OldMarine the GOP "special" rules handicap. He only had to replace the word "respect", with another word, "welcome", for which he could find one of the alternate definitions to fit his opinion.
In righty world, that's a victory. Everybody gets a trophy!
I think we should welcome him with hisses and catcalls. Ha.
Wow. That was so weak it is embarassing. You didnt really think that would fool anyone HERE do you? Stop insulting out intelligence. You are not at Freerepublicansewer anymore.