O'Reilly: "[B]ecause people of color are being slaughtered and harmed in Darfur, the left is on the bandwagon"
On the September 25 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing President Bush's speech to the United Nations General Assembly earlier that day, Bill O'Reilly said that it was "interesting" that Bush "urged the United Nations to send troops to secure the peace in Sudan's war-ravaged region of Darfur." O'Reilly then claimed that "Darfur is the left cause. They see the evil there and want to confront it, yet they don't want the evil confronted in the Islamic world. That's a very interesting situation." He added: "Now, Darfur is a disgrace, and that is Islamic driven. It's the same soup, but because people of color are being slaughtered and harmed in Darfur, the left is on the bandwagon. Interesting, isn't it?"
During the show, O'Reilly also stated: "Darfur should have been taken care of a long time ago if the United Nations was any kind of an effective body, which it is not. I mean, all you gotta do is say, 'OK, we're gonna go in, and we're gonna knock out these Janjaweed, whoever they are, and we're gonna destroy them. And then the poor people of Darfur will be left alone.' " He added: "But of course, China doesn't want to do that. You know, the usual game. I don't even pay attention to it anymore. That's how disgusting it is."
As Media Matters for America has documented, nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has also suggested there are racial motives for progressives' interest in Darfur. On the August 21 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh claimed that Democrats "want to get us out of Iraq, but they can't wait to get us into Darfur," adding, "There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur? It's black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they're in trouble." A caller responded, "The black population," to which Limbaugh said, "Right."
From the beginning of the September 25 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Ah, the reaction to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is fascinating. The left really didn't know what to do with this guy, because he's so bad, so evil. Do we have that Air America -- is that on tape, that Air America-Lionel thing? Is that -- OK. Air America is bankrupt, so I don't -- we don't even know where it is, but I'll read you a transcript from the far left that's pretty interesting.
And that's the subject of the first hour of The Radio Factor today, because you basically have evil coming to the USA, and most Americans understand it, and they see the guy, and they know he's evil, and, you know, they're disturbed by it, and a lot of people don't want to confront it. But the far left is in a really tough position, because the only way that you defeat evil is to confront it. There's no other way to do it, because evil, by its very nature -- excuse me -- is aggressive. It wouldn't be evil if it wasn't aggressive, and it comes out and does bad things and bad things and bad things, and then somebody has to stop it. But the far left doesn't believe in evil, number one, everything is a gray area -- and we'll discuss that, as well. And number two, there's just a lot of people that say, "Well, why do we have to confront it?" You know, who -- let -- "France will do it." No, they won't.
So, it's a very interesting thing what happened after Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University. Columbia University has been damaged beyond repair, by the way, so some of you might think that's good news, but they'll never recover in my lifetime from this. I mean, that's just -- they're just pretty much now in a label that you don't want to be in.
All right, the no-spin news: President Bush spoke to the United Nations today and basically said that there are evil nations in the world. He singled out Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Iran as denying people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a six-year-old document created in the United Nations. You know, Bush -- his usual confrontational self. He also singled out Cuba and Zimbabwe as human rights violators and on and on. OK.
And he urged the United Nations to send troops to secure the peace in Sudan's war-ravaged region of Darfur. Interesting. How the left gonna do that? See, Darfur is the left cause. They see the evil there and want to confront it, yet they don't want the evil confronted in the Islamic world. That's a very interesting situation. Now, Darfur is a disgrace, and that is Islamic driven. It's the same soup, but because people of color are being slaughtered and harmed in Darfur, the left is on the bandwagon. Interesting, isn't it?
But Darfur should have been taken care of a long time ago if the United Nations was any kind of an effective body, which it is not. I mean, all you gotta do is say, "OK, we're gonna go in, and we're gonna knock out these Janjaweed, whoever they are, and we're gonna destroy them. And then the poor people of Darfur will be left alone." But, of course, China doesn't want to do that. You know, the usual game. I don't even pay attention to it anymore. That's how disgusting it is.
Actor Kevin Spacey -- appropriate last name -- met with [President] Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for three hours -- man, that would have put me to sleep. Apparently Spacey wants to produce some films in Venezuela, so he allowed himself to be a propaganda tool. I don't know much about this guy Spacey. I was on the Tonight Show one time, and he was on.
LIS WIEHL (co-host): Hmm-mm.
O'REILLY: He never came out of his dressing room. It was really funny. Everybody on the Tonight Show and backstage, Leno goes around --
WIEHL: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- and talks to you --
WIEHL: Yeah.
O'REILLY: -- and you joke around with the crew. Spacey never came out. I don't know what he was doing in there.
Good lord, this man and his mouth! When will he ever learn?
He's absolutely right. The left doesn't mind military quagmires as long as long as THEY get to choose which ones we get into.
Bill-o will lend a hand when he feels the Darfurians are "respectful" enough. Bill-o is just doing the world a favor, wanting to make sure the "people of color" know their place before he rides in like a big hero.
Liberals are desperate to support the Janjaweed and the muslims in Darfur as that'll mean lots of "contributions" from CAIR and other muslim terrorist front organizations. However, liberals can't do so openly because the victims in Darfur are blacks and the Democrat Party needs Afraican American support in the 2008 elections.So what they do instead is mouth sickening platitudes about the "Darfur situation" in every debate and conveniently forget the topic in the interim.
Oh, "liberals" or "Democrats" WANT donations from terrorist groups?
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
Oh, "liberals" or "Democrats" WANT donations from terrorist groups?
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
Bye the way, the goal is to confront the Janjaweed, not support them.
Sure, Bill. They all are just walking around saying "Bring me the ice tea, M' F'er!"
Somebody's got to make bumper stickers and t-shirts with this phrase on it.
How about Bill O'Reilly with a surprised look on his face and the words "Who knew?"
Bad dog Snoppy. Oh god (choke).
An You made me misspell your name too.
Him saying the "left" (in Darfur's case, read "merciful people") has racial motives in supporting action in Darfur while not doing so for Iraq isn't "bad", although it's clearly wrong.
I'm sure he and Limbaugh were saying the same thing during the Clinton presidency, like "Ooohh, we don't want to take out Saddam, but we want to fly over Serbia. Clearly, there is a racial bias here..as the left loves ethnic Kosovars."
So, if Limbaugh and O'Reilly are so wrong, then why DOES the left support taking action against the Islamists who are murdering and raping in the furtherance of Islam in Darfur?
How are these Islamists any different than the Islamists from Al Qaeda that are operating in Iraq? Or for that matter, how are the Islamists in Darfur any different than the Islamist thugs who are murdering peopple in India, Nigeria, Indonesia, Phillipines or any of the dozens of other places they are operating? This is blatant hypocrisy to suggest there is any difference on moral grounds.
'Merciful People'? How about hypocritical, self-righteous, liberal, intellectual incompetents?
'Merciful People'? How about hypocritical, self-righteous, conservative, intellectual incompetents?
NL, don't be so hard on yourself.
I think that post deserves an answer instead of an ad hominem attack.
NL, perhaps these people think it is more worthwhile to fight these people in Darfur rather than look for non-existant WMDs in Iraq, or useless (and harmful) regime change, or fuel in an insurgency (Al Qaeda in Iraq is only a small problem) that won't stop until we pretty much leave.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I wonder where Bill's condemnation was over the past 6 years of Republican Single Party Rule that saw Iraq as the problem after 9/11 and wanted to talk about tax cuts when asked about Darfur!!
Duck behind the mountain of suffering and dead of Darfur instead of confronting his own comments, and what he meant when he insinuated that black people are loud, rude, and unruly!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"But the far left doesn't believe in evil, number one, everything is a gray area -- and we'll discuss that, as well. ...
...See, Darfur is the left cause. They see the evil there and want to confront it, yet they don't want the evil confronted in the Islamic world."
OK, according to Bill the far left doesn't believe in evil but they see the evil in Darfur.
Does this guy even have to make sense?
No, because by now he's said so many contradictory things, that at this point, he'd just have to have someone scream SHUT UP! at him and have his microphone cut off ... for good.
On second thought, that's not a bad idea.
aren't most of the people in the Islamic world people of color?
You mean they aren't Nordic blondes? I geuss that makes Bill's point kind of stupid.
I thought the same thing. Maybe that's why the right is OK being in Iraq, they think Iraqi's are white?
OH MY GOD--THEY STARTED THE WAR IN THE WRONG COUNTRY!!! (Wasn't it supposed to be in Canada?)
No, the Right knows Iraqis are dark. That's why it's ok to destroy their country, appropriate their natural resources, blame them for the mess, and hate them for not being grateful.
I wonder if the Axsis of Weasels knows the Iranians are Aryans?
They're Persian.
Both Persians and Indians are Aryan or at least, Indo-Aryan. The PC term used in academe today to describe the Aryan (a word that has its origins in Sanskrit "Arya" or pure) origins of the Indians and Persians is Proto Indo-European.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard Persian being used in that context. They came out of Asia With the Medes, close relatives. The other extent parts of this race are supposed to be the high caste Indians and the Gypises. The Later subject to leathal Irony.
He is all over the place almost incoherent. This is a leftist cause because of people of color but we should have been in it long ago. He is melting down
There comes a point when the contradictions inherent in an ideology reach a kind of critical mass such that they can no longer be hidden. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have arrived at this point. O'Reilly, like Limbaugh a few weeks ago, argues that the American left is concerned about Darfur rather than "the Islamic world," because the situation in Darfur involves people of color.
Am I to understand that O'Reilly believes that there are no people of color outside Darfur in "the Islamic world"? Does he seriously think that opposition to America's occupation in Iraq is based on the notion that Iraqis are white people?
And if I sign up at billoreilly.com, can I buy a Factor Pipe full of whatever he's smoking these days?
Remember when Limbaugh blasted the Liberal media because they prefered a black QB to do well. Kind of the same BS argument.
Does he seriously think that opposition to America's occupation in Iraq is based on the notion that Iraqis are white people? - vysotsky
That's a pretty confusing question, Vy, as it would depend on what day it is- one of the days when we're at war with the Iraqis, or one of the days when we're liberating the Iraqis.
Kind of like how for conservatives some days Darfur is a humanitarian tragedy and other days it is a symptom of 'the Islamic problem'?
"I don't know much about this guy Spacey..."
...But I just can't resist the chance get a few cheaps shots in at a movie star that I don't know much about. While I'm at it, I'll accuse him of doing something "far left" in his dressing room instead of yucking it up with me and Jay Leno before the show.
Democrats want to help in Darfur because they want the black vote?
Besides being incredibly racist, do these guys have no clue as to how stupid and petty they sound? How much more offensive do these guys have to be to be brought to the public square and disgraced?
The fact that we are in Iraq and not in Darfur is a tragedy. A military regime change in Iraq was clearly seen by anyone with any foreign policy knowledge as a losing propostion for everyone involved, the US, Iraq, and the region.
Darfur is basically a buch of a__holes in pickup trucks running around slaughtering people. Our troops could go in protect the innocent against an easily defined enemy and become world heroes. Instead our troops are stuck in Iraq perceived by the world as imperialist occupiers and on any given day have no idea who the hell the enemy is. In Darfur it's easy, it's the guys with machetes chopping up women and children.
Boy, that was hard hitting. Not to mention O'Reilly and his ilk took on Iraq to get even with Saddam for trying to kill bush's daddy - oops, I mean because of the weapons of mass destruction they had - oops, I mean because of the chemical munitions they stockpiled to attack Israel with - oops, I mean because Al Queda had training bases in Iraq that Saddam sponsored - oops, someone help me out here...
They don't make a ladder long enough to get out of that hole. Here, let me throw down a rope. Now, stick your head in that loop on the end, and I'll pull you up.
Bill is right. I am a "n***r lover". Sorry Bill O. For some reason I think they are human too. Guess this means I am betraying my Aryan ancestry. I guess I won't be invited Bill's sheet parties anymore.
See Bill, here's the thing. Democrats, and progressives (most of the ones I know anyway) actually DO want to confront terrorism head on, and kill as many terrorists as possible and try to diminish what they do, and how they recruit. But here's the problem...
Remember, before we invaded Iraq how we were doing these things in Afghanistan, and we had to pull most of our troop strength out where we were actually, you know, combatting terrorism, and move them into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMDs, and essentially had nothing to do with world terrorism at all.
It's not that we don't think terrorists are bad people, because they are. And it's not that we don't want them dead. We do. The thing is, is that before we invaded Iraq, they weren't there you dunderhead, and most of them are still NOT THERE. We didn't want war in Iraq because it did nothing to secure the United States, and didn't protect us from anything. Oh no, it's quite possible that it opened us up to more attacks, and greater hatred around the Islamic world in general.
Poor Bill, you just don't know when to shut off the "no spin zone" there do you? No, indeed not. Once again, open mouth, and insert that club you call a foot.
Excellent.
But of course, Bill isn't racist. No. His comments were just taken out of context again.