O'Reilly falsely claimed Edwards is for "abolition of all anti-terror measures"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that "abolition of all anti-terror measures" is
one of John Edwards's "major campaign themes." But in making that claim,
O'Reilly ignored a recent speech in which Edwards called for "a comprehensive
new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles -- strength
and cooperation" and suggested the creation of "a new multilateral organization
called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty
Organization."
On the October 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, during the "Pinheads and Patriots" segment of the show, host Bill O'Reilly said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "may be in the political center if we're all living in Cuba," and falsely claimed that "abolition of all anti-terror measures" is one of Edwards's "major campaign themes." O'Reilly's comments came after he aired a clip of Edwards' appearance on the October 19 edition of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, during which Edwards said: "That's the best endorsement a Democrat can get is to have Bill O'Reilly be against you." But in claiming that Edwards is for the "abolition of all anti-terror measures," O'Reilly ignored Edwards' September 7 speech at Pace University titled "A New Strategy Against Terrorism." In that speech, Edwards called for "a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles -- strength and cooperation" and suggested the creation of "a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO)." According to Edwards, CITO member nations would "voluntarily share financial, police, customs, and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells."
From the September 7 speech:
EDWARDS: It's the right time for a bold new direction.
As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles -- strength and cooperation.
The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).
Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.
CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs, and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.
The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.
It's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect. But it would represent the first step in a new direction. As President John F. Kennedy observed when he signed the treaty that first limited the testing of nuclear weapons, we must begin with the common recognition of a common danger. President Kennedy said then, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Today, this new anti-terrorism organization would be such a first step.
Organizations are only as strong as the people who help make them run, and so we must also improve the quality of our human intelligence -- agents better able to understand local culture and make local connections in countries with active terrorist cells. As president, I will lead efforts to improve human intelligence through 1,000 new annual scholarships to improve language skills for students who pursue careers in intelligence and diplomacy.
A terrorist should not be able to escape detection in Europe or the Middle East if a foreign agency could have caught him with the help of American technology and advice. Within six months of taking office, I will direct the secretary of State, working with the attorney general and other national security officials, to launch comprehensive strategies to support agencies in other countries.
From the October 22 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: On the pinhead front, our pal Bill Maher actually told John Edwards that I believe Edwards doesn't have a chance for the presidency.
[begin video clip]
EDWARDS: That's the best endorsement a Democrat can get is to have Bill O'Reilly be against you.
MAHER: Why does he think you're so left-wing?
EDWARDS: I have no idea. Maybe he thinks I'm actually saying something. You know, somehow, if we don't say something, we're not -- we're in the center. But if you actually say something, they put you in the left wing.
[end video clip]
O'REILLY: No idea what he said. Edwards may be in the political center if we're all living in Cuba. But with income redistribution and abolition of all anti-terror measures as his major campaign themes, he is not only far left, he's a pinhead.
Name calling seems to be the best argument OR can put forward.
I thought he didn't do personal attacks? We musta just took him out of context again...
I think Bill's point is that Edwards speaks in generalities as to WHAT he's going to do while at the same time standing against everything that's already being done. Edwards says that we will track terrorists but he's against the Bush wiretapping so HOW will he do this? Another example is people who claim they are against illegal immigration but they wouldn't build a fence, cutoff funding to Mexico, or deploy the National Guard to the border. They just say it to appease opponents when there idea is a 'comprehensive' solution, which is code for "I will do nothing".
Kinda like the complete generalities offered by Fox and other "reporters" who do not do any research whatsoever. This is passed off to the public and they posts generalities that offer no real substance.
There is this thing called "the Google" you can find in the "tubes" on the "internets". John Edwards may have some info waiting for you to pik up. Lookey there... pages and pages or reading on (wait for it...) "John Edwards' Strategy To Root Out And Shut Down Terrorist Cells"
Found this in less than a minute.
Get some research and reading skills and then get back to us before posting something inane.
No it isnt any such code. That is a lie. Your false dichotomies have no relation to reality. Sure Edwards is against Bush's wiretapping, so should everyone be who values the Bill of Rights. That doesnt mean he is against WIRETAPPING only that if Americans will be wiretapped get a darn warrant. Fisa makes that easy enough. You guys on the right want to frame everything as either we do things YOUR way or that means they wont be done at all. Its silly.
This is what amazes me with the far right. They actually think the wiretapping of terrorists and the tracking of their funds suddenly began after 9/11 [or several months prior to 9/11].
LOONZ I'm not sure how you peg me as "far right" from my post and you don't have to assume that I believe something as you can simply ask me. Of course wiretapping has been happening for a long time now. And to SOLON, you're not understanding my argument. I think it's good that Edwards is against warrantless wiretapping. It's just that as a voter I get frustrated with generalities and would like a very specific alternative. I'll will give an example (thanks to SCOOTER I'm now hip to this GOOGLE thing): On Edwards' website under homeland-security it states: "As president, Edwards will fix the Patriot Act, respect the FISA court process that requires quick and classified review by a special court of search warrants issued under the National Security Act, and say no to torture" To me this is too general. HOW are you going to fix the Patriot Act John? DEFINE torture for me John. Does your statement mean that you SUPPORT wiretapping as long as it's legal? He plays the same tip-toe around the issues game that all politicians play: against everything and for nothing. At least Hillary has been giving more specifics such as a government sponsored $1,000 401(k) plan. Hopefully this will better demonstrate my point that was unfortunately misunderstood.
While this makes more sense it still falls flat to me. More specifics sound fine to me but when Gore did that he was pilloried as a policy wonk. Perhaps you and I are political junkies but speaking in broad terms is pretty much what most politicians do. It seems what most Americans want to hear. Remember I am a uniter not a divider? When you speak of not having enough specifics in the case of the Patriot act, that is fine there are none there that is vague. It is an issue that has been gone over many times. Much of the patriot act is fine to most people and a few of the more odious features like allowing the FBI to search your home without a warrant and never even tell you or looking up your library records again without a warrant and without telling you are the kind of thing most people understand is meant but I get you wanting more specifics. I dont see how you can read him saying he would respect FISA and still ask if he means does he approve of wiretapping and only wants warrants. Name the politician who has said wiretaps themselves are egregious and ought to be done away with. That guy doesnt exist. The statement itself makes CLEAR he is saying he just wants warrants. As to torture exactly what is it you are asking? That he deliniate every single known torture techinque and say no to this one and that one? We HAVE a convention against torture statute. IT defines torture. What more do you really want than saying we ought not to torture people? That we ought to follow the Convention against torture? You may or may not agree with its restrictions but they already exist. His statement is that he would abide by it.
Your comments lead me to believe that you're an O'Reilly regular.
So that I don't confuse you, I'd like to ask a question about one part of your post.
Where the hell do you suggest we get these National Guard troops you'd like to station at our border?
Are you suggesting we withdrawal them from Iraq?
Unless we do, we won't have enough people in the guard to do the job that the National Guard is supposed to do.
Where the hell did I suggest we move National Guard troops to the border?
"Another example is people who claim they are against illegal immigration but they wouldn't build a fence, cutoff funding to Mexico, or deploy the National Guard to the border"
Does this look familiar?
I didn't say we should do any of those things. Those are solutions that have been put forth to solve the immigration issue (many of them by Billo). Again where did I personally say we should any of those. Nowhere.
"Again where did I personally say we should any of those"
You listed it as an option without qualification. You said it. In fact you didn't qualify ANY of the options you listed and you certainly didn't describe them as "solutions that have been put forth"...leaving your readers to conclude that they are the things YOU would approve of being done.
You said it.
you make no sense and sound eager to put words into my mouth. Because I say that other people have put forth a solution DOESN'T mean I condone it. If someone left the comment "Jim went to the store" would you reply to that person with "Why did YOU go to the store and where did you get the money?".
Context is everything. You enumerated examples...not of what others have said...but of what you claim they have NOT said. The inescapable conclusion being that those are the things YOU think need to be DONE. Including putting the National Guard on the borders.
Your example of someone going to the store is specious, but not even close. It's not MY fault you left out the most important right-wing qualifier: "as some have said" ... next time use it. At least it makes it clear you are using the words of someone else and not your own.
"I think Bill's point is that Edwards speaks in generalities as to WHAT he's going to do while at the same time standing against everything that's already being done."
No he's not...O'Reilly is calling John Edwards a pinko commie who will put out a welcome mat to terrorists who aim to do us harm. And on what facts does O'Reilly base that opinion...?
Welcome to Billo's No Facts Zone.
BTW, how can you defend that slimeball O'Reilly? Yeeech...
I'm sure glad you're here to tell me what he really said, cause I's jus a stoopid liberal, too dumb to figger out fer meself what his words mean. Thanky, mistah!
Hmm, just been reading the Beck fire thread, that seems to be a common theme. No one but their core audience really understands them...
Its a mutual feeling.
Many (if not all) things that liberals believe in outrage conservatives. Many (if not all) things that conservatives believe in outrage liberals.
So please, do not go on stating the general "we're always right, and they're always wrong" speech because that is not the case for either political party.
Only in America, my friend...
Hey MrDumbassBush Where did he make that claim? Because I didnt see it. Perhaps it would make a bit of sense if you addressed what actually WAS said instead of the wierd strawman version you seemed to interpret. It is ludicrous to posit that calling people America haters based on where they live is NOT offensive. Beck is a moron, he spews hateful ignorance. That really doesnt say anything about all Conservatives nor about cons alwasy being wrong.
Welcome to another meeting of OEA.
"Hi, my name is Bill and I"m an over-exagerrator."
"Hi, Bill."
Hey. Hey! HEY!!
Watch that hyperbole there, mister. We don't do personal attacks here.
Pinhead.
Cut off his mike.
Not yet! I'm studying his body language through my computer tubes.
Maybe we could get some flowcharts together.....
What's the point, we already know where he gets his money from...
Not yet! I'm studying his body language through my computer tubes.
Bwahahahah! *gasp*....*snort*...*chortle*
Shorted out me keyboard with chamomile tea. You owe me a new one HBL---on second thought--- never mind. I NEEDED that giggle.
I really don't think Edwards should be ashamed of being "left."
Which does not require a diatribe from Redking saying that he's not "left" because he voted for the war or against gay marriage. He's not as left as I would like but I would support him over Hillary and Ron Paul.
Exactly. I would LOVE to see Kucinich be president but on Planet Earth this really isnt going to happen.
I think Bill O'Reilly is mad because Edwards is not ashamed to say that he likes it when Bill O'Reilly rails against him.
Tman, the question is meta for me. Why should anyone be ashamed of being "left."
So now the left wants a UN type organization in order to fight terrorism. It's not enough just to protect ourselves from terrorism with the great programs that we've put in place. We now have to have some type of global community and trust our security to other countries. Nice. Some anti-terror policy. I can't wait to hear what he comes up with next.
No nation should leave their security to another nation.
Um, did you even READ what Edwards is proposing? Nowhere does he say anything about leaving our security to anyone else. His plan is to share information with a coalition of allies. Why not gain information and assistance from other countries to make the world (which duh, includes the US), safer? Why should we do it alone? Why should we shun other countries who can help us?
co·op·er·a·tion /koʊˌɒpəˈreɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-op-uh-rey-shuhn] an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.
(from dictionary.com)
I didn't say he was leaving our security to anyone else.
Sorry, Loonz, my post was directed to Rino Hunter; I guess I put it in the wrong place.
If you think we are going to effectively fight terrorism WITHOUT international co-operation then you are deluding yourself.
"It's not enough just to protect ourselves from terrorism with the great programs that we've put in place."
We've had great programs in place for a long time but now, under Bush, we have illegal programs. I'm still waiting to find out if he is indeed spying on terrorists.
Yeah, RinoHunter, that's exactly what he said. Sheesh! Perhaps a local night school can help you with that reading comprehension problem.
That is SO typical of righties. Take any statement, and twist it around to say something else completely. Edwards simply says we need international cooperation, he DID NOT say we would be turning over our security decisions to anyone else. That sounds just like the time Kerry said that any decision to invade another country should be able to withstand scrutiny from the international community, and the righties immediately started screaming that Kerry was giving veto power over our security to the UN. Unbelievable.
Its the epitome of the strawman argument. When they cant HOPE to argue against what was said, they just make up something that WASNT said and argue THAT point. Its weak, its dumb, then again its all they have.
Why not?
We expect other nations to trust us with their security, in a very "we know what's best" kinda way.
I've never understood why we continue to run everything based on a bunch of imaginary lines, arbitrarily drawn on a map decades (sometimes centuries) ago.
A wise man once said "patriotism is the erroneous belief that your country is superior simply because you were born there."
"So now the left wants"
Edwards wants.
"a UN type organization in order to fight terrorism."
The US is already a member of Interpol, along with 185 other countries, with which the US coordinates efforts against international crime. Are you ready to condemn this "UN type" organization as well?
Did you consider for a moment that maybe Edwards wants to create something that's less like the UN and more like Interpol?
"It's not enough just to protect ourselves from terrorism with the great programs that we've put in place."
You're right, it's not enough. We need all the cooperation and coordination from other countries that we can get. It's a "global war on terror" is it not?
"We now have to have some type of global community and trust our security to other countries."
And again, is this not a "global war on terror"? Bush is already trying to go global, repackaging the Middle East in our image by "planting the seeds of democracy". How's that workin' out for ya?
I don't know how you can derive putting the entire trust of our national security in the hands of other countries from what Edwards said. So I'd appreciate it if you would elaborate on how you arrived at that interpretation.
Funny Rhino but that's what came into my mind too. Ahhh. Another UN. Because the Un we have now is so effective. Didn't Libya just get some seat of whatever...?Disgusted me so much when I read it I don't have the heart to look it back up.
Rino and Lolo, it wouldn't need to be solely a U.N. type of deal. It could be combined with an ACLU type of legal arm, and a secular socialized health care and retirement program for all participating countries.
(I just wanted to see what happened with that many Pavlovian buzzword triggers in one sentence.I bet one of them fainted)
You didnt have the sense to understand it in the first place. They werent GIVEN any seat on the human rights comittee. It is revolving and it was their turn. That is like complaining about who won the lottery.
"It's not enough just to protect ourselves from terrorism with the great programs that we've put in place"
I especially like the one where the government allows eavesdrops on my phone calls & then gives immunity to the telecom companies. It's a great program.
There is something seriously wrong with O'Reilly. He's a sociopath. Like so many of his right wing media peers he has no ability to understand the harmful consequences of his words and deeds.
The unfortunate dynamic of dealing with sociopaths like BO is that people project their own humanity onto him and seemingly never realize that there are people like him who have no capacity to feel remorse.
Roundhouse...Much love my friend.
Back at ya, friend.
Well stated Roudhouse. I find it particularly interesting how a person who masturbates while on the phone with a subordinate and then threatens them if they tell, can hold themselves up as some kind of omnipotent crusader of morality. O"Reilly is just sick. He needs to be finished in the media business. Everyone he attacks should respond with a reminder of his lewd and perverted behavior. If everyone does this over and over it will certaintly marginalize him which would be the worst nightmare for a person with a narcissistic personality like O'Reilly's.
9/11 gave us the right to be aggressive. It gave us the right to be diligent. What it didn't give us, though, was the right to be stupid. O'Reilly, let's just say he doen't that. He doesn't understand that the bludgeoning of a country, the occupation of that country - those have been the biggest presents that the terrorists could have asked for. Ditto, "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Of course, Edwards is in favor of strongly fighting terrorism. He just understands the negative blowback of idiotic policies. He also understands the importance of working with other nations. I mean, seriously, how do you fight a "global" war on terror if you don't have a coordinated global intelligence policy? As for wire-tapping, Edwards isn't against that, either. He just wants BUSH to follow the law. Like a previous commentator stated, FISA is hardly a stumbling block. They even give you 72 hours retro IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, for Christ! For more on O'Reilly's mischaracterizations of people, check out paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com
Well, it's nice to see that O'Lielly is still not giving accurate statements about his enemies, but I'm also encouraged that he maintains his abhorrence for name calling. Thata boy, Billo. Keep calling names that you can deny you ever said. What a horse's ass.
Billo has lied about Edwards from the beginning. I don't like Edwards myself because of his outing of Cheney's daughter. My mom is a lesbian and I wouldn't like it if some guy I was debating about an issue brought my mother. It was a low blow and bad form.
That said, mischaracterizing someone statements like some on here have pointed out is lieing. Period.
I dont think it was a low blow. First of all he didnt out her she has been out a looooong time. It was public knowlege. His statement was in no way derogatory and I didnt think Cheney took it as derogatory. I have my problems with Edwards but not that. Billo is the same cretin he has always been.
Bill,
At least John Edwards didn't sexually harass a woman in the work place, said Shawn Hornbeck enjoyed being with his captors, and made racially insensitive remarks about African Americans.
So who is the biggest pinhead, Bill? Any guesses?
mmmmm...falafel...
Bill O'Reilly only tells the truth when he can't get a lie to fit.
<< But with income redistribution and abolition of all anti-terror measures as his major campaign themes, he is not only far left, he's a pinhead. >>
Watch out MMFA!! BOR doesn't call names or do personal attacks. If you look REALLY closely at the video, there's an ACTUAL PIN stuck in Edward's head... it's a Halloween costume </sarcasm>
blo'reilly (I just like saying that.) I guess we should all be thankful that the idiot is on TV, and we can just avoid turning on his political news agency broadcasts. Imagine if you had to work with the jerk and had to endure his non-stop blathering day in and day out.
"No idea what he said. Edwards may be in the political center if we're all living in Cuba. But with income redistribution and abolition of all anti-terror measures as his major campaign themes, he is not only far left, he's a pinhead."
I laughed when I read this--Bill can't handle the fact that Edwards couldn't care less what O'Reilly says so he fired back with such a great cohesive, mature and intelligent retort. How old is O'Reilly? 7?