During a discussion with Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) on the November 28 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that, “on the night” Saddam Hussein's “statue fell” in Baghdad at the beginning of the war in Iraq, he publicly criticized the Bush administration for not having a postwar reconstruction plan for Iraq. O'Reilly stated: “I hate to blow my own horn, Colonel, but ... on the night that Saddam's statue fell ... I said on the air [on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor], 'Hey, look at these guys looting the armories. What's that all about? You can't let those people do that.' ... As soon as I saw that, I went, 'Holy you-know-what, there's no plan to institute martial law and to take step-by-step reconstruction of this country.' ” In fact, on the April 9, 2003, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, on the night U.S. Marines assisted in tearing down a statue of Saddam in central Baghdad, O'Reilly made no mention of looting or the difficulty of reconstructing Iraq, though he did ask a guest to comment on plans to “stabilize Baghdad.”

Rather, during his April 9, 2003, show, O'Reilly hosted several segments listing the “winners” and “losers” of the Iraq war and praised President Bush for “prov[ing] he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do” and for “rid[ding] the world of an evil dictator.” O'Reilly attacked many opponents of the invasion, such as “Saddam enablers” Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Jacques Chirac, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, plus “newspapers who wrongly predicted doom” and “the hysterical Hollywood celebrities who voiced strident protest, [and] obviously, have lost much credibility.”

For instance*:

• While discussing the “sporadic fighting” that “continues throughout Iraq” with Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt (ret.), O'Reilly briefly touched on “stabilizing Baghdad” but made no mention of looting. O'Reilly asked Hunt: “So, basically, the armor, the infantry are going to be used for security now, they're going to be used to stabilize Baghdad, the other cities, and the Special Ops will hunt down fanatics?”

• In his “Talking Points Memo”, O'Reilly declared that “President Bush stayed the course under withering worldwide criticism and vicious ideological attacks back home. He proved he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do.” In addition to referring to Putin, Chirac, and Schroeder as “big losers” of the Iraq war, O'Reilly also stated that "The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and other newspapers who wrongly predicted doom" have “lost much credibility.”

• O'Reilly then hosted a segment on the “winners and losers in the Iraqi war” featuring author and Tulane University history professor Douglas Brinkley and Fox News political analyst Dick Morris. Brinkley declared then-Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) and Al Jazeera to be “losers.” For his part, Morris announced that the “losers” were the “established media,” whose coverage of the war would lead to "[t]he death of network news," the “United Nations” because "[t]he Security Council is no longer ... relevant" and “the whole liberal wing of the Democratic Party.”

• Finally, O'Reilly hosted a segment with former House Speaker and Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich (R-GA) during which the two bashed the BBC and The New York Times for their coverage of the war. Gingrich said that the Times had “become a discouragingly left-wing and isolationist newspaper that wants a timid, weak America that will somehow be so pathetic that even the French will love us.”

From the November 28 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: But let me just finish. So, if you have that scenario, which is true, all right, then it is a responsibility of the press to report that. Now, I agree with you that there's far more in play than just reporting. That The New York Times and the other secular-progressive, far-left press -- NBC News -- basically don't like Bush. They have never liked him, and they're gonna use any reason to undermine his policies, whether it be a tax cut, anything. And that's what's in play here.

However, they have bushes to hide behind because -- pardon the pun -- because there wasn't an effective pacification plan.

PETERS: Well, look, I certainly agree and, at the time, I deplored not having enough troops. Security was essential. And I think the Bush administration, actually, after 9-11, did a great job until they got to Baghdad.

O'REILLY: Right.

PETERS: And then when things didn't turn out exactly as [former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister] Ahmed Chalabi told him that it would, I would say, or anxious to believe, suddenly they all collectively became the, you know, the deer caught in the headlights of history and never recovered. So, absolutely --

O'REILLY: Well, they wouldn't -- they wouldn't acknowledge the mistake. They weren't nimble enough to say, “Hey.” You know, I saw -- I hate to blow my own horn, Colonel, but I don't know whether you were watching the Factor on the night that Saddam's statue fell, but what I said on the air, “Hey, look at these guys looting the armories. What's that all about? You can't let those people do that.” And our guys were standing there letting them do it. As soon as I saw that, I went, “Holy you-know-what, there's no plan to institute martial law and to take step-by-step reconstruction of this country.”

From the April 9, 2003, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly, reporting from the Factor Southern Command Center in Miami. Thanks for watching us tonight. In just a few moments, we'll take you live to Baghdad for the latest sights and sounds.

But first, a “Talking Points Memo”: a no-spin analysis of the huge coalition victory -- the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain.

President Bush stayed the course under withering worldwide criticism and vicious ideological attacks back home. He proved he is a disciplined leader who does what he says he will do. And whether or not you agree with his policies, the president and Tony Blair have rid the world of an evil dictator.

Not since World War II has the American military enjoyed such enormous prestige. The image of U.S. soldiers in [sic] through the roof. Expect enlistments to rise, but much more importantly, respect for the men and women who defend us will also rise.

The major losers, of course, are Saddam and his sons, who at this very moment may be enjoying their new home in hell. Also losing big are Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, and Gerhard Schroeder, the Saddam enablers. The world will not forget the actions of these men.

Back in the USA, the hysterical Hollywood celebrities who voiced strident protest, obviously, have lost much credibility. And so have The New York Times, the L.A. Times, and other newspapers who wrongly predicted doom. On March 17, The New York Times editorialized: “Washington would be wise to drop the talk of eminent hostilities and come up with a resolution that leads to disarmament and consensus. The current path is reckless.” Serious Americans will remember how this war was covered by the press, both print and TV.

And on television, CBS and ABC News actually declined in the ratings during the war, which is incredible. NBC News was up only slightly. Ratings for all three cable news channels went up dramatically, with Fox News well ahead. So, there you have the scorecard. We will have more winners and losers later on in the broadcast.

[...]

O'REILLY: On the “Impact” segment tonight, as we said, lots of winners and losers in the Iraqi war. We all know President Bush, Saddam Hussein, all of that, but there are other less obvious choices. We'll look at the losers first.

Joining us now from New York City is Fox News contributor Dick Morris, never shy, and from New Orleans, Dr. Doug Brinkley, who teaches history at the University of New Orleans.

Doctor, we will begin with you. Give me some losers here that may not be as obvious as the president and Saddam Hussein.

BRINKLEY: Well, I think Al Jazeera, the broadcasting network that began in the Middle East in 1996. You know, Saudi Arabia had at one point refused to allow them to have an office in their country; Bahrain, where a fifth fleet station banned them from having bureaus there, as have Kuwait and Jordan.

And I think we saw that they gave a very slanted reporting, that today two of their journalists were chased out of southern Iraq into Kuwait with a mob after them. And I think they can't be considered a credible news network anymore after the way they have portrayed and helped Saddam Hussein and also Al Qaeda and others over the past year.

O'REILLY: That means only CNN will use them, right? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. But, all right, they're a big loser. Who else?

[...]

O'REILLY: OK, Dick Morris, a couple of losers for us, please?

MORRIS: Well, I think the big losers are that, for 30 years, there's been a divergence between the attitudes of the American people and attitudes of the established news and entertainment media. And this was actually the last straw. This was the divorce.

We read in The New York Times every day and the L.A. Times how this war was in difficulty and in peril, and then we saw on TV that it wasn't. We heard all of our cultural icons in Hollywood standing up and saying this was an unjust war, this was immoral. And then you see these people throwing flowers at our troops because we've liberated them.

I think that this will lead to the same kind of denouement of the established media that the Wall Street scandals led to with the brokerage houses. There will be a really feeling --

O'REILLY: Really?

MORRIS: -- that enough is enough, and there will be a mass exodus away from them to organizations that are proven more truthful. This was --

O'REILLY: We've already seen that, as I just pointed out.

MORRIS: You could see the reality, so you didn't need to swallow the propaganda.

Bill: No, I know. We've already seen that network news ratings are stunning, that [then-CBS Evening News anchor] Dan Rather would be down 15 percent in the biggest story in years.

MORRIS: The death of network news.

O'REILLY: Yes, it is. I think so, too. All right, who else do you have on the losers?

MORRIS: I think the other big, big loser, obviously, is the United Nations. The Security Council is no longer a relevant, international forum for important issues. If you want a multinational forum where all nations can express their views, meet in the Oval Office because that's where, fortunately, our president and our administration lets that happen.

But the idea that we're going to vest dictatorships like China and oppressive regimes like Russia and disgruntled malcontents like France control the global priorities anymore, that idea is over.

O'REILLY: Or at least in this administration it is. Doctor, I will go back for one more loser and then we'll come back to Dick for one more, and then we will take a break and go to the winners. Go ahead, Doctor.

BRINKLEY: I think in the Democratic Party, Howard Dean is going to come out a loser. He really built his long-shot campaign as Vermont government as being the voice for the anti-war movement, while senators like [then-Sen. John] Edwards [D-NC] and [Sen. John] Kerry [D-MA] and [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman [I-CT], who are also running for president, signed on to the resolution in the fall. And I think Dean is going to find that this issue of Iraq is not the winner that it was in the early months of --

O'REILLY: Funny -- funny you should mention that, Doctor. We called Governor Dean to have him come on the Factor, and he flat-out turned us down, whereas before the war, he was very anxious to come now. Now, he's not. So, I agree with you. That's very astute. I think Dean is done. His credibility is shot. Dick, do you have one more loser before we get to the positive notes?

MORRIS: Kerry, [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA], the whole liberal wing of the Democratic Party. They're going to get a double shock. The first was that people saw how important the liberation was today on the TV footage. And then, over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so, the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years.

O'REILLY: Yes, I do think the Democratic Party will now be controlled from the center. All right; very good, guys. Hang around. In a moment, we will be back with a look at some of the winners in this war; not the obvious winners, but just as you saw with the losers, some not so obvious choices.

[...]

O'REILLY: Continuing now with the “Impact” segment, we're talking about winners and losers in this war with Dick Morris in New York and Dr. Doug Brinkley in New Orleans. All right, Dick, how about the winners here? Do you have a couple for us?

MORRIS: Well, I think the biggest winners are the people of North Korea, of Iran, of Syria, of Libya, of Sudan, who had to get a message today: Help is on the way.

I think the second big winner is the level of trust of the American people in their government. The alienation that started with Vietnam and Watergate and then continued to pace with the Monica Lewinsky and impeachment, I think, has now narrowed. The synapses are more narrow, and it is now credible to say, “I'm from the government. Trust me.”

[...]

O'REILLY: In the “Unresolved Problems” segment tonight, sporadic fighting continues throughout Iraq. Joining us now from our New York studio is Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt.

I have to tell the audience, Colonel -- I know you will get embarrassed -- but I think you've been the best analyst. I really do. You've really been on it. You broke a huge story last week with the Third Infantry, and you have really been good.

[...]

O'REILLY: All right. So, basically, the armor, the infantry are going to be used for security now, they're going to be used to stabilize Baghdad, the other cities, and the Special Ops will hunt down fanatics?

HUNT: Absolutely. I -- the mech guys puts pressure, as they have. As we said before, you're not going to put them in the sea unless you have to. A little bit more like Basra than it was to Baghdad. There's a bit -- little difference in tactics.

[...]

O'REILLY: Did you know -- did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the BBC didn't run the statue, cut away to an earthquake in India instead of running the most visual moment in the last 10 years -- the BBC?

GINGRICH: Sure.

O'REILLY: The BBC!

GINGRICH: Now, look, the BBC has been for years totally owned by left-wingers who are viscerally anti-American. The BBC American channel may be the most anti-American channel, at least as anti-American as Al Jazeera.

It's an ideological bias of the British left. They hated [former British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher. They hated [former President] Ronald Reagan. They cheerfully hate George W. Bush. I'm talking now about the BBC's left-wing board of directors and the BBC's left-wing reporters. That's just reality.

The New York Times -- worried desperately about Afghanistan. When we won in Afghanistan, they warned us that Iraq would be harder than Afghanistan and not to mistake it. I am confident that whatever we do positive next, The New York Times will worry about. That's the nature of The New York Times.

It's become a discouragingly left-wing and isolationist newspaper that wants a timid, weak America that will somehow be so pathetic that even the French will love us. That ain't going to happen. So I start from a different vantage point.

* A Nexis search of terms, “show: (O'Reilly Factor)” for April 9, 2003, yielded these results.