The Press is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (Bill O'Reilly)

O'Reilly.Com ^ | 2-12-04 | Bill O'Reilly

[jmstein7]

Life is hard, and then you go on "Good Morning America." A few days ago I told Charles Gibson that my analysis of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction situation was wrong. Well, you would have thought I had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, the left-wing press was so overjoyed.

Take this passage from the Reuters News Service: "Popular conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly, usually an outspoken Bush loyalist, said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration ..."

An outspoken Bush loyalist?

How about this from The New York Daily News, which, in its wisdom, carries this column: "When even Bill O'Reilly starts snapping at him, the President has difficulties."

Even?

Even the London Telegraph got into it: "A cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq apologized to Americans yesterday ..."

Give me a W! Give me an M! Give me a D!

All I did was admit that my analysis was wrong, and guys like U.S. weapons inspector Scott Ritter were right. And I placed the blame for the faulty intelligence right where it belongs--on CIA chief George Tenet. Not on Bill Clinton. Not on Tony Blair. And not on President Bush, although I do believe all of those men were not skeptical enough about the WMD intel in the run up to the war.

Anyone who reads this column or listens to my commentaries on television or radio knows that I think independently. President Bush has done some good things, and some not so good things; likewise, President Clinton and every other Chief Executive.

But the ideological press has a hard time with commentators who don't fit a predictable mold. In the world of the partisan, you are either with 'em or against 'em. In the foggy world of committed ideology, facts are things to be used to advance various causes.

I have been critical of the Bush administration for its lax border policy, for its failure to encourage fuel standards for American vehicles, and for its secrecy, among other things.

I have praised Mr. Bush for lowering taxes, aggressively fighting terrorism and for confronting a corrupt United Nations, among other things. My job is to look out for the folks and call 'em as I see 'em, not sink into the morass of partisan politics.

The good news is that the nation's most powerful news service, the Associated Press, covered my "apology" fairly. The AP pointed out that I still support the removal of Saddam because the world is a safer place and terrorists have lost much opportunity in the Middle East.

Once again, I will tell you that much of the nation's press is far too ideological, and hard news coverage is being twisted in the process. In many cases, you are getting only part of important stories, and you are being misled by ideologues masquerading as journalists.

We are living in dangerous times when information is critical to the well being of you and your family. Fanatics overseas want to kill us, and fanatics at home want to manipulate us. Every politician, journalist and, indeed, every person makes mistakes. Owning up to them is the mark of an honest individual.

I made a mistake on my analysis of the WMD threat in Iraq. I acknowledged said mistake. But that's all there is to it. There is no need for joy in Mudville.

[cricket]

"Yeah, and where does that leave you, O'LIE-ery?"

Think O'Reilly maybe MIA in his own egomania; but for sure he does not lie.

[Howlin]

What does Rush have to do with any of this?

[MEG33]

You don't see his pomposity about HIS assessment about WMD?..Apology for misleading?

I don't listen to O'Reilly for his assessment of intelligence reports,he did not see them.

You would think he had given the SOTU address to Congress or addressed the UN.

He's an entertainer and I am not as entertained anymore.

[Just mythoughts]

You should have watched his first segment, he was talking or should I say sliming "internet" stories.

There is no doubt what he was sliming about and he out right told his first victim he wasn't going to talk about the slime on the internet today.

And it was wrong to go after 30 year old acts. No matter what they were. orielly was spinning faster tonight than Kerry has in the past couple of days.

[freekitty]

She certainly did.

[freekitty]

You obviously have never been irritated by Mr. O'Reilly.

[MEG33]

I just couldn't listen..I'm out of Rolaids!

[GreenCell]

I'm irritated all the time...because he's right. Do I agree all the time..no. But, he's dealing in facts on the table, not in a classifed report and I have to support him on that.

[Just mythoughts]

I'm sorry, typically I don't watch him, however, after the thread about drudge being on Hannity's show knew that these media whores have the story.

I wanted to see for myself how "god" orielly was going to deal with it. Fortunately I can handle this far better than I can the crap they have been dumping on President Bush being AWOL.

In a manner of speaking orielly let it be know he knows about this site, sliming people. He looked like he was about to become unglued about people sliming other people while he proceeded to slime people.

He called someone in the Bay State Pin Heads.

[Just mythoughts]

I'm sorry, typically I don't watch him, however, after the thread about drudge being on Hannity's show knew that these media whores have the story.

I wanted to see for myself how "god" orielly was going to deal with it. Fortunately I can handle this far better than I can the crap they have been dumping on President Bush being AWOL.

In a manner of speaking orielly let it be know he knows about this site, sliming people. He looked like he was about to become unglued about people sliming other people while he proceeded to slime people.

He called someone in the Bay State Pin Heads.

[Just mythoughts]

I am sorry I did not mean to post twice, just laughing so hard at orielly complaining about people who slime while he was sliming. He just could not help himself.

[jwalsh07]

You don't have to freep mail me. I can take it on an open forum.

O'Reilly is a useful idiot. The same guy, David Kay, that stated had found no stockpiles of WMD yet also stated that Bush was right because the programs being run by Iraq were even more worthy of invasion than previously thought.

O'Reilly gives the lefties cover to ignore that statement just like O'Reilly does when he questions the Presidents judgement.

In the Soviet Union they called guys like that useful idiots. I think it is an apt description.

[jwalsh07]

I should not have called you an idiot. I apologise for that.

[Falcon4.0]

What does O'Reilly expect from people who read "shall be free from unreasonable search and seizure" and then say "let's go kill some babies"!,?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

O'Reilly,in his eagerness to endorse John Kerry, an old pal, must have missed Curt Weldon,R-PA yesterday. Congressman Weldon has just returned from Iraq and is very disturbed by the distortion of Dr Kay's testimony. Weldon met with Major General Keith Dayton,Commander of the Iraqi Survery Group. Major General Dayton said " There are tens of millions of documents remaining to be examined and innumerable leads to be pursued." Weldon said that the ISG has not even begun to search the Tigris and other waterways,where they believe some of the WMD and their disbursment systems may have been dumped. Weldon held up 2 small warheads (which looked like carburetors),that were designed to disburse WMD that have recently been discovered in the Tigris. One of my best friends was with the ISG for 5 months and he is amazed at the blase report Dr Kay delivered,as it doesn't square with what they were sure they found on the ground in Iraq. It wasn't President Bush constantly directing the search teams to don their protective suits,it was Dr Kay's group.And at some of the sites,they were told,"if what we think is here pans out,the suits won't make any difference." It just seems that Dr Kay is doing some major CYA and trying to deflect his shortcomings onto the President.

[PattonReincarnated]

> What does Rush have to do with any of this?

Rush has not, at least to my knowledge, said anything positive or negative about O'Reilly. Rush on the other hand, particularly recently, a couple times this week, has talked about moderates; in not so nice terms. O'Reilly is a moderate. So if you listen to Rush, you'll understand. If you don't have a chance to listen to Rush and your are a conservative, you can easily understand what being a moderate means. After all, Rush never says anything that 90% of what his audience has already thought.

[Howlin]

I have a chance to listen to him; and I guess I'm a moderate.

What I didn't understand was why anybody had to parrot what Rush said about it.

[PattonReincarnated]

>> I have a chance to listen to him; and I guess I'm a moderate. What I didn't understand was why anybody had to parrot what Rush said about it.

How do I say this nicely? 1.) I didn't parrot Rush, I made a reference that about 20 million people would understand, and it succinctly stated my position on O'Reilly. 2.) I wrote that I think a lot worse of moderates that Rush. That amplifies my opinion about O'Reilly. 3.) Since you can't get that, and you admit you are a moderate ... need I say any more? Remember FR is a conservative forum. I have no problem with you responding to my posts. But be conservative about it. Think first.

[hosepipe]

[ Anyone who reads this column or listens to my commentaries on television or radio knows that I think independently. President Bush has done some good things, and some not so good things; likewise, President Clinton and every other Chief Executive. ]

Bill Clinton did nothing good for this country, nada, zip... Even what bad he did is not all told.. Bill Clinton was americas worst nightmare, and Hillary is its migraine..

[leprechaun9]

"'analysis'. . .so called."

O'Reilly is an ANAL-IST!