Democrats & Liberals Archives

On the Record & Documented

Conservative blowhard Bill O’Reilly is on the record trashing our World War II heroes. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann calls him out on it.
Video
Countdown Transcript
Transcript of O’Reilly interview with Gen. Wesley Clark

Posted by JayJay Snow at June 5, 2006 1:28 AM
Comments
Comment #154406

Bill O’Reilly has no need to be consistent, logical, nor rational. That would presume that he is appealing the logic, rational, and consistent audience of America. But that is not his role. His role is that of Rush Limbaugh’s, to appeal to the irrational, illogical, and emotionally predisposed Republican base. Tug their heart strings or uplift their angry passions. These are tactics of Bill O’Reilly which work on a small but loyal base of the Republican Party. In this interview, the goal is to raise the ire against a Democrat by whatever means necessary. Trashing WWII vets is perfectly permissable in this context if it helps diminish a Democrat.

Its a technique the Republicans have mastered and one which Democrats now envy and are hopeful of emulating. The Rev. Al Sharpton continues to be a teacher of this technique for Democrats and more and more, the Party is moving to develop similar techniques of factionalizing their platform, their policy stands, and campaign issues in accordance with the audience to be influenced. In war, truth is the first casualty, and Republicans and Democrats are at war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #154408

Trashing orphans is ok too.

Posted by: Aldous at June 5, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #154413

David R. Remer:

I dispute your claim that Democrats will become like Republicans. While the current Dems are indeed trying, they simply think too much to be successful.

Face it… you need gullibility on a whole new level to be a Republican.

Posted by: Aldous at June 5, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #154420

All
Well,I like Bill O’Reilly and that’s no bloviating.

As I sit here with my Factor mug and having just read a chapter of O’Reilly For Kids to my 97 year old grandmother,I must tip my Factor cap to him after taking off my Factor gear.

He is a shameless huckster,but then again so is Al Franken baby,Marlo Thomas’ hubby,or any number of MSN commentators who really belong selling jewlery on one of those cable shows.

All in all,I like Bill.

I saw that Clark interview.Clark is a military analyst on Fox now between presidential runs it seems,and actually was tongue tied a few times,I thought.

This past year,Bill has had sit downs with the President,Vice-President,Defense Secretary and Secretary of State….which is really why the media is pissed at him…I call it jealousy.

Bill is a vereran journalist and newsman who happens not to espouse the same views as you (collectively).

So what?You can hit that clicker if you want and watch Air America,MTV,or even Keith Oberman if you absolutely have time to kill.

I think that the reason the left doesn’t like the guy is because he has such a strong influence on American public opinion,and every once in a while he is right.

Remember the idiot judge from Vermont who gave a child-molester a light sentence?How about Ward Churchill?I can think of a whole bunch more examples of nit wits that Bill has exposed.

Somebody from his research obviously made a mistake..and it won’t be the last either,I think.

When the publisher of the NYT is openly boderline radicial and espouses the views of the left as policy,it at least serves as a counter-balance,and information needs to be sifted and processed before being accepted as dogma,I think.

Besides,if Bill were not on,who would open for my favorite,Sean Hannity?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 5, 2006 6:26 AM
Comment #154421

Right-Wing Media Icons like to think of themselves as anti-heroes in today’s culture. That is, they like to think of themselves as the daring individuals who tell the truths others are too hidebound by propriety to tell. To submit to others in the media who question the veracity, logic, or other standards of what they say, is to lose that outsider status.

Their function is not to inform or even to convert. Their function is to stick it to those fact bound liberals with shocking facts of their own, and uphold the spirits of the party faithful. The easiest way to do this is simply to uncritically accept the GOP talking points. Getting too philosophical or independent in one’s inquiry means you might end up running afoul of the party.

The trouble with those Talking Points is this: they are self-serving to those in power, and those who have influence with those in power. They do not rely on critical examination of the facts, and are instead shaped by the rhetorical conveniences of the part.

The wide distribution of these talking points makes it very easy for this information, however unreliable, to quickly penetrate the media, in a fashion not unlike real reporting does, when the facts are apparently straight. Too many people assume a certain parity between how mainstream and conservative news organizations operate, and that the only difference is the bias between the two. In fact, there’s a great deal more difference.

Normal journalism filters out certain stories because of unreliable information. Pains are taken to remove politicals slant, or interjections of the reporter’s ideological opinion into the story.

Conservative Journalism, though, makes advocacy a priority, and that means it invites bias and partisan approaches rather than trying to weed out the bias and the party politics. It accepts one party’s story as true, and holds the other as being false, even when the facts indicate otherwise (there are even cases where FOX commentators have made claims even the more reporting oriented folks reported differently)

What this does, ultimately, is present us with people who aren’t trying to figure out what’s really going on, but instead who are trying to figure out how to turn the days news towards a certain agenda.

Here, the agenda is relativism. “Others do it more, so it’s no problem that we do it, because we do it less and don’t enjoy it like they do.” O’Reilly talks about our soldiers doing this to the SS in a war we ultimately won, implying that if we don’t hold back our soldiers from this behavior, we might win this war, too.

This is the line they’re pushing on us, this guilt trip of “Why aren’t you letting our soldiers do what it takes to win?” O’Reilly doesn’t need a liberal to tell him the way things really happened, the greater quality of mercy we showed in the war, while still winning it. No, he has to rationalize the latest outrage, and that means rationalizing any outrage.

Only, in an occupation, you can’t rationalize all the outrages with the people you’re trying to make a new nation out of. To take this course, apart from the factual disservice O’Reilly does with the GIs, is to redden one’s hands further in the blood of the very people you are trying to convince to be your friends and partners in the building of this society.

We’re already undermanned. Should we provoke even more people to join the opposition? The good opinion of the Iraqi people depends on the quality of our actions. The insurgents’ and terrorists’ recruiting both depend on the ill will they bear us. We only serve the enemy’s purpose when we rationalize actions that show the Iraqi populace our moral dark side. We only encourage our enemy, and embolden those who believe the cause against us is right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 5, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #154425

SE,

I’m loath to admit it, but thanks for the “I laughed, I cried” At first, I read your June 5, 2006 06:26 AM post and laughed, waiting to finish reading the sardonic satire of Adrienne or Aldous or whoever wrote the post. Then, viola, it’s you, being serious, somehow. But you’ve been redeemed, a little, since you recognize him as an entertainer. Otherwise, who would get news from a guy who, as you said, “every once in a while … is right”?

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #154428

Dave

That is the point.

He is a COMMENTATOR,not a NEWSREADER.

Afforded first amendment free sppech rights and all that it entails.

If you want news,watch the news every hour on CNN I guess,then turn to the commentators for their opinion ON the news.

He balances the others who are rabidly left…which is what we need for a “Fair and Balanced” view.

I really like how he circles that pen though at the end of the program…..sometimes my eyes cross..you’re supposed to follow the pen….right?

:)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 5, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #154429

Picking on O’Reilly is just soo easy but I must admit that this is a new low for him. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, now, move on to another topic.

Posted by: tim at June 5, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #154438

Its great to be a republican talking head.
You can buy and use drugs illegally no problem!
You can stalk and use sexual innuendo with co-workers. no problem!
They keep pushing the envelope,but it sounds like the screech of bad brakes on a car going off a cliff.

Republicans,get a grip,America’s not buying your phony quip,the nasty lies that fall from your lip,from stolen power you soon will slip!

Posted by: jblym at June 5, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #154439

The 450 liberals who watch Olbermann nightly are outraged! OUTRAGED I tell you!

After this clown fails (as all do on MSNBC) who shall they appoint to replace him? Another ESPN telepromter reader? How about a failed Air America on air personality. Silly children.

Posted by: Dave Jones at June 5, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #154443

jblym:

One can only assume from your oblique references that you refer to Limbaugh and O’Reilly when you discuss drugs and sexual innuendo, after talking about Republican talking heads.

If so, consider that in each case, the matter went through the courts and judicial system until a resolution was reached. You say “no problem” but both men were forced to face up to their transgressions through jurisprudence.

You see, that’s how our country is supposed to work. You do something wrong—you get caught and punished for it. In Limbaugh’s case, he gets a minimal sentence—similar to other first time offenders. In O’Reilly’s case, I believe they reached an out of court settlement, if I’m correct.

You can spout off about how the system doesn’t work, but in these two cases that YOU brought up, the system worked as it is supposed to.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 5, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #154446

SE,

“He is a shameless huckster,but then again so is Al Franken baby,Marlo Thomas’ hubby,or any number of MSN commentators who really belong selling jewlery on one of those cable shows.”

Franken doesn’t really claim to be anything other than a comedian.

“Bill is a vereran journalist and newsman who happens not to espouse the same views as you (collectively).”

O’Reilly, veteran journalist?
I find it hard to put those three words in the same sentence, and still keep a straight face.

The right’s message, as espoused by Fox, seems to be the same as Goebbels, if you lie, and repeat it often enough word for word, even if it is wrong, people will believe it eventually.

O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Gallagher, Savage, Reagan, and all the others, only have to get something right once in a long while to appear right all of the time.
The cattle that follow them religiously, and hang on their every word, now believe everything they say, and are quick to discount any opposing view, because their “patriot” heroes would never lie to them.

No, the right’s message is to lie, and if people don’t believe it at first, lie louder until they do.

Criticize Olbermann all you like, but at least he gets his facts straight the first time, AND the second time.
He also doesn’t require MSNBC to sanitize his transcripts.

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #154450

We need to get back to ” Truth in journalism,” Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limpbaugh (miss spelling on purpose), need to be required to announce disclaimers before, during and after their programs that they lie constantly, distort the truth, and insight hatred, and their main goal is to devide this Country.
On face value, both are doing a grave dis service to America. They are not funny anymore.

Posted by: Robert Baker at June 5, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #154453

First of all wesley clarke has no credibility he is a large part of the problem.He is one reason Bin-laden thinks he can hand the united states a defeat.Remember blackhawk down.Mr.clarke was in charge of that cut and run opperation.This made bin-laden beleive the u.s.a. was weak.One thing for sure cut and runners do not and can not win wars.And ex generals who have no backbone have no credibility.

Posted by: lookingout at June 5, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #154454

All most forgot BILL OREILLY RULES!

Posted by: lookingout at June 5, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #154458

lookingout,

“First of all wesley clarke has no credibility he is a large part of the problem.He is one reason Bin-laden thinks he can hand the united states a defeat.Remember blackhawk down.Mr.clarke was in charge of that cut and run opperation.”

Typical right wing response.

Obfuscate, and change the focus of the point.

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #154461

SE,

The problem is not that he is a commentator; but that many people we realists “lovingly” refer to as wingnuts think he speaks news and truth, not opinion (and I would say) lies. {lookingout certainly proves my point}

Originally, I let you get away with the “Bill is a vereran journalist and newsman who happens not to espouse the same views as you (collectively).” But now you say “Commentator”. Cm’on, you can’t have it both ways. Which one is it? Is he a pontificator or a journalist?

Posted by: Dave at June 5, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #154466

The problem here is that we have a deliberate double standard here. The conservative media are positively overloaded with commentators and commentary. The talking points that flow through talk radio, FOXnews, the columnists, and all the different internet sources are treated as a currency of fact by the viewers. They trust this information and use it as ammunition against their rivals.

This information is often propaganda from the politicians, and apologetic for their various actions, especially when they become controversial, scandalous, or unpopular with the rest of the country. Many times, the information is often counterfactual, and the pundits either don’t know any better, or don’t care.

I have traced back the evolution of a number of talking points, to find numerous myths, misinterpretations, and outright lies at their heart. Al Gore said he worked on legislation to help create the modern internet. The Talking point had him saying he invented it. Harry Reid sat in the cheapseats at ringside with VIP credentials he couldn’t pay money for while talking with people whose position he didn’t take, and the talking points turn it into him getting free tickets in exchange for his vote. Some Liberal columnist (Ronald Brownstein) makes a mostly factual correct point of how much money each side is getting in hard money donations, and with a little selective misinterpretation, it becomes the imfamous Talking point of Liberals getting most of their money from millionaires, and Conservatives getting most of theirs from the common folks.

Point is, we’re having folks out there serving the function of journalists, without accepting the obligations that a Journalist has to verify the information and justify interpretations of it. Add to that the deliberate distortion and conflicts of interests that advocacy brings into the picture, and you have a pretty bad situation, media wise.

The conservative media’s bad habits are doing a disservice to the nation.

So long as people are encouraged to accept the commentary as having equal or greater truth than other information out there, there is a equal or greater obligation to verify the information, and take care with it. It shouldn’t fall to the bloggers like myself or rival pundits to pick up on the errors. They should have caught them first and removed them from their stories.

To build your politics on such faulty reporting is to booby-trap the fortunes of both party and country. If we don’t see things right, we are trapped in our own blindness and will fumble our decisions without knowing why.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 5, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #154471

SE, let me get this straight, you call Murtha a Jerk for accusing troops of murder when in fact, he exposed a cover up of this potential crime, reporting from inside sources at the pentagon and blaming the correct malfactors, Bush and Rumsfeld. Bill Oreilly smears WWII vets who were murdered, by implicating them as murderers when the facts completely conradict this.

It’s informative to know that reality has no bearing on your opinions and your conscience doesn’t bother you in the slightest. In some circles, we call this psycopathic, or in nicer terms, sociopathic.

Posted by: gergle at June 5, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #154482

gergle,

“Bill Oreilly smears WWII vets who were murdered, by implicating them as murderers when the facts completely conradict this.”

Let me add that O’Reilly did this not once, but twice, and Fox News had the temerity to “sanitize” O’Reilly’s take in the transcript.

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #154504

joebagod-
Its a good thing Limbaugh did’nt insist on a speedy trial,the case languished in the D.A.’s office for months before he was formally charged.
In O’Reilly’s case,while not being part of the closed door proceedings,I can’t say for sure what happened. It does appear that yes he was guilty,and no does not seem in the least bit contrite.

But seriously,ya did’nt like my little poem?

Posted by: jblym at June 5, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #154512

Great post, Jay Jay. Thanks the heads-up on this.

BRAVO! to Olbermann for once again setting the facts straight, and calling our attention to the lies which billow from the lips of Bill O’, and from Faux News in general.

Many good points raised by all the lefties, and Rocky, in this thread.

Aldous:

“David R. Remer:

I dispute your claim that Democrats will become like Republicans. While the current Dems are indeed trying, they simply think too much to be successful.

Face it… you need gullibility on a whole new level to be a Republican.”

I basically agree with you Aldous, but not ALL current Dems are trying to become like the GOP in order to win. In fact, I think the Dems with real integrity actually find it impossible to stoop to such a level.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 5, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #154541

What do you expect from one of the nations biggest gas bag, O’Reilly. First he works for a network that is “Fair and Balanced” to the ultra right wing not to the truth. Second, he is more interested in self promotion that getting anywhere near the facts of a story. Third, Mr. O’Reilly is a lier who, when confronted with the truth, will spin more lies to cover up the first lie.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at June 5, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #154549

Um. I haven’t read all the post about this issue, but I have a question. And please think about it before you respond. Does anyone think just maybe Bill Orielly miss spoke during the interview?

I mean followed what Olberman has said and I find it a little obtuse on his part too try and attack Bill over this point.

And, I hate too say this but playing the gotcha game with O’Rielly and others only makes the (Left look Bad).

The Far left has become the boy who cried wolf. Nobody takes liberals and democrats seriously because of the tripe that comes out of Olberman, Media Matters, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Howard Dean.

I hope and pray that the liberals wise up too this.

Because if Olberman an co are the answer.

Then we have bigger problems than some right wing conspiracy.

This post is intended to implore liberals to return to being the reasoned and fair movement. That, I know it can be.

If this doesn’t happen. Say hello to a republican controlled congress in 06, and a 4 more years of possible Jeb Bush in the White house in 08.

I don’t think any of you want this too happen.

Posted by: Jason at June 5, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #154552

People like Reilly & Limbaugh may have what is called (Intermittent Explosive Disorder.) Unfortunately, about 13 to 14 million people are believed to have the same disorder.Strange,the two of them have about the same amount of viewers. We should all try to stay focused on the facts which are behind us 90% of the topmost of these people will never see the facts because they must at all coasts be Right knowing even when they knowingly are telling an untruth.

Posted by: DAVID at June 5, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #154566

Posted by: DAVID at June 5, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #154584

Jason,

Does anyone think just maybe Bill Orielly miss spoke during the interview?
Did you watch the clip that was posted? The whole thing? It made clear that this was the second time that O’Rielly told this lie—the first time he told it he was corrected. Much later he uses it again even though he knew better. To add insult to injury, when one of his own viewer corrects him on the mistake, he covers it up with yet more spin. As Olberman said, one could give him the benefit of the doubt the first time he made the mistake—but repeating it again after he knows better shows he simply doesn’t care about the truth.
Nobody takes liberals and democrats seriously because of the tripe that comes out of Olberman, Media Matters, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Howard Dean.
I’d like to hear what sort of tripe you think comes out of Media Matters. I hope you’re not getting your opinion of Media Matters from O’Reilly—they have a tendency to call him on every piece of tripe he spews, pretty much on a daily basis.

Posted by: Introspective at June 5, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #154588

I don’t know about the particular incident Bill was talking about, but my uncle and my father have both told me they PERSONALLY witnessed American soldiers beating German POWs with log chains and baseball bats. My uncle also said they used to violently slam POW’s backs against trees repeatedly. As far as Olbermann goes, it’s quite obvious that he pleasures himself to the 11:00 PM airing of the Factor every night, which explains his obsession with all things O’Reilly.

Posted by: Duano at June 5, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #154599

Duano,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%A9dy_massacre

Posted by: Rocky at June 5, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #154602

Dear introspective. I don’t need O’Reilly to tell media matters is a proganda out fit. I simple to read their constant attacks against anyone with whom they disagree. For example Chris Mathews is constantly attacked any time he says anything positive about republicans, or Bush. The New York times, LA Times are constantly attacked everytime they go against the liberal or progessive point of view.

If Media Matters simple went after Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter, etc, etc. I wouldn’t have a problem.

And if you want tripe read some of Media Matters post on any subject.

The post don’t rise to the intelligence of Watch Blog.com.

And if you think media matters is an honest out fit.

I can’t help you.

One if liberals continue this line of thinking they will.

BECOME BEGGARS TO THEIR OWN DEMISE!

Posted by: Jason at June 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #154607

Jason,

Chris Mathews is constantly attacked any time he says anything positive about republicans, or Bush.
Can you give me an example of Media Matters making an unfair attack on Chris Matthews, and provide your opinion as to why it’s unfair and/or unsupported? I’d like to see what you view as tripe—maybe your definition is different.

And if you’re unwilling to support your own statements with examples… then I can’t help you either.

Posted by: Introspective at June 5, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #154611

“If you tell the truth all the time, you don’t have to remember anything.”

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 5, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #154638

Oreilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are propagendist period. No more no less. Have you ever gotten into a discussion with someone whose only source of “news” is some combination of this group of 3?The fun thing about the people that listen to these idiots is they have no real depth on the issue at hand to argue with. Point out a few facts and they cut and run.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 5, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #154642

Introspective you want examples.

All one has to do is go too the media matters web site and you’ll see constant attacks anyone who doesn’t keep with the liberal progessive agenda will be attacked.

For example Media (and you can check this out for yourself introspective) has done numerous pieces on the New York Times article about the Clinton Marriage. I assume the article says the marriage is on the rocks. And no I didn’t read the article. My question is do we have too. I mean really after Monica Lewinski and her infamous dress with the stain.

But who really cares about the Clinton Marriage.

I still thought Hillary had the best chance of winning the presidence in 08.

But becuause Mathews has panel of guest who discuss the article he is attacking the Hillary.

Eventhough he interviewed Hillary a couple of years ago during His Hard ball college tour. Again introspective you can google this item yourself.

Point it was a good interview and he treated her with a great deal of respect.

2nd point Mathews endorsing Mcain, and Guilani in 08.

This has drawn much Ire from Media Matters, and they immediately went on the offensive. Against Mcain, Guilani and Mathews. Which I don’t like but okay. I understand. They don’t want 4 more years of republican control of the white house.

But, when Gore made head lines with his new movie and was Criticized for this. Media matters cries foul.

I say to my self if this is what the progessive far left is all about. Then you guys have bigger problems then fox news or Bill O’Reilly.

And introspective I’ve rather enjoye our little debate. I hope you have too.

peace.

Posted by: Jason at June 5, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #154647

Jason,

All one has to do is go too the media matters web site and you’ll see constant attacks anyone who doesn’t keep with the liberal progessive agenda will be attacked.
I did go there and what I see are rebuttals to inaccuracies and omissions that media figures are guilty of making. I see full transcripts of each media report, usually with the actual audio and/or video provided. I also see Media Matters making statements about the inaccuracies and omissions that each media figure made, with many links to sources that support the claims Media Matters is making.

What I don’t see is the tripe and outright lies that O’Reilly and his ilk are guilty of every day, unless your definition of tripe is something that you don’t agree with and wish weren’t true.

What I asked you for is a specific link to a specific article at Media Matters that you find unfair or untrue. I also asked for specific reasons why you believe this to be true, with sources that dispute the claims made by Media Matters. I basically asked you to provide a example of why Media Matters isn’t perfectly justified in their outrage, and so far you haven’t demonstrated that.

Care to play again?

Posted by: Introspective at June 6, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #154833

Jason,
When you trash Media Matters as you have the right to do so (a right given to you through the men, among others, that Bill slandered by calling them murderers not one but twice),I would like to ask you to honestly answer this question. Did you trash David Brock when he was vilifying Anita Hill for the neocons? Or are you alright when he only trashes the left?

Posted by: Frankie Bruchis at June 6, 2006 3:40 PM
Post a comment