O'Reilly is Ignoring The Facts on Carol Lam
- 3-30-07 -- Last week Billy said the U.S. attorney thing is absurd, a fabricated event designed to hurt the president and make it easier for the Democrats to consolidate their power and elect a president in 2008.
Now that is totally absurd. O'Reilly has used Carol Lam to show there is nothing to the U.S. attorney story, he claims she was fired for not prosecuting immigration cases. That is not true, not to mention he ignores the 3 U.S. attorneys who are speaking out on it, he has not said a word about David Iglesais, or Bud Cummings, and he is spinning the Lam firing.
In the Carol Lam case, Billy is just repeating the false claims made by Alberto Gonzales and Kyle Sampson. Billy also said this last week:
Now, the only way this dopey story matters is if the Bush administration fired a prosecutor who was looking into political corruption. If that happened, the president is doomed. But there's no evidence of that. In San Diego, U.S. attorney Carol Lam was under fire for failing to prosecute illegal alien criminals.
Now look at what O'Reilly did not tell you, and think about this, Billy said a journalist should report everything they know, so why did he not report this.
During the Kyle Sampson testimony yesterday Senator Dianne Feinstein revealed a letter of commendation to Carol Lam dated Feb. 15, 2007, signed by the director of field operations of the United States Customs and Border Protection Agency. She read some excerpts to Sampson:
To address the alien enforcement issue, your office supported the implementation of the Alien Smuggling Fast Track Program, and has demonstrated a commitment to aggressively address the alien smuggling recidivism rate.Billy claims there is no evidence Lam was fired for looking into political corruption, earth to Billy, yes there is, you just ignored it for partisan reasons.
In support of Border Patrol referrals for prosecution, your office maintains a 100 percent acceptance rate of criminal cases while staunchly refusing to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and maintaining a minimal dismissal rate and supporting special prosecution efforts.
The letter concludes, "I speak for my entire staff when I say that we are honored to have had the privilege of working with you and your staff for the past four years. Again, thank you for your support; you will be missed."
Carol Lam's Firing Clearly Obstruction of Justice
Carol Lam, the Yale and Stanford educated former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, was abruptly given the axe because she had stumbled upon the old boys' network, and began prosecuting people George W. Bush didn't want to see prosecuted.
First, Ms. Lam, a Republican, secured a conviction against former California Representative, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the high-flying and completely corrupt defense contract profiteer. The "Duke" was handed an eight-year, four-month prison sentence, the longest one ever meted out to a former member of Congress.
Then Ms. Lam caught the trail of two well-connected associates of Cunningham's, Brent Wilkes and his old high-school buddy, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. Wilkes had been the Bush/Cheney finance co-chairman for California, and was also involved in the Arnold Schwarzenegger campaign. Wilkes paid off Cunningham with $2.4 million to help his company secure over $80 million in Pentagon contracts.
As soon as U.S. Attorney Lam began to secure search warrants against Wilkes and Foggo, Gonzales had her fired. The Attorney General's office initially claimed Ms. Lam was terminated for "performance" reasons, but that was dismissed as ludicrous by anyone remotely familiar with her superlative work. Then the DOJ said she was axed because she didn't pursue immigration cases vigorously, which also proved to be false.
At the time of her ouster, Lam had initiated an investigation of corruption allegations against California Representative Jerry Lewis, who ran in the same crowd as Cunningham and doled out millions of dollars in contracts from his perch on the Appropriations Committee.
Carol Lam's Firing Clearly Obstruction of Justice
Note: Funny how Billy can not find any evidence she was fired for political corruption investigations against Republicans, when he has a staff of 15 people, and a multi million dollar budget, I found it, and I am just one person with a $600.00 personal computer. Billy never found it because he did not want to find it. If he is a journalist, I'm Elvis.
O'Reilly Refusing to Say "Radical RightFrom His Own Poll
- 3-28-07 -- Tonight on the Factor Billy promoted his online poll that asks the question, who is the most radical right.
When he asked his viewers to go vote in the poll he said who is the most "dedicated" right, even though the poll says radical right on his website, and it also said radical right on the TV screen.
That's how far in the tank he is for the right, he can't even bring himself to say radical right, funny how he had no problem saying radical left when he ran that poll last week.
Update: 3-29-07 -- Tonight when Billy promoted his website poll that says who is the most radical right, he said who is the furthest right instead of radical right, even though the actual poll says radical right. BIlly is such a biased conservative he can not even bring himself to say the words radical right. This should eliminate any doubt that Mr. so-called Independent, fair and balanced, no spin zone, is a 100% biased conservative in an all spin zone.
O'Reilly Shows His Conservative Bias in Polls
- 3-27-07 -- Last week Billy ran a poll on his website asking who is the most radical on the left, the choices were Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Maher, Sean Penn, and Natalie Maines. That is three people from hollywood, and one singer. And how radical could Natalie Maines be, all she did was say she was embarrased the President was from texas, and she said it one time about 3 years ago, and O'Reilly calls that radical?
Not to mention none of them are elected officials, or in the political business, they are comedians and actors. O'Reilly has said in the past that these hollywood people are pinheads that you should ignore, and that nobody should care what they say because they don't know what they are talking about. Yet here he is putting them in his poll, and reporting what they say every night. So which is it Billy, should we listen to them, or ignore them, talk about hypocrites, you are the king of hypocrisy.
Now Billy has a new poll, who's the most radical right: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, or Tom DeLay. Notice these four people are in politics, are on TV or radio, and one former Congressman, and he said right wing, who is the most right wing on the show, but on the liberal poll he said who is the most radical on the left.
On the Factor tv show the graphic on the screen read "who is the most radical right?" but O'Reilly could not bring himself to say radical right - twice he said "the most right-wing. He said this on the Radio Factor last Friday 3-23-07.
"And then next week we're going to have 'who is the most right... who is the most...you can't be radical right, so, who's the furthest right, I think I'm gonna put, and we'll have four names there."
Billy says that there is nobody who is radical right, that's why he said who is the most right wing. In his world Ann Coulter and Tom Delay are NOT radical right, even though the rest of the world thinks they are. Billy does not call them radical right because he agrees with 99% of what they say, so in his world they are not radical right. And somehow he can not find anyone who is radical right, when I could fill a website with radical right names and websites.
Billy Cherry Picked Troop Effigy & Flag Burning Video
- 3-27-07 -- First let me say that as a far left liberal I do not support burning the flag, or burning an effigy of a U.S. soldier, in fact, I am strongly opposed to it, and every liberal I know is too. But I understand people have free speech rights, so if they want to do it they can, after all, this is America, not Russia or China, right Billy?
What Billy did last night was dishonest, cherry picked, far right, partisan propaganda. He showed a video clip of a small group of about 30 people who burned an effigy of a U.S soldier, and the American flag at an anti-war rally in Portland. O'Reilly used that video to smear ALL anti-war protesters, the Oregonian newspaper, and the media in general.
The protest had roughly 15,000 people there, 14,970 of them did not burn an effigy of a U.S. soldier, or the American flag. Yet Billy said those 30 people represent the far left in America. This is a LIE, they do not represent us, they are radical idiots who only represent themselves. Those 30 people do not represent the left in America, and anyone who claims they do is a far right propagandist for the Republican party.
This is just more proof that Bill O'Reilly is a lying, spinning, right-wing idiot. How can you claim 30 people who burn a U.S. troops effigy represent the other 15,000 people who were there, you can't, unless you are a far right nut.
When other marchers at the protest were asked about what those 30 people did, they said they were horrified to learn about the small demonstration with the burning effigy. They say they weren't aware it was happening and wish that it hadn't. Did Billy (the so-called journalist) report that, of course not, because that would not fit his far right agenda.
And Billy's far right friend Michelle Malkin did the exact same thing with photos from the protest.
Rahael Palinkas is a student in Portland, she was at the protest and took photos. Palinkas posted to her Facebook site 240 photos from the peace rally and march. Almost all of them showed "people laughing, talking, dancing, marching" at what she called a "family-friendly" event. Only 13 of the 240 images in Palinkas' Facebook album show what she describes as "the extreme fringe."
"What they're doing is wrong," she said. "They're twisting my pictures and misrepresenting what happened on that day."
"We had a massive, peaceful demonstration against the killing and destruction going on every day in Iraq, a positive experience for thousands of people from different walks of life," said Kelly Campbell of American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization, "and apparently the right-wing fringe is going to pick up that little portion."
Elijah Smith, a Marine reservist who served three months as a combat engineer in Iraq, said he was personally appalled by the group's fiery demonstration.
But Smith, a 27-year-old Portland substitute teacher who opposes the war, also thought the way the images are being used is misleading. "Anyone who was at the event," he said, "knows it."
And Billy is right there at the head of the pack of right wing smear merchants.
O'Reilly Claims to be Looking Out For You
- 3-26-07 -- Then he says the whole U.S. attorney scandal is absurd, and a fabricated event designed to hurt the president. To make that claim he has to ignore all the lies from Alberto Gonzales, lying to Congress under oath, the lies about not using the Patriot act provision, the lies about why only 8 U.S. attorneys were fired, the e-mails, etc.
Billy said this on 3-23-07:
Once again I'm put in a position of having to defend the Bush administration, which is not my job. My mandate is to watch the Bush administration and everybody else, to watch those who hold power in this country.Yeah he watches those who hold power, then he ignores all their scandals because they are Republicans, just like him. And this is from the man who said if we go into Iraq and find nothing, he will never trust the Bush administration again, yet night after night he defends everything Bush does. It was just another empty promise from O'Reilly, he says one thing, then does another.
But the U.S. attorney thing is absurd, a fabricated event designed to hurt the president and make it easier for the Democrats to consolidate their power and elect a president in 2008.
The American people strongly want the U.S. attorney scandal investigated, because they want oversight on the Bush administration by Congress, unlike O'Reilly who wants to let Bush do anything he wants because he is a Republican, and he agrees with his agenda.
Americans strongly back attorney purge investigation in a USA today poll, and Billy can not say it is a far left liberal poll because the USA today newspaper is a conservative owned paper.
Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?
Yes, should - 72%; No, should not - 21%
If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated?
Invoke executive privilege - 26%; Answer all questions - 68%
In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?
Yes, should - 68%; No, should not - 24%
Billy says he is looking out for you, then he supports the Bush administration at every turn, even when they torture people and break the laws they swore to uphold, and Billy constantly goes against the majority of the American people, the very people he claims to be looking out for. In the last 6 years Billy has supported the Bush administration in everything they do, except illegal immigration, that is the only issue he disagrees with Bush on.
Even though the majority of the American people oppose the Bush administration on virtually every issue, from health care, to the economy, to social security, to stem cell research, etc. In reality O'Reilly is looking out for the Republican agenda, and the Bush administration, not you.
O'Reilly Lies to Defend Bush & Cheney Crimes
- 3-25-07 -- Last week O'Reilly had the mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson on to discuss Impeaching George W. Bush. During the segment O'Reilly said there has to be a crime to Impeach a President. He called the mayor a kook, and kooky, then denied he called him a name, and he also claimed he knows more about history and the constitution than Mr. Anderson.
O'REILLY: There isn't one congress person who will introduce an article of impeachment. You can't get anybody to do it, because they know you're a kook. That's why.Billy claims to be a fair and balanced independent journalist who gives a fair shot to both sides, those are his words, he has said that many times. So how is it fair and balanced to call your guest a kook, and kooky, because you disagree with him, how is that being an independent fair and balanced journalist?
ANDERSON: Do you just have guests on your program so you can hear yourself talk?
O'REILLY: Go ahead, mayor.
ANDERSON: You know, where I'm from, we ask people questions. We give them the courtesy of answering without being interrupted.
O'REILLY: It depends how kooky you are. I'm not going to let you.
ANDERSON: You know, we also.
O'REILLY: .say something that's totally insane like you're saying.
ANDERSON: This is classic Bill, isn't it? That you invite guests on to call them names. I love my country. I love our constitution. I believe very strongly in the rule of law.
O'REILLY: Yes, well your interpretation of the Constitution is kooky. That's what it is.
ANDERSON: Let me know when you're finished.
O'REILLY: Well, I am finished. I want to move along. I just want to move along.
ANDERSON: You let me know when you're finished. And you're going to stop calling people names.
O'REILLY: I didn't call you a name. I said your interpretation of the Constitution is kooky. And it is.
O'REILLY: Yes, but there's got to be a crime in order to impeach anybody.
ANDERSON: No, I'm sorry you don't know your constitutional history, Bill. There doesn't have to be a crime at all.
O'REILLY: There has to be a demonstrable -- with all due respect, mayor, I think I know more than you do about American history and the Constitution. There has to be a demonstrable.
ANDERSON: No, apparently you don't from what you just said Bill O'Reilly.
Jon Roland of the Constitution Society wrote this, and btw, Ann Coulter agrees with him, what say you Billy?
The grounds for impeachment specified in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", is not limited to criminal offenses against which there are laws. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors", as explained by Ann Coulter in her recent book entitled High Crimes and Misdemeanors, is a term of art that includes many offenses that are not criminally or civilly actionable but are, nevertheless, grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
Here is a crime Billy, and this is from Paul Craig Roberts, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. So he is not some far left liberal kook.
While serving as President Bush's White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised Bush that the president's war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants.
By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA.
Not to mention there are at least at least six books out that make compelling cases for impeachment:
The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia Cooper
The Genius of Impeachment, by John Nichols
The Articles of Impeachment, by the Center for Constitutional Rights
Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney, by Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips
The Case for Impeachment, by David Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky
U.S. v Bush, by Elizabeth de la Vega
And now for some facts on high crimes and misdemeanors, it looks like Mr. Anderson was right, and Billy was wrong.
High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
In the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the late 1990s for perjury, the exact meaning of the term high crimes and misdemeanors became the subject of debate. A particular subject of debate is exactly what rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Some felt that the act of perjury, a federal crime, certainly rose to that level. Others felt that perjury about cheating on your wife, while illegal, did not reach that level.
It is evident that in the absence of a clear legal definition, determining what rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an inherently political process, which means that it is up to Congress and what it thinks constitutes an impeachable offense.
Jon Roland of the Constitution Society has carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, basically he disagrees with Billy, and pretty much agrees with mayor Anderson, if you want to see what it means go read it.
Mark Cuban Exposes O'Reilly Hypocrisy On Radio Broadcast
- 3-24-07 -- Billionaire Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks who is set to finance a cinema release of Loose Change narrated by Charlie Sheen, exposed Bill O'Reilly's rampant hypocrisy concerning his coverage of the 9/11 truth movement on the Fox News host's radio show yesterday.
Offering the entire 18 minute segment will probably result in Bill calling on Fox security to pay us a visit so here's a 9 minute clip instead.
O'Reilly admits right off the bat that he has not even seen Loose Change, following in the trend of his fellow debunkers who have already arrived at a judgment without even checking the evidence. Bill's mind is made up! Don't bother him with the facts!
This painfully underscores exactly what this whole charade represents, not an open debate on the evidence, but a cynical attempt to smear Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Mark Cuban.
Full Story Here:
Billy Says Loose Change Will Destroy Sheen
- 3-23-07 -- The O'Reilly Factor featured a segment in which Billy warned Charlie Sheen that narrating Loose Change would destroy his career, amidst a cacophony of slurs, smears and Holocaust jibes, characterized by this and other hit pieces that carried all the weight of a third grader's scribbled essay paper and couldn't even pin down basic facts.
Fox featured three talking heads who all agreed with each other - O'Reilly, whitewash aficionado Gerald Posner and a barely comprehensible New York detective called Bo Dietl - this from the network that likes to call itself "fair and balanced."
Posner is quite clearly ruffled that billionaire Mark Cuban is set to throw his weight behind Loose Change and labels it a "disgrace," without explaining why a position that 84% of the country and most of the 9/11 family members now take is a disgrace.
Bo Dietl then proceeds to give us a lecture on how the WTC towers melted and fell down like potato chips, a thoroughly scientific analysis I think we can all agree. Dietl fails to inform us of how jet fuel, which burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, melted steel which melts at 2700 degrees Fahrenheit.
Full Story Here:
On a side note, Billy also said the Dixie Chicks were done after they said they were ashamed to have a President from Texas, and all they did after that was win every award possible at the Grammy's, So the O'Reilly predictions are not very accurate.
O'Reilly & The Far Right Try to Demonize Everyone on The Left
- 3-21-07 -- Bill O'Reilly, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and almost everyone on the right is trying to demonize the left. They call us anti-American, anti-troops, anti-war, traitors, un-patriotic, America haters, etc. And they say we do not want to win in Iraq.
That is all total right-wing BS. It is all lies, nothing but lies. This garbage is put out by far right spin doctors like O'Reilly and Malkin to fool the American people into thinking we do not love America, and that we do not support the troops.
It's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. I am as liberal as it gets, and I love America, I love my country, I love the flag, I love the troops, I support them 100%, and I think anyone who fights for this country is a HERO.
Hey Billy, Michelle, Sean, Rush, what part of that don't you understand?
What I oppose is George W. Bush, his domestic and foreign policies, and the Iraq war. That does not make me an America hater, or anti-American, or a traitor, or a troops hater, or un-patriotic. And anyone who makes that claim is a certified right-wing lunatic. They claim everyone on the left is anti-all-wars, but I do not oppose all wars, only the Iraq war, I fully supported the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror, and any war that is justified to protect the country.
O'Reilly and his far right friends like Malkin and Limbaugh are dishonest fools, they think if they tell the American people everyone on the left is un-American, troop hating, traitors, it will make the people vote Republican in the next presidential election. They said the same thing before the last elections, it did not work then, and it will not work now, nobody is buying it, except maybe a few far right lunatics.
They are trying to demonize the left for political reasons, it is all lies, it is dishonest garbage, and O'Reilly is the #1 guy on the right doing it. Yet he claims he is not a conservative, haha, yeah right, if you believe that I have some land to sell you. How can O'Reilly claim to be a fair and balanced independent journalist with a no spin zone, when all he does is spin everything to the right, and attack liberals 99.9% of the time.
The O'Reilly Factor is nothing but an all right-wing spin zone. Pretty much everything O'Reilly says is untrue and wrong, it is 99.9% right-wing propaganda. The only thing he does that is any good is look out for the children. The rest of the Factor is just right-wing propaganda, and that is the real no spin on it.
Gonzales Lied to Congress Under Oath But O'Reilly Ignores it All
- 3-17-07 -- It's official, Alberto Gonzales lied to Congress, and he lied to them under oath. Yet to this day Bill O'Reilly has not reported it on the Factor. The U.S. attorney scandal has already cost the Attorney General's chief of staff his job, and will most likely force Alberto Gonzales to resign too. Yet Bill O'Reilly does not think the story is important enough for him to report on.
Gonzales Lied to Congress Under Oath
On Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath, that the Bush administration never intended to take advantage of a Patriot Act provision that allows the President to appoint "interim" U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period of time, without Senate confirmation.
I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney.
But Justice Department emails from Dec. 2006 released this week show that Gonzales intended to use this provision to make an end-run around the Senate.
Gonzales Lied to Congress Under Oath
It's funny how when a Republican lies under oath it's no big deal to Bill O'Reilly, and a non-story. But in the past he has said that lying under oath is unacceptable, especially when Bill Clinton did it. O'Reilly has also said that we must have accurate information and hear both sides of the issues in order to adequately protect ourselves and our families, and that the code of ethics in Journalism is to tell the truth as you know it and not to distort anything or exclude anything. Yet here we have Bill O'Reilly ignoring the U.S. attorney scandal, and doing the exact opposite of what he himself says Journalists should do.
O'Reilly Ignores & Spins U.S. Attorney Scandal on The No News Factor
- 3-16-07 -- O'Reilly has totally ignored the biggest news story in America, the Alberto Gonzales U.S. attorney scandal. Until wednesday night, he finally almost reported it, well not really, he said the whole thing was a non-story put out by the liberal media, and he only mentioned it in the most ridiculous item of the day.
Most Ridiculous Item
The liberal press is making a big deal out of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says mistakes were made. President Bush says he's angry about it.
Now, we have no idea what happened, because the records are sealed. But if Gonzales did fire people for political reasons, he has to resign.
It is amusing, however, to look back on former attorney general, Janet Reno, who served under President Clinton. She fired every U.S. attorney in the country for political reasons back in '93, except one. Funny how the New York Times wasn't outraged.
Anyway, the only U.S. Attorney to survive the Reno purge was Michael Chertoff the present director of Homeland Security. Democratic Senator Bill Bradley in New Jersey saved Chertoff's job. And we think it might have been political.
We also think the double standard here is ridiculous.
Funny how O'Reilly is always saying to a liberal who compares bad behaviour by a Democrat to bad behaviour by a Republican, that you cant do it, and he dont allow it. Yet somehow it's ok for O'Reilly (a conservative) to compare bad behaviour by Bush and Gonzales to what "he claims" is the same thing by Bill Clinton. Hypocrisy? Double Standard? You be the judge.
Not to mention, Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys at the start of his term, as did other presidents, and nobody has a problem with that. Bush only fired 8 U.S. attorneys, and he fired them 2 years into his 2nd term, for political reasons, which is unheard of. No U.S. attorney has ever been fired in the middle of a presidents term, unless it was for misconduct, Bill Clinton never did any of that.
Although President Bill Clinton dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term is unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.
So the comparison is bogus, and the only people who are using it are the Republicans who are trying to spin the story and mislead the American people.
And it's funny how O'Reilly ignores the patriot act provision, and how Gonzales lied to Congress under oath, and the e-mails, etc. In fact, he left out all the details, and never reported on the story one time, not once, then he claims he has no idea what happened because the records are sealed.
What? They are? Then how come I can go to the justice departments website and read the e-mails?
The truth is, nothing is sealed, and we know exactly what happened. His report on the story is like an episode of the twilight zone, nothing is true, and nothing makes sense.
Billy has lost his mind if he thinks anyone is going to believe his most ridiculous item spin on a story he refuses to report on. If you really want to know what happened (which O'Reilly don't) it's real easy, you just go to these websites and read what happened.
Update: Along with Many Democrats like Senator Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy, etc. calling for Gonzales to resign, 3 Republicans (so far) are also calling for him to resign, Sen. John Sununu, Sen. Gordon Smith, and Congressman Dana Rohrbacher. So many Democratic Senators call for Gonzales to resign, and 3 Republican Senators call for a Republican Attorney General to resign, and it's a non-story to O'Reilly, how does he dare call himself a journalist?
O'Reilly Dishonest Talking Points Memo on The Far-Left
- 3-12-07 -- Before I get into this dishonest tpm from Billy, can anyone show me a tpm from O'Reilly where he says something bad about the right, or their dishonesty, just one, ever, anyone?
3-12-07 Factor TPM: The Dishonesty of the Far Left on Display Again
Within the Democratic Party, there are two elements: moderate Dems and radical-left Dems. The radical movement is funded by George Soros and Peter Lewis, who pour millions of dollars into candidates and Web sites like MoveOn to do their bidding. Soros and Lewis have given MoveOn at least $5 million.
Stewert: And it is their right to donate money to whatever group they want to, nothing they do is illegal, and it's funny how O'Reilly only has a problem with people who give money to the left. He dont have any problem with corporations giving hundreds of millions to groups on the right, like the Heritage Foundation, or AEI, or PNAC, etc.
My book "Culture Warrior" pinpoints the far-left agenda and it is frightening. Things like open borders, a one world foreign police, unfettered abortion, and so on.
Stewert: You mean the far-left agenda the majority of American people support on 14 of 16 issues. that agenda. The only 2 issues the majority of Americans support on the conservative side are gay marriage and the death penalty.
The Soros-Lewis mob despises FOX News because we have their number and report on them accurately. They use the MoveOn Web site to smear this network and others with whom they disagree.
Stewert: Wrong, they despise FOX News because they are a one sided biased propaganda mouthpiece for the Republican party and the Bush white house.
These people use propaganda techniques perfected by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister of information -- they lie, distort, defame all the time.
Stewert: Wrong, FOX News, you, and the Bush administration are the ones who use Goebbels style propaganda, you think if you say a lie often enough sooner or later people will believe it. But with the internet now we can prove you are a liar and a propagandist, and that is what you are mad at. And uh, hey Billy, when a Democrat compared Bush to Hitler you said that was wrong, so how is it ok for you to compare an American group like moveon.org to Hitlers propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.
So it's not surprising that MoveOn objected to a debate sponsored by FOX News and the Nevada Democratic Party. MoveOn immediately tried to boycott the August event and persuaded John Edwards to drop out.
That was simply stupid.
Stewert: Wrong, it was stupid for Democrats to agree to debate on a FOX News sponsored show in the first place, that was stupid. The smart thing was to drop out of the debate, to send a message to FOX News, that they will not debate on an unfair and unbalanced news network.
FOX News has sponsored a number of debates in the past, all of them fair and balanced. And Edwards has appeared on this network more than 30 times with no complaint.
Then last Thursday evening, FOX News chairman Roger Ailes received a Freedom of Speech Leadership Award in Washington. I was in the front row when Mr. Ailes said this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROGER AILES, FOX NEWS CHAIRMAN: And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said why can't we catch this guy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Not one person complained, according to the organizers of the event. It was just an obvious jest directed at President Bush.
Stewert: Wrong, it was a joke directed at Bush and Obama. Your leader compared Obama to Osama, that is a fact, and it was a lie to claim the joke was only directed at Bush. FOX News has been on a jihad against Obama for months, they spew out lies about him, and report lies from Republican smear websites, the ones you never attack, or say a word about.
But almost immediately, Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat from Nevada, declared the joke a smear against Obama, saying, "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments."
Now Reid is either very dense or very disingenuous. There's no middle ground.
Stewert: Wrong, you are dense and disingenuous, and a flat out liar. The joke was clearly a smear against Obama, that is a fact, because it was also a joke about Bush does not mean it was not also about Obama, you are being disingenuous pal.
And so the debate has now been cancelled. The Soros-MoveOn cabal believe this is a major victory for them, but once again they're wrong. The FOX News Channel has been fair to the Democratic Party and will continue to be fair.
Stewert: Wrong, it is a major victory, finally the left is sticking up to the right-wingers at FOX who treat them unfairly and report nothing but lies about them.
And the truth is that MoveOn is hurting the Democratic Party. They have succeeded in buying some politicians and media people, but clear thinking Americans understand radical lunacy and dishonest tactics when they see them. And that what is what the Soros-Lewis MoveOn cabal specialize in.
Stewert: Wrong, moveon is helping the Democratic party, almost all Democrats support them, the only ones who dont are the fake Democrats like Lieberman. And clear thinking Americans do understand radical lunacy and dishonest tactics when they see them, and they are coming from you and your right-wing buddies at FOX News.
Shame, shame on Senator Reid for supporting that.
Stewert: Shame on you for being a dishonest right-wing hack who does nothing but spin and lie for the Republican party and the Bush white house. While pretending to be a real journalist, when in reality you are just a right-wing hack who has a fake news show.
And that's the real no spin from www.oreilly-sucks.com.
Olbermann Names O'Reilly Worst Person in The World
- 3-13-07 -- Nine children and an adult buried today after last week's horrific house fire in the Bronx in New York City. And one commentator actually says the real story is his deduction that the children burned alive may have been illegal aliens.
The gold tonight, who else, the intolerant and intolerable Bill O'Reilly, blaming a kidnapped teenager in Missouri for his own sexual abuse was not sufficient.
He has now blamed last week's house fire in New York City, which killed 9 children and the mother of four of them, on, quote, so called compassion, unquote, because his show could not confirm the victims were not illegal aliens.
He described sympathy and compassion for the dead, kids burned alive, as a, quote, new tactic by the pro-amnesty, open border crowd, using children to demand sanctuary for illegal aliens.
He actually said that. Any issue can be freely discussed, should be discussed. The issue of amnesty or borders or tactics is for the moment, in the Bronx, with the funerals only today, irrelevant, prioritizing it is indefensible. It is inhuman.
Bill O'Reilly has left the human race, the Worst Person in the World.
O'Reilly Spins Pew Research Most Admired Journalist Report
- 3-12-07 -- Billy said this on the friday 3-9-07 factor:
O'REILLY: The Pew Research Center is out with the annual survey of journalists. The scientific poll asks, thinking about the news, what journalist or news person do you most admire? The top three choices were just about even - Katie Couric, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Gibson. I don't know this O'Reilly guy, but Couric and Gibson should be very happy.
For a guy with a no spin zone he sure does a lot of spinning, the top choice was "no answer" with 44% of the vote, meaning the people who took the poll did not answer that question, the next choice was "other" at 24%, meaning they liked someone who was not on the list. Katie Couric was 3rd at 5%, Bill O'Reilly was 4th at 4%, and Charles Gibson was 5th at 3%, the rest got 2% or less of the vote.
Not to mention the title of the report:
Today's Journalists Less Prominent
Fewer Widely Admired than 20 Years Ago
Released - 3-8-07
So what you have is O'Reilly crowing like a rooster about how he was #2 on the list of most admired journalists, he was actually 4th behind no answer and other. The reality is, 96% of the people either, do not admire him, they had no answer, or they do not admire anyone on the list. Bill O'Reilly tops the list of most admired journalists among Republicans, but only 2% of Democrats and Independents name O'Reilly.
The biased way he reported it you would think he was the 2nd most admired journalist in America. When he only got 4% of the vote in the survey, and 98% of his votes were from Republicans. Talk about spin, only O'Reilly could take a survey that shows 96% of the people either had no answer, or picked nobody on the list, and twist that around to claim he is the 2nd most admired journalist in America.
When 98% of the 4% who admire you are Republicans, that does not mean you are the 2nd most admired journalist in America. It just means 98% of the Republicans who voted admire you, now that's no spin.
Update: NBC News Transcript Proves O'Reilly Lied About Richard Engel
- 3-11-07 -- On the 3-8-07 O'Reilly factor Billy played a video clip of a 3-6-07 NBC News Iraq report from Richard Engel, in that specific (cherry picked) clip Richard Engel did not report attacks in Baghdad were down.
Then O'Reilly said Richard Engel has NEVER reported attacks in Iraq are down. And he said that it's an example of his liberal bias, his anti-war agenda, and how it shows he just hates Bush and the war etc. All of that was a LIE. O'Reilly cherry picked the one Iraq report by Richard Engel where he did not report attacks were down. Even though the night before (3-5-07) Engel did report attacks were down, he even reported the exact numbers, and he reported it on NBC News with Brian Williams. All of which, O'Reilly said he has never reported. It was all a LIE from Bill O'Reilly to make NBC News seem biased, anti-war, and anti-Bush.
Here is the transcript to prove it.
From the March 5 edition of NBC's Nightly News:
WILLIAMS: But first, we begin with the situation right here. In this city today, a suicide bomber detonated a car full of explosives in the historic so-called booksellers' district of the city, killing at least 20 people, injuring 65 others. The attack comes during a period of change here. There are now pockets of relative peace where there had been awful ongoing violence. We start with two reports tonight.
Today, my colleague Richard Engel visited dangerous Sadr City section of Baghdad, while I was invited to ride along on an inspection of the new policy in action in the cities of Ramadi and Hit, getting Iraqi and American troops, Army and Marines, into smaller outposts to fight this war block by block.
WILLIAMS: Now to a different experience: our longtime correspondent here in Baghdad, Richard Engel, who also went out today with U.S. forces in the usually rough Sadr City neighborhood. Richard, it's good to be here on your turf.
ENGEL: Thank you very much, Brian. For the last several years, Sadr City has been one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in all of Baghdad, completely out of government control. Today, I went in with U.S. forces who are trying to take it back.
Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne today mounted up and braced for what has been a no-go zone for American forces, Sadr City. The last time U.S. troops entered this Shiite slum of two million two and a half years ago, they battled the Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army, for weeks. What the soldiers found today surprised them: No resistance.
The Mahdi Army in Sadr City seems to have just faded away. Its fighters no longer patrol the streets. They've even taken down their propaganda posters. The big question is: Are they just regrouping, waiting to return?
In Sadr City instead today: brisk traffic, families out, children playing.
"Finally we feel there is security. It's better," said a man who brought his daughter outside to see the U.S. soldiers. The U.S. military says in the past few weeks, violence in the Sadr City area is way down. In December, there were 254 murders, 440 total attacks. In February, just 19 murders, 91 total attacks.
There it is folks, conclusive proof that Bill O'Reilly lied about Richard Engel to make NBC News look bad, most likely because he hates the fact that Keith Olbermann exposes the spin, the bias, the lies, and the hypocrisy from O'Reilly on a daily basis, just as I do here on www.oreilly-sucks.com. Anyone who watches the factor, and who thinks O'Reilly is an honest man with a no spin zone, should read this and decide if you want to continue to watch a so-called journalist who lies to you.
Put your partisan bias away and think about it, if you are honest with yourself you will realize that Bill O'Reilly is nothing but a partisan hack, who spins and lies for the Republican party, and a man who pretends to be a fair and balanced journalist.
Democrats Pull Out of FOX News Sponsored Presidential Debate
- 3-9-07 -- Great news, With over a quarter of a million signatures in two weeks and countless phone calls to individual campaigns, the Democratic Party of Nevada got the message loud and clear: FOX News is not a legitimate news organization and should not be dignified by sponsoring a Democratic candidates' debate.
FoxAttacks.com/MoveOn.org petition had over 265,000 signatures; "Fox Attacks: Obama" video had over 280,000 views on YouTube.
Today, Senator Harry Reid and the NV Democrat Party announced they would drop a FOX-sponsored debate scheduled for August - citing FOX President Roger Ailes remarks last night that compared Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden as the final straw.
"We hope this sets a precedent for all Democrats - that FOX should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news," said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action.
All I can say is, it's about damn time. It's time for all Democrats to boycott every FOX show, and everything they do. No Democrat should ever go on any FOX news show, all it does is give them credibility as a real news network.
O'Reilly Lied About The Richard Engel Iraq Report
- 3-9-07 -- Last night O'Reilly used a Richard Engel Iraq report as an example of liberal bias at NBC News. He said Engel did not report that attacks in Iraq are down. That is a lie, Engel did report attacks in Iraq are down. And not only am I saying it's a lie, the conservative Joe Scarborough also reported that it was a lie.
O?REILLY: What Richard Engel and Brian Williams did not report last night is that violence has dropped about 80 percent in Baghdad since the surge, according to the Army. Mr. Engel is a brave man but has consistently taken an anti-war position in general. That?s not what correspondents are supposed to do.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, that's just a lie. And we'll get to that in a second and show you why he's lying.
SCARBOROUGH: Bill O'Reilly goes off the deep end with the attack tonight on NBC News, so over the top that we changed our show after hearing it less than an hour ago.
It's delusional. This got personal and nasty very quickly. Bill O'Reilly turned his guns on one of the bravest and most respected correspondents in Iraq, a guy who has put his life on the line for years. His name, Richard Engel.
Joe said this later........
SCARBOROUGH: But, John Fund, hold on, though. And that's the point. I mean, Bill O'Reilly said that Richard Engel and NBC did not report yesterday that violence dropped.
I want to read you this, because, you know, this is important. Every day the White House releases an Iraq update, where the White House, not Al-Jazeera, not FOX News, the White House cites new stories that it chooses to highlight. Tuesday's edition noted three NBC News stories. The first was from an interview Brian Williams did with retired General Wayne Downing, who's quoted saying, "U.S. soldiers are proud of what they're doing in Iraq."
The second is from NBC's Richard Engel, quoting Iraqis on the ground, saying they finally feel like there's security in their region. Engel also cited statistics from the U.S. military that indicated that violence was down, indeed, down in Sadr City.
And the third was an interview Brian Williams did with day-to-day commanders of U.S. troops in Iraq. And Williams said to the general, quote, "They just said they don't want us to leave. You know, that's the tenth time I've heard that today."
What's trouble to me, John Fund, is that Bill O'Reilly goes on an hour ago-he claims Richard Engel didn't cite those Army statistics, claiming that violence was down 80 percent, when, in fact, Engel did last night and, in fact, the White House quoted Engel.
So Bill O'Reilly goes on his air, he lies about a reporter who puts himself in harm's way, and so many millions of Americans just digest it. Isn't that troubling?
Scarborough Country Transcript (3-8-07)
Will O'Reilly make a correction tonight, don't hold your breath Joe.
Update: 3-10-07 -- O'Reilly did not retract his lies about Richard Engel on the friday night factor, a real journalist would have. We all know Bill O'Reilly is a nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the right, and not a journalist, so no retraction was expected.
O'Reilly Lied About Source of Bill Maher Stats on Iraq Deaths
- 3-8-07 -- O'Reilly had Bill Maher on the Factor tuesday night, during the interview Bill Maher said 600,000 people have died in Iraq, O'Reilly said that's a lie put out by a far left website.
MAHER: First of all...Wrong again Billy. As usual you just make it up as you go along, it's not from a far left website at all. A team of Iraqi physicians and American epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins did a study that says 655,000 people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003.
O'REILLY: And those of us who really know what the situation is go, it's just another dopey statement. Go ahead.
MAHER: I don't know if that's factually true.
O'REILLY: It is.
MAHER: I don't know if it's factually true. You don't know that either, Bill.
O'REILLY: Sure I do. It's the United Nations' own statistics.
MAHER: Well, I read a statistic that 600,000 Iraqis were...
O'REILLY: That's from a far left web site. Go with the United Nations. You're a big U.N. guy. You love the U.N. Go with them.
Of the total 655,000 estimated deaths, 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study.
The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. And the findings are being published online by the British medical journal the Lancet.
Johns Hopkins Iraq Study
Note: The U.N. stats O'Reilly is talking about claim 50,000 Iraqis have died violently, as of June 2006. But many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths. The Johns Hopkins study was done in Iraq, by Iraqi physicians who are there, so they know how many people have actually died. It's funny how O'Reilly, who says the U.N. is a joke, that they do nothing, and you should not believe anything they say, suddenly tells people to believe them when it fits his agenda.
O'Reilly Caught Telling Lies About Uranium From Niger
- 3-8-07 -- In his tuesday night talking points memo O'Reilly said this:
O'REILLY: President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address that according to British government Saddam Hussein tried to get uranium for nuclear weapons from Africa. Now that was true. But it was also true that Saddam failed to get the uranium.
That is not true, Bill O'Reilly is wrong, and he is a liar. In fact, the Bush administration later admitted that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive, and stated "those 16 words should never have been included" in the State of the Union address. So even the Bush administration admits they should not have made that claim, yet here you have O'Reilly saying it was true.
Here are the facts:
During the 2003 State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
At roughly the same time, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself. Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Wilson concluded that there was no way that production at the uranium mines could be ramped up or that the excess uranium could have been exported without it being immediately obvious to many people both in the private sector and in the government of Niger. He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong."
The Niger uranium forgeries refers to falsified classified documents initially revealed by Italian intelligence. These documents depict an attempt by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein to purchase yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.
On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of United Nations sanctions.
In March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic."
The I.A.E.A. was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis, the I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of the uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. And they concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.
The King of Hypocrisy (And Lies) Bill O'Reilly Strikes Again
- 3-7-07 -- On 2-27-07 Billy said this in his talking points memo:
O'REILLY: When NBC News analyst William Arkin called U.S. forces mercenaries, elements over there actually supported Arkin. And to this day, NBC News has not condemned Arkin's remarks.
Answer this question Bill, what elements over there supported him, name them, who at NBC supported him?
And take note of this Bill O'Reilly believers, your hero lied to you again, William Arkin is not an NBC News analyst, he does not work for NBC, and he never has, he was on NBC a few times over a year ago as an independent military analyst, he is not, and never was, and employee of NBC, as O'Reilly claims he was. And his comments were made on his personal blog at the washingtonpost.com website, not on NBC News. Yet your boy Billy attacks NBC News for something that was not said on NBC, and was not said by an NBC employee.
On 3-4-07 Billy did a segment on Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot at the CPAC convention, so did Bill O'Reilly condemn her comments. Of course not, because he is a hypocrite with a right-wing bias, and double standards. O'Reilly never said a word about the Coulter comments, not a single word. He had Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers on to talk about it, they both said it was wrong, and that it made her and Republicans look bad.
But O'Reilly never said a word about the Coulter comments, he did not condemn her remarks, in fact, he never gave an opinion at all.
Mr. opinion was silent as a mouse, Mr. how come NBC did not condemn Arkin's comments did not condemn Coulters's comments, what a hypocrite.
P.S. I am a liberal, and a proud one, even I condemn William Arkin for calling U.S. forces mercenaries, so when Billy says all liberals agree with Arkin, that's a lie.
O'Reilly Attacks Paul Krugman For Telling The Truth (And That's Journalism?)
- 3-6-07 -- Billy (all spin) O'Reilly said Paul Krugman consistently paints a negative picture of the economy for partisan reasons. So his conclusion is that Paul Krugman wants the economy to tank because he wants a liberal in the White House who will champion big government entitlements.
What a bunch of right-wing garbage that is, Paul Krugman does not want the economy to tank. He is just reporting the truth, he is a Professor of Economics at Princeton. O'Reilly is just a partisan, pretend journalist, with a tv show on FOX, who puts out right-wing propaganda and calls it news.
O'Reilly claims Krugman is just a big liberal who is lying to you, ok Billy, then explain this.
David M. Walker is the head of the Government Accountability Office. In October of 2006, at the LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin, Texas, he said the American public needs to tell Washington it's time to steer the nation off the path to financial ruin.
From the hustings and the airwaves this campaign season, America's political class can be heard debating Capitol Hill sex scandals, the wisdom of the war in Iraq and which party is tougher on terror. Democrats and Republicans talk of cutting taxes to make life easier for the American people.
What they don't talk about is a dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows. The vast majority of economists and budget analysts agree: The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will flounder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.
To show that the looming fiscal crisis is not a partisan issue, he brings along economists and budget analysts from across the political spectrum. In Austin, he's accompanied by Diane Lim Rogers, a liberal economist from the Brookings Institution, and Alison Acosta Fraser, director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Their basic message is this: If the United States government conducts business as usual over the next few decades, a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion could reach $46 trillion or more, adjusted for inflation.
A hole that big could paralyze the U.S. economy; according to some projections, just the interest payments on a debt that big would be as much as all the taxes the government collects today.
And every year that nothing is done about it, Walker says, the problem grows by $2 trillion to $3 trillion.
Yet Billy (all spin) O'Reilly claims Paul Krugman is just a far left liar, then why do the vast majority of economists agree with him, from the left and the right, and the head of the GAO agrees with every word he said. The attack on Paul Krugman by O'Reilly shows what a partisan right-wing hack he is, and it shows that O'Reilly will attack anyone who dares to tell the truth about the Bush economy.
FOX News #1 in Ignoring Real News
- 3-5-07 -- Our national media embarrassment was again on full display on Friday March 2nd. Both MSNBC and Fox News devoted more coverage to Anna Nicole Smith - three weeks after her death - than they did to the multiple developments involving the neglect and deplorable conditions at Walter Reed military hospital.
The most lop-sided coverage by far was aired by Fox News, which featured only 10 references to Walter Reed compared to 121 of Anna Nicole.
The O'Reilly Factor, 0 mentions of Walter Reed, none, and not just friday, O'Reilly has never mentioned the Walter Reed story, good job Billy, you have totally ignored it, and you call yourself a journalist with a no spin zone, now that's a good one.
Stunning Example of Republican Bias by Bill O'Reilly
- 3-5-07 -- The Bush administration is using a little known provision that was slipped into the Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act last year, to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, and replace them with People who will tow the Republican party line and only go after Democrats. Then they replace the fired U.S. Attorneys by appointing them without Senate confirmation.
This is a huge scandal, and an outrage. Yet O'Reilly has not said one word about this story, ever. If O'Reilly was a fair and balanced independent journalist as he claims, he would be all over this story. But as of March 5th, 2007 he has not reported one word about it. Even though it has been a major news story for a long time.
O'Reilly complains about the mainstream media being far left, and ignoring major news stories, (even though that's not actually true) here he is ignoring a real major news story, and this is a national news story about a President illegally bypassing the Senate confirmation process.
Here are just a few articles on this story, if you do a google search you will find a lot more.
Bush White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings (Washington Post)
A New Mystery to Prosecutors: Their Lost Jobs (NY Times)
Prosecutor Purge Is Illegal, Lawyer Argues (tpmmuckraker)
Fired U.S. Attorney: "I Didn't Play Ball" (tpmmuckraker)
Senate Committee Requests Testimony from Ousted Prosecutors (tpmmuckraker)
House Calls on Purged Attorneys to Testify (thinkprogress)
House Issues Subpoenas to Purged Attorneys (thinkprogress)
More Big Time Hypocrisy From O'Reilly on Ignored News Stories
- 3-1-07 -- Monday night Billy was screaming bloody murder saying that the left wing media in the United States is, tilted against traditional conservatives, and is ignoring big news stories.
O'REILLY: With us now here in New York, Kirsten Powers and in Washington, Michelle Malkin. Both are FOX News analysts. So I think this is beyond a reasonable doubt, Michelle -- and you saw my "Talking Points Memo" -- that the left wing media in the United States is not only, you know, tilted against traditional conservatives, but it's now ignoring total stories, big stories.
O'Reilly was talking about one local story on the arrest of FORMER Virginia ACLU President Charles Rust-Tierney for having child porn on his home computer. This was a local story, not a national story, and it did not deserve to be a national news story.
But O'Reilly has been ignoring big time national news stories, hundreds of them, because they make Bush or a Republican look bad. Here are just a few recent examples of big national news stories O'Reilly has ignored for partisan political reasons.
Bush Praised False GDP Numbers for 4th Quarter of 2006
Firing of Federal Prosecutors (For Politicial Reasons)
House And Senate Call on Purged Attorneys to Testify
FEC Slaps Conservative 527 Group With $750,000 Fine
Director of National Intelligence Says Iraq in Trouble
Record numbers in US living in Severe Poverty
GOP Donor Hit With Terror Charges
Republicans Only Need Apply (Iraq Reconstruction Contracts)
Pentagon Office Pumped-Out Iraq Fiction
Halliburton Cited Again on Iraq Contract Fraud ($400 Million)
Soldiers in Iraq View Troop Surge as a Lost Cause
Cheney's Son-In-Law Blamed for Delaying Investigations
And those are big news stories he has ignored in just the last 2 weeks, I could cite 20 more in the month of February alone. Those are real news stories, national news stories, yet O'Reilly has not said a word about any of them, not a word.
Click Here For Details And More Stories O'Reilly Has Ignored