(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)So here we have Glenn Beck calling a sitting Senator a hooker. He was talking about Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who got a provision in order to get her support for breaking the filibuster on the health care bill, $300 million for Louisiana.
GLENN BECK: Well, I'm sorry. So we know you're hooking, but you're just not cheap. It's $300 million.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Palin had announced on Twitter that she would be running the 5k race organized by the Benton-Franklin Chapter of the Red Cross.Palin also said she was not going to be make a turkey dinner for Thanksgiving because it was too much work. Is this the kind of person you would vote for, not me. What kind of so-called regular woman/Mother does not even cook a Turkey dinner for her family.
But she did not finish the race, opting to leave the course early to avoid more crowds at the end. About 40 minutes into the run, word started trickling out to people gathered at the finish line that she was gone.
-- Blair was told prior to the war by his intelligence services that Iraq did not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Sir William Ehrman, the director-general of defense and intelligence at the Foreign Office at the time, told the inquiry that British intelligence services had concluded ten days prior to the beginning of the war that Saddam Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction and that he also likely lacked warheads capable of delivering such weapons.Notice that O'Reilly is not reporting any of this, he has not even mentioned it. Most likely because it exposes the truth about Iraq, and shows how corrupt Bush, Blair, and Cheney were. Now imagine if Bush had been a Democrat and this information came out, O'Reilly and Fox News would spend a week on it, if not months. But when it makes a Republican look bad, O'Reilly and Fox News ignore it.
-- The Blair government had decided to support the Bush led war up to a year before the invasion. Sir Christopher Meyer, the ambassador to Washington at the time, told the inquiry that the Blair government had decided that it was "a complete waste of time" to resist Bush's efforts to go to war and had instead opted to offer advice about how to invade. Meyer also told the inquiry that former US national security adviser Condoleeza Rice had called Meyer on the day of the 9/11 attacks and told him, "We are just looking to see whether there could possibly be a connection with Saddam Hussein." Meyer also reiterated that both the American and British government were constantly looking for a smoking gun to justify the upcoming war.
-- Blair was told the Iraq War would be illegal under international law by his attorney general. In a July 2002 letter, former British attorney general Lord Goldsmith warned Blair that the UN charter only permits military intervention "on the basis of self-defense or for humanitarian intervention" and that neither case applied to Iraq. Blair responded by banning Goldsmith from future cabinet meetings and ignoring his verdict on the legality of the war.
Mission Statement: Samaritan's Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan's Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God's love through His Son, Jesus Christ.Why are they hauling her ass around the country to promote her lousy book. She is not poor, or hurting. And maybe the people who donate money to the charity might want to know why they are flying Palin around the country. Not to mention, you will never hear O'Reilly report any of this. Maybe the IRS should even check it out, if they have a tax free status they may be violating federal tax or political laws.
One of the most common mistakes a rookie body language reader will make is to interpret individual gestures in isolation of other gestures.The body language segments are biased, one sided, and pretty much ridiculous. They are not news, and have no news value at all. And O'Reilly only does them for two reasons.
For example, when someone rubs their left hand on their right arm it can indicate many things - negative feelings, sore arm, or maybe they are just cold - it all depends on the other gestures they are using at the time.
Another key factor is the circumstances under which certain gestures are made. A classic example of this is 'the woman in the short skirt', who sits with her ankles crossed tightly in front of her. Ankle crossing is usually associated with negativity and defense, however a woman with a short skirt may cross her ankles for certain obvious, necessary reasons - she may not be being negative, she may just be trying to stop people seeing up her skirt.
CHENEY: I worry that there's a lack of understanding there of what this means from the perspective of the troops. You know, if you're out there on the line day in and day out and putting your life at risk on a volunteer basis for the nation, and you see the Commander in Chief unable, to or appearing to be unable, to make a decision about the way forward here -- you know that raises serious doubts. Nobody wants to think of volunteering to be participate in that kind of operation.This idiot Cheney does not have any more authority on the subject than Obama does. He neither served in the military, nor has he been Commander-in-Chief. As the New York Times noted in 2004:
It may in part be inexperience on Obama's part. It may be that there's confusion on the staff. But I'm not encouraged by it.
Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new father.Bush administration officials also seem to think that they were soldiers in the military, with former White House press secretary Tony Snow saying that President Bush was on the front lines and in the war every day.
I love Sarah Palin! That's the good news. The bad news is that I, and millions of others who love the ex-governor of Alaska, have been greatly disappointed by her recent interviews. In my previous article, I pointed out how Palin missed many golden opportunities to put her libertarian-centered conservative principles on display in her interview with Sean Hannity. Then, shortly into the first segment of her interview with Bill O'Reilly, it was obvious that she was going to offer more make-nice filibustering. She was a bit stronger on Greta, but the bold truth people are looking for still wasn't there.Notice that he loves Sarah Palin, just as O'Reilly does, but unlike O'Reilly he can put his love for her on hold to give an honest analysis of her performance in the interviews. O'Reilly loves her so much he can not ever say anything bad about her, O'Reilly defends everything she does, and even complains about COMEDIANS making jokes about her.
It appears that Sarah Palin has presidential aspirations. But it also appears that she learned little from her experience with John McMush and his "handlers."O'Reilly told Leslie Marshall that Palin answered all his questions very well. Proving that O'Reilly is just a stooge that covers for the dummy Palin because he loves her.
The be-careful-what-you-say strategy apparently is contagious. Why else would Palin be so cautious when she has the opportunity to show the world who she really is? Just as Obama can no longer blame the depression on George Bush, neither can Sarah Palin continue to blame her lack of interview effectiveness on McMush's handlers.
When O'Reilly asked her what she would do about Putin and Russia, Palin mumbled something about "working with our allies." Say what? How about, "I would immediately install an antiballistic-missile-shield system in Eastern Europe – without discussing it with Putin."
O'Reilly then asked her what she would do about Iran's drive to build a nuclear bomb. Palin mumbled something about "imposing sanctions." Gosh, I never heard that one before. Alert the media: Russia, China, et al. don't cooperate when it comes to sanctions, and the rulers of sanctioned countries don't give a hoot if their own people suffer. "Imposing sanctions" is right out of the Politico Babble Bible – right along with "Mideast Peace Process," "eliminate fraud and abuse" and "get the economy moving."Palin said impose sanctions, and Billy said nothing. But when a Democrat says the same thing O'Reilly hammers them and says yeah yeah we need to do more than that. With Palin, O'Reilly let her slide.
Palin, like millions of other Americans, I want to believe that you're for real. But if you're not willing to step up to the plate like the heavy-hitting gals I named above, I, along with millions of others, are eventually going to give up on you. If you're trying to play to the so-called moderate crowd (read moderate liberals), your political career is over.Mr. Ringer was highly disappointed in the Palin interview, yet O'Reilly loved it and thought she was great. Proving that he is an in the tank for Palin, and that he can not be objective, even though he claims to be a journalist who is objective.
PERINO: We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term. I hope they're not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is.WRONG: Actually we had a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term. It was the 9-11-2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center buildings, using airplanes as missiles by Osama Bin Laden. It happened on 9-11-2001, 8 months after George W. Bush took office. Earth to Dana Perino, George W. Bush was the President on 9-11-2001, and we had a terrorist attack that day, on his watch. Your lies will not change that fact, and you can not rewrite history.
After the 9/11 attacks, then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the press: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."As a matter of fact, just such a scenario had been foreseen by intelligence officials in 1998, as Rice later admitted. Then there was the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US," which concluded:
FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.So 34 days before the 9-11-2001 attack George W. Bush is handed a Presidential Daily Brief that was titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and he did nothing, zip, zero, he just ignored it. Then 34 days later, on the morning of 9-11-2001 the terrorist attack happened, killing almost 3,000 Americans. And now you have Dana (the liar) Perino saying that no terrorist attack happened while George W. Bush was the President.
George Tenet briefed Condi Rice about a potentially catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States on July 10, 2001. Rice ignored the briefing, just as she and Bush both ignored the August 6 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo, when Bush told the CIA briefer who delivered the memo to him that he had "covered his ass" and then went fishing for the rest of the day. Rice not only ignored the briefing, but also misled the 9-11 Commission and then lied when confronted with the evidence by Bob Woodward.Then there was the Hart-Rudman Commission report, which warned the Bush White House in May 2001 that it needed to take serious steps to prevent a terrorist attack. The report was ignored.
The Bush Administration actually reversed the Clinton Administration's strong emphasis on counterterrorism and counterintelligence. Attorney General John Ashcroft not only moved aggressively to reduce the DoJ's anti-terrorist budget, but also to shift the DoJ's mission to emphasize its role as a domestic police force and anti-drug force. These changes in mission were just as critical as the budget cuts, with Ashcroft, guiding the day to day decisions made by field officers and agents. And all of this happened while the Bush Administration was receiving repeated warnings about potential terrorist attacks.So the Bush administration actually cut the budget for anti-terrorism funding, to concentrate on domestic police and anti-drug issues. While ignoring the warnings from numerous sources that a big terrorist attack was going to happen. Then after the 9-11 attacks, they lied and said they had no idea it might happen. What they did was ignore the threats, then try to cover up their mistakes by saying they had no idea it could happen, while at the same time cutting the anti-terrorism funding at the DoJ.
In Roe v Wade (1973) The Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable." The Court defined viability as the potential "to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."So in denying any American the right to an abortion, anti-abortion politicians are fundamentally shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. That's not "defending your faith", it's forcing it upon everyone else. Which is what that whole First Amendment thing about church and state is about.
The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, as defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process.
O'REILLY: Now I think we -- Jesse Watters drove him out of PBS. I think Jesse Watters is responsible for Bill Moyers leaving. Bill Moyers was hammering Bush and Cheney, wanted them impeached, this and that, and you know, taking shots at The Factor. So we sent Jesse out to talk with him.In 2007, Watters ambushed Moyers on the street outside his home. O'Reilly had Watters harass Moyers after the PBS journalist ran a program about impeaching President Bush. O'Reilly claimed that Moyers symbolized "Americans who want their country to lose in Iraq, based upon hatred of all things Bush," which he determined was a good reason to send his henchman to Moyers house. According to O'Reilly, this interview was what drove Moyers out of his job two years later.
Recipient of the 2006 Lifetime Emmy Award, "Bill Moyers has devoted his lifetime to the exploration of the major issues and ideas of our time and our country, giving television viewers an informed perspective on political and societal concerns," according to the official announcement, which also noted, "the scope of and quality of his broadcasts have been honored time and again.Number of Lifetime Achievement Awards for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Emmys for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Gold Baton awards for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Peabody awards for O'Reilly, zero. Number of Polk awards for O'Reilly, zero. And yet, O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg attacked Moyers for his journalism career, when the two of them could not get a journalism award unless they stole one.
It is fitting that the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences honor him with our highest honor - the Lifetime Achievement Award." He has received well over thirty Emmys and virtually every other major television-journalism prize, including a gold baton from the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards, a lifetime Peabody Award, and a George Polk Career Award (his third George Polk Award) for contributions to journalistic integrity and investigative reporting.
O'REILLY: But here's what I think tipped it, and I want to get your opinion. Here's what I think did it. I think it's the abortion option in the health care bill that is not going to go through but so many Democrats want it to go through, which would force all Americans, even pro-life Americans, to fund, through their taxpayer dollars, abortions. I think that's what lit the fuse for Dolan here in New York and the others who put out this manifesto.Fact: The Senate bill explicitly prohibits federal funding of abortions not covered under The Hyde amendment
O'REILLY: Many people in Europe are Socialists, as you know. They believe that capitalist America is worse than Al Qaeda. And that crazy view has taken deep root.In a 2004 interview with Hans Blix, O'Reilly said that the Bush Doctrine was for removing terror regimes.
So the U.S. cannot count on much support from Europe. And that puts President Bush in a difficult position. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. Now with the capitulation of Spain, America has one less fighting partner.
BLIX: No, but they -- the U.S. argument for going to war was not that Saddam should be taken out. It was that the weapons of mass destruction should be taken out.O'Reilly also talked about the Bush Doctrine with Ed Koch in January 2004.
O'REILLY: That's true. They didn't sell it the right way...
O'REILLY: ... but I think the Bush doctrine is...
O'REILLY: ... remove terror regimes.
KOCH: I believe that the president when he made that ringing statement which created the Bush Doctrine that he will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them, that he issued a statement which is as important as the Monroe Doctrine.And O'Reilly also talked about the Bush Doctrine in a 2005 discussion with Dick Morris.
O'REILLY: OK. So you were very...
KOCH: The Bush Doctrine is very important.
O'REILLY: You believe in the war on terror the way he's fighting it.
O'REILLY: The speech was primarily concerned with justifying his action in Iraq. He spent about three-fourths of the speech talking about that in varying ways. He didn't mention the word "Iraq" once, but it was about that, wasn't it?So O'Reilly knew exactly what the Bush Doctrine was, because he had discussed it in detail many times on his own show. Proving that he lied to cover for Sarah Palin, when he said he had no idea what the Bush Doctrine was. Almost everyone who follows politics knew what the Bush Doctrine was, even I knew what it was, as did O'Reilly and pretty much every journalist in America.
MORRIS: I think his speech was to articulate the Bush doctrine within which the Iraq War falls. But, I have to tell ya', Bill, that was the greatest inaugural address since John F. Kennedy's...
MORRIS: ..and one of the 5 or 6 greatest of all time. It was beautiful. It was poetic. Those of you who didn't see it missed a lot. And it articulated a bold, new doctrine for American policy. It was a very substantive speech.
"I'm very disappointed. I think it was very rude. She could have at least apologized, and she didn't even do that,” said Teresa Hedrick.People who didn't get to meet Palin went home only with a piece of paper with her signature. Video from the event shows angry wristband-holders loudly booing Palin and yelling, "Sign our books!" and "Quittin on the job!"
"We bought two books from Borders to get our wristband to get them signed," said one woman. "My books are going back to Borders tomorrow."
"We gave up our entire workday, stayed in the cold. My kids were crying," said one man. "They went home with my wife. She was out here in the freezing cold all day. I feel like I don't want to support Sarah."
Standish's City Manager tells us that local leaders and residents want the facility, and dismissed Cheney's efforts as fearmongering. Cheney is certainly not representing the views of our community, the City Manager, Michael Moran said.FACT: The residents of Standish, like the residents of Thomson, Illinois, aren't afraid of housing terrorism suspects on U.S. soil. Last month, the Standish City Council voted 6 to 0 in support of a resolution asking the federal government to relocate Guantanamo prisoners to their city. Moving detainees to the city would help keep their prison facility open, which would guard against the loss of the 350 jobs provided by the jail.
While some local residents do appear to have expressed mixed feelings or opposition to the plan, Moran says that they're an isolated minority that Ms. Cheney's video elevates out of proportion in a way that's off base.
I'm probably like a lot of other people that have asked the question, I want to know who our president is. And to date, I don't think I know, I don't think a lot of people know, I don't think it's ever been asked -- answered.Wolf even denied the billboard is making a racist comment, calling such a notion "absolutely hilarious" and pointing out that in the presidential election, he wrote in the name of conservative Alan Keyes.
When this Fort Hood massacre occurred, and I saw the response of our Commander in Chief to this unbelievable, politically correct, nonsense - to me it was just enough. And I wanted to bring a little bit more attention to this thing, because to me it just wasn't getting addressed.
O'REILLY: "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, that is a terrible decision. Because you know, I know, and everybody knows it's going to cost the city of New York between $75 and $100 million. These animals are going to get up there. They're going to lie. The lawyers are going to turn it into an anti-Bush, anti-CIA, anti-American extravaganza."Just think about that for a moment -- O'Reilly, who praised the civilian prosecution of Moussaoui in 2006, while we had a Republican president, is complaining about the White House's civilian prosecution of Mohammed in 2009, when we have a Democratic president, to a person who was part of the White House that decided to prosecute Moussaoui in a civilian court.
T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including shoe bomber Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; American Taliban John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.Comey and Goldsmith are hardly the first conservatives to support Holder's faith in the U.S. justice system. In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr wrote this last Sunday:
In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom.
"We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries. The scare-mongering about these issues should stop."And yet, O'Reilly does not report any of this, he just ignores it and pretends that only Democrats support the decision by AG Holder. It's bias, and dishonest journalism. Hey Billy, how come you do not mention this, or have any of those CONSERVATIVES on the Factor to discuss it. What say you?
O'REILLY: Did you know that Associated Press, America's largest news wire service, used eleven reporters to check the accuracy of Sarah Palin's new book? Eleven! Barack Obama has had two best-selling books; the AP did not fact-check either one.So O'Reilly cries about AP bias in fact checking the Palin book, but not the Obama book, then he ignores everything they found, and never said a word about any of it. If they were biased in fact checking her book, and not the Obama book, he is biased too for ignoring what the AP found. The AP found 18 lies in the Palin book, guess how many O'Reilly talked about, zero, none. Yet he cries about the liberal bias at AP, when he was just as biased for ignoring what they found, and never reporting on it.
An AP spokesman says that's because then-Senator Obama wasn't a major player when his books came out. I know I am beating a dead industry here, but the blatant left-wing bias of the American press has reached critical mass. Even if you don't like Sarah Palin, you know she's been treated unfairly by the media. It shouldn't be happening in America.
O'REILLY: One of the amusing points of your book for me was that you wanted to get Reverend Wright up there and ram it right down Barack Obama's throat. Why?The crazy Palin does not think that is negative campaigning, note to Palin, yes it is you idiot. That statement alone proves that she is a moron, and it proves that O'Reilly is a Palin ass kisser because he never said anything about it, when he knows it is negative campaigning. O'Reilly just let her spin out this nonsense with no follow ups, or any calling her out for her lame answers like he would have to a Democrat.
PALIN: Well, I believe that it is not negative campaigning or off base to call someone out on their associations, and Reverend Wright was a close associate of Barack Obama's for twenty years.
O'REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough, to handle the most powerful job in the world?Basically she called president Obama a spineless elite Ivy Leaguer, and said she could be the president because she has common sense. Earth to Palin, you are a moron, and we want the president to be smart, unlike you and Bush who are not smart, we saw what happens when you elect a conservative dummy, aka George W. Bush, he ruins the country. You would be an even dumber and more conservative version of George W. Bush, and that is not what we want. Notice that O'Reilly said nothing after Palin gave her answer, he never mentioned any of her stupid statements, or her book lies, or anything. And btw, O'Reilly is a big religious guy, and yet he never said one word about Palin having the witch doctor give her a protection prayer, he just ignored it.
PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense and the values that are reflective of so many other Americans. I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fat resume that's based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I'm not saying that that has to be me.
O'REILLY: "It's fair to say that you were over-controlled by the McCain people."Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't he supposed to be asking questions, not stating the answers for her. Not to mention, the McCain people dispute what Palin is saying, yet O'Reilly implies it is a fact, and never mentions that they disagree with Palin.
O'REILLY: "Twenty-one of the stories portrayed Sarah Palin as unintelligent and unqualified. Eight stories used clips from Saturday Night Live to ridicule her." O'Reilly added: "Is that kind of presentation an accident? No."This so-called media study is biased and flawed, and I will point out why.
BECK: Last week, I heard you say that -- you were on with Dennis Miller. You two were talking about an insurrection coming.As dumb as Beck is even he knew that was a stupid thing to say, and he wanted no part of it. Beck said" "Uh, I don't think that's necessary."
O'REILLY: Tax revolt.
BECK: He used the word insurrection. And not in a comedic way.
O'REILLY: Yeah, tax revolt. I think people, when they figure out how badly they're going to get hurt in the next few years, there's going to be a tea party on taxes and its gonna get nasty. Nancy Pelosi's going to be bobbing up and down in the Boston Harbor.
O'REILLY: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda big shot involved in planning the 9/11 atrocities, is perhaps the biggest terrorist ever captured by America. For the past three years, Mohammed has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, where he should have been tried in front of a military tribunal. The man is a war criminal who killed thousands of civilians, and it's hard to believe the Obama administration doesn't understand that.These conservative media figures (Including O'Reilly) are at odds with numerous retired generals, admirals, and legal experts, as well as numerous conservative scholars and officials, including Grover Norquist, Barry Goldwater, and David Keene.
So now Mohammed will be tried in a New York civilian court, and Attorney General Eric Holder says he is 'quite confident' of a successful prosecution. Talking Points believes Mohammed will not be on trial - waterboarding and the CIA will be on trial. The exposition is likely to be a fiasco that will take years and cost tens of millions of dollars.
President Obama should explain this thoroughly; instead, the announcement is made while he is in Asia. Why didn't he wait until he got back? Because this is indefensible."
Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.The declaration was signed by numerous retired generals, admirals, legal experts, and conservatives. Below is a partial list of signers, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; former Rep. Thomas B. Evans Jr. (R-DE), former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee; Thomas Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union and board member of the National Rifle Association, and former Reps. Barry Goldwater (R-CA) and Bob Barr (R-GA).
Prosecutions for terrorism offenses can and should be handled by traditional federal courts, which operate under statutes and procedures that provide the tools necessary to try such complex cases. Moreover, the War Crimes Act explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction to try certain war crimes.
We believe it is unconstitutional to detain indefinitely terrorism suspects in the United States without charge, either for the purposes of interrogation and intelligence-gathering or solely on the basis of suspected dangerousness. There are limited times when preventive detention, subject to required procedural protections, is appropriate in the context of armed conflict. However, the continued detention without charge of the detainees remaining in Guantanamo is not appropriate and is contrary to American values.
Valerie Lucznikowska, whose nephew died at the World Trade Center, said she wouldn't care if the suspects sounded off in court - as long as the victims families got to see them put on trial.So as usual O'Reilly only reported one side of the story, the right-wing side, and left out a ton of facts. This is dishonest and biased journalism, and the bias is always to the right, you never see O'Reilly take the liberal position on any issue, and put out bias to the left, all his bias is to the right. O'Reilly implies that all Republicans oppose the civilian trials, when a lot of them support it. Billy does that on purpose to make it look like all Democrats support it and all Republicans oppose it. When it's a lie and he knows it.
"What are words? It was a horrible thing to have 3,000 people killed," she said.
ROVE: "Civilian courts have rules designed for conventional crimes committed by conventional criminals. They're going to claim outrageous treatment and lie about it, and they will attack America throughout this episode, which will serve to recruit additional jihadists. The president and his sanctimonious attorney general did this on a Friday afternoon because it is a cowardly act that is not in the interest of the United States."Which is all a load of right-wing garbage, it's a federal court, where a lot of big time criminals and terrorists have been tried. And what has served to recruit the most jihadists was Bush invading Iraq, not the KSM trial. They will have the trial and the man will be found guilty, then he will most likely get the death penalty. And all this crying about it from Rove and O'Reilly is total right-wing propaganda. They are just mad that the torture Bush used will be exposed, and it will make Bush look bad.
BURPEE: "He is a terrorist of the worst kind, but I don't like the idea of using the word 'Muslim' as part of that. It gives credibility to the whack jobs of the world who have twisted some ideological aspect and have created a whole new religion. My community is deeply saddened by what has happened."Burpee, who converted from Christianity, said his Islamic faith was not a barrier in the Marine Corps. But I have to point out that Burpee is white, and does not look Muslim at all. Not once did O'Reilly ask him if all the other people in the military even knew he was a Muslim, because if you did not ask him, you sure would not know by looking at him.
Rivera: "KSM will be justly brought to the scene of his horrible crime and convicted."Then the crazy "total lunatic" Glenn Beck was on. O'Reilly asked Beck to grade the president's handling of the Fort Hood atrocities. As if we care what Glenn Beck has to say about anything, only right-wing nuts listen to his crazy ass. Beck said this:
O'Reilly: "You're going to have a circus trial here where waterboarding, the CIA, and the Bush administration will be on trial. You know how much pain the 9/11 families are going to feel."
Rivera: "Justice will be done where it deserves to be done - in the shadow of the buildings they brought down."
O'Reilly: "Would you have brought Hermann Goering from Berlin to New York City to try him after World War II?"
Rivera: "Yes. I would have loved to see him stand before the relatives of those Jewish people and the other people he massacred."
O'Reilly: "That's crazy!"
"As a politician he gets a B, but I think the man is in constant campaign mode, and I can't get past when he was giving a speech to Native Americans and it took him three minutes to get to the tragedy. There's just something wrong here, and I don't think he holds our armed forces in the same regard as many Americans."So crazy Beck even had a problem with the speech Obama gave at the Fort Hood memorial service, proving he is a right-wing lunatic, because even most of the Fox News idiots said Obama gave a good speech. Then he speculated that Obama does not like the military, which is just ridiculous, and more proof that Beck is just an Obama hating partisan who will say anything to make Obama look bad. Hey Billy what happened to that no speculation rule, Beck said Obama hates the military and you never said a word, how about defending the president for once when these right-wing morons lie about Obama, you jackass.
Thursday, November 5Then after the crazy Goldberg was on, O'Reilly wasted another segment crying about how the rest of the media is covering the story. Billy had Nancy Gibbs from Time magazine on to discuss it. She agreed with O'Reilly that is is a terrrorist attack. O'Reilly loves this story because he is getting high ratings, and he can go after what he calls the liberal media for their reporting on the story. Gibbs wrote a big story about Hasan for Time magazine. Billy cried about the network news not calling it a terrorist attack. Gibbs said that is not a big deal, and O'Reilly said she was dodging the question. Billy said if the network news will not call it terrorism we are in big trouble, whatever that means.
Massacre at Fort Hood
Friday, November 6
Politics and the Fort Hood mass murder
Monday, November 9
The truth about the Fort Hood shooter
Tuesday, November 10
Memorial service for slain held at Fort Hood
Wednesday, November 11
The military and the massacre at Fort Hood
Thursday, November 12
The media and the Fort Hood massacre
O'REILLY: "They're gangsters out there in Sacramento. They just come in and whack every working person with a 10% tax surcharge. Yeah, people might get it back after they file in April, the liberal legislature in California has destroyed the state economically and now they're stealing money from the folks to cover their horrendous mistakes, already Nancy Pelosi and her far-left crew want to raise the top federal tax rate to 45%, that's Fidel Castro stuff, confiscating wages that people honestly earn."And now the truth, something O'Reilly knows nothing about. The State of California did increase the amount of state income tax withheld from paychecks by 10%. But it isn't really a tax increase. It certainly isn't a tax surcharge. It isn't stealing money from the folks. It isn't confiscating wages that people honestly earn.
HUME: On the main issues of this year -- the economic stimulus package and the Obama health care plan -- Republicans have stood in near unanimous opposition while Democrats have struggled to round up votes despite their large majorities in both houses.Fact: The $787 Billion American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Included $288 Billion In Tax Cuts
The person most responsible for this is no Republican leader, but President Obama himself. His policies have made it easy for Republicans of all stripes to oppose him. Just think how different it would have been if the President had insisted on mixing in some tax cuts with that spending extravaganza in the stimulus bill. That would have attracted Republican votes, allowed the President to claim a bipartisan victory, and provided the Democrats some political cover, not to mention some potential economic benefits.
Nearly every paper in America has lost circulation, but The Post more than most -- down almost 30 percent in 2.5 years, to 508,000 in the most recent reporting period."Not only does the article show that almost every paper in America has lost readers over the last year or two, it shows that O'Reilly is biased to the right in his reporting on it. Billy claimed that only liberal newspapers were losing readers, and he said they were leaving because they have a liberal bias. When we know that's a lie, and that all newspapers are reporting declines. Then on top of that the right-wing NY Post has lost more readers than the NY Times or any other liberal papers.
O'REILLY: You know, the ethics committee is run by a Democrat. The majority of people on there are Democrats. They have liberal people on there.Fact: That is a lie, I found this in 2 seconds at (http://ethics.house.gov/About/) by doing a simple google search.
|1) Zoe Lofgren
2) Ben Chandler
3) G.K. Butterfield
4) Kathy Castor
5) Peter Welch
|1) Jo Bonner
2) Mike Conaway
3) Charles Dent
4) Gregg Harper
5) Michael McCaul
SHARPTON: How many times have I heard allegations against my organization? It ended up being absolutely nothing? But if you get enough of these guys to beat the drums, they cost you a lot of money in legal fees. You don't even get the news story saying you were cleared.What a ridiculous statement from O'Reilly, he wants the House Ethics Committee to remove Charlie Rangel from his Chairmanship, before he has been proven guilty of anything. If they did that it would be a punishment, before the man has even been found guilty of any wrongdoing.
O'REILLY: They haven't even removed Rangel from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.
SHARPTON: Nor should they, because nothing's been proven.
O'REILLY: But they could say why don't you step aside while we investigate. And then if it's clean, you can come back in as the chairman.
SHARPTON: I disagree. I think if we had everybody step aside with an allegation we wouldn't have any chairmans in the House.
O'REILLY: "It took only hours for the far-left loons to begin politicizing the mass murder in Texas. Rather than blaming the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the media seems to believe Hasan's vile crimes were caused by public policy."So instead of just reporting what he thinks about the shooting, he spent his time attacking how the rest of the media reported on the story, how is that news?
Unbelievably stupid! Hasan has not served in any war; the guy killed people for absolutely no reason. We all know the far left has a problem with personal responsibility - it's always somebody else's fault. Talking Points believes media that use tragedy to ram home political points are despicable. Hasan was either a Muslim terrorist or a crazy person. That's it, those are the choices!"
GOLDBERG: "There's a politically correct virus running through the bloodstream of America, and it's killing American journalism. There's reason to believe that religion played more than a passing part in all of this, but what is the story line that much of the 'lamestream media' run with? They run with post traumatic stress syndrome because that gives them a chance to take a shot at a couple of wars they have never liked. I guarantee you that if a white male Christian had gone on a rampage and there was even a whiff that his religion played some role, that would be the lead."Goldberg and O'Reilly talking journalism, now that's funny, because they are not journalists, they are partisan spin doctors who are mad because the rest of the media does not spin everything to the right like they do. And the media was only speculating what caused the guy to shoot up the place, they did not state it as fact. Later in the show O'Reilly even admits until the investigation is done we do not know for sure why he did it. They put their spin on the story, and the rest of the media put their spin on it, but for some reason they are mad because the media did not agree with them. Here is a tip for O'Reilly and Goldberg, just report the damn story, and stop crying about how the rest of the media does their job. It does no good, and just makes you look like right-wing cry babies.
PETERS: "What happened at Fort Hood, was the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It was committed by a Muslim fanatic who shouted 'Allah is great' and gunned down 44 unarmed innocent soldiers and civilians. And our president tells us not to 'rush to judgment.' What facts are we waiting for? This was an Islamist terrorist act, and I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for Washington to face the facts."So Peters calls it a terrorist attack, before all the facts are in, and before the investigation is even done. The military has even said they are not calling it a terrorist attack, at least not yet. But Peters is not one to let facts get in the way, he just spews his right-wing spin out and then uses it to attack Obama. Proving he is a right-wing nut, and even O'Reilly sort of disagreed with him. Billy said we can not call him a terrorist yet, and that we have to wait until they look at his computer etc.
O'REILLY: October is now the deadliest month ever in Afghanistan for U.S. troops, with 55 killed so far. And it has now been 59 days since commanding General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops to provide security in that theatre.Now that is all just ridiculous right-wing spin, because back in October of 2006, when Democrats were saying Bush needs to send more troops to Afghanistan because we are losing the war there, O'Reilly called them crazy, and said Bush has already won the war in Afghanistan. So if Bush had already won it in 2006, how could we be losing now, and how could they need 40,000 more troops if Bush already won it. O'Reilly even said it's a myth that Afghanistan is going backwards, what happened is he denied reality to defend his boy Bush.
The request hangs in the air because President Obama says he is continuing to assess the situation.
What is fact is that the Taliban is growing bolder. On Wednesday they attacked a building in Kabul which was considered to be relatively secure. There is no question the Taliban is making a statement, throwing violence right into the president's face.
There are people on both the left and the right who feel the Afghan war is un-winnable, and that may be true. Col. Ralph Peters doesn't support more troops, nor does New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
Writing Wednesday, Friedman says it is impossible to nation-build Afghanistan. But he also says he's not sure if the Taliban would take over should the USA pull back.
"Talking Points" believes that's nuts. What do you think the Taliban is fighting for? They want to regain power, and if the USA pulls back, who's going to stop them? The Italian forces?
This whole situation is very dangerous to Barack Obama, who is perceived in some quarters as being timid. If Afghanistan goes south on his watch, he will get the loss. Terrorism will achieve a great victory and America will be embarrassed. That's why you have to send the 40,000 troops.
O'REILLY: No, I think that's vital. But look, we were successful in Afghanistan. And nobody thought --Contrary to O'Reilly's claim, Gen. David Richards, NATO's commanding officer in Afghanistan warned that Afghanistan was at a "tipping point," and that "If we collectively do not exploit this winter to start achieving concrete and visible improvement, then some 70% of Afghans could switch sides" and support the Taliban. And earlier that month the AP, ABC News, and CBS News all reported things were getting worse in Afghanistan.
SEWALL: Well, the jury's still out on Afghanistan, though.
O'REILLY: -- we would overthrow the Taliban in that way. So we were successful.
SEWALL: Unfortunately, Afghanistan's going backwards --
O'REILLY: That's a myth.
SEWALL: -- which I think speaks --
O'REILLY: That's a myth.
SEWALL: -- to part of the problem with the focus of effort on Iraq. We risk losing the progress that had been made in Afghanistan.
O'REILLY: Now you're just -- that's not true. There's always going to be a Taliban insurrection. As long as they have mountain --
SEWALL: It is true.
O'REILLY: No, it's not. Every military analyst working for our team says most of that country is pacified.
SEWALL: Maybe you should be talking to the people on the ground, then.
O'REILLY: I talk to everybody, Professor.
SEWALL: Because they're concerned about the situation there.
O'REILLY: You're just parroting the left-wing line that America doesn't know what it's doing. It's bull.
SEWALL: I'm parroting conversations with commanders who are in uniform serving bravely in Afghanistan.
O'REILLY: All right, so have I. And our information is that there's no danger at all of the Taliban reclaiming that country, none. They'll be annoying. There'll be guerrilla warfare. It will not happen, and I believe that.
SEWALL: Well, I assume then that you're discounting the views of the British commander of the new NATO force who's quite concerned about the direction.
O'REILLY: Everybody's concerned --
SEWALL: And I think the point is that we need to --
O'REILLY: -- nobody thinks the Taliban's going to win.
SEWALL: -- have a different strategy in Afghanistan also.
O'REILLY: The Bush administration has won a victory in Afghanistan, I believe. And they've also decimated Al Qaeda.
-- Mort Kondracke: "We have no way of knowing" how 2001 outcome would affect 2002 midterms.A few people in the media are being honest, but not many. In a November 2 blog post, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote: "Conservatives on radio and the web are preparing to hail a Doug Hoffman victory in NY-23, if it occurs, as a mighty victory for the fire-breathing style." Frum added: "This is a deeply unrealistic assessment.
-- Mara Liasson: "A handful of off-year elections can't be used to predict" the outcome of 2002 midterms.
Dick Morris: "If you have a Republican president, people are going to vote Democrat, and if you have a Democrat president, they're going to vote Republican."
Laura Ingraham: "Both sides are going to spin this," but "to call this some kind of watershed moment against Republican views is nonsense."
TODD: If Democrats lose in New Jersey and Virginia, that certainly would be a shot in the arm for a Republican Party that hasn't fared well in the in the past two election cycles. That outcome also could give Democrats pause that the voter coalition that propelled Obama to victory last year appears dormant or is no longer intact.Here is the real truth, and what you will never hear from O'Reilly or anyone at Fox. Hoffman lost NY 23, it's the first time the GOP has lost that staunchly red seat. Democrats also won the other congressional special election in CA.
But is that a referendum on Obama? Not so much. For starters, how much does Creigh Deeds losing in Virginia say about Obama, when the president's approval rating in the state is 57% among registered voters and 54% among likely voters. And if Jon Corzine's favorable rating in the Quinnipiac poll was at 38% back in March (near the height of Obama's honeymoon), and it's at 39% now, how does that say much about Obama and his popularity/presidency? In short, these races say much more about Deeds/McDonnell or Corzine/Christie than they do about Obama.
O'REILLY: "I sent Barack Obama, President Obama a fruit basket for all the comments because our ratings are up 20% since he made it."Here are the Factor ratings for the two weeks before the war started, from September 28th to October 9th.
O'REILLY: "That theory has been around for a while. The Factor investigated, found out it's bogus. But Mr. Dobbs is still engaged...Now Orly Taitz is going to protest O'Reilly at his NY studio, here is the notice from her website:
Again, we found out that President Obama was born in Hawaii.. we were sent the documents. And what are you gonna do? I don't know why it's still around..."
Reminder! Protest Bill O'Reilly in NY on Veteran's dayBesides the fact that nobody believes O'Reilly is fair and balanced, except the nuts who watch him, she is a flat out lunatic. What's really funny is some of the comments on her posting, here are a few of my favorites:
Posted October 29, 2009
Hope to see you November 11, 12 noon, Veteran's day
1211 Ave of the Americas, FOX headquarters, protest Bill O'Reilly defrauding the Nation and defaming decent Americans and are caring a legal battle to unseal all of Obama's vital records. If you can come, if you can assist in organizing, call me xxx-xxx-xxxx.
We need signs, bull horns.
We are looking for a diner for people to meet and greet before and after the protest.
Let me know if you can help with transportation, frequent flyer.
Keep in mind, what OReilly did, is more dangerous, more harmful then what some idiots like Rachel Maddow or Keith Obertmann did, since people believe O'Reilly to be fair and balanced.
2) Glenn BeckThis one looks real, which is even more scary than Orly is, enjoy:
October 30th, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Count me in.
October 30th, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Someone needs to bring falafels !!
9) Weston O'malley
October 30th, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Can't be there my self as I'm following up birther document leads in the vatican but wishing you all the best!
15) McPAnd this is my all time favorite:
October 31st, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Mrs. Taitz, keep up your courageous fight! I will do my best to be there. We Americans need to protest the lack of media coverage about Obama's birth certificate. I have 20 "where's the birth certificate" signs which I will bring. I also have bullhorns from the last teaparty I attended. We need to take our country back.
20) Dirk DiglerI don't know if I have ever seen anything more crazy than this, and all I can say is if you actually listen to anything crazy Orly says, you need to seek mental help fast. Enjoy the protest Orly, haha.
November 1st, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Bullhorns are my fave!!!
I'm not sure what time I'll be there.
If they take your order @ the diner before I show, order me a pastrami on rye.
No cole slaw but see if I can get extra pickles.
USA is number 1!!!