Conclusive Proof Bill O'Reilly Is Biased In Favor Of Republicans
By: Steve - November 21, 2015 - 11:00am

Bill O'Reilly said this on March 19th of 2004:

O'REILLY: "If al Qaeda attacks here, President Bush is re-elected in a heartbeat."

On the morning of March 11, 2004, one year after American-led forces invaded Iraq, ten bombs located on four different commuter trains exploded in Spain's capital of Madrid, killing more than 190 people and wounding nearly 2,000. The attack was seen as revenge against Spain for being an ally with Bush in the Iraq invasion.

An al-Qaeda terror cell claimed credit for the attack against Spain, and the assault marked the deadliest terror attack in Europe since the 1980s.

The event was quickly labeled "Spain's 9/11," just like the Paris massacre last week is being referred to as "France's 9/11." The similarities extend beyond the death tolls and the European locations.

Both countries were seen as key American allies in the war on terror. And both deadly attacks took place against the backdrop of an American election season. In March 2004, President George W. Bush was readying his re-election campaign against Democrat John Kerry. Today, Republicans and Democrats are approaching the presidential primary season.

What's different now, about the similar attacks is how Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, and the conservative media covered the attack, and the blame games they did and did not try to play.

Looking back at the Fox coverage from 2004, President Bush was a minor player in the story and his name was barely ever mentioned. For Fox viewers, Bush was not targeted for any of the blame following the Madrid attack.

By contrast, some at Fox today, including "news" anchors, can barely contain their contempt for Obama in the wake of the Paris killings. (Not to mention their open hatred for Islam.)

What's even more startling was the claims from the Fox talking heads in 2004 that, politically, a terror attack on America in 2004 would be good news for Bush; that it would seal his re-election bid because voters would overwhelmingly rally around the president.

For anyone who's been watching the Fox News coverage since Friday and seen the almost non-stop smear campaign against Obama (it's been part of the larger, right-wing media freakout), it's almost unimaginable what the Fox commentary would sound like if ISIS killed hundreds in America during next year's campaign.

I would bet the farm the calls for impeachment from O'Reilly and Fox would come very fast.

Fox and other right-wing outlets are already condemning Obama for a terror attack that happened overseas, that he had nothing to do with.

Fox contributor Michael Goodwin insisted Obama resign "for the good of humanity" if he "cannot rise to the challenge of leadership" after the Paris killings.

Fox's Ralph Peters claimed the "only president on the American continent who has done more damage" to America than Obama, "was actually Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America."

And Bill Hemmer suggested terror victims "pay the price for the lack of security" fostered by Obama's anti-ISIS strategy.

None of that partisan hack nonsense was said following the historic Madrid attack when Bush was President and in charge of the so-called war on terror. When Fox did cover the breaking story, there was little attention paid to Bush.

For instance, on the night of the Madrid attack under Bush, Sean Hannity hosted former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and there was no finger-pointing about the bombing. But when Hannity recently hosted Giuliani to address the Paris attack, the former mayor not only denounced Obama's leadership, he claimed, "ISIS is an Obama creation." (Even though It is not.)

Fox hosts and guests even denied the attack had anything to do with Bush. Later that month Sean Hannity announced he was fed up with the "shrill rhetoric" from liberals, especially ones who suggested Bush "was responsible for the attacks in Madrid."

This is the same Sean Hannity who in recent days has emptied the tank in terms of shrill rhetoric and has claimed Obama is responsible for the Paris attack.

By the way, in March 2004, the New York Times detailed how Democrats, including primary frontrunner John Kerry, were specifically not politicizing the Madrid attack or criticizing the Bush administration:
''We're all sick to our stomachs that Al Qaeda seems to have scored a victory,'' said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. ''After a real tragedy happens, you don't want to talk about it right away.''
The new attack at Fox is that Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to use the phrase "radical Islam" when condemning the acts of terror in Paris. It's become a cardinal sin on Fox News.

While ignoring the fact that following the Madrid massacre, Bush also did not condemn "radical Islam," a move that was met with mostly silence from the conservative media. So in 2004, Bush did not do what conservatives now demand Obama must do, and in 2004 Fox News led the way in not caring.

And then there was the 2004 conservative spin that if America were hit by another jihadist assault, Bush would be the political benefactor.

"If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" asked the conservative David Brooks in March 2004.

Eight days later, Bill O'Reilly said this, while interviewing historian Andrew Apostolou:
O'REILLY: If al Qaeda attacks here, President Bush is re-elected in a heartbeat, because Americans aren't...

APOSTOLOU: I agree, but they...

O'REILLY: ...won't surrender, they'll get angry.

APOSTOLOU: Yes, yes.

O'REILLLY: Unlike the Spanish. It's a different population.

APOSTOLOU: Exactly. Exactly.

O'REILLY: Yes. So if they're counting on that, Americans will come together...

APOSTOLOU: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: any kind of attack on us. And we saw that after 9- 11. And I think they saw it, too, because now we're going to go to Pakistan right after Mr. Apostolou.
O'Reilly was certain: Americans will come together "in any kind of attack."

The exception of course being when there's a Democrat in the White House and you work for Fox News. This is 100% proof Bill O'Reilly and all of Fox News has a bias for Republicans and against Democrats.

When a terrorist attack happens in a foreign country under a Republican, Bush is not to blame at all, even though it was seen as revenge for the Iraq invasion, and it happened right after the Iraq war started. And O'Reilly claims an attack on American soil would be good for Bush and rally the people to support him.

But when a terrorist attack happens in a foreign country under a Democrat, O'Reilly and Fox instantly blame Obama and warn that if an attack happened in America they would call for him to be impeached. It's total 100% hypocrisy and bias from O'Reilly and Fox, and ridiculous.

To read the O'Reilly Sucks blog, and get more information about
Bill O'Reilly make sure to visit the home page: