Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

O'Reilly perpetuates weak Dems myth

Reported by Chrish - August 12, 2006 -

Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points memo" yesterday 8/11/06 took swipes at a few favorite targets, the New York Times and DNC chairman Howard Dean. My favorite part of the show, though, is when he says "you're about to enter the no-spin zone!" right before his anti-liberal, anti-left, anti-Democratic party rants.

Yesterday's harangue was supposed to point up hypocrisy at the Times, but O'Reilly twisted the facts to suit his mind-set:

The left wing New York Times editorialized today: "We want to understand as much as possible about what the terrorists were planning. It would be a blessed moment in modern American history if we could do that without turning this into a political game plan."

It is understandable why The Times doesn't want to get into a partisan debate over the issue, because that newspaper and the left in general opposes most information gathering techniques used by the Bush administration. Things like spontaneous phone surveillance by the NSA of suspected overseas calls, and coerced interrogation of captured terror suspects.

Indeed, the right wing editorial page at The Wall Street Journal said this, "The [London terror] plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or The New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs."

Such gross misrepresentation would be shocking if it wasn't so commonplace on FOX. As everyone else knows, Democrats and the left in general are NOT against surveillance of suspected terrorists. We oppose ILLEGAL surveillance performed without proper court warrants and oversight, as proscribed by the Constitution and FISA.

Although O'Reilly giveth in the next sentence that the WSJ comments were a sarcastic reference to the NYT article "exposing an entirely legal financial terror monitoring program the Bush administration had in place," he taketh away in the next one, "(t)hat controversial decision by The Times has badly damaged the paper in the court of public opinion." So the WSJ is just kidding, but between him and his viewers, it's serious.

The attack on Dr. Dean was segued in with "Because of 'things like that', the left is [left] with a decision. Either change its policies on terror or go on the attack against the Bush administration. Guess what Howard Dean has decided to do?"

BOR went to a video clip of Dean saying "The president, his team out there, Karl Rove and all those folks, they're trying to scare people again. They're trying -- you know, you hear what they said about Ned Lamont's win? Oh, well, that's a good thing for Al Qaeda. That's what Dick Cheney said. I'll tell you what the best recruiting tool for Al Qaeda has been, and you know who that is. If you want a real change in this country, we have to stop trying to scare people in order to win elections." In BOR/FOX world that mild campaign statement is an "attack against the Bush administration," yet Cheney's outrageous remarks are not examined.

O'Reilly, tempering any criticism of the administration, understated "Now there is no question that Iraq remains the weakest part of the Bush anti-terror strategy," sneaking in another equation of the occupation of Iraq with the war on terror.

Overall he gets a D for disengenuous.