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

Sunsara Taylor has her say on O'Reilly Factor, but is immediately dissed and has her patriotism questioned within the hour. Democrats, pay attention.

Reported by Chrish - March 20, 2007 -

Amended 3/20/07

Bill O'Reilly's met his match in Sunsara Taylor of worldcantwait.org tonight 3/19/07 on the Factor. He badgered her and pulled "the Hannity", repeating the same questions and comments over and over in faux disbelief but she kept up with him, ignoring his inane distractions and making her points, repeatedly. After her passionate appearance (video below) O'Reilly hosted Hollywood star Gary Sinise, who visits troops and wounded veterans frequently. O'Reilly's tone changed 180 degrees and he even admitted that he allowed Ms. Taylor to appear so people could "see the hatred for themselves." Later in yet another segment with Kirsten Powers he called Taylor's patriotism into question and accused her of slander, plainly twisting her words from earlier in the hour. No-spin zone my foot.

**Correction below

Taylor argued the facts passionately, calling the war illegal and citing Nuremberg. She and O'Reilly argued the number of Iraqis dead, he citing the UN figure of 59,000 and she using the 600,000 figure from The Lancet ("considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals, the others being the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. The Lancet's impact factor is currently ranked #3 among general medical journals." from Wikipedia.) O'Reilly scoffed and dismissed it as "far left," his answer to anything that proves him wrong. Taylor could have backed up her figure with the October 2006 confirmation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which says

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates
Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion
.

At another point, discussing whether or not the US has used torture on prisoners, O'Reilly demanded that she name names. Unlike a beleagured reverend who got caught off guard on the Radio Factor earlier, Taylor had names and details. When she couldn't produce documents, however, O'Reilly dismissed her claims. She paraphrased John Yoo, saying

"John Yoo, one of the top lawyers in the Bush administration, said in a public debate that George Bush has the right to torture somebody, including, I quote, by crushing the testicles of their small child in front of them. I quote you, from a public debate, this is George Bush's lawyer!"

Information Clearinghouse has the story, pertinent point being

"Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

Note her words, as this is brought up and totally twisted later on with KP.

Throwing out a straw-man, O'Reilly demanded to know "what small child was that," badgering her for a name or other specifics, when clearly she had not said it happened, only that Bush's attorney had stated that it could if Bush ordered it - which should horrify any red-blooded American. O'Reilly, unconcerned at this declaration of power, continued to sweep it under the rug with demands for details he knows are not forthcoming.

Watch the video:


When Taylor mixed her metaphors and said Rumsfeld's "handwriting was on the wall" of Abu Ghraib (obviously she meant to say his fingerprints were all over it) O'Reilly smiled condescendingly and repeated it, twice, in an incredulous tone. He continued to misrepresent her positions and she continued to correct him, until he said, "with all due respect," that she is really way out there, she should stop being hysterical, and - dripping condescension - she is simply a woman who doesn't know what she's talking about.

(NOTE: Correction to above paragraph below.)

Introducing Gary Sinise in the next segment, O'Reilly said he "had to" put Miss Taylor on so people could see the level of hatred that the opposition, (he corrects himself) some people bring to the debate. I give her a forum so people can see it; I know I'm going to get mail on it.

Further evidence that Bill O'Reilly comes fully equippped with an agenda - let the "opposition" be heard but the after they're gone, reinforce to the viewers that they are wrong, slanderous, unpatriotic, etc. He knows his audience, WE know his audience - they are not interested in listening to "the opposition," they merely want to give them a platform so they can be pelted with verbal tomatoes and misrepresented after their appearance. This is exactly what the FOXAttacks website, MoveOn, and we are talking about when we say FOX should not be considered a legitimate news source, and Democrats should not allow FOX to control their debates in any way, shape or form.

But he wasn't done with her yet! When Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers came on for their duet, first Malkin was asked to comment on Taylor but chose to focus on the protests of this past weekend: the "pro-troop, pro-victory" "true patriots" versus the "anti-war loons," the "Soros-funded zealots," the "sneering, jeering, spitting anti-war crowd," "the freak show."

Turning to Powers, at first O'Reilly said he couldn't say Taylor is not patriotic (not yet, anyway), he just thinks she's dead wrong. Powers gave a weak defense of Taylor, only claiming that Taylor came from a different perspective and that she was probably doing what she does out of love for her country. O'Reilly said Taylor was unreasonable and even when presented with facts, she refused to hear them, Powers said they could argue over what the facts are, but not question motivation.

O'Reilly spun further still from reality, asking Powers if she thinks it's patriotic to go on national TV and accuse the government of mashing a baby's testicles? Powers, who apparently didn't see or register the earlier segment, weakly replied that she doesn't do that, but blah blah motivation. O'Reilly started to tick off on his fingers 1. she doesn't know who the baby is, 2. she didn't see the baby's testicles being mashed, 3. she can't produce the baby or the baby's name... (ergo she's making it up, he hints to his viewers - not the brightest crayons in the box as evidenced by their emails). Scream at him, Kirsten! He's covering up abuse of power at the highest levels!

No, all she says is that that's an argument about facts, and O'Reilly says no, it's about whether she's patriotic or not. Powers reiterates again that Taylor thinks she's right and she thinks she is standing up for her country. O'Reilly cuts her off with "I think slander is unpatriotic, and I'll leave it there."

O'Reilly just lied, misinterpreted, and slandered his guest. He did a good job for the Bush administration, though. With his repeated graphic descriptions of approved torture methods that Bush apparently has the authority to command, O'Reilly deflected attention from the horrifying truth that he can do that, to the falsehood that his guest has accused the government, without evidence, of already doing it.

No spin zone? We report, you decide.

**Correction 3/20/07:
Sunsara Taylor was being literal when she said that Donald Rumsfeld's handwriting was on the wall. According to the sworn testimony of Janis Karpinski, January 21, 2006:

JK: And he said, the only memorandum is the one that's posted out here--it was posted on a column, in the cellblock. Right outside this little admin office that they were using.

MC: What did that memorandum say?

JK: The memorandum said that it was an approval of harsher interrogation techniques.

Q: And who had signed that memorandum?

JK: That memorandum was signed by the Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld.

MC: And what kinds of techniques were authorized in that memorandum, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense?

JK: It was one page, and he authorized sleep deprivation, stress positions, meal disruption--serving their meals late, not serving a meal. Leaving the lights on all night while playing loud music. Issuing insults or criticism of their religion, their culture, their beliefs.

MC: And was there a note in his handwriting on the side?

JK: Yes, in the margin on the left-hand side.

MC: And what did that say?

JK: It said, "Make sure this happens!!" With two exclamation points. And it was written alongside of the list of the interrogation techniques.

I regret the error~ Chrish