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

O'Reilly cites business asssociates as source to refute NIE findings, says Democrats will blame Bush. Well, yeah.

Reported by Chrish - July 17, 2007 -

O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo tonight 7/17/07 purported to address political exploitation of Al Qaeda on both sides, but after a brief acknowledgement that Bush and Republicans stand to benefit from a public "dialed into the terror threat," i.e. chronically afraid, the rest of the time was spent disparaging Democratic and anti-war stances, concluding that we are divided. Somehow we're left with the impression it is the Bush-hating Dems' fault.

O'Reilly mentioned the National Intelligence Estimate about Al Qaeda, and the Bush administration blames the chaos in Pakistan. O'Reilly acknowledges that's not good news for the Bush administration, who has spent "billions" trying to destroy Al Qaeda (444, at this moment, and climbing). But Bush knows the terror threat is a (the) strong Republican issue, so a nervous America is good politics for his party,

Note how he conflates the invasion and occupation of Iraq with destroying Al Qaeda, when all reports are that Al Qaeda was not there before we destabilized it.

O'Reilly bolsters Bush by refuting the report, citing Stratfor.com, "a reliable private intel firm that has been very accurate." He told viewers that they say "Bin Laden is probably gone for good, and Al Qaeda likely lacks the ability to strike in any strategically meaningful way."

What he doesn't tell his viewers is that he has an ongoing business relationship with the company: he links to them from the premium section of his website, and they offer a 50% discount on subscriptions to billoreilly.com subscribers.


From the bottom of the page:

Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers.
Posted by Stratfor.com at 10:00 AM - Link to this entry

This presents a conflict of interest that would be anathema to a professional journalist.

O'Reilly turned his attention to liberals, who would be in trouble if Al Qaeda strikes America because "liberal stands against Guantanamo, NSA listening, and other anti-terror measures will come back to haunt the left."

Comment: Sigh. More misrepresentation of liberal/left stances. We oppose indefinite detention without charges or representation, torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping - all un-American, un-Constitutional practices apparently okey-dokey by the radical right. We can fight terrorism without subverting the Constitution. If Bush and Republicans can't then get out and let someone else do it.

O'Reilly said liberal "strategy" is to paint Bush "soft on bin Laden and dumb on Iraq." Hey, Bush did a self-portrait of himself - don't blame us! Oh, right - no personal responsibility is ever taken in the Bush administration.

He quoted a columnist from Newsday, disparagingly, and said he sums up the theme the Democratis party will use if Al Qaeda strikes again: Bush failed to neutralize Al Qaeda and wasted American resources in Iraq.

Well, YEAH.

He summed up that "Points" believes both sides are playing politics with Al Qaeda, but only sneered at Democrats - do they want to invade Pakistan to get bin Laden? It would be a tragedy (spoken in the future tense, not present, huh) if after all the blood and treasure spent, Al Qaeda has not been seriously damaged (which the National Intelligence Estimate indicates is the case). He laments that America isn't united in fighting the terrorists, and says ideology has poisoned a reasoned approach to defeating the jihadists, and reminds viewwers of the old adage "United we stand, divided we fall," -and we're divided right now.

Comment: We've been divided since ten million people turned out to protest the invasion of Iraq and were dismissed as a focus group. FOX in general and O'Reilly in particular has been fomenting this division since well before the war started to advance a right-wing authoritarian agenda, labellng people America-haters, unpatriotic, smear merchants, loons, terrorist-supporters, dumb, stupid... the list is long. His followers are exhorted to feel outrage and contempt and hatred towards people who don't agree with their point of view on a nightly basis, and he pretends to be regretful about it? Ha.


Watch the video: