digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

O’Reilly: "You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President" (Video)

thinkprogress.org — Fox's Bill O'Reilly explains his approach to interviewing President Bush.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • yakimushi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+90Next thing you know he'll say that the Pres. can't be held accountable...
    • whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+79by the laws he signed into office today, he can't be held accountable.
    • themocking, on 10/12/2007, -28/+0Plan for Iraq
      http://digg.com/politics/Joe_Biden_releases_PlanForIraq_com
    • JohnCrichton, on 10/12/2007, -50/+5Well.. he CANNOT be held accountable, he's the President.
    • TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -29/+33@JohnCrichton get your Republican loving Fascist ass off Digg! Anyone who supports George W. Bush in my opinion is an Enemy to Democracy and our American way of life.

      Bill Orally can go to hell!
    • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Well, obviously he's not going to go on a news show where he's gonna get asked really hard questions. Is O'Reilly's view here really suprising? There's a reason Bush didnt go on 60 minutes or some other left-slanted show.
    • Cleanskater, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The Pres can't be held accountable. I mean, what good is it to rehash the fact that there were no wmds? We found out they weren't real so long ago! Remember, we don't want another 9/11. It's not like 9/11 happened before we found out there were no WMDs! *obvious sarcasm*
    • SparQy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Yes indeed. Don't be confrontational with your Boss. That goes without saying.
    • Hardiel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If you hold accountable el presidente you are supporting the terrorist, unamerican, a comm, a Chavez supporter and and and...damn Soros. He did it again.

      Bill Orally
    • norris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@SparQy

      And that's what's wrong with this country. We should be his boss.
    • dime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Well.. he CANNOT be held accountable, he's the President."

      Nixon said the same thing... didn't turn out too good for him, either.
    • ultraelite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?"

      Yeah its not like were still fighting in Iraq or anything
    • kirashira, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3I pray everday for Bush to be assasinated...
    • gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6You're as bad as Bin Laden
    • Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@kirashira: I think that Bush is the worst president in american history. I think he is a vile scumbag of the worst type. That said, anyone praying for someone's death, for whatever reason, is a *****. I'm sorry, but there really is no better word.
    • jo42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You can' tell a moron he's stupid because he doesn't know any better.
  • lamjo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+91That is why Fox News is not real news, but rather, propaganda - you can't be confrontational with the dictator. Isn't that the same method that Saddam used? Isn't that the same method for interviewing the Saudi rulers and all the other dictators? Makes you wonder if Bill O'Reilly actually hears what comes out of his own mouth. When the history is written, O'Reilly is going down as just another right-wing propagandist who knelled before and catered to those in power. He's a coward.
    • SimonKay, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22I can't believe people fall for this crap!

      O'Reily:

      "He does get a fair shake here but he also gets tough questions, as everybody does."

      AND THEN HE SAYS:

      "I decided to concentrate on the conflicts — Iraq, Iran, North Korea and terror — rather than on domestic issues."

      "Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?"
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?"

      Well, for one Mister O'Reilly, it makes a public spectacle of the lies we've been told.

      That logic is like shooting someone dead, and then saying "Don't send me to jail. What good'll that do 'em?"
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Hate to burst your bubble, but O'Reilly isn't news. He doesn't report the news. He hosts a news analysis show, which he'll happily admit is rife with opinions.
    • millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6You'd think FOX News would support a Democrat president. Then they're ratings would soar, being the new bitch-and-complain channel. Rush Limbaugh use to have the monopoly on this but FOX News wasn't around as much back in the Clinton days.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Back in the Motherland, we used to only have two TV channels! One was a phony news channel that reported nothing but lies and propaganda, and the other was a KGB agent telling us to switch back to the other channel.

      The same is true in America, except the 'other' channel is many hundred of awful, awful TV programmes that give us no choice but to turn back to the other channel. I guess we could go outside, but the first channel assures me that crime rates are too high for it to be safe. Also, I might miss an advert that will tell me about something I need to buy to get laid more often... like beer.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ByteGuerilla
      LOL! That is the funniest thing I've read all week. I wish I could hit that + button a couple more times.
      Cheers,
  • tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43And I am sure Mr O'Reilly will take the same approach when there is a Democrat President.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34Just like Fox's Chris Wallace did with Clinton when he interrupted him, talked over him and argued with him.

      Ahh Fox, the network for those who can't afford Pravda.
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8You must have watched a different interview. In the one I saw, Clinton was poking, interrupting, waving hands, and generally making an ass of himself while Chris sat back and let the tape roll. Chris was very respectful. As reporters should be to US presidents... past or present.
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5Big Dave, you've proven yourself to be living in a parallel world more than once now.

      I don't know how you could have watched the Wallace-Clinton interview and seen Wallace as out of bounds. Please read the transcript and tell me one question he asked Clinton that was over the line. Then tell me that you don't expect Bush to answer the exact same question for the exact same reason. Otherwise, you're just a partisan like everyone else here.
    • timla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Expect it, Hell yes. But is fox going todo it, Hell no.

      If fox asked the same type of questions of Bush that they did of clinton I would say they were right todo so. But they will not, Fox softballs bush, O'Reilly so much as admitted it.

      I my Opinion, they would not have been so kind if clinton had come on there right after Monica. Fox is not Fair, Fox is not Balanced. Fox is Propaganda
    • smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@mrfoos
      if you consider asking loaded questions respectful then yes, that interview was very respectful.
    • kingofwaldos, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@timla

      "come on there right after Monica" hahahaha
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Second:

      >I don't know how you could have watched the Wallace-Clinton interview and seen Wallace as out of bounds. Please read the transcript and tell me one question he asked Clinton that was over the line.

      Third question in, loaded question. He prefaced a wildly and obscenely loaded question with "all due respect..." It's was so transparent even he was nervous that Clinton called him on it.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I have to agree with the 2nd and 3rd posters, what interview did you watch? Wallace just sat there... Clinton was the one screaming and even went as far to poke Wallaces's leg while claiming he was a conservative hitman.

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=3rz4OgaVABQ Part 2 (video in question)
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=jBwrqcgfEXI Part 1

      Please watch this yourselves.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14mir:

      >I have to agree with the 2nd and 3rd posters, what interview did you watch? Wallace just sat there... Clinton was the one screaming and even went as far to poke Wallaces's leg while claiming he was a conservative hitman.

      Clinton was "screaming?" Well one of us didn't watch the interview. Here's Wallace interrupting him repeatedly:

      Clinton: OK, now let’s look at all the criticisms: Black Hawk down, Somalia. There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93.

      WALLACE: I understand, and I…

      CLINTON: No, wait. No, wait. Don’t tell me this — you asked me why didn’t I do more to bin Laden. There was not a living soul. All the people who now criticize me wanted to leave the next day.

      You brought this up, so you’ll get an answer, but you can’t…

      WALLACE: I’m perfectly happy to.

      CLINTON: All right, secondly…

      WALLACE: Bin Laden says…

      CLINTON: Bin Laden may have said…

      WALLACE: … bin Laden says that it showed the weakness of the United States.

      CLINTON: But it would’ve shown the weakness if we’d left right away, but he wasn’t involved in that. That’s just a bunch of bull. That was about Mohammed Adid, a Muslim warlord, murdering 22 Pakistani Muslim troops. We were all there on a humanitarian mission. We had no mission, none, to establish a certain kind of Somali government or to keep anybody out.

      He was not a religious fanatic…

      WALLACE: But, Mr. President…

      CLINTON: … there was no Al Qaida…

      WALLACE: … with respect, if I may, instead of going through ‘93 and…

      CLINTON: No, no. You asked it. You brought it up. You brought it up.
  • emanggid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18

    I always learned in skool to learn from the past. Otherwise, wouldn't we just keep rehashing concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, slavery, the Spanish inquisition, and mustaches and mullets??

    If you think about it, what Bill said was really, really stupid. Stupid to the max. +1
    • uberchaoslord, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our primary weapon is surprise! Surprise and Fear! Our chief weapons are surprise and fear... and an almost fanatical devotion to the president!
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"and an almost fanatical devotion to the president!"

      Sweet I guess thats why the presidents approval ratings are so high... not. This is really ignorant when Bush's ratings are pretty low and he gets bashed on TV almost every night. What world are you living in exactly? Or do you never leave the internet?
    • Hardiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hey

      Don't put my Inquisition together will all this. We tortured people only because they were infidels and we had the laws backing us. Oops

      Torquemada
  • jmzook, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24 Bill O'Reilly is a partisan hack who has no right to call himself a journalist. Just another example of what to expect from a network which some have correctly dubbed "Faux News".
    • cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2"Bill O'Reilly is a partisan hack who has no right to call himself a journalist. Just another example of what to expect from a network which some have correctly dubbed "Faux News"."

      LOL!

      Let me fill you in a bit. FOX NEWS is the most widely watched news channel, whether you like it or not. I know that liberals get very ansy and upset when you talk about FOX NEWS, but facts are facts... Use Google, and you can see for yourself... Here is some proof for you... http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/default.asp

      O'Rielly BLOWS EVERY NEWS SHOW OUT OF THE WATER!!! You can spin that any way you wish, but it is a FACT!!! And do you know why that makes me laugh? Because it really gets you libs hot and bothered! Digg me down, but the fact remains the same... FOX NEWS BEATS THEM ALL!!!

      LOL!
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15And people for some reason like to listen to bubblegum pop music. That doesn't mean bubblegum pop music, or Fox News, is the best thing available. Those who scream the loudest aren't necessarily right.
    • jmzook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Maybe I'm being too hard on old Bill. After all, he is only one of the many liberal and conservative partisan hacks on tv.
    • cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1"And people for some reason like to listen to bubblegum pop music. That doesn't mean bubblegum pop music, or Fox News, is the best thing available. Those who scream the loudest aren't necessarily right."

      Right, just like the Iraq war... Just like the famed Bush Ratings...

      Now we see eye to eye...

      LOL! I love liberals... They give me so much humor.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@cpuenvy

      Who to the what now? Please speak in complete thoughts that are relevant to the discussion.

      Also, assuming I'm a liberal because I disagree with your argument is just as flawed.
    • mr100percent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well, he used to host a tabloid TV show prior to the Factor
  • kencyber, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Bill O'Reilly wouldn't know real journalism if it were a 300 pound gorilla and it picked him up and tossed him in the conpervitive dung heap. Our country was not founded by a bunch of "yes-men" cow-towing to their leaders every wishes and demands. The President serves the people, not the other way around.
    • gwalbridge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Well said.
    • Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bill O'Reilly knows EXACTLY what real journalism looks like. He sees it in the mirror every morning. In that a mirror image is the opposite of reality.

      Here's something to keep in mind. Bush and O'Reilly don't believe most of the ***** coming out of their mouths any more than you do. Arguing with that type of person does no good because there is no way for them to come around to your way of thinking. They already think that way. They are just doing what they know is wrong because it serves their interests.

      You know. Evil.

      Not stupid. Not delusional. Not crazy.

      Evil.

      Let me put it this way. I'd rather have my flesh torn to shreds and eaten by a maniac than have my rights and the rights of others torn to shreds and consumed by the agenda of people that have more than they deserve, fearful of the hordes of those that have less than they deserve.

      This flesh was doomed anyways, at some point. But our rights have the potential to live forever, if we fight for them.
  • msipes, on 10/12/2007, -49/+8This is a forum for liberal loons.
  • h4x0r1ng, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1230/568/1600/DiggFigs.1.png
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9Wow, talk about out of context.
    What Oreilly was saying is that when interviewing the President, one must be respectful, not confrontational, but ask the tough questions. Though it seems like the word "respectable" is something that the left has no capability of.
    • bonesaw, on 10/12/2007, -24/+4I can't believe you even brought that up...don't try to be logical with the ***** Liberals...especiall on Digg...they just won't have it.
    • smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6what's the point of having an interview where hard questions are asked but the answers are ***** talking points? If the question is not answered well enough or even at all... you either move on and waste the viewers time or you press the issue.
    • bonesaw, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@smcavoy

      What he is saying that you can be tough but the interviewer doesn't have to be a pretentious *****. Keep him accountable for answering his questions, if he dodges a question, call him on it... Of course, since not being a pretentious ***** is hard enough for the liberals on this site, it must be murder on liberal reporters
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@bonesaw
      Ad hominem attacks do nothing to help your argument but rather crush it. I was beginning to agree with you until you let your political bias get in the way.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you want to be respectable then don't say "when interviewing the President, one must be respectful". It should be when interviewing ANYONE AT ALL, one must be respectful. If you refuse to respect those you interview, you shouldn't be on TV, hell, you shouldn't even be allowed to interview people at all. If the only way you can win an argument it to make sure the person wou are arguing with doesn't get a chance to say anything, then well, you must be Bill O'Reilly.
  • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"every interview with the president is finite"

    Wow!! Awesome observation, Bill.
  • CarolinaHeel23, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10no kidding. Almost every political story on digg is taken out of context. Anything to make conservatives look like nazis.
    • sedo1800, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6true, it is ridiculous.
    • Burly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Explain how it is taken out of context. I'm failing to understand your opinion.
    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12To be fair... The Nazis dressed better, spoke their native language with correct grammar, and tended to not be total buffoons with running the government.
    • provost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7and nazi leaders at least had the balls to go through with military service.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I wonder if any of you realize how totally out of sync with American ideas you are. Yeah, the bush administration is worse then the Nazis, ha ha. Its great for you all to push this mess, but I forgot, when your a liberal nothing you say has to be backed up with fact. You are free to make wide assumptions. You are free to deny any one who disagrees with you free speech. I don't understand this at all, if the "neocons" are so much like nazis then HOW are you free to speak on these UNITED STATES hosted servers and hold rallys in the streets of the CAPITAL of the United States? Thats some opression.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Not for the lack of trying.

      Do a google search on "Net Neutrality" and "FCC fines"
    • Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6mirunit has a point; we should definitely wait until Americans are being interred in camps indefinitely and they no longer possess the freedom to organize and stand up to the devolution of all that we hold dear. It is kind of silly to try and make a difference early on and prevent a disaster rather than trying to fix it after many lives have been destroyed. Thank you, mirunit, for showing me the error of my ways.
    • Dima288, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2My grandma had a saying if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck.....
  • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9You can't be confrontational with a criminal dictator, correct.
  • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17There's actually a Journalistic Term for this:

    PUSSY

    As in: "You pussy, ask him why he's bent this country over and ***** us."
    • SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3OK, I'll bite on this one.

      Chewie, I'd love to hear how you're so much worse off because of stuff Bush did to you. Please, entertain me with how Bush policies destroyed your life directly and personally.
    • Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Considering I can't go to an appearance by the president and peacefully protest in the vicinity I'd say that I've been inconvenienced. Not so much destroyed my life (yet) but certainly reduced my liberties.
    • Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If we used your reasoning second guesser, most of the atrocities of the world would be quickly discarded because, "Well they didn't affect me." Rising the level of danger in the world, and increasing the nations debt might not affect me much (Might have to pay a little more for a house) but the national and worldwide affects will stay with us for decades. I really don't think one individual matters much when the whole world can suffer from it.
    • theabsconder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There are fewer cops patroling in my home town because half of the force is in Iraq fighting Bush's Iraq war.

      http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.wallace-wells.html

      "The war in Iraq, fought largely without allies, has required the call-up of huge numbers of reserves, many of whom are cops. And instead of using the men in blue as eyes and ears on the domestic war on terrorism, the administration has, in effect, used them as glorified security guards."
    • KiSA, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5When the Nazis came for the communists,
      I remained silent;
      after all I was not a communist.

      When they locked up the social democrats,
      I remained silent;
      after all I was not a social democrat.

      When they came for the trade unionists,
      I did not speak out;
      after all I was not a trade unionist.

      When they came for me,
      there was no one left to speak out.



      so I guess we should just wait for Bush to affect us directly before we care, huh?
    • DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4SecondGuesser:

      That's a reasonable question, and I'll digg you up for it.

      One way that Bush has directly affected my life is due to the record spending that his administration is responsible for. I am faced with an enormous taxpayer burden. The calculated taxpayer cost of the war currently is 1 trillion dollars and climbing. Imagine the positive effect that money could have on you and your children. Instead it's being channeled into a third world country that I'm sure you would agree does not affect you directly and personally.

      I could come up with more, but that's a pretty big one.

    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"so I guess we should just wait for Bush to affect us directly before we care, huh?"

      2 More years, calm down. Then we can have the benevolent socialist you so desire.

      "I am faced with an enormous taxpayer burden"

      The Bush admin cut taxes, I imagine that the people under Roosevelt must of felt the same, considering he invented deficit spending.
    • DontSayFanboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"The Bush admin cut taxes"

      Right, and created the largest deficit in the history of the country. Do you honestly think we'll be able to pay for all of his expenditures with more tax cuts? He has well and truly ***** this country, and you and I will be paying for it for decades to come. Even (er, especially) republicans are saying this.
    • ChuyMatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1On the subject of taxes; what was the last war, that was a success, that the american people did not have increased taxes and were inconvenienced in a way that made them invest in the conflict? Why do we not have raised taxes while in a state of war? If we are to put troops there, the politicians should have their jobs on the line with everything in the pot. Also, put the draft in order so that if we are to got to war, someone's son/grandson will be shipped off too.

      That will make them think twice about pushing to go kill some brown people. Accountability: Democracy's maintainer.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When you reduce taxes without reducing spending, it is NOT A TAX CUT. It is a TAX DEFERMENT! No two ways about it.
  • dmh11686, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5More thinkprogress spam.
  • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22It's funny how watching O'Reilly now looks like you're watching a Stephen Colbert imitator.

    Colbert has done such a good job satirizing him every night, that I'm amazed O'Reilly hasn't done something to change up his own formula. He comes off looking like a parody, until you realize there's no punch line.
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"He comes off looking like a parody, until you realize there's no punch line."

      Not everybody in the world enjoys their news to presented in a comical manner such as the daily show, or the Colbert report. Oreilly must be some parody to have almost twice the views of any competitor. Seriously though, I would rather watch Cspan or Supernews (http://current.tv/supernews ) than watch the Colbert Report.
  • TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Blog *****
  • bonesaw, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1***** Liberals taking stuff out of context but blindly believing it....
    • TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Come on, liberals doing that?? You must be joking!!! :)
    • CableCarrier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A "conservative" with a superiority complex?!? NO WAI!!!!
  • smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3If the liberals or the left is always wrong, and the right is always right does that mean china got it right?
  • Dustyb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well really you can't get into the presidents face, and you SHOULD'nt be disrepsectful, but you can, thats what makes our country so great. But man alive, I cannot stand this guy. He's an idiot by new proportions.
    • LDanix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3This is what make politics so entertaining. Every time either side runs out of good points, they resort to calling the other names.

      Way to increase your credibility!
    • TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@LDanix

      You will find the left doing that more than the right, that is part of their M.O.
    • Dima288, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Are you kidding? Just because the left from top level people to bottom on the street people stand by what they say as opposed to the 'Conservative Right" who uses P.A.C's i.e.(theswiftboats for justice), leaflet smear campaigns ( i.e. Bush's 2004 campaign against McCain ) , and an overall strategy of dividing the country against itself and scaring the bezeesus out of them in order to get people to vote for them based on hate and fear. Talk about wag the dog...
  • CookedBread, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Orly O'Reilly?

    Obvious, I know, ignore my bad sense of humor.
  • Burly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2..and thats exactly why its his 3rd interview with the moron.
  • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3What part of you left wing nut cases don't get that Bill O'Reilly is not a news anchor. He is a news analyst. He hosts a radio and TV show that are rife with opinion and he fully admits it. He will be the first to say he is not a news anchor, but someone who analysis world events and comments on them and will interject his opinion.

    What I find funny is I am pretty conservative and there are times that I really don't like Bill O'Reilly, even though I listen to him just about every day, but he usually tells you like it is and sometimes I don't like hearing what he has to say. He don't mince words and he was one of the first ones to start saying Bush messed up. In fact some of the those the conservative talk show people are still 100% pro Bush, but Bill O'Reilly has stepped up and said that Bush ***** up. Problem with you lib nut cases isyou like to dwell on those past mistakes and keep drudging the crap up instead of trying to come up with a solution to the problem. But of course most of you nut case libs want to put your Dicks between your legs and just give up and that isn't a solution, that is just what the terrorists want us to do.

    Bill is right, don't dwell on the past, come up with a solution for the future. But that won't happen as long as people keep dwelling on the past. Yes, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes and move forward, but there is nothing in there about wallowing in them.
    • heysuburbia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@bs101

      >> most of you nut case libs want to put your Dicks between your legs and just give up and that isn't a solution, that is just what the terrorists want us to do.

      Your stupid tough guy jock strategy is doomed when you fight people who don't give a ***** if they die. Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. You lose *****.
    • ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is a solution. Look up Joseph Biden's "Plan for Iraq."

      It's not that Democrats don't have a solution, it's that none of the news channels has the balls to cover the solution. Even CNN says, "Hey, have you heard of General So-and-So's solution?" and everyone responds with, "Say what?"
    • cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"Your stupid tough guy jock strategy is doomed when you fight people who don't give a ***** if they die. Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. You lose *****."

      Wow. What a well thought out, well spoken, liberal response! Get angry, sling hateful words, just because you know that he is right and you are wrong... You liberals are as predictable as Pavlov's Dog... Instead of drooling, you see red...
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2".. people keep dwelling on the past"

      I'd argue that accountability has that effect, and although corrective action should be the goal in coming months and years, and in fact many policy alternatives do exist, the primary objective must be to uphold the constitution and to ensure proper governmental oversight. This isn't about whether or not we like or dislike the president; it's about holding him and his staff accountable for their actions, and yes, that does require some tough question be asked and fully answered - even of Mr. Bush.

      And bs101, your comment, "But of course most of you nut case libs want to put your Dicks between your legs and just give up and that isn't a solution, that is just what the terrorists want us to do," is a classic example of a straw man argument, and quite frankly, adds nothing to this discussion. No one has said "give up," but instead many have realized that our solutions to global terrorism to date have been ineffective and counter-productive, and worse yet, since terrorists' primary objective is fear, they know that nothing satisfies and emboldens terrorists more than to see the panic-stricken US feverishly dismantling its Democracy from within. It's low-tech, low-cost and because they've been able to conveniently hide behind the US-aggravated Iraqi insurgency, radical fundamentalists have broadened their base and strengthened their influence, and ultimately, the Bush Administration has inadvertently helped play right into their hand.
    • Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But of course most of you nut case libs want to put your Dicks between your legs and just give up and that isn't a solution, that is just what the terrorists want us to do."

      I have to admit that whenever I see some ignorant ***** like this it makes me think about trying to classify myself as a "lib" just on the off chance that these bulletin board tough guys would actually grow enough nut to say this sort of ***** to my face. But seeing as how I view all of you partisan ass lickers as the lowest form of scum in the political parade, I just can't bring myself to do so.

      I did my time in the military when we weren't viewed as heroes but rather insulted and annoyed by the locals to the point that we would tell people that we were some other sort of profession in conversation just so we didn't have to listen to that ***** or throw down when trying to enjoy a cold beer. Your pathetic sniveling doesn't hold a candle to what I had to put up with before everyone became ***** and started hiding behind Uncle Sam's skirt, which would explain why you're more than happy to throw away the lives of soldiers just so you don't have to feel like you didn't, "put your Dicks between your legs," even though you don't have ***** to do with any of the actual fighting and am far more likely to die at the hand of an American than a terrorist. Still, I'd be glad to throw you a beating any time to make you feel more manly since violence is apparently what you consider to be the solution, even though that type of violence and the personal attacks that we are throwing at one another rather than cooperating to devise real solutions are really, "just what the terrorists want us to do."
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"but someone who analysis world events"
      You do realise analysis is NOT a verb. You probably meant analyses, but then, conservatives aren't exactly known for their grasp of the English language.
      "most of you nut case libs want to put your Dicks between your legs"
      Unless they have several friends named Dick, that should technically be a lowercase d, and where may I ask is your dick? If it's not between your legs, is it upon your shoulders, where your head should be?
    • Dima288, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Bill is right, don't dwell on the past, come up with a solution for the future. But that won't happen as long as people keep dwelling on the past. Yes, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes and move forward, but there is nothing in there about wallowing in them."

      Wallowing? Ummm a sitting president LIED to the american people and to the World in a bold faced lie that he knew to be untrue and took us into a war that the security establishment has stated has made us LESS safe not more. His specific reasons for taking us into Iraq as opposed to focusing on Afganhistan was: 1) They WMD, 2) They were actively supporting Al Qaeda and Osama, heck they made it seem like the man was vacationing at Disney land with Sadam and 3) he was a horrible dictator comparable to a certain North Korean leader we've been hearing about

      Flash forward a couple of years and 1) Is wrong, 2) is wrong and 3) yeah we all knew that but it was a hell of alot more stable than North Korea, or any of the countries in Africa that are fanatically killing each other.

      I don't think this Presdient did stupid things because he is a bad man I think he did bad things because he is a weak man without the ability to say no to his handlers.

      This is the type of history that needs to be examined in a non-partisan way, just as the 911 commission examined the history of what led up to the monumental catastrophy of 911. What led us to squander the best chance we had to take a leadership role in the new millenium while ate the same time waste all the political capital we had accumaletd from WW2. Why are we weaker in world affairs then we were before Iraq.

      I for one would be interested in "wallowing" in these questions
    • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cpuenvy - "You liberals are as predictable as Pavlov's Dog... Instead of drooling, you see red..."

      It always makes me chuckle that the Republican/Conservative crowd love to toss out the word "liberal" label as if it's a bad thing.

      Look "liberal" up in the dictionary. You'll find things like:

      - favorable to progress
      - favorable to individual freedom
      - favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
      - free from prejudice or bigotry;
      - tolerant
      - open-minded
      - generous

      Those all sound like good things to me...

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Look "liberal" up in the dictionary. You'll find things like:

      - favorable to progress"

      Assuming that socialism is "progress".

      "- favorable to individual freedom"

      Completely false, given the sheer amount of interventionism they support.

      "- favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect to matters of personal belief or expression"

      False, given that they support stringent "campaign finance" and "anti-discrimination" laws.

      "- free from prejudice or bigotry;"
      "- tolerant"
      "- open-minded"

      Who are the ones shouting people down on college campuses?

      "- generous"

      With other people's money.
  • Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Storing this away in hopes of a Democratic president in the near future....
  • nutcase, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I cant beleive no one has said this.

    When talking with anyone, president included, it makes no sense to be confrontational. Isnt that obvious people? come on now!

    Why be confrontational when you are ASKING someone a questions, you just wont get the answer your looking for, no one wants to be directely confronted , it pisses them off and then they tell you to shut up and leave.

    digg a grave idiots

    • kingdead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, asking soft questions isn't necessarily all that bad, and being respectful to the President is just standard fare; though it is easily arguable that Bush doesn't really deserve respect any more. But allowing him to get away with then answering those questions with rambling tomes filled with platitudes, generalizations, and empty rhetoric, is criminal.

      And O'Reilly isn't the only one guilty of this, pretty much all journalists have allowed him to get away with linguistic murder, and panned it off to his down home, folksy banter, when in fact it is his poorly informed, cavalier, and entitlement attitude. He just strings together bits of words like freedom and terrorists, throws in some adjectives, and waits until he can go back home.
    • baxtermadux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@nutcase

      you forgot to add *sarcasm*
    • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The drive that hatred of a person brings will transcend all decency and moral obligations, you are right that being confrontational will just anger the recipient, but alas the hatred liberals have for GW Bush, fox news, and Oreilly will always supersede decency.
    • GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1decent like http://falafelfactor.blogspot.com/ ? I don't think Bill is who you think he is.
  • FrankieB078, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I completely agree when it comes to being confrontational, because he will just get you hauled off somewhere. But as for knowing exactly where he stands I think all Americans are still waiting for that information.
  • mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think it is just respect for the office, If it were a liberal president I would expect the same. Is it ok to ask tough questions, yeah, but to harass, no.
  • curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Okay so O'Reilly thinks we shouldn't look at the past....so we should let all the immoral, unjustified, and illegal actions of the past be bygones? We shouldn't learn from our history, both the successes and the mistakes? Does it do us any good?....short answer: yes!

    He also says he is focusing on the conflicts, not the domestic issues at hand...so he's focusing on the right's political platform, but not the left's (not that that's surprising or anything). Fair and balanced, eh?!

    So the President Bush is above everyone else on the planet? You can't be confrontational with Bush, but you can ask tough questions.....every time you as a hard question in a civil fashion, Bush turns it into an all our argument and attack, if anyone is confrontational it is Bush!

    O'Reilly is a joke, how can anyone watch his show, thinking it is a good news program? I don't have a problem with anyone hosting a news program, regardless of where the lie on the political spectrum, but they have the responsibility to bring you the news, not push an agenda, and certainly not to post falsified information. Especially when entering into a debate or discussion they have the responsibility to bring you both sides of the argument through logical reasoning through evidence. They furthermore have the responsibility to ask the tough questions of everyone/anyone, and to get the straight simple answer, not allowing them to play dodgeball, or softball...but hardball!
    • bs101, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1LMAO, do you want to talk about pushing an agenda. The liberals specifically started there own Radio network to push their own agenda because they couldn't make anything fly in the mainstream media. I can't even remember the name of it because it is such a big hit, NOT!!! Their sole purpose for starting that radio network was to push their agenda and no one wanted to listen to it. Apparently more people want to listen to what Bill O'Reilly has to say becuase he is still on the air on both Radio and TV and eveyrone seems to know him.

      I think it might be called Air America, not 100% sure on that since I never hear it advertised anywhere. Anyway last I heard, they were going bancrupt, but still trying to make it work.
    • baxtermadux, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"The liberals specifically started there own Radio network"

      actually, there is no such thing as The Liberals. you should say that "some liberals".
    • curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ok the only reason ORreilly has better ratings in comparison to other networks and mediums is because it is an established show on an established network......and Olbermann is closing in and has maybe even (haven't seen the latest ratings) beaten out O'Reilly's ratings. O'Reilly's show has been on air for 10 years...and Olbermann's show has been on for 3 years.....maybe that says something about O'Reilly's reporting...or lack/inaccuracy of the news and commentating methods.

      I don't take much for strictly liberal slander either...I enjoy shows/networks that do the best fair and balanced reporting I can find..I am personally a fan of Tim Russert.

      I also think another mostly fair commentator and news anchor is Chris Matheus on Hardball....though he has his times when he has gone out of line on each end of the political spectrum. I like his method of constantly rephrasing or repeating his questions until he receives a direct answer to that question...not allowing guests to play dodgeball in the interview...even if the response he gets is a lie, he still forces them to answer his questions, which I think is something rarely seen and enforced in news programs today..and very well should be.
  • jayboyd1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Say it with me.......

    DOUCHE BAG(S) !
  • Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What is amazing to me about Digg, is that on tech articles, it's clear there are some smart people around here, however once we get the 5 or so anti Bush stories of the day, the intelligence of the Digg posters disappears. Digg is now quoting every 3 words from Bill and is linking them articles on sites that even the worst left wing nut job won't be associated with.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3what good does it make to talk about things where bush's administration ***** up and outright lied? on fox, it does no good, of course, because we are out of touch with reality... so instead, we are going to talk to you like you are a 5 year old and do some boot licking
  • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5OK well I'm not from The World's Most Powerful Country, so all you Bush apologists can't just write off my opinions "beause I'm a left wing douche bag/ ass bandit/ dweeb and I would say that"

    Let's get this straight - Bush cheated to get into office, then exploited a weak and partisan media, exploited the world tragedy that was 9/11, lied about WMD, politicised the US intelligence services, caused the deaths of 650,000 (and counting) Iraqis, crippled the US economy, called up vast numbers of young Americans to be brutalised in an unwinnable war, sold Iraq to Halliburton, "forgot" to send any aid to New Orleans and last and probably least, can't even be bothered to speak English or concentrate on a televised conversation.

    Trust me when I say this - EVERY SINGLE PERSON OUTSIDE THE US WISHES THIS GUY WOULD END UP IN PRISON.
    • andrew1193, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're just spouting the left wing commie/pinko talking points. Just about everything you've said is a lie. The economy is doing fine, 650,000 was pulled from somebody's ass, he didn't "cheat" to get into office, etc, etc.

      Nothing like that would hold up in any just court.
    • dswinscoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@andrew1193: I'm very inclined to test your "hold up in court" hypothesis. Are you?
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think the Lancet tends to work pretty well on most juries!

      As for the US economy, I don't give a monkey's, so why would I lie? Face it, if the budget deficit keeps going up and up, sooner or later the rubber band will snap. Don't take my word for it, just wait and see. But remember what the crazy lefties said when it all goes ***** up...
  • recl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ORilley like so many said that we should not look to the past. We shouldn't revisit the WMD issue since looking back doesn't help. I saw a quote from Churchill the other day that we need to keep in mind when Republicans say we should not look back. Churchill said, "We cannot say 'the past is past' without surrendering the future." How do we ever learn from our mistakes if we don't examine them>
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1quite so. I for one would take Churchill over the Chimp any day. Or Roosevelt. Or De Gaulle. Stalin?
  • mrmatchgame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Bill, Shut up! Go listen to your Loofah, it has bigger I.Q. then YOU!
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You mean he didn't call Bush a pinhead?
  • Kibitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, sweet democracy! You can't be confrontational with the president!

    Why don't we just have royalty, or something? Christ.
    • e3boy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i wonder if he's say the same thing if he was interviewing Clinton.
    • jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We have royalty (UK) and we're rude to them all the time! If anyone kissed the Queen's ass like this they'd probably get laughed at.
  • jedikv, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I dont like O'reilly much either but really? you trust Think Progress?. You are just as foolish as those that trust O'reilly
  • franksmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Think progress?????

    You people are scary freaks if you believe anything from that place
  • gtiness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Watch his interviews (or STFU). He presses President Bush much harder than Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, or anyone else EVER would. End Of Story.
  • jayesbee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, no, O'Reilly is right. It's foolish to look back.

    Unless you're looking back at Clinton. Or Gerry Stubbs. Or Barney Frank. Or Ted Kennedy.
  • lesleyb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What a douche bag. I think that says it all
  • MichaelBrazell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1O'Reilly's interview with Bush is the best interview of any sitting president in some decades. He still asked difficult questions, but as he put it on the Radio Factor, he explained that he wasn't going to cut out and take Bush's remarks out of context to prove another point. If Bush were to do an interview with almost any other media reporter, it would be a mix of nonsense and rhetoric from both sides: the reporter would ask passionate, rhetorical questions and Bush would answer with his own rhetoric, and you would get nothing out of it other than the policy of the Democratic party and the policy of the Republican party -- two things that we're inundated enough with. I am a critic of George Bush, but out of any speaking appearance he has ever conducted, this was probably the best and most natural.

    And anybody who criticizes O'Reilly as "extreme right," or "overly conservative" has never watched his television show or listened to his radio program.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.