O'Reilly Talking Point

[igloo]

By Bill O'Reilly

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

We are here at our 9/11 studios at the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan. The view behind me, of course, Ground Zero.

Now, we realize many Americans are a little on edge tonight because of all the terror warnings earlier today. Of course, we will be on it immediately if anything happens.

The big story this evening, however, is Iraq and the media. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

I know some of you think I am a know-it-all, but I am truly confused about why some in the media are so opposed to removing Saddam Hussein. I just can't figure it out.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs in D.C. did a study of the establishment media and its reporting on Iraq. Listen to this. According to the study, 72 percent of all media assessments on President Bush's Iraq policy were negative. In The New York Times, 71 percent of the coverage criticized Bush. On ABC News, 80 percent of the nightly news coverage was negative, on NBC 76 percent, and CBS was the most fair and balanced at 56 percent negative.

We'll talk with the director of that study in just a few moments.

But again, why do these guys want Saddam to stay? It makes no sense at all. Number one, he has violated the Gulf War surrender terms. Just that alone means the USA has a right to oust him. Number two, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London confirms he's working hard on nuclear weapons and has deadly chemicals and germs already in his arsenal.

Number three, Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats, most of whom are now criticizing Mr. Bush's saber-rattling.

The truth is that Saddam Hussein is a criminal who's violated international law and could cause grave harm at any time. There is no good reason not to remove him.

Now, I understand why France and Germany and Canada will not support America without U.N. approval. Those countries are uneasy the USA is so powerful. It is a case of envy and resentment against the big rich kid on the block.

I also understand the Vatican wants peace. That's what the pope stands for. But with all due respect to the pontiff, he's not in charge of protecting people against murderers like bin Laden and Hussein.

What I don't understand is the elite media's embrace of nonaction against Iraq. The weapons inspections are a game, a charade of hide and seek. Saddam has had enough time to obey international law. His tenure is up, and all clear-thinking Americans should ask, Why doesn't the elite American media know that?

And that's The Memo.

[sassa]

FUCKING PROPOGANDA

[nycmuzik]

Hitler, Milosovic, and Saddam....All innocent victims of the power hungry American machine....Damn these Americans to hell.....

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

FUCKING PROPOGANDA

Wow....look how smart you are.....

Every day you prove how truly dumb you are

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

Wow....look how smart you are.....

Every day you prove how truly dumb you are

go do the entire world a favor and pour gasoline on yourself. i'll light the match.

[igloo]

Imagine your moronic, tired ass on O'Reilly....that would be hilarous to watch him shit you out.....

And since you said "fuck usa" in a prior post, I was wondering why you are still in this country?

I am not sure if you knew this, but there is prostitution in other countries, so your career path as a whore can continue.

BTW--I would love to see you try and spin this:

Number three, Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats, most of whom are now criticizing Mr. Bush's saber-rattling.

Oh yeah, according to your bullshit- this is just propoganda...

Does it hurt knowing what a jerkoff you are?

[sassa]

Originally posted by igloo

Imagine your moronic, tired ass on O'Reilly....that would be hilarous to watch him shit you out.....

And since you said "fuck usa" in a prior post, I was wondering why you are still in this country?

I am not sure if you knew this, but there is prostitution in other countries, so your career path as a whore can continue.

BTW--I would love to see you try and spin this:

Number three, Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats, most of whom are now criticizing Mr. Bush's saber-rattling.

Oh yeah, according to your bullshit- this is just propoganda...

Does it hurt knowing what a jerkoff you are?

yes, sometimes i get massive migraines, but then again, i wonder if it's either from that or from listening to right wing nuts like you.

enough of your bullshit, please.

[igloo]

Originally posted by sassa

yes, sometimes i get massive migraines, but then again, i wonder if it's either from that or from listening to right wing nuts like you.

enough of your bullshit, please.

Seriously, what is your view on this:

"Number three, Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats, most of whom are now criticizing Mr. Bush's saber-rattling."

War is OK as long as a Democrat is a President?......these folks are not guilty of politicizing war?...this is not hypocrisy?....Saddam was a danger 4 years ago, but not one today?

[igloo]

What is wrong Sassa???....you have nothing to say when confronted with a hard fact?....typical lefty

[asianvixen]

Originally posted by sassa

yes, sometimes i get massive migraines, but then again, i wonder if it's either from that or from listening to right wing nuts like you.

enough of your bullshit, please.

as vulgar as igloo is, he's one of the few here that knows how to make a coherent argument. instead of saying "bush sucks", "bush is a moron," "ann coulter's a bitch," make an argument. rarely do you do that because you're so blinded by your left wing beliefs that you can't assess BOTH sides of the issue.

[bigmahs]

Originally posted by asianvixen

as vulgar as igloo is, he's one of the few here that knows how to make a coherent argument. instead of saying "bush sucks", "bush is a moron," "ann coulter's a bitch," make an argument. rarely do you do that because you're so blinded by your left wing beliefs that you can't assess BOTH sides of the issue.

AMEN!

[t0nythelover]

Originally posted by asianvixen

as vulgar as igloo is, he's one of the few here that knows how to make a coherent argument. instead of saying "bush sucks", "bush is a moron," "ann coulter's a bitch," make an argument. rarely do you do that because you're so blinded by your left wing beliefs that you can't assess BOTH sides of the issue.

actually i havent heard one good argument from him. all ive heard is "your a moron" or "your a leftist liberal", that doesnt sound like a good argument to me.

[igloo]

Originally posted by t0nythelover

actually i havent heard one good argument from him. all ive heard is "your a moron" or "your a leftist liberal", that doesnt sound like a good argument to me.

Seriously tonythelover- are you kidding me?