Saturday, March 28

O'Reilly's 19th Nervous Breakdown!

As many of you may know Bill O'Reilly is in the middle of a desperate death-rattle inducing war of verbal spitballs with Thinkprogress managing editor Amanda Terkel, because she had the Temerity to Quote O'Reilly Accurately when he blamed an 18-year-old girl for her own rape and murder.

Somehow he's shoved that issue to he side, even after he sent one of his Produca-Stalkers to Harrass Terkel, and is now the galloping Crusader against "Far-Left Hate". Yes, really! Watch


Absolute truth? No Ad homs? Not so much.


– O’Reilly on TP Managing Editor Amanda Terkel: “Well, Miss Terkel is certainly a villain.” [3/23]

– O’Reilly on ThinkProgress: “They’re insects, OK?” [3/25]

– O’Reilly on Podesta: “This smear merchant, character assassin John Podesta...” [3/25]


Just for the record the original audio of O'Reilly's comment is here.

Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She’s walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she’s out of her mind, drunk.


Those are his words, no one elses - no question. The best case scenario is that he was claiming that her being Drunk and scantily clad at 2 A.m. somehow justified her rape and murder as if being dressed in a burlap burka would have really made a difference.

"How could the poor hapless thug Resist?"

So naturally after compounding the brutalization of one woman, O'Reilly has to participate in the verbal brutalization of another woman who dared to rise to her defense.



O'Reilly claims here that he's done more for "victims" than any show on television - even than America's Most Wanted? Really? Deluded much?

The stalker-ucer in this segment accuses Terkel to being "dishonest" simply because she admits to not listening to the Mel Gibson portion of O'Reilly comments, as if that would somehow change the context of what he said about Jennifer. However, thinkprogress does provide a link to the entire show right here - and they did go back an review those comments which were...

I think it’s safe to say that if Mel Gibson didn’t get drunk, he wouldn’t be in this terrible situation he finds himself in. And if a young woman, 18-year-old Jennifer Moore of Harrington Park, NJ, didn’t get drunk, she’d be alive today.


I will agree that the point of O'Reilly's segment was that "If you get drunk on a regular basis - it will damage you're life", and that parents absolutely need to monitor and properly educate their children - that's a given.

However..

If Mel Gibson hadn't gotten drunk he wouldn't have been arrested for drunk driving, but he still probably would have held the views and beliefs that prompt his vicious anti-semetic comments. If Jennifer hadn't have been drunk (or had her car towed, or been walking alone) - a murderous thug could have, and probably would have still raped and killed her. I mean, c'mon - She wasn't even at legal drinking age - in the first place. Why aren't we wondering who illegally served her the drinks?

And look, if her car hadn't been towed, she would have tried to drive home and might have killed someone else - but does O'Reilly consider this? NOoooo! (And I listened to the entire recording!)

I'm not buying this snake-oil and neither should you.

O'Reilly: There's no peer pressure - you don't see Jay Leno, or Jon Stewart (talking against drugs and alcohol) The only thing was Nancy Reagan "Just Say No")


Well, there's MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Drivers) an there's R.A.D. (Rockers Against Drugs)

Vince Neil (who committed vehicular manslaughter while drunk in the mid-80's and eventually, painfully sobered up) did a spot for R.A.D.



Both of these programs are ongoing - so even with O'Reilly's argument that "nobody" is telling kids not to get drunk or go off on drugs - he's Full of Shit.

No where in the radio program does he consider Jennifer's attacker at fault - he absolutely blames no one but Jennifer for what someone else did to her. Pathetic. The more you listen the worse it gets.

O'Reilly: This girl Jennifer Moore couldn't have made more mistakes than she made - and forfitted her life because of it.


Sure, she made mistakes - but people should be able to make mistakes without someone else KILLING THEM!

Thirdly, O'Reilly claims that Terkel has petitioned and attacked the Alexa Foundation - that's a Lie!

After Terkel's second post she was invited onto Olbermann, and Billo - went Balistic-o!



In this segment he claims that there is some type of "cabal" linking the dreaded George Soros to Media Matters, to Thinkprogress and (former Clinton Admin, and Obama transition team head) John Podesta, to NBC News (without even mention MSNBC or Keith - who is the guy who actually put Terkel on the air). Yeah, right.

O’REILLY: And Podesta’s mainstream media is, of course, NBC News. That’s the outlet Podesta uses. ... A well coordinated, well financed cabal attacking dissent, it’s a pretty big story, especially because it involves Podesta, who has access to the president and NBC, which along with its parent company General Electric is grossly misusing its power.


First off the Urban Myth of Soros funding Media Matters has been completely debunked, but even if it were true - So Frakking What?

It's not like rich people like T-Bone Pickens has funded organizations like the Swift Boaters to smear John Kerry, or Newscorp/Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch funded the "Arkansas Project" via the American Spectator to smear and dig up dirt on Bill Clinton - except that they did.

The real irony here is that David Brock, who founded Media Matters did it specifically because - he was one of Murdoch's henchmen who wrote the original "Trooper-Gate" stories on Clinton and smear attacks on Anita hill, but after he saw what happened with the Impeachment and realized that Hill was absolutely correct about Clarence Thomas - he started fighting against the REAL smear machine. The Right-Wing Smear-Engine which links Roger Ailes to Karl Rove to Matt Drudge.

"World Currency" my left eye.

If there's one thing that O'Reilly's good at - it's Projection - particular when he complains about being attacked by Thinkprogress.

“If you go to this ThinkProgress website,” the Fox News hatemonger said, “anybody who disagrees with Barack Obama in the public eye gets smeared and slimed. ... They’ll go after your sponsors, they’ll go at your house, they’ll go after your family.”


Lying yet again, Thinkprogress is not going after his house or his family - but they are going after his sponsors. Like UPS.

UPS values and takes seriously the comments from personal emailers and those posted on your site regarding advertising that appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s FOX News show. We are sensitive to the type of television programming where our messages and presence are associated and continually review choices to affect future decisions. Further investigation is underway related to this placement.


Capital One.

Thank you for contacting Capital One. We regret that you found the Bill O’Reilly programming during which one of our ads was aired to be offensive. Please be assured that this was not our intent. Capital One in no way endorses the views/opinions portrayed during the news broadcasts in which we advertise.


And Ford Motor Company

I agree with you about the rantings of the hopelessly pig-headed Mr. O’Reilly, recognize that I am just an innocent bystander in this email letter silliness. I work at Ford and support Ford, but have no idea how the decisions are made on where we advertise. Frankly, as a mainstream company, we advertise everywhere there are good ratings. That is not an endorsement of the show — that is recognition that people are watching the show. Don’t know why they watch that mindless ranting. But they watch in droves. Welcome to America, I guess.


Although all of these advertisers clearly abhor O'Reilly's comments - and not one has attempted to defend them - none appear willing to take the next step and pull their support, even temporarily as a statement in support of criminal victims, because O'Reilly still gets "high ratings".

I guess money talks and values walk for some people. Especially U.S. corporations. Clearly they need to made aware that their ads are an endorsement of the show since their ads pay for the show! You can't make a stronger endorsement than keeping the show on the air.

The point isn't that O'Reilly made a stupid comment in 2006, it's that instead of simply acknowledging it or correcting it - he's began a campaign of terrorism (yeah, I said it), hate-mongering and smear purely to obstruct and deflect from his own actions.

And this isn't the first time - he's staged these kinds of Ambush-interviews at least 40 Times. No one is arguing that being out-of-control drunk is a good thing, that's not the issue. O'Reilly absolutely has a right to state his views - but when those views are knowingly and clearly FALSE, and when he attempts to use his platform to intimidate those who point out his falsehoods - he should be held to account.

O'Reilly doesn't care whose right or wrong - he only cares to use this argument to continue his paranoid persecution complex, and deluded attacks on anyone who supports the middle, the center or the hated "Left".

If you agree - join the petition to make O'Reilly's Advertisers realize just what you really think of him, and what you think of THEIR continued support of such his hate-speech and terror-tactics. All it takes for hate and evil to spread, is for the good to do nothing.

Meanwhile to help clear your palate from all that negativity: here's a little bit of what O'Reilly "isn't hearing" about alcohol and drug abuse from the media, Sixx A.M.'s "Life is Beautiful"



Update: UPS has pulled their advertising. from the O'Reilly Factor!

Vyan

Monday, March 23

Obama Stomps a Mud-hole in Cheney's Ass

Obama on 60 Minutes



Obama: How many terrorist have actually been brought to justice under (The Bush System)? It hasn't made us safer.


The answer to that question is one - Jose Padilla. 6 years, one conviction.

As was previewed yesterday by muzikal233 President Obama slapped down hard on the notion that he's made us "less safe".

Transcript via Huffpo

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that-- Vice President Cheney has been-- at the head of a-- movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the l-- wrong lesson from history.

The facts don't bear him out. I think he is-- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage-- to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many-- how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of-- Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.



Obama's comments have to be looked at in the context not only of self-serving ramblings of John Yoo, but also Col Larry Wilkerson - Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff at the State Department who states that Cheney and Rumsfeld knoew that only 24 detainees at Gitmo were actual terrorists and that over 700 innocent people held for years without reason or justice.



Wilkerson's response to Cheney via the Washington Note.

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.

...

In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.


So not only were the vast majority of the people held in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram AFB completely innocent - even the little information we received from the "real" terrorist was bogus.

What a waste.

Particularly since this system, this treatment, has been the number one thing Al Qaeda has been using to recruit more fighters according to the interrogator who took out Abu Zarqawi.



I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.


Former Gitmo Prosecutor Col Vandeveldt's experience completely supports Wilkersen and Obama - not Cheney.




What Cheney doesn't understand - or apparently care about - is that THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. This system can't be allowed to stand and doesn't make us "safer" - it does the exact opposite.

Obama is dead right, Cheney is dead wrong.

Vyan