Sunday, September 13, 2009

Bill O'Reilly Says Liberals Want To Help Terrorists

View the whole segments here.

On the eight anniversary of 9/11 Bill O'Reilly went on his show and said Liberals want to help terrorists. It is one thing to say liberals are making America less safe. It's another to say liberals are unintentionally helping terrorist. It is a completely different notion to say liberals want to help and actively are helping terrorist. This is the rhetoric that turns the extreme right into extremist. Out of all the TV show hosts on Fox, Bill O'Reilly, never really expressed the extreme rhetoric Glenn Beck has, or even Sean Hannity has--despite being just as unreasonable as any of the other Fox hosts. But, two days ago, that all changed. Shame on you Bill O'Reilly.

Here is the transcript of his show:
"Cable news has been looking back eight years to the mass murder of September 11, 2001. Thankfully the Bush administration was aggressive in fighting Al Qaeda, which was badly damaged, and another 9/11 is far less likely than eight years ago. Some liberals will never admit that, and a few are actively helping the terrorists. Earlier this week we reported on The John Adams Project, whereby radicals are secretly photographing CIA agents and sending the pictures to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Unbelievable and despicable! The Justice Department is investigating The John Adams Project, which is affiliated with the insidious ACLU. The Obama administration has a responsibility to protect the intelligence community and must stop this atrocity. Looking at the terror landscape today, Iran emerges as the most dangerous enemy. But again, some liberal Americans don't want to confront Iran, and Europe has been weak on the issue. So the world has not learned much from the 9/11 murders. The USA continues to fight the good fight, but Islamic fascism is still dangerous. Somebody tell the liberal community."

The Factor asked two prominent liberals, radio host Leslie Marshall and FNC's Ellis Henican, to assess The John Adams Project. "I do not agree with outing any CIA agent," Marshall said. "However, if anyone in the CIA was a part of interrogating people with torture, that is a violation of international law and they must be held accountable." Henican agreed that rogue agents should be punished, but not by the methods employed by The John Adams Project. "I don't like unmasking CIA agents and the government needs to try and stop it." The Factor asked Henican what he would do, were he president, to halt Iran's nuclear program. "I would squeeze them," Henican replied, "and I would apply economic pressure to make them stop. But I wouldn't attack them because it would cause more problems than it solves." Marshall also condemned military action: "We may perceive their leaders as being lunatics, but they have not attacked us and we are not the boss of the world." The Factor concluded that "neither of you has a solution to stop Iran, which is going to get nuclear weapons."

I honestly couldn't believe what I was hearing. The first thing I couldn't believe is that the John Adams Project were taking covert pictures of the CIA and sending the to detainees. Now, I already knew the John Adams Project were affiliated with the ACLU to defend the constitutional rights of the detainees in Guantanamo, and prosecute those who violated international and US law through egregious acts of torture. However, I have never heard of the John Adams project taking covert pictures of CIA agents in Guantanamo Bay. It doesn't show it in the transcript, but the Factor interviews a member of the project Nina Ginsberg, and she said straight out, "That's not what we did". I didn't know who to believe, so I did search on it. Guess what I found? Nothing, absolutely nothing, but Bill O'Reilly segment and column on the issue, and Conservative blogs commenting on his segment. I am not saying he is lying, I am just saying Fox must be one hell of network to be the only on reporting covert pictures being taken of CIA agents.

Then there is the issue of prosecuting those who violated international and US laws by committing acts of torture. This is all I am going to say on the matter: Violating international laws is one thing, because the line of sovereignty becomes fuzzy; however, US law is completely another. If we don't prosecute those who violate US torture laws, why do we have them in place. Turning a blind eye to those who violated US torture laws compromise the integrity US torture laws and US laws in general.

Then of course there is the issue of Iran. O'Reilly suggested two things. The first is that America is the only country in the world acting appropriately in the Middle East. Essentially, he was furthering the idea of American infallibility. We may be the only country willing to fight the "good fight" but we have payed the consequences. International scorn, lost lives, and billions of tax payer dollars for a fight (Iraq) that really wasn't a "good fight". The he suggested Henican's solution of placing economic and political pressure was not enough of a solution. Apparently he doesn't think the new talks with Iran is enough either. No, what he is advocating for is attacking Iran. Another war. Just so everyone understands how utterly irresponsible this idea is let me spell it out for you. This means more tax payer dollars going to a war in the middle. This means being involved in three wars, the most the United States has ever been involved. This means losing thousands of more lives for cause that is essentially hypocritical (we have nuclear weapons as well). After all that, you want to talk about our government having fiscal responsibility? You willing to spend more than a trillion dollars on a third war but your willing to spend $900 billion on health care? Give me a break.

No comments:

Post a Comment