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.

The defense of liberalism

For as long as President Obama has been in the public eye, he has refused to criticize the conservative movement or the republican party as whole. Never has he spoken about an issue on ideological terms, defending or attacking one side of the political spectrum or another. He has, despite not receiving the same gracious courtesy from his critics and despite pressure from his own identifying party, stayed steadfastly above the fray.

That is, until the end of his speech last night. For the first time ever--since this President has been in the eye of the American public--he has offered up a defense of liberalism. But when relentless badgering and distortions of his own ideological views, constant nagging from his identfied party, and an agenda full of issues that boils down to essence of the liberal/conservative debate has failed to stagger his stead fast mentality, what possibly did?

Here is the inspiring, emotional, defensive and beautiful letter Ted Kennedy wrote to President Obama. A letter that was so influencial, President Obama did something so unprecendeted for him, it has caused the media a stir.

May 12, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me — and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.

On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.

You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.

When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the president who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me — and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.

There will be struggles — there always have been — and they are already under way again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat — that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will — yes, we will — fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.

In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign — and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young president who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young president inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.

So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend — and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.

At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.

And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

With deep respect and abiding affection,

(Ted)

Huffington Thanks Beck For His Smear Campaign.

That's right, Arianna Huffington, founder of the notably liberal Huffington Post, thanked Glenn Beck for his vicious smear campaign of Van Jones in her latest blog. Now, now, before you start throwing your wine glasses at your computer screen, it is not what you think. Huffington, despite claiming the contrary, was shedding a positive light on a bad situation. Huffington argues in her blog that despite Jones' being the best qualified person for the position, she feels the the job was not the best position for Jones. She argues that Jones' unique mind and great charisma was ultimately put to waste behind a desk, and that he would be better utilized rallying troops and furthering "green" movements. Ultimately she argues, Glenn Beck running this smear campaign on her long time friend, was for the best.

She is wrong. I don't disagree that Jones' was better suited for a job that utilized his incredible ability to influence minds and further a cause. There is no question in my mind that man who was listed in Time's Magazine 100 most influential people in the world, would be better utilized influencing people rather than punching numbers.

But while Van Jones' may be a good guy, that is better suited away from a desk, as Arianna relentlessly points out in her blog with countless bumper sticker quotes and high achievements, Arianna seems to be missing the big picture. The message sent from the resignation.

The question is not, and never was, is Van Jones suited for the job, or if the job was the best fit for Jones, or even if Jones is really a communist. The question always was is how war can the GOP cross the line and get away with it? How far will the Obama administration let elected officials and political pundits on the right distort the truth and spew nonsense? Will those on the left take a stand and say "enough with your bullshit."? The answer to these questions is no. At least that's the message the left is sending to the right.

This whole thing is bigger than Van Jones, because like Huffington points out, he is better utilized in a job away from the desk anyways. Because if that was the only issue, Arianna would be spot on. But, again, its not.

As the saying goes, you give someone an inch, they will take a mile. And that's exactly what the conservatives have been doing. Over and over the Obama administration, and the left in general have been really giving conservatives a pass over and over when it comes to hypocritical statements, far-fetched notions, and bold faced lies. And those on the right, eagerly accept the lenience on the left and begin their marathon of bullshit. Even those on the left who are supposedly "rock hard" and "immovable" buckle at the conservative incessant wave of smears. Van Jones was supposedly the strongest of the left, one of the few who advocated being "assholes" like the conservatives. So much for that... To make matters worse, it wasn't just Van Jones that ultimately buckled, it was the entire Obama administration that let him fall. Gibbs declined to defend Jones, and the administration as a whole let Jones' go without objecting to his resignation.

Think about the message that sends to the right. If the strongest of the liberals folds to the likes of Glenn Beck, it really is no surprise conservatives are trying to bring down Obama's entire agenda with, really, nothing more than a more elaborate smear campaign. I know what some of you are thinking to yourself right now, only the extreme right really believes these smear campaign crap. Only those on the extreme right is really "mistaken" enough to believe such far fetched notions of fascist communists and indoctrinations. To which I have two questions. The first is: If it is really those only those on the right that believe what comes out from conservative pundits, then why does Jones feel the need to resign and why does Obama not object to it? It is not like the extreme right, or even the moderate right for that matter is the majority. Really what the smear campaign came down to was Fox news. Secondly, what do you think the perception is of Jones and the Obama administration is to those moderates who are really to smart to believe the far-fetched lies of the GOP? The answer is simple, its the same thing me and you are thinking right now. The left is too weak. If Van Jones and the left can't handle Fox news, who can they handle? Ultimately what happens are things like Obama's decreasing poll numbers. People begin losing faith in the administration, and in the left in general.

So, while Arianna makes the best of a bad situation, this is still nothing more than a bad situation. The only thing that will fix it, is a new spine for the left.

John Ziegler Doesn't Like Academics Because They Are Liberal

John Ziegler, a Republican talk show host, unleashed a rant this morning on his radio show about how Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment was truthful. He criticized the media for assuming Obama is well intentioned, honest, and wise after major media corporations dispelled the rumors of the "death panel" as Sarah Palin so eloquently put. He especially targeted one New York Times article that compared Sarah Palin's idiotic comment, to 50 percent of people in Egypt believing Israel was behind 9/11 to illustrate the point: stupid people are everywhere. Ziegler's problem with the article? They used factcheck.org to double-check their facts. Ziegler, outraged at clear this monstrosity, screamed more or less,

"I am so sick of people saying factcheck.org is a non-partisan organization. I am so sick of it! Every knows factcheck.org is run by lefty liberal academic type,"

Ziegler would rather have some dimwit type running the organization so they would recognize all these "death panel" comments as what they are...the obvious truth. Maybe he should apply.