Al and Bill
I suspect that I will be writing a lot about Al and Bill, since Al has apparently taken to goading Bill O'Reilly and exposing his lies. O'Reilly appeared on Fresh Air with Terry Gross (back in October of 2003) and when asked about his Febuary 4, 2003 interview with Jeremy Glick O'Reilly accused Glick of accusing the Bush regime (my moderate slant) of orchestrating the September 11th attacks.
There is a transcript of the Glick interview at http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm. Glicks father was killed in the World Trade Center and subsequently helped edit a book called "Another World is Possible." In the interview there was nothing from Glick about Bush orchestrating the 9/11 attack. I suspect there may have been something in the book claiming that the $41 million or so Bush paid the Taliban in March of 2001 was a payoff to create an attack on American soil so Bush could start a war, or at least a military aggression on other countries, which we have done. (I don't call it a war because there was no declaration of war.) Al didn't talk about the book Glick edited, and O'Reilly didn't look into it. It would appear that O'Reilly created a smear campaign against Jeremy Glick because it distracts from the fact that O'Reilly yelled at Glick, insulted him, and cut off the interview. Glick did point out that it was America, which Bush Sr. as head of the CIA and as President, who "recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."
Glick's biggest mistake on O'Reilly's show was to stir up the whole "Bush staged a coup to get the Presidency, and his presidency is illegitimate" theory. O'Reilly stopped listening, if he had even started, at that point and went on the offensive.
O'Reilly called Terry Gross unfair and claimed that the questions she asked were loaded. I'll have to listen to the broadcast when I have a better internet connection than I have at home. I have never considered Terry Gross to ask loaded and slanted questions, but I can't recall many interviews she's had with pundits like O'Reilly. I have heard her interview real newsmen and she was fair, and possibly in awe of them, but I have never heard her lead an interviewee into a corner. Is this just another smear campaign by O'Reilly?
The link to the O'Reilly-Glick interview is on a strange site. It looks like it might be an official campaign site and it focuses on the 'liars' and 'disgruntled ex-white house employees' who have lied and purjered themselves to slander George Bush. It may also be a neocon site. The About page states: "Bushpresident2004.com is an unofficial site formed for people wanting to learn about the great accomplishments of the Bush Administration that are downplayed or ignored by the liberal mainstream media. Thanks for coming." It just brings back that old question, what liberal mainstream media? And the site slams every news outlet and praises Fox News, claiming that it is the only fair and balanced site. If the O'Reilly interview with Glick is indicitave of how he runs interviews (which I understand that it is) then it is anything but fair and balanced (Fox News, that is). THis page also states that when it comes to the 'war on terror' you are either a footsoldier for Bush or a spokesman for al Qaeda. Fair and balanced must mean "no middle ground"
There is a transcript of the Glick interview at http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm. Glicks father was killed in the World Trade Center and subsequently helped edit a book called "Another World is Possible." In the interview there was nothing from Glick about Bush orchestrating the 9/11 attack. I suspect there may have been something in the book claiming that the $41 million or so Bush paid the Taliban in March of 2001 was a payoff to create an attack on American soil so Bush could start a war, or at least a military aggression on other countries, which we have done. (I don't call it a war because there was no declaration of war.) Al didn't talk about the book Glick edited, and O'Reilly didn't look into it. It would appear that O'Reilly created a smear campaign against Jeremy Glick because it distracts from the fact that O'Reilly yelled at Glick, insulted him, and cut off the interview. Glick did point out that it was America, which Bush Sr. as head of the CIA and as President, who "recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."
Glick's biggest mistake on O'Reilly's show was to stir up the whole "Bush staged a coup to get the Presidency, and his presidency is illegitimate" theory. O'Reilly stopped listening, if he had even started, at that point and went on the offensive.
O'Reilly called Terry Gross unfair and claimed that the questions she asked were loaded. I'll have to listen to the broadcast when I have a better internet connection than I have at home. I have never considered Terry Gross to ask loaded and slanted questions, but I can't recall many interviews she's had with pundits like O'Reilly. I have heard her interview real newsmen and she was fair, and possibly in awe of them, but I have never heard her lead an interviewee into a corner. Is this just another smear campaign by O'Reilly?
The link to the O'Reilly-Glick interview is on a strange site. It looks like it might be an official campaign site and it focuses on the 'liars' and 'disgruntled ex-white house employees' who have lied and purjered themselves to slander George Bush. It may also be a neocon site. The About page states: "Bushpresident2004.com is an unofficial site formed for people wanting to learn about the great accomplishments of the Bush Administration that are downplayed or ignored by the liberal mainstream media. Thanks for coming." It just brings back that old question, what liberal mainstream media? And the site slams every news outlet and praises Fox News, claiming that it is the only fair and balanced site. If the O'Reilly interview with Glick is indicitave of how he runs interviews (which I understand that it is) then it is anything but fair and balanced (Fox News, that is). THis page also states that when it comes to the 'war on terror' you are either a footsoldier for Bush or a spokesman for al Qaeda. Fair and balanced must mean "no middle ground"
posted by Josh English @ 10:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home