Bill O'Reilly goes nuclear

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Video link: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/Glick_56.wmv

 

I couldn't stand to watch this guy's show anymore after that. It was so sickening. Basically, O'Reilly had the son of this 9/11 casualty who was anti-war, and pretty much tore the guy apart. You know what I mean: "EVERYONE IN AFGHANISTAN KILLED YOUR FATHER, KILL THEM BACK OR YOU ARE DISGRACING HIS HONOR! SHUT UP! SHUT UP WHEN I'M TALKIN' TO YOU!"

 

A transcript, for those who don't want to deal with the video:

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

 

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

 

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even --I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

 

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

 

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

 

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

 

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

 

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

 

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

 

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

 

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

 

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

 

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

 

GLICK: Maybe...

 

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

 

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

 

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

 

GLICK: Well, OK.

 

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

 

GLICK: But you do care because you...

 

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

 

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

 

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

 

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

 

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

 

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

 

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

 

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

 

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

 

GLICK: OK.

 

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

 

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

 

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

 

GLICK: Why?

 

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

 

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

 

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

 

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

 

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

 

GLICK: On September 14...

 

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

 

GLICK: OK.

 

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

 

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

 

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

 

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

 

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

 

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

 

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

 

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

 

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

 

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

 

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

 

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

 

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

 

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

 

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

 

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

 

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

 

GLICK: OK.

 

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

 

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

 

O'REILLY: Shut up! Shut up!

 

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

 

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

 

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

 

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

 

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

 

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

 

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

 

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father.

 

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

 

GLICK: That means we're done?

 

O'REILLY: We're done.

 

Bill O'Reilly is a complete tool. Glick was hilarious in his calm calculated replies and seemed vaguely amused at Bill blowing his stack.

[Guest bob_barron]

That was pretty funny. As someone who doesn't get O'Reilly up here- good to know he's still got it.

 

What document did the kid sign that Bill was talking about?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

http://www.notinourname.net/statement_conscience.html

 

 

I think this might be what O'Reilly's talking about.

[Guest EricMM]

That kid was no total innocent, and he totally had an agenda that he was pushing, and it was in no way totally truthful. I don't know why that should make you sick. Both of them were arguing something, it just seemed that what O'Reilly was saying was a little more honest IMO. What the hell, that Glick guy was totally biased, dead father or no.

[Guest Lethargic]

How anybody could ever listen to that man and take him seriously is beyond me. I don't think he even takes himself seriously. He just plays a character of an asshole to make some money. He brings people on his show to "debate" them but he never lets them speak. He's always claiming that they can't back up their argument but I've never heard him back up one of his. And when he goes on about the dumbing down of America on TV, I just remember how he used to be the host of A Current Affair and laugh. He's one of the founding fathers of the dumbing down of TV. He puts down celebrities for speaking out on politics, while he does it every single night and he's no more of an expert than they are. He's a total hypocrite and people still actually take him serious. That's hilarious. Even when I agree with him he makes me feel dumb for doing so. He's a complete joke.

[Guest JMA]

Geez, could O'Reilly be more of an ass? Seems Bill was pissed someone interrupted HIM for once. Serves him right. Just because the kid doesn't want vengence O'Reilly chews his head off. And I was starting to think Bill was differant from jerks like Hannity and Snow. Guess I was wrong.

[Guest LooseCannon]

How anybody could ever listen to that man and take him seriously is beyond me. I don't think he even takes himself seriously. He just plays a character of an asshole to make some money. He brings people on his show to "debate" them but he never lets them speak. He's always claiming that they can't back up their argument but I've never heard him back up one of his. And when he goes on about the dumbing down of America on TV, I just remember how he used to be the host of A Current Affair and laugh. He's one of the founding fathers of the dumbing down of TV. He puts down celebrities for speaking out on politics, while he does it every single night and he's no more of an expert than they are. He's a total hypocrite and people still actually take him serious. That's hilarious. Even when I agree with him he makes me feel dumb for doing so. He's a complete joke.

I agree with this post exactly.

[Guest bob_barron]

O'Reilly hosted Inside Edition, NOT A Current Affair.

 

My problem with the video is that just shows O'Reilly yelling and doesn't give the reason why he was talking to him or anything and also starts after they were talking.

 

Anyone have the complete segment?

[Guest NoCalMike]

O'Reily(during that "debate") seemed that all he wanted to do was to sit there and call this man a horrible person, and whenever the guy tried to explain himself or address a question, O'Reily would refuse to debate. I am not sure what the point of Bill even bringing him on the show was.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

And I was starting to think Bill was differant from jerks like Hannity and Snow. Guess I was wrong.

How is Tony Snow a jerk. Because he's a Republican?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

That kid was no total innocent, and he totally had an agenda that he was pushing, and it was in no way totally truthful. I don't know why that should make you sick. Both of them were arguing something, it just seemed that what O'Reilly was saying was a little more honest IMO.

Yeah, he really looked honest floundering like that and telling him to shut up. Let's face it, he didn't have anything to say except "Aren't you ashamed?" with no justification for why he should be. Anyone watching the interview can see O'Reilly totally jump to a different topic when the guy made a point.

 

When he said he didn't believe the US was the same as a terrorist nation, O'Reilly told him that he did.

 

When he brought up the US recruiting radical mujahadeens, O'Reilly said he didn't want to debate with him. Debate? This is history, and it's relevant.

 

O'Reilly says he didn't support US actions against al Qaeda. When Glick asks "The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?" He avoids the question and diverts the topic with "See, I'm more angry about it than you are!"

 

Glick says one word about the mujahadeens again, and O'Reilly responds "Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this."

 

He weasled out of every valid point against him with low diversionary tactics so he could last until the commercial, and when that failed he started screaming for him to shut up.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

The U.S. supported the Mujahdeens because they where fighting against the Soviets. Who had invaded Afghanistan.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I pray that his show is still around when I become successful or do something big-time newsworthy. I'll DEMAND to be on it. He'll be old as dirt by then, but I won't have a problem blasting him on his own program.

[Guest DrTom]

O'Reilly was wrong to tell the chap to shut up, which is something a host should never do to an invted guest. However, it's not like this guy doesn't have an agenda of his own. I'll give O'Reilly credit for trying to shout down the typical moral relativist crap that people like Glick always bring up, but that segment shouldn't be remembered as one of the Factor's better moments.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The U.S. supported the Mujahdeens because they where fighting against the Soviets. Who had invaded Afghanistan.

And then from the Mujahdeens indirectly spawned the Taliban. We also supported Saddam Hussein at one point too. Doesn't this show a bit of a problem?

[Guest EricMM]

Tom I think it was one of factors most RATINGS~! moments. Thats why It'll be remembered.

 

Bill got pissed because Glick was spouting off trash. (we can totally get into a debate if you want but they were NOT valid points, they wre stupid points) Bill didn't want to talk about stuff that went on in 1992, which was what Glick was bringing up. He wanted to talk about how Glick could be defending terrorists against Americans. Glick turned it around and blamed Bush Sr.

 

You can blame O'Reilly for having him on the show since neither one of them were going to debate the points the other was raising, but that's it. He was yelling, fine. But it was a yelling situation if any situations are.

[Guest LooseCannon]

The point is, clearly it would have been relevant to discuss the issue. But Bill didn't want to. He just wanted to make ad hominem comments

[Guest EricMM]

And then from the Mujahdeens spawned the Taliban. We also supported Saddam Hussein at one point too. Doesn't this show a bit of a problem?

 

I don't care how or why or when the Taliban, Al Quaeda, or Saddam Hussein gained power. What matters is who they are, and what they would like to accomplish (for example, killing your family and mine) You can BLAME Regan et al for giving them power, but that's no reason to prevent their destruction...

[Guest EricMM]

The point is, clearly it would have been relevant to discuss the issue. But Bill didn't want to. He just wanted to make ad hominem comments

 

Oh I dunno about that. I don't think either one of them were willing to concede any points on that issue.

 

Glick: It's Bush Sr's fault we're in this mess

 

O'Reilly: Like hell it is, it's crazy Islamists

 

and so it goes.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Would you rather watch a show where they actually debate the issues like has happened in this thread a bit with the mujahedin in the 80's, or would you rather watch the host yell at, interrupt, and insult the guest?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

He wanted to talk about how Glick could be defending terrorists against Americans.

Read it again. He was trying to differentiate the Afghani people and Al-Qaeda and O'Reilly kept diverting him.

 

I guess it's a lot easier to say "Al-Quaeda = Afghanistan = Taliban! Bomb 'em all!" though.

 

I don't care how or why or when the Taliban, Al Quaeda, or Saddam Hussein gained power. What matters is who they are, and what they would like to accomplish (for example, killing your family and mine) You can BLAME Regan et al for giving them power, but that's no reason to prevent their destruction...

 

I don't mind if the government wants to say "This guy is becoming a monster, we need to do something about him," but it helps when we aren't actually creating the monsters.

[Guest EricMM]

Of course I would like to see debate.

 

However, I believe that the argument was exactly 50% O'Reilly's fault. Perhaps a little more because he maybe should have known better than to have him on his show? They both were arguing...

[Guest LooseCannon]

From reading the transcript, it seemed to me like O'Reilly was more at fault, but that's just me, I guess.

[Guest EricMM]

I don't mind if the government wants to say "This guy is becoming a monster, we need to do something about him," but it helps when we aren't actually creating the monsters.

 

Yes, it would be nice if we had handled the situation in a way that had not created any monsters, if such a way existed. I don't know, I probably wasn't even born when this happened. Wasn't it in 1980? Whenever. Point is, it HAPPENED. What can we do, change history?

 

Please explain to me a single relevant point regarding America creating Al Quaeda. Seriously, I'd love to see how that affects what we are doing today.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Please explain to me a single relevant point regarding America creating Al Quaeda. Seriously, I'd love to see how that affects what we are doing today.

http://www.oz.net/~vvawai/sw/sw43/taliban.html

 

The Taliban originated when the CIA with ISI (the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate) recruited radical Muslims from around the world to fight with the Afghan mujahadeen against the Soviet Union. The United States wanted to demonstrate that the entire Muslim world was fighting against the USSR along with Afghans and American benefactors. And in 1980, Osama bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan, bringing funds from the reactionary Saudi Arabian ruling class to the mujahadeen. When the CIA and ISI decided to train thousands of Muslims from around the world to fight in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was one of the key organizers in this effort. The author estimates that after 1982 more than 100,000 Muslims from dozens of countries received political or military training in the CIA-backed camps of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

The U.S. supported the Mujahdeens because they where fighting against the Soviets. Who had invaded Afghanistan.

And then from the Mujahdeens indirectly spawned the Taliban. We also supported Saddam Hussein at one point too. Doesn't this show a bit of a problem?

That's like saying we shouldn't bring down the USSR because we supported them against Nazi Germany.

[Guest Mad Dog]

I saw the segment on tv and there are several things you can't take in from just the transcript.

 

1. Glick would not stop talking. Everytime O'Reilly would try and stop him to ask him a question he would keep talking and not answer it. So O'Reilly eventually had to tell him to shut up.

 

2. Glick made no valid points and wasn't talking about the thing he signed. He kept trying to say all this anti-Bush Sr. and all this other stuff.

[Guest EricMM]

Jobber I know, I believe that the CIA helped create Mujhadeen or whatever.

 

Why is that relevant? In what way does it affect the middle east situation now, besides being the 20 year old cause? Why does it matter???

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I saw the segment on tv and there are several things you can't take in from just the transcript.

I put a link to the video up there, too.

 

1. Glick would not stop talking.  Everytime O'Reilly would try and stop him to ask him a question he would keep talking and not answer it.  So O'Reilly eventually had to tell him to shut up.

 

O'Reilly didn't tell him to shut up when he realized that his "You should be ashamed of yourself for your family!" bit wasn't working. It turned into an arguement so he could last until the commercial

 

2. Glick made no valid points and wasn't talking about the thing he signed.  He kept trying to say all this anti-Bush Sr. and all this other stuff.

 

Oh please! He was trying to voice that he didn't think the Afghani people should have bombs dropped on their heads and O'Reilly kept trying to hold them responsible for 9/11. There's a difference between Osama and the populace of an entire friggin' country.

 

The man and the network are becoming parodies of themselves. I sit and wonder if some of you guys are just too far gone to realize...

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Why is that relevant? In what way does it affect the middle east situation now, besides being the 20 year old cause? Why does it matter???

Because history repeats itself, and it's especially important to think about if we want to oust Saddam and put a new government in Iraq.

 

He specifically said the American people were not responsible for the training of these men, and that it was a result of aftershocks from the government's actions at the time. According to these sources many members of the Taliban were the same mujahadeen members trained by the ISI and CIA. You can't hold them accountable but you can certainly see the effect.