Haven't seen O'Lielly tell Glick to shut up yet?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-07-13 06:27am

Going after Fox

With commentary by Peter Hart (FAIR), Al Franken and Jeremy Glick himself. Notice what Glick actually says (that Bush Snr as Director of the CIA was responsbile for supporting the whackos in Afghanistan who are now the bane of the US existence and committed 9/11, including Osama) and what O'Reilly spins it as in later episodes. Funny stuff. The bit about Carl Cameron's *massive* conflict of interest is funny too.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-13 11:04am

I heard one hilarious right-winger say that Glick deserved to be cut off because he was "filibustering" for "over a minute".

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-13 11:14am

I don't agree with Glick; much of the mujahadeen stuff ended up causing blowback, but I don't think that we did not have the right to retaliate against al-Queda in Afghanistan. He does have a point though.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-07-13 01:09pm

I think the point is more the totally inappropriate reaction of O'Reilly.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-13 01:12pm

Yeah, Glick's opinion about the Afganistan war may be just a teeny-weeny bit to the left (ahem), but why does O'Reilly feel so threatened by it that he has to cut his mic?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-07-13 01:46pm

O'Reilly.. ahahahahaha. No.

That guy needs to be put in jail. If I were Glick, I'd have stayed in the studio and let O'Reilly do something.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-13 01:46pm

Because O'reilly's a dogmatic ideologue. He preens on how great people like him are--bullshit.

People like him are the ilk that the checks and balances were to filter out. Demogagues claiming authority and popular acclaim to justify their whacko feelings and opinions.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2004-07-13 02:33pm

Is this the worst he's done?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-13 02:52pm

O'reilly's a whacko. He used to be less insane. But he's become progressively confused and rabid over time.

I'm working on a dissection of his anti-secular argument throughout of Who's Looking Out For You?

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2004-07-13 05:24pm

God, I've never watched the O'Reilly Factor before, and I'm glad I haven't. What a shitface.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-07-13 10:21pm

I don't think he is the only one who cuts people off when they disagree with him. I believe I saw that happen on scarborough country.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-07-13 10:37pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:O'reilly's a whacko. He used to be less insane. But he's become progressively confused and rabid over time.

I'm working on a dissection of his anti-secular argument throughout of Who's Looking Out For You?

O'Rielly's problem is that he sucks the FOXNews networks cock and thus has to take up what ever right wing crusader they think will drive Neilsson Boxes. He's a whore as much as anything.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-13 11:01pm

Yeah, Glick's opinion about the Afganistan war may be just a teeny-weeny bit to the left (ahem), but why does O'Reilly feel so threatened by it that he has to cut his mic?

"A teeny-weeny bit to the left?" Glick's opinions are unreasoned at best and self-hating at worst. Anybody who blames George Bush, Sr. for consciously initiating 9/11 is absolutely silly. Hell, if you blame Goerge Bush, you might as well blame Jimmy Carter, too. And he, by God, is by all accounts our must "fuzzy" President yet.

That said, O'Reilly was obviously wron for attacking him - the guy's views were so silly he could have better been humiliated for his stupidity and then sent on his way. That bit about "disappointing your father" was a very cheap and unnecessary shot.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-14 12:12am

He didn't blame George Bush Sr. for consciously causing 9-11, dolt. He couldn't support the war in good faith because he felt short-sighted negligence in policy by George Bush as Director of Central Intelligence caused blowback which ultimately precipitated the rise of al-Queda.

You're making the same distortion as O'reilly.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-14 12:14am

He didn't blame George Bush Sr. for consciously causing 9-11, dolt. He couldn't support the war in good faith because he felt short-sighted negligence in policy by George Bush as Director of Central Intelligence caused blowback which ultimately precipitated the rise of al-Queda.

You're making the same distortion as O'reilly.

What "short-sighted negligence?" How the fuck was George Bush, Sr. to know that the Afghani freedom fighters would turn around and export a "global" revolution once their own country had bveen restored to them?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-07-14 12:31am

I can't believe that O'reilly can't be sued for slander because he is a knonw pathalogical liar!

Fuck I'd take it to court just so I could hear the judge throw it out on those grounds, and watch as all the other news media broadcast it loud and clear.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-14 12:35am

Axis Kast wrote:What "short-sighted negligence?" How the fuck was George Bush, Sr. to know that the Afghani freedom fighters would turn around and export a "global" revolution once their own country had bveen restored to them?

Why on God's green Earth do you think an army of guerillas you armed would just vanish when their motivational ideology happens to be a reactionary and fundamentalist brand of Islam denouncing everything we stand for, an example of which had played out in Tehran already.

I don't know, because blowback has been a consistent part of our counterintelligence. And foreknowledge or lack thereof neither absolves responsibility for those who pursued such policies.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-14 12:49am

Why on God's green Earth do you think an army of guerillas you armed would just vanish when their motivational ideology happens to be a reactionary and fundamentalist brand of Islam denouncing everything we stand for, an example of which had played out in Tehran already.

Ah, and I suppose that you and yours were out at the forefront, shouting this opinion throughout the early '80s, hm?

The Afghan guerillas were dependant on the United States for equipment and resources that would enable them to oust the Soviets. As far as we were concerned, they could be as reactionary as they liked - there was no way for them to project power outward from Afghanistan even once they won. That assessment prevailed because it was logical until 9/11.

I don't know, because blowback has been a consistent part of our counterintelligence. And foreknowledge or lack thereof neither absolves responsibility for those who pursued such policies.

At that time, "blowback" was a new theory. Not to mention that Afghanistan is a terrible example, since it militates against doing anything positive on the off-chance we'll reap unexpected problems that can't be so much as speculated upon somewhere down the road.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-07-14 01:48am

Axis Kast wrote:Ah, and I suppose that you and yours were out at the forefront, shouting this opinion throughout the early '80s, hm?

Tu Quoque and utterly irrelevent. Not to mention I was in the predicament of not yet being alive.

Axis Kast wrote:That assessment prevailed because it was logical until 9/11.

Incorrect, bin Laden and his compatriots had begun to surface as early as 1993.

Axis Kast wrote:At that time, "blowback" was a new theory. Not to mention that Afghanistan is a terrible example, since it militates against doing anything positive on the off-chance we'll reap unexpected problems that can't be so much as speculated upon somewhere down the road.

Stupid, I don't agree with Glick. Its more of me trying to explain that he's just not comfortable waging war on a socially and economically submerged nation that we left to its own devices after using them and helping fund and train the same entities which later struck at us from there as a base of operations. He doesn't feel the right because he feels we're dealing with the consequences of our actions and killing any more Afghanis would be a moral wrong.

I completely disagree with his belief though. It is not as bizarre and outlandish as your neoconservative mind believes, however.

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2004-07-14 10:49am

Vympel wrote:Going after Fox

With commentary by Peter Hart (FAIR), Al Franken and Jeremy Glick himself. Notice what Glick actually says (that Bush Snr as Director of the CIA was responsbile for supporting the whackos in Afghanistan who are now the bane of the US existence and committed 9/11, including Osama) and what O'Reilly spins it as in later episodes. Funny stuff. The bit about Carl Cameron's *massive* conflict of interest is funny too.

I missed this episode so could someone help me understand Glick's argument? At the time the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, George Bush was not in the CIA. When the United States began equipping the Afghanis (after other nations had begun doing so), Bush was the VP. Again, not involved in the CIA.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-07-14 11:00am

"A teeny-weeny bit to the left?"

I was kidding.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-07-14 11:09am

buzz_knox wrote: I missed this episode so could someone help me understand Glick's argument? At the time the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, George Bush was not in the CIA. When the United States began equipping the Afghanis (after other nations had begun doing so), Bush was the VP. Again, not involved in the CIA.

True. Bush 41 was only CIA director from 76-77, which was before the invasion. Regardless; the central point of the US govt training/funding/supporting/supplying them (including Osama bin Laden and his ilk in the organization known as 'MAK' via the funds they pumped to Pakistan's security service for that purpose), and Bush 41 being part of that (not to mention other men now involved in the current administration) is largely unaffected. As to other nations, that's not really relevant.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-07-14 11:28am

buzz_knox wrote:I missed this episode so could someone help me understand Glick's argument? At the time the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, George Bush was not in the CIA. When the United States began equipping the Afghanis (after other nations had begun doing so), Bush was the VP. Again, not involved in the CIA.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong!

Bush was'nt VP at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afganistan. George H. Bush was CIA director from 30 Jan 1976 - 30 Jan 1977. The head of the CIA was Adm. Stansfield Turner (a Carter appointee) when the Soviet invasion of Afganistan began on 24 December 1979.

The plan to equip the Afgan fighters to combat the Soviets was actually hatched by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's NSA) and signed by Carter on 3 July 1979. Thats... right Carter began funding the Afghanistan 'freedom fighters' 174-days BEFORE the Soviet invasion.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-07-14 05:06pm

Incorrect, bin Laden and his compatriots had begun to surface as early as 1993.

And at that time, nobody considered them anything different than the myriad terrorists who had come from other nations around the world.

Stupid, I don't agree with Glick. Its more of me trying to explain that he's just not comfortable waging war on a socially and economically submerged nation that we left to its own devices after using them and helping fund and train the same entities which later struck at us from there as a base of operations. He doesn't feel the right because he feels we're dealing with the consequences of our actions and killing any more Afghanis would be a moral wrong.

This goes beyond calling a spade a spade. Glick wasn't just pointing out irony of the worst sort; he was crying foul over a situation that we could have had no prior warning would eventually turn sour, and using the benefit of hind-sight to sustain his point.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Haven't seen O'Lielly tell Glick to shut up yet?

Haven't seen O'Lielly tell Glick to shut up yet?

Re: Haven't seen O'Lielly tell Glick to shut up yet?

Re: Haven't seen O'Lielly tell Glick to shut up yet?

Re: Haven't seen O'Lielly tell Glick to shut up yet?