Letterman to O’Reilly: 60% of what you say is crap

David Letterman with guest Bill O'ReillyIn arguably one of the angriest (and possibly most notable) moments of David Letterman’s television career — during a heated exchange with guest Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday’s Late ShowLetterman let rip on the Iraq War:

Letterman: Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There’s no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we’re in it it’s going to take a long, long time. People who expect it’s going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it’s not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of “Why the Hell are we there to begin with?”

O’Reilly: If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that’s obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin’s people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak’s intelligence agency in Egypt.

Letterman: Well then that makes it all right?

O’Reilly: No it doesn’t make it right.

Letterman: That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we’re there?

O’Reilly: It doesn’t make it right.

The words continued to fly between the two with O’Reilly visibly unnerved by his host’s candor, flaying the rationale for the Iraq invasion. Moments later, Letterman delivered this verbal smackdown to O’Reilly:

Letterman: I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

Paul Shafer: 60 percent.

Letterman: 60 percent. I’m just spit-balling here.

Be sure to watch the video: Real (5.8 MB) or Windows Media (6.8 MB)

UPDATE by Stephen Gordon: The best neocon defense of O’Reilly (so far) seems to come from the venom spewing Michelle Malkin:

Bill O’Reilly took on David Letterman last night. Advantage: O’Reilly. The Political Teen has video. Letterman recycled chickenhawk arguments, muttered “Honest to Christ!” when O’Reilly refused to back down from his criticism of Cindy Sheehan, and attacked O’Reilly’s show despite admitting he doesn’t watch it.

If this is the best she has to offer, perhaps Malkin should either retire her goose-stepping blog or admit absolute defeat on this issue.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: To be more fair and balanced in our presentation of smackdown news, I readily to admit to feeling that 60% of what Paul Shafer says to Dave Letterman is sycophantic crap. Of course, I’m just spit-balling here.

posted by vforvandyke
  • Susan

    This was great! I watched it last night and after all of O’Reilly’s “red and green war,” I was glad that Letterman finally got him to change the subject. Loved his comments about Cindy Sheehan too. By tomorrow’s No Spin Zone, Letterman will be villified and will be accused of personal attacks and uninvited to ever appear! I actually watch O’Reilly out of self-defense, just to see how the dark side thinks, so I was aware of how much he blathered on about were just BS and was glad that Letterman made him answer some real questions. O’Reilly is easier to shut up when it’s not his microphone.

  • Dave

    Everyone seems to stop quoting the interview when Letterman says, “I have the feeling about 60% of what you say is crap.” O’Reilly asked him twice during the interview to give an example. Letterman finally said, “I can’t because I don’t watch your show…I read about what you say.” While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it hurts your credibility when your comments are based on second hand, usually opinionated, writing. This is especially so when first hand fact gathering is so easy! One can READ about The Late Show and believe that David Letterman is a no talent hack. Or you can WATCH it for yourself, think for yourself, and draw your own conclusions!

  • http://thepoliticalteen.net/2006/01/04/oreillyletterman/#comments mitch

    Letterman stirs O’Reilley’s water with his filthy pencil before O Reilley is introduced, and then laughs when he unknowingly drinks the dirty water.

    Letterman is a dirtbag, no question about that.

    http://thepoliticalteen.net/2006/01/04/oreillyletterman/#comments

  • Daniel

    The O’Reilly Factor is AIDS for your ears.

  • George

    Letterman hurt his credibility when he admitted to not watching O’Reilly’s show, but the damage done wasn’t very extremem. Letterman doesn’t need a lot of credibility, he is a comedian. O’Reilly has no credibility and is in a position where it should be a requirement as a talking head on a “news” network. What O’Reilly demonstrated last night is that he is in no way a journalist and makes a living being nothing more than an opportunistic attention whore.

  • http://my.st/blog Bryan

    I am dissapointed with the libertarian response, frankly the national response, to the O’Reilly-Letterman bout last night. Letterman does not represent principled democracy, but merely reactionary populism. You may disagree with O’Reilly on the war, I don’t, however, he is still speaking intelligently with fact based statements and educated opinions. Letterman said it himself last night, “I’m not smart enough…”

  • Mike Canada

    That was the most refreshing bit of TV I’ve seen in a long time. Bill O’Reilly is a blowhard, and thanks Dave for saying it publicly.

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    LOL, whats with all these wackos defending O’Reilly?

    I hope you guys don’t consider yourselves libertarians…

    I have watch O’Reilly’s show and I have read books about him and I think the 60% claim isn’t far off. The guy lied about his voter registration for christ’s sake!

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    *watched

  • http://my.st/blog Bryan

    Well, Groucho said it, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” But, Disenfranchised, I’m not sure you are taking the right attitude here. I will cancel my political donations if the libertarians don’t want me, but I find it hard to believe that Letterman better represents libertarian ideals than O’Reilly. The enemy of thy enemy is thine friend. Where does the libertarian dislike of O’Reilly come from? Is it merely his religous affiliations or is there more to it?

  • Everbody

    Two of O’Reilly’s “war on Christmas” examples have been shown to be major spin, if not outright lies. The song was part of a play that was published years ago. It was not changed to placate Bill’s Christmas enemies, it fit the story of a fictional Christmas tree. The prohibition on wearing “Christmas colors” is also bogus and was debunked when O’Reilly first said it.
    Letterman should watch O’Reilly’s show like I do, to find out who advertises and then boycott the companies supporting a blowhard.

  • J Fleming

    I have never seen David Letterman get as riled up against a guest as he did last night against Bill O’Reilly. It was clearly an ambush, as I am certain O’Reilly was expecting some light chitchat and softball questions. And did you happen to see O’reilly’s right knee start to twitch during the heated exchange?

    But Dave really missed a golden opportunity: when O’Reilly was criticizing Cindy Sheehan for making inflammatory remarks, suggesting they encourage terrorists, Letterman could have turned O’Reilly’s own words against him by bringing up O’Reillys invitation to terrorists to attack San Francisco.

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Well Bryan, my personal opinion hardly matters, especially considering that I am not a “big-L” Libertarian, but when it comes to issues of war and peace, if you don’t agree with the basic libertarian principals then you aren’t a libertarian. Agreeing with such an offensive and some would argue, imperialistic, war as the war in Iraq is anti-libertarian.

    As for whether Lettermen is closer to libertarian ideals than O’Reilly…who cares? Lettermen is not a pundit who lies and runs his mouth constantly defending government like O’Reilly.

  • Pingback: Smeared black ink

  • Rob D.

    “You may disagree with O’Reilly on the war, I don’t, however, he is still speaking intelligently with fact based statements and educated opinions.”

    Is this the O’Reilly you’re speaking of?
    http://cdn.moveon.org/data/ShutUp_Final_BbandLo.mov

    He is a puppet for the Republican Party, just like Hannity and Limbaugh.

    “Letterman said it himself last night, “I’m not smart enough…””

    He was of course saying that he’s not a political idiot savant. I wouldn’t fault someone for having a life and not worrying about the intricacies of someone who is a partisan hack.

  • Angela

    No matter his politics, Letterman hates phony gas-bags, be they actors, celebrities or pompous blowhards like O’Reilly. Anyone who’s ever watched him eviscerate actors who think too much of themselves could see this one coming a mile away.

    And it was beautiful.

  • Voice of Reason

    What a great way to start off the New Year seeing O’Reilly get knocked down a notch or two! I can’t wait for the sequel with Ann Coulter as the next bait! With the incessant demogoguery spouted by those two it is well past time for someone, ANYONE to knock them down a peg or two.

  • Ozzie

    I’m miffed that someone can claim O’Reilly was brought down a couple of pegs from watching the same clip I did. Letterman presented no facts whatsoever to back up his assertions in what was an ambush (though I’m sure O’Reilly wasn’t too surprised). I don’t always agree with O’Reilly but at least he has substance to his arguments. Letterman pandered and got the obligatory cheap applause from a biased audience. Schooled? How about Letterman coming across as a total dope and lackey of the loony left. What an absolute farce. I’d like to see a Democrat put on the spot like that and keep his poise.

    By the way, Coulter would not only refute and quash an annoyance like Letterman with facts and reason but she would deride him and bring the laughs that he lacks.

  • Rob D.

    “I’m miffed that someone can claim O’Reilly was brought down a couple of pegs from watching the same clip I did. Letterman presented no facts whatsoever to back up his assertions in what was an ambush (though I’m sure O’Reilly wasn’t too surprised). I don’t always agree with O’Reilly but at least he has substance to his arguments. Letterman pandered and got the obligatory cheap applause from a biased audience. Schooled? How about Letterman coming across as a total dope and lackey of the loony left. What an absolute farce. I’d like to see a Democrat put on the spot like that and keep his poise.

    By the way, Coulter would not only refute and quash an annoyance like Letterman with facts and reason but she would deride him and bring the laughs that he lacks.”

    STOP SUCKING REPUBLICAN DICK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, THEY COULD GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOU CUM-GUZZLING ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK NEOCONS (ixnay your vote of course).

  • Tigerfan

    I am a conservative and consider both O’Reilly and Hannity to be blowhards (disagree on Rush, he’s not a bully to those who disagree with him).

    As for last night’s exchange, two things:

    1) If you are looking to David Letterman for analysis of political and international issues, you are looking in the wrong place. He’s a comedian who sometimes injects some social commentary. He is entitled to his opinion and point of view, but you should be wary in citing him as a source in support of your beliefs.

    2) Why must those on the left believe there were (and are) sinister motives regarding Iraq? They believe Bush is an idiot, yet credit him with political intrigue of Machiavellian proportions. Contrary to their greatest of hopes, Bush did not lie to get us into Iraq. Bad intel all the way around. Would Iraq been my first choice? No. iran and North Korea have proved to be the more troublesome members of the “Axis of Evil.”

    Perspective…some here could use some.

  • LEHaskell

    Billy O’s credibility (not that he had much with me, anyway)took a hit as well: the British intelligence agency he’s thinking of is MI-6, not M-ONE-Six. But little facts never made much difference to Billy O, when there’s a crusade to lead.

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Letterman came off like an angry, uninformed twit. O’Reilly, who I do not like, handled Letterman’s ambush with grace and class. Letterman should stick to writing skits for Pea Boy.

    http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Tigerfan, on the threat posed by Iraq, Iran, and North Korea:

    “I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States — they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”

    Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
    During an interview on CNN’s “Late Edition”
    February 24, 2002

    http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

  • Tigerfan

    Based on the information available, I can see why the US took the action that it did (despite the Monday morning 20/20 hindsight regarding the intel). However, I believed at the time that North Korea and the Iran posed the bigger threats. NK has a non-existent economy, a starving population, an insane leader, and a need for hard currency…ripe for selling their WMD technology. Iran was and is an overt supporter of international terrorism and similarly would be more inclined to sel WMD technology to unfriendly people. Iraq was the least of the three in my mind.

    My own opinion.

    BTW, as for those who believe that Bush was spoiling for a fight with Iraq and could not wait to get in there after 9/11 (the Michael Moore theory), bear in mind that Bush had sufficient justifcation to attack Iraq prior to 9/11 based upon the repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire (specifically, the “illuminating” of US and UK planes and incursions into the “no fly” zones) prior to 9/11.

  • http://HammerofTruth Mark

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the exchange last evening. One thing that’s not open to contention is this: David Letterman doesn’t cut his guest’s mic off, when the fur starts flying, and O’reilly does. What we saw last night was a master interviewer using rhetoric to subdue a psuedo-journalist who was too full of himself. If you don’t agree, just try to imagine how this exchange would have sounded on the O’reilly Factor. You wouldn’t have heard a complete sentence from Letterman, because O’reilly would have interrupted and cut him off.

  • Rob D.

    Warmongers, get a clue…

    “Even if the United States spent the trillions of dollars needed to depose — directly or indirectly — the remaining tyrants in the world (and there are a lot of them left), the voracious security bureaucracies would think up new threats to justify an interventionist foreign policy and to maintain defense spending at levels exceeding Cold War averages. Deposing the world’s tyrants is only the first of many difficult steps to utopia. As the United States keeps rediscovering in the developing world — for example, in Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Iraq — even after the despots’ rule has been removed, rebuilding societies that have little experience with freedom into republics has not been very successful. The accomplishments in Japan and Germany were achieved by industrial societies with much human capital, a strong sense of national identity, and (in the case of Germany) some experience with representative government.” – Ivan Eland

  • Kevo

    “They believe Bush is an idiot, yet credit him with political intrigue of Machiavellian proportions.”

    I think Bush is a dim-witted sociopathic puppet. I credit the political intrigue to Rove and the PNAC.

  • David

    Letterman was of course on target for criticizing Fox when in claims to be “fair-and-balanced” — it is obviously a sustained political commercial for the Republican party, and the fact that it claims to be “balanced” is an immediate signal that they are willing to be dishonest and distort language. It’s so biased and one-sided it’s almost as if it were owned by Rupert Murdoch and managed by Roger Ailes…. The argument about why Bush invaded Iraq has to be shaped by the overwhelming evidence that the Cheney/Wolfowitz crowd (and W) wanted to do it MONTHS BEFORE 9/11…. they simply leveraged 9/11 to justify their preconceived goal… why would they want to? For my money, the neoconservatives, certainly Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, were pursuing the objectives and interests of Likud-defined Zionist revisionism…. History will tell us how costly this hijacking of American national security policy will be…. O’Reilly et al are just shils and we all know it…

  • Rob D.

    It’s the interventionist foreign policy STUPID.

    “Horrific blowback from terrorists reacting to interventionist U.S. foreign policy is now the biggest threat facing the country. The terrorists say, and polls of Arabic and Islamic public opinion confirm, that U.S. interventionist foreign policy — not U.S. culture or economic and political freedoms — is the cause of terrorist strikes against U.S. targets. Attacking foreign countries raises hatred of the United States in the world, increases retaliatory terrorism, and thereby ultimately increases U.S. government intrusion into civil liberties at home.” – Ivan Eland

  • Tigerfan

    “I think Bush is a dim-witted sociopathic puppet. I credit the political intrigue to Rove and the PNAC.”

    Well then, I guess it must really sting when he continues to succeed despite the best efforts of his opponents.

    Believe what you will, but they don’t just give away MBAs from Harvard (remember, Daddy and “Dubya” were Yale men, so the Crimson owed them nothing). Bush haters continue to believe the man is dumb and as long as they do so, he will continue to prevail.

  • Vinzago

    I am one of those on the Left who believes Bush is an idiot. The fact that he’s a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian nails it for me. But that doesn’t mean he’s stupid, if you know what I mean. Bush is an idiot who has surrounded himself with evil geniuses like Rove, Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, and so on and so on. They didn’t lie- much. They’re smart enough to know that lying is stupid. They *spun*. Clinton spun his way to being the most respected world leader in his time, but he was almost destroyed by a little white lie. A Spin is a lie that you can’t get busted for. It’s brilliant. And evil.

  • Tigerfan

    Ivan Eland is some kind of genuius! So, the 9/11 hijackers carried out their attacks (planned years before), because the US was going to go into Iraq?

    Contrary to popular belief, the US’ role in the Middle East has been far from “interventionist” in the last 20 years. Other than supporting Israel, the 1991 Gulf War (precipitated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait), and Clinton’s repeated pole-puffing of Araft, the US has been pretty much out of the picture.

    But, if that helps you sleep better at night, go for it.

  • Vinzago

    IRT: Tigerfan

    Bush may have had the same justification for invading Iraq before 9/11, but what he lacked was the political capital that the WTC attacks provided. They (the Neocon cabal) wanted to do it before they even got into the White House. Bin Laden just provided the opportunity.

  • http://islamcomicbook.com/ Hugh Jardohn

    O’Reilly has become full of himself over the years. Having said that, he gets credit (wheather ot not you call it news) for some things like exposing the cancer of the judiciary in this Country. As far as Letterman goes, juxtaposing these two is pointless. I’d say more but I didn’t see it.

  • Walter DeGraw

    1. Letterman says “60 Percent of what you say is crap,” then a minute later says “I never watch your show.” Is this not the definition of an ignoramus, i.e., a person that is totally ignorant about a topic while claiming to know everything?
    2. Why have a man on your show if you just want to denigrate him and be as rude as possible, especially if you know nothing about him? This was a pure ambush. I’m not surprised the O’Reilly-haters loved it, but any truly objective observer would see this as just plain rude.

  • Tigerfan

    “Bush may have had the same justification for invading Iraq before 9/11, but what he lacked was the political capital that the WTC attacks provided. They (the Neocon cabal) wanted to do it before they even got into the White House. Bin Laden just provided the opportunity.”

    While not accepting your hyperbole, I will grant that 9/11 did create a climate in the public (and in the halls of Congress [remember, many Dems voted for the war as well]) that would be supportive of proactive military action. I, for one, do not disagree with the concept and support the idea that if you can kill the threat in the crib, you are derelict in your duty if you fail to do so.

    I guess that makes me a neo-con warmonger around these parts.

  • Tigerfan

    “Why have a man on your show if you just want to denigrate him and be as rude as possible, especially if you know nothing about him? This was a pure ambush. I’m not surprised the O’Reilly-haters loved it, but any truly objective observer would see this as just plain rude.”

    O’Reilly and Hannity do this all the time!!!!!!

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Vinzago, Clinton was impeached not for a “little white lie” but for 1) Grand Jury Perjury, and 2) Obstruction of Justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him.

    Is this another Clinton “white lie”?

    “In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

    If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.”

    President Clinton
    Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
    February 17, 1998
    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

  • Alex Franco

    Interesting but not as good as Jon Stewart, Daily Show, on Crossfire:
    http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12

  • http://livejournal.comuserscornswalled Alexander Cornswalled

    Since 100% of what Letterman says is known to be crap, he’s hardly in a position to criticize an actual journalist.

  • Tigerfan

    Apologies for injecting this unrelated matter (although, it does bear on Bush), but you have to figure this should make things uncomfortable for those that are assiling Alito (and their willing accomplices among the Senate Democrats).

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/04/D8ETVPN00.html

  • http://www.justinstroud.com beans_talk

    Bill O’Reilly is a blubbering idiot…just another mouthpiece for the neo-cons. Do you really think that this clown has your best interests at heart?

    If I had to take a trust exercise, I’d say the safe money would be on Letterman.

    Go Dave.

  • beans_talk

    In addition…

    O’Reilly is not a journalist. He is a commentator. He spews his opinion because he thinks he knows better than everyone else.

  • theo

    Tigerfan:

    “they don’t just give away MBAs from Harvard (remember, Daddy and “Dubya” were Yale men, so the Crimson owed them nothing).”

    You have absolutely no idea how the old boy network works. The Bushes know hundreds of people who could tip their dimwit son into Harvard. And, more importantly, Harvard knows them.

    And, yes, the only hard part about business school — even Harvard Business School — is getting in.

  • beans_talk

    “Why have a man on your show if you just want to denigrate him and be as rude as possible, especially if you know nothing about him? This was a pure ambush. I’m not surprised the O’Reilly-haters loved it, but any truly objective observer would see this as just plain rude.”

    A truly objecting observer…riiiiiigght. Like Bill O’Reilly? Or Sean Hannity? Or Michael Moore? Or Anne Coulter?

    They are all idiots. They care NOTHING for you. Only their own fame and fortune.

    At least David Letterman is usually just an affable goofball. He doesn’t expect us to take him seriously. He knows that what he does is entertainment. The problem with all these other fools is that they pretend to be ‘news’ when it’s just pure grandstanding.

    Personally, I don’t listen to any of the above morons.

    I formulate my own opinion.

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Tigerfan wrote:

    “remember, many Dems voted for the war as well”

    Indeed, here are all the US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq (including John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Max Cleland, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, etc):

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

    The House also overwhelmingly supported the authorization of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

    http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/iraq.us/

    Perhaps Letterman didn’t get the memo…

  • Timmy!

    This is stupid. Don’t you people have lives?

  • Dan Larkin

    It’s about time someone in the mainstream took one of these blowhards to task. Fox “News” provides 24 hours of uninterupted, unsubstantiated, neocon views and presents it as journalism. O’Reilly is a punk who won’t even tell the truth when you ask him what town he grew up in. He’s the new Morton Downey Jr. I think 60% was giving him more credit than he deserves.

  • Tigerfan

    “You have absolutely no idea how the old boy network works. The Bushes know hundreds of people who could tip their dimwit son into Harvard. And, more importantly, Harvard knows them.”

    I have every idea how it works.

    Perhaps you would like a refresher course on Bush’s grades while at Yale as compared to John “The Genius” Kerry…

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF

    Again, you can feel free to think Bush is dumb, but the political landscape is littered with the carcasses of those that have made that same mistake (Ann Richards, Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt…)

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Theo wrote:

    “The Bushes know hundreds of people who could tip their dimwit son into Harvard.”

    Actually, George W Bush had higher grades in college than John Kerry:

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

  • Matt

    O’Reilly was handed a smackdown hammer with Letterman’s words.

    What I find most striking is that a guy that doesn’t even watch the show can perfectly describe it.

    I watch the show fairly often, and find that O’Reilly is a “pinhead” and a “disgrace to America!” to quote his stupid one-liners.

    Go Letterman!

  • Tigerfan

    I would really love it if those of you using the terms “neo-con” or “neo-conservative” could provide me with a defintion. You throw it into your posts with regularity (and, in some cases, a startling lack of context).

    Thank you in advance.

  • JohnSn

    I cannot believe the number of people wasting time ‘discussing’ O’Reilly. If there is an idiot to be ignored, O’Reilly is it.

  • josh

    o’reily implies that the intelligence agencies of several agencies all agreed that saddam had wmd, then how in the hell did such a huge number of leftie publications know otherwise? How come I and a number of regular joes here knew better than these intelligence agencies. It is straight bullshit, just like 63% of what b.o says. When Letterman says 60% it is a JOKE, with an element of truth in it. (that makes for a funny joke)

  • http://www.spymuseum.org Chas

    Yeah, I was also suprised at all those people supporting O’Riley. I shouldn’t be that suprised though as the last election proved that at least 51% of the country is retarded. I guess its that 51% that is watching O’Riley.

    Way to go retarded America,
    Way to go.

    -Chas. In DC

  • Tigerfan

    “I shouldn’t be that suprised though as the last election proved that at least 51% of the country is retarded.”

    Operating on the assumption that you equate a vote for Bush as being retarded, I would respectfully disagree.

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Dan Larkin wrote:

    “Fox ‘News’ provides 24 hours of uninterupted [sic], unsubstantiated, neocon views and presents it as journalism.”

    Ah, it seems you would prefer CNN, who employ active members of the John Kerry campaign:

    The New York Times
    September 6, 2004

    Kerry Enlisting Clinton Aides in Effort to Refocus Campaign

    Former President Bill Clinton … offered John Kerry detailed advice on Saturday night on how to reinvigorate his candidacy…

    The conversation and the recruitment of old Clinton hands came amid rising concern among Democrats about the state of Mr. Kerry’s campaign…

    Among the better-known former Clinton aides who are expected to play an increasingly prominent role are James Carville, Paul Begala and Stanley Greenberg, campaign aides said.

    Mr. Begala, who said he would remain a CNN commentator, said he was delighted with the changes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/campaign/06kerry.html

    Sounds “fair and balanced” to me…

  • michelle shinghal

    This business about comparing Bush and Kerry’s grades is juvenile. Bush eeked out slightly ahead of Kerry, but let’s face it, neither were stellar students. The media would have one believe that there are only two choices on the ballot and this is what they give us? Two guys who either didn’t care enough or were too dumb to do well. Have fun splitting hairs. I gotta go check out this Letterman/O’Reilly thing now.

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Adding to #56, former Clinton advisor George Stephanopoulos runs an hour-long Sunday talk show, blowhard Chris Matthews worked in the Jimmy Carter White House, Bill Moyers worked in the LBJ White House…

    Would you folks consider replacing George Stephanopoulos with Kark Rove as the host of “This Week”?

  • Glenn

    O’Reilly’s a bum. Read his review of his 2001 Letterman appearance:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21855

    “The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

    That’s because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down…

    I told David Letterman, we need to start holding our leaders accountable for what they do. The audience applauded. I’ve never heard a sweeter sound.”

    The last thing O’Reilly wants to do now in 2006 is hold our leaders accountable!

  • http://www.spymuseum.org Chas

    “Operating on the assumption that you equate a vote for Bush as being retarded, I would respectfully disagree.”

    Okay, I apologize:

    I should have said “lacking the mental capacity to understand the world around them”.

    At least 20% of that 51% no longer supports Bush (see approval ratings) and anybody defending his actions in office at this time is clearly blinded by political beliefs…or retarded.

    -Chas in D.C.

  • Tigerfan

    I have seen a number of reports on FoxNews which were less than favorable to the Bush Administration. The number of those reports far outstrips the number of “favorable” stories reported by “mainstream” media sources.

  • Pingback: Population Statistic

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    Chas wrote:

    “I shouldn’t be that suprised though as the last election proved that at least 51% of the country is retarded.”

    The “progressive” position: if you disagree with me, you’re “retarded.”

    And Democrats wonder why they lose more power with each election…

  • Vinzago

    Tigerfan:

    I’m not sure what “hyperbole” you were talking about. I admit, that is a good online chatroom word, though. “Neocon” does have a definition. They are those people primarily in the Republican party who follow the policies of Democrat Scoop Jackson who advocated a proactive foreign policy in the 50’s and 60’s to aggressively promote Democracy and Capitalism overseas. It was considered progressive in the Cold War atmosphere of at the time, but led to a few minor disasters- Korea and Vietnam, for example.

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    he’s hardly in a position to criticize an actual journalist.

    Good god, please tell me you don’t honestly think O’Reilly is even remotely a journalist! This is too much.

    I would really love it if those of you using the terms “neo-con” or “neo-conservative” could provide me with a defintion.

    I’d be delighted to:

    “Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of “new conservatives” in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the “small government” principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.”

    Source

  • pete

    Letterman is a fool. Always has been and always will be. As always he’s full of feel-good prognostications and not an ounce of understanding how the world works in real-time. Instead it is the mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep Liberal 20-20 hindsight analysis that all starts with “Bush=Bad” and ends with Bush=Impeachment.

  • Rob D.

    What’s funny is these Repubs still think they’re arguing with Democrats. Who gives a shit who’s grades were better in college. You’re defending a man who isn’t even a Republican by Reagan/Goldwater standards. Do you Republicans here know what the term fiscal conservative means? Today’s Republicans are hypocrites…

    http://www.theagitator.com/archives/022451.php

    This blog is libertarian. And we will call out politicians of whatever stripe, including our own, when they’re in the wrong. That’s the difference between you partisan hacks and freedom fighters. Labels mean shit if you can’t back it up with substance.

  • Tigerfan

    “Operating on the assumption that you equate a vote for Bush as being retarded, I would respectfully disagree.”

    Okay, I apologize:

    I should have said “lacking the mental capacity to understand the world around them”.

    At least 20% of that 51% no longer supports Bush (see approval ratings) and anybody defending his actions in office at this time is clearly blinded by political beliefs…or retarded.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    My BA, MA and Juris Doctorate say otherwise.

    I am fully congnizant of the world around me and while I do not agree with everything this Administration does, it does have my support generally.

    The inclination among liberals/progressives (or whatever the word of the day is) to attack the intellect of conservatives or those that support the Bush Administration is the surest sign of a weak argument. if you wish to substantively challenge the precepts of a particular political POV, have at it.

  • http://patterico.com/2005/08/25/3505/cindy-sheehan-terrorists-are-freedom-fighters/ Morris

    michelle shinghal wrote:

    “This business about comparing Bush and Kerry’s grades is juvenile.”

    Indeed, according to the “progressive” playbook, all facts which refute baseless accusations are “juvenile.”

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    In response to #58, are you really that stupid to buy into the “liberal media” myth?

    The media is not concerned about red or blue. They are concerned about green, and I ain’t talking about the political party either.

  • jDs

    Lettermen is as much a social commentator as O’Reiley is journalist.

    For those that talk about people being ambushed, watch one episode of The Factor with a guest who disagrees with Bill. He’s the master, nice to see him hit with honest questions.

    Letterman is a comedian – but at least he’s an honest person. O’Reiley represents the worst among us – intolerant, egocentric, hateful neo-conservative/neo-christians who have no idea what real conservatism, or real christianity, is all about. The people who spout religion and social values the loudest are the most dangerous amongst us. Faith and values are a personal choice we all represent by how we live, and love, each day. Be kind to one another and good things will happen! Put your stock in hate and intolerance and, well, I feel sorry for those people because they may never know real compassion, real understanding, or as John Lennon put it – Real Love.

    For those that would even

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Indeed, according to the “progressive” playbook, all facts which refute baseless accusations are “juvenile.”

    Morris do you realize how delusional you sound when you call Michelle, who is a Libertarian, a “progressive”?

    Do yourself a favor and bow out while you still can.

  • Tigerfan

    IRT: Vinzago

    Thank you for the defintion; however, I am fairly confident that is not the definition accepted (or intended) by some others that use it.

    The use of the term “cabal” is the type of hyperbole of which I was speaking.

  • Pingback: benperry.net

  • Tigerfan

    IRT: Disenfranchised…

    “Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of “new conservatives” in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the “small government” principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives.”

    Thank you.

  • michelle shinghal

    #68- Do you know where you are arguing? This is a Libertarian site and as a Libertarian, I know that there is no difference in the Republican and Democrat parties. Your players are virtually identical- they just sell you different shit so that you sit online here all day splitting hairs about nothing. They have the same goals and as long as they have you divided, they can achieve them. Have fun, I am getting back to work.

  • http://hypertextation.blogspot.com gbowles

    granted, Letterman didn’t sound like he knew any more than O’Reilley, they both seemed to be about the same level. Letterman is indeed a good judge of character and has great instincts about celebrities who are full of shit. the man probably knows 10 times more people than billy o. plus he doesn’t seem to have an agenda like O’Reilley obviously does. I’d like to see O’Reilley debate someone like Chomsky who really knows what they are talking about

  • http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html Morris

    To Disenfranchised Voter:

    Irregardless of labels, my point stands.

    People brought up Bush’s “stupidity,” and when the facts proved otherwise, the facts became “juvenile.”

  • http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html Morris

    michelle shinghal wrote:

    “This is a Libertarian site and as a Libertarian, I know that there is no difference in the Republican and Democrat parties.”

    Does “Libertarian” mean “willfully blind”?

    I think your claim would stand up somewhat better a decade ago, but today if you cannot tell the difference between the mindset of George Bush and John Kerry, you need serious help.

  • rubens hakkamacher

    He was speaking in the context of what they had just been talking about: Sheehan, and the war. O’Reilly only cares about the party line propaganda line, and Letterman called him on it.

  • bunnymud

    I love the way that O’Reilly makes the libtards heads spin.

    The libbys cannot win anything :D

  • Sammy Davis Senior

    Morris:

    “People brought up Bush’s “stupidity,” and when the facts proved otherwise, the facts became “juvenile.””

    I’m sorry, which facts proved that bush ISN’T stupid?

    “Irregardless of labels, my point stands.”

    Look up the word “irregardless” in the dictionary and then give me a reason I shouldn’t discount anything you say as the ramblings of a barely literate moron.

  • Vinzago

    Morris:

    I’m not interested in getting into a love/hate conversation about Clinton, here. I was just trying to illustrate the difference- in a real world way- between spinning and lying. Yes, it was Grand Jury perjury. But it was about a blowjob! Not war, corruption, treason, or murder. Oral sex! Kind of falls under the category of little white lie in my book.

  • Ray

    “Why must those on the left believe there were (and are) sinister motives regarding Iraq? Bad intel all the way around. ”

    Why must we believe that there were sinister motives? Because we actually paid attention to what was going on at the time, rather than deciding how many american flags we could fit on the back window of our cars, or practicing goose-stepping to the neo-con war chant. Anyone paying attention could have seen this coming. Bush’s puppet masters had been looking for an excuse to knock out Iraq for along time, and were able to use post 9-11 hysteria to get it done. That was why there was such a rush, the longer we waited, the less chance the repub’s could push it through. As for Intel, what difference does that make? Bush won’t read it, and its certainly not on his reading list for the 100 vacations his lazy ass takes a year! WAKE UP “Conservatives”! Your being lied to, AGAIN!

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Just checked out your “site” Morris.

    I actually have two quotes you that can, and should, add to that list…

    Colin Powell – February 2001

    “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

    Condoleezza Rice – July 2001

    “We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

    You’re welcome.

  • Tigerfan

    “I know that there is no difference in the Republican and Democrat parties.”

    In practice, you are correct. If the parties would return to their “roots” and actually become “partisan” again, that would no longer be the case. The problem is that the endless droning about “bi-partisanship”: 1) cements the concept of a two-party system; and, 2) blurs the lines between the two over time.

  • James Burton

    I’ll never watch Letterman again. I’m not a partisan on either side, but that was a blindsided attack without giving any attention to reason. Letterman doesn’t have the first clue about what’s what in the world and he barks like he’s the Lord’s authority.

    If 60% of what O’Reilly says is crap, name 100 more. The voter registration was a mistake.

    For kooky liberals who only know right and wrong in shades of gray, it’s amazing how often you call mistakes flat out lies.

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Look up the word “irregardless” in the dictionary and then give me a reason I shouldn’t discount anything you say as the ramblings of a barely literate moron.

    Hahahahaaha! Too funny. I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes right over his head as well.

  • http://www.spymuseum.org Chas

    If you take literally the coment I threw out about 51% of the country actually being retarded…well…thats funny. Im sure with all your degrees you are very smart.

    The republicans I have run into that voted for him in the last election were either very ignorant about world issues or crazily religious. I mean our President had never left the continent prior to being elected in his first term!

    I dont disagree with all Republican platforms but taking our country to war on a false premise and turning the entire world against America kinda did it for me. It took until last month for him to admit he made an intelligence mistake.

    Very depressing.

  • Tigerfan

    “Why must we believe that there were sinister motives? Because we actually paid attention to what was going on at the time, rather than deciding how many american flags we could fit on the back window of our cars, or practicing goose-stepping to the neo-con war chant. Anyone paying attention could have seen this coming. Bush’s puppet masters had been looking for an excuse to knock out Iraq for along time, and were able to use post 9-11 hysteria to get it done. That was why there was such a rush, the longer we waited, the less chance the repub’s could push it through. As for Intel, what difference does that make? Bush won’t read it, and its certainly not on his reading list for the 100 vacations his lazy ass takes a year! WAKE UP “Conservatives”! Your being lied to, AGAIN!”

    Thank you. But considering your rhetoric and tone, I will pass on taking your advice. While I remain open to being persuaded to the contrary, it is readily apparent that your position is inflexible.

  • James Burton

    >>The prohibition on wearing “Christmas colors” is also bogus and was debunked when O’Reilly first said it.
    Comment by Everbody

    That was a different story, jackass, and he corrected it on air. I’m sure you know since you said you watch the show.

  • Jim

    The quote that most adequately sums up the state of this country and the motives of jackass blowhards like O’reilly?

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”: Samuel Johnson.

    How this guy has any credibility or a show after his sexual harrassment suit, the one where he swore he would be exonerated, until they proved they had his ass on tape, is beyond me. Frist nailed for insider trading, Duke Cunningham for bribes, to name 2 of MANY, maaaannnnn your right, conservatives really know how to run this country, right into their freaking pockets. This country is so royally fucked.

  • Simon

    Tigerfan,

    The US had been heavily involved in the Middle East in the last 20 years

    The US sent marines to Beruit in the 80’s until the Mossad oops Hezbollah bombed the compound. They then fired at Beruit with ship born missiles which at that time was the largest conventional bombardment in the world since WWII

    They blatenly sided with Iraq in the Iran Iraq war by sending a fleet to the Persian Gulf that mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, they also destroyed many Iranian oil facilities.

    This was all before the Gulf War of 1991

  • Ray

    Tigerfan – Are you truly honestly going to say that Bush had justification to go to war because of Iraq’s violations of the 1991 no fly zone? A time when Bush was most likely sniffing coke off a stripper ass? If so, I suspect that BA, MBA, JD, BLAH BLAH you trumpet was from Clown College.

  • Tigerfan

    “If you take literally the coment I threw out about 51% of the country actually being retarded…well…thats funny.”

    I did not. I was merely pointing out that such generalities detract from the effectiveness of your argument.

    “The republicans I have run into that voted for him in the last election were either very ignorant about world issues or crazily religious.”

    I am neither.

    “I mean our President had never left the continent prior to being elected in his first term!”

    Acquaint yourself with US History. There are plenty of Presidents who share this distinction.

    “I dont disagree with all Republican platforms but taking our country to war on a false premise and turning the entire world against America kinda did it for me. It took until last month for him to admit he made an intelligence mistake.”

    I disagree with the contention it was a “false” pretense. Mistaken (with plenty of substantiation), certainly. What would the press have said if he said this in 10/2004?

  • nameless

    “I’ll never watch Letterman again. I’m not a partisan on either side, but that was a blindsided attack without giving any attention to reason.”

    Well, at least he didnt unplug Bills mic.

  • Michael Ryan

    The saddest thing about this whole thread is that all of you idiots on both sides politically are doing exactly what both parties want you to; getting distracted in the infighting an ignoring the bigger picture.

    Do you really think things would be different if Kerry won? You really think your “choice” of which Skull & Bonesman runs the country makes a damn bit of difference? Shit.

    If you all weren’t so stupid and ideologically driven in your wrong conclusions, you might just see that the only dog Bill O’Reilly has in this fight is us, the people.

  • Tigerfan

    “Tigerfan – Are you truly honestly going to say that Bush had justification to go to war because of Iraq’s violations of the 1991 no fly zone? A time when Bush was most likely sniffing coke off a stripper ass? If so, I suspect that BA, MBA, JD, BLAH BLAH you trumpet was from Clown College.”

    Obviously, any attempted answer to this question would fall on deaf ears. Your statement regarding cocaine and strippers belies your closed-mindedness.

    However, for the purposes of this exercise, Bush would have been fully justified in attacking Iraq for its actions prior to 9/11. Notwithstanding the violations of the 1991 cease fire, the radar illumination AND THE FIRING OF AA (which occurred on at least one occasion) on US and UK aircraft were ACTS OF WAR.

  • fish

    Tigerfan –
    to say that the US has not been interventionist in the middle east for 20 years is to display EXACTLY why there is such a problem with the average american not understanding why people are so mad at us – some people actually believe this is true!
    US foreign policy directly and indirectly affects the middle east. we’ve funded both sides of the iran/iraq war, supported the building/destruction of regimes in iran and iraq, went through iran/contra, supported the palestinians diplomatically while holding a big stick next to the isrealis at bargaining tables….all withing the last 20-30 years.
    it’s just not possible to say that we haven’t been messing with the whole area regularly and continuously.

  • Bill

    I’m a Dave fan and I’ve seen him interview some complete morons and yet show great courtesy.

    I don’t like O’Reilly (don’t dislike him either) but if you’re going to criticize him or his show, then at least put in the effort.

    The last time I checked 60% of nother is nothing.

  • Tigerfan

    1986-2006

    US activities in Lebanon occurred in the early 1980s (the bombing of the barracks occurred in 1983).

    US support of Iraq in the war was not unique. Most western countries supported Hussein (and, as has been discovered, continued to do so after 1991 [Oil for food]). I don’t recall too many attacks on these countries from the late 80s until prior to 9/11. Certainly nothing on the scale of the 1st WTC attack in 1993, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombings and the Cole…all of which happened BEFORE the 2003 Iraq War.

  • http://www.spymuseum.org Chas

    I said:
    “I mean our President had never left the continent prior to being elected in his first term!”

    Tigerfan said:
    “Acquaint yourself with US History. There are plenty of Presidents who share this distinction.”

    I say:
    No president I have voted for!

    Tiger fan, have you left the country recently to see how people in the world view us recently or have you been studing to get more BA, MA’s? Wake up and smell the ignorance that is the confederate flag waving, jesus freaking, hay bailing middle “Red State” America!!!!!!!!

  • Tigerfan

    “US foreign policy directly and indirectly affects the middle east.”

    Considering the US is the lone superpower as of 1991 (China may disagree), this statement is applicable to any part of the world.

    “we’ve funded both sides of the iran/iraq war, supported the building/destruction of regimes in iran and iraq,”

    This was discussed in a previous post. The US is not alone in this.

    “iran/contra”

    Pre-dated the Iran/Iraq war. Hard to believe this was “interventionist” considering the concept (arms for hostages…taken in the early 80s

    “supported the palestinians diplomatically while holding a big stick next to the isrealis at bargaining tables….all withing the last 20-30 years.”

    Discussed previously.

    it’s just not possible to say that we haven’t been messing with the whole area regularly and continuously.”

    Diplomacy does not equal intervention.

  • Mike Boomshadow

    “M-ONE-6?” Bill O’Reilly called the U.K.’s primary foreign intelligence agency “M-ONE-6?” He apparently does very little research. It’s MI-6. That’s an I, not a one. For the love of Pete, why does this guy have a TV show?

  • mikehorn

    Morris says:
    Does “Libertarian” mean “willfully blind”?

    I think your claim would stand up somewhat better a decade ago, but today if you cannot tell the difference between the mindset of George Bush and John Kerry, you need serious help.

    Morris, I’m sure you can easily point out the difference in what these politicians SAY, but if you look at what they actually DID… I think you might find it more difficult.

  • NotaTigerFan

    Hey Tigerfan – how much they paying you to spin this crap? As for inflexibility, Is there ANYTHING this administration has done that you have a problem with? Seems to be a resounding no. But please continue to put to good use that hard earned BA, MBA and J.D.! You know, spending time blathering on an internet post board. I surmise you must be working on your Phd in anonymous internet postboard tripe.

    Mark my words, history will not be kind to this administration or this time in our countries history, where the more ignorant members of our citizenry were duped into giving up the rights this country was founded on, and pissing on the graves of the founding fathers in order for the illusion of safety, based on hysteria the countries leaders used to advance their own sick greedy agendas.

  • Ed

    The only thing that amazes me about this thread is that there are people defending the Democtrats OR the Republicans. A true libertarian would understand that both are flip sides of the same coin.

    As for the war, I, as a Libertarian, would like to point out that America’s actions are in direct violation of one of the very tenants that I hold to be true: Spending billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq does absolutely nothing to rebuild the U.S. Iraq was NOT any more of a threat to the U.S. than other nations like Iran or North Korea and any actions taken against Iraq should not have come at the expense of U.S. tax dollars.

    Bush should have used the soldiers to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, find and kill Osama bin Laden and then come home. Period.

    If you want to be a “conservative” or a “liberal” I shall not stop you. But I would like to point out that John Kerry cares as much about you individually as does George Bush, which is to say not at all.

  • http://www.spymuseum.org Chas

    NotaTigerFan Said:
    “Mark my words, history will not be kind to this administration or this time in our countries history, where the more ignorant members of our citizenry were duped into giving up the rights this country was founded on, and pissing on the graves of the founding fathers in order for the illusion of safety, based on hysteria the countries leaders used to advance their own sick greedy agendas.”

    HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Tigerfan

    “Tiger fan, have you left the country recently to see how people in the world view us recently or have you been studing to get more BA, MA’s? Wake up and smell the ignorance that is the confederate flag waving, jesus freaking, hay bailing middle “Red State” America!!!!!!!!”

    I am fully aware of how “the world” views the US. Since WWII, when the United States has seen fit to exercise power in the pursuit of, or defense of, its national interests, “the world” (mainly Europe) has had nothing but disdain for this country. The only time in the last half century that the US was “accepted” by the world community was when Carter and Clinton were in office and pursued policies that made it readily apparent that the US would subvert its own interests in favor of the desires of the “international community”.

    Let’s be honest…what national interest of the US was (and is) served by our presence in Bosnia? Yet to prosecute a war deposing another genocidal leader makes us a pariah? Please..

  • Scott

    I think about only 20% of what Letterman says is funny. What? No, I have never seen his show.

    (Actually I watch and love Letterman, but wanted to make a point.)

  • NotaTigerFan

    Say it with me now”

    Tigerfan is a repub plant!

    Tigerfan is a repub plant!

    Show your face Sean Hannity! I know your under there!

  • Tigerfan

    I am honored that in my short time here, I have merited the adoption of an “anti-” screen name on the part of another poster. I am touched…really.

    I disagree with this administration on:

    1) border policy/illegal immigration;
    2) fiscal policy;
    3) budget priorities;
    4) environmental/energy policy

    to name a few.

  • Tigerfan

    Not a plant. In fact, I left the republican party in January 2005 (although, that has not stopped them from continuing to beg me fore money).

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    I’ll tell you think much, I honestly think about 60% of the posters in here are just fake names being used by 2 or 3 people total to validate their own posts.

    Do you guys at HoT have any way of checking the IP address of commentors?

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    damnit!

    *think=this

  • Adamo

    For anyone here who believes Bush was not lying the run-up to war, you are grossly misinformed. Someone said that it was an across the board intelligence failure. Even the international intelligence community, we’re being told, corrobated it. That is not true.

    While it was a fair assumption Saddam had some chem and bio and that was suspected across the globe, that hardly mounted to an imminent threat. Saddam used chem and bio when he was an ally of the West (including the U.S). When he fell out of favor after Kuwait, Saddam did not feel very bold anymore. He never used them again.

    Claims that Saddam had an advanced nuclear program and that he was allies with Al Qaeda were only supported in the Bush administration. They were not corrobated by our own intel or foreign intel. The IAEA was saying Saddam didn’t have a nuke program. Our own military intel was telling Bush “Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements”. Bush lied.

  • Tigerfan

    “But please continue to put to good use that hard earned BA, MBA and J.D.! You know, spending time blathering on an internet post board. I surmise you must be working on your Phd in anonymous internet postboard tripe.”

    your concern for my time management is flattering; however, if you must know, I am at home “under the weather” today.

  • Tigerfan

    IRT: Adamo

    Nice post. I know I have seen it before…verbatim. You may wish to provide a citation for your “cut and paste” efforts in the future.

  • http://www.spymuseum.org Chas

    “I am fully aware of how “the world” views the US. Since WWII, when the United States has seen fit to exercise power in the pursuit of, or defense of, its national interests, “the world” (mainly Europe) has had nothing but disdain for this country. The only time in the last half century that the US was “accepted” by the world community was when Carter and Clinton were in office and pursued policies that made it readily apparent that the US would subvert its own interests in favor of the desires of the “international community”.

    Oh please, we have done exponentially more to damage our International reputation in the last 5 years than in the last 40 years combined.

  • Vinzago

    Anyone who is upset that BO was “ambushed” and “insulted” on Letterman needs to watch The Factor. Ambushing, insulting, and shouting down his guests are BO’s sole debating tactics. He is the master of guest abuse. I saw him on the Daily Show a few weeks ago spoiling for a fight, but John Stewart wouldn’t bite. He was calm, funny, and respectful ,even shushing his own audience. All the things BO would never do. I’m glad Letterman was ungentlemanly enough to give him a smackdown. He didn’t need a bunch of facts to back himself up. BO never bothers with them. He is an arguer, not an analyst. People like that just need to told to STFU.

  • Tigerfan

    “Oh please, we have done exponentially more to damage our International reputation in the last 5 years than in the last 40 years combined.”

    Did you even read the post? Who was President over 5 years ago?

    I do not know how old you are, but you need to look back at the opinion “the world” had of the US during the Reagan years. All was well with “the worlds” view of the US until Reagan “bowed up” to the USSR in the 1980s. The vitriol that was aimed at this country (and its leader) was equal to, if not worse, than what is happening today.

  • Adamo

    >>bear in mind that Bush had sufficient justifcation to attack Iraq prior to 9/11 based upon the repeated violations of the 1991 cease fire (specifically, the “illuminating” of US and UK planes and incursions into the “no fly” zones) prior to 9/11.>

    The “no-fly” zones were arbitrarily imposed. No UN resolution ever authorized a “no-fly zone”. Iraq was never bound by international law to honor them.

  • Vinzago

    Oh, yeah. People really hated and feared “Ronny Raygun”. He gets a ton of good press now, but in the 80’s a lot of people (myself included) thought he was going to push us into WWIII. I think Gorbachev should get more credit for ending the Cold War, by the way.

  • Adamo

    Tigerfan:

    Those were my own words. Simply because you may cut and paste other peoples words should not lead you to assume other people do as well.

  • Adamo

    UN resolution 688, in the wake of the first Gulf War, reads as follows:

    >

    Nothing in there indicating a “no-fly zone”.

  • Tigerfan

    “Oh, yeah. People really hated and feared “Ronny Raygun”. He gets a ton of good press now, but in the 80’s a lot of people (myself included) thought he was going to push us into WWIII. I think Gorbachev should get more credit for ending the Cold War, by the way.”

    I hope you have realized your opinion of Reagan at the time was unfounded.

    I think Reagan deserves the “lion’s share” of credit for the end of the Cold War; however, I agree that Gorbachev played a major role (as did Thatcher). Gorbachev essentially put policies in place that, intentional or in error, resulted in the dissolution of the USSR.

  • Adamo

    Ugg…I am trying to quote UN resolution 688. Let me try it once more:

    Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area

  • Tigerfan

    “Those were my own words. Simply because you may cut and paste other peoples words should not lead you to assume other people do as well.”

    My apologies if I was incorrect. As I said, I have seen the same thing posted elsewhere and believed you had obtained it from one of those sources. Obviously, there are other people out there in the ether that think exactly like you do.

    As for me, 100% my own words. I would say “original thoughts”; however, considering the number of people on this planet (both presently and historically), the idea that anyone can still have an “original” thought is someone unrealistic. I am sure someone, somewhere, at some time, has thought the same thing as I have at any given moment.

  • Vinzago

    Tigerfan,

    Hindsight is 20/20 and also viewed often through rose-tinted lenses. Just because we didn’t actually get into a shooting war with the Soviet Union doesn’t mean that Reagan wasn’t pushing us in that direction. His administration launched illegal wars, attempted to militarize space, sent the US into unprecedented debt, and promoted fiscal policies that widened the gap between the rich and poor. Sounds bloody familiar. Reagan, the former McCarthy stoolie, took the opportunities given him by Gorbachev, the real man of peace, who orchestrated to dissolution of the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. I belive that he will go down in history as one of the Great Men of the 20th Century. But Reagan was funnier.

  • Pingback: writingUp

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Saying Reagan won the Cold War is akin to saying Truman won WWII.

    Sure, technically you would be correct, but realistically, you’re just talking out of your ass.

  • Tigerfan

    “Reagan, the former McCarthy stoolie, took the opportunities given him by Gorbachev, the real man of peace, who orchestrated to dissolution of the Soviet Union without firing a single shot. I belive that he will go down in history as one of the Great Men of the 20th Century. But Reagan was funnier.”

    I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Reagan’s role. And you obviously never heard gorbachev tell the story of the three soldiers and the farmer’s daughter in Minsk.

  • Walter DeGraw

    To Vinzago:
    You write “He didn’t need a bunch of facts to back himself up.”

    How do you possibly expect to persuade people about a topic without facts? Obviously those who hate O’Reilly loved the segement last night, but then again, they would have loved any insult, no matter how rude or baseless. But to those who are not predisposed one way or another, some facts might have been nice. And since Letterman had none, to me he looked like a total as*hole.

    And sorry, I don’t accept the “everybody does it” defense. If O’Reilly or others treat people rudely, that’s unfortunate. But it doesn’t give Letterman license to be an as*hole. You can’t join someone in the gutter and then reclaim the moral high ground.

  • Pingback: BuffaloPundit

  • Joe Faneli

    I use my parental controls to block FOX – so that I don’t accidentally even come across Mr. O’Reilly or any of those morons at Fox. They manufactured a “war on Christmas” to sell a book! Even with all the hype the sales for their book is dismal. Have you read any excerpts? Fox declares that only Christmas is a legal holiday and that if you are not Christian you are going to hell. Hell’s going to be quite packed with all my Buddhist, Jewish and Muslim friends. Kind of funny, don’t you think, that Christ was born and lived in the mid-east yet EVERYONE over there is Muslim or Jewish???

  • patrobertslovesboys

    You right wingers and even libs aren’t getting the beauty of it: Letterman was parodying reilly….the “60%” comment was EXACTly the kind of factless spout of stat that reilly gurgles up on a daily basis. i listen to him (too often) just for fun or to hear what an american idiot sounds like (callers), and he commonly will, during an interview, say something like “..well i’ll tell you this: you are a very great minority b/c 90% of women who have abortions have the future problems i’ve just mentioned”. There is no stat for this. reilly apes legitimacy through puking stats that are often times no more than emotional valuations justifying his perspective (and thus opinion) on whatever issue he’s barking about. His opinion is generally factless, easily refuted and completely and obviously the most biased of the biased, and yes the trap was brilliantly done by Dave. Dave admits he’s entertaining only but reilly actually pretends to have a legitimate opinion and there’s where the danger is

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Walter:

    May I suggest picking up the Oh Really? Factor if you want evidence that about 60% of what Bill O’Reilly says is crap.

  • Walter DeGraw

    To Joe Faneli:
    You write that “Fox declares… that if you are not Christian you are going to hell.”
    Do you have a link? That’s a pretty amazing statement- who said it? Some corroboration would be helpful.

  • Tigerfan

    “Sure, technically you would be correct, but realistically, you’re just talking out of your ass.”

    Excellent!

    Take a look at the US versus the USSR in 1979/80. The US had 52 hostages in Iran and was, by all appearances, a paper tiger (hard on the heels of Vietnam). The USSR was, to hear the handwringers of the time describe it, a leviathan that the US could not hope to defeat. They had just swept into Afghanistan and outnumbered our missles by more than 3-1. Reagan came in and changed the mindset. Juiced up defense spending, destablizing the fragile Soviet economy as they tried to keep up.

    Did he do it alone? No. The groundwork had been laid by other adherents to the “containment” policy (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon). Plus, Gorbachev did play a significant role. However, Reagan’s policies “sealed the deal” in bringing about the defeat of the USSR.

  • http://www.enicks.net Cary

    “STOP SUCKING REPUBLICAN DICK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, THEY COULD GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOU CUM-GUZZLING ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK NEOCONS (ixnay your vote of course).”

    Typical Left attitude, if you can’t win, or don’t like what someone is saying spat worthless hate toward them, and all the left will applaud.

  • Tigerfan

    Gentlemen (and ladies), it has been a pleasure. With a few exceptions, this has been a refreshing discussion. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to drop by again.

    Have a nice day.

  • John

    Re: Letterman’s “60%” comment

    Letterman was listening to O’Reilly’s points during the interview, and maybe it occurred to him that about 60% of what he was hearing sounded like garbage.

    In terms of credibility, Letterman’s comment sounded like a perfectly credible thing to say. And it’s what a lot of people think when they hear Bill O’Reilly’s vengeful and usually pointless crusades.

  • Vinzago

    Degraw,

    Letterman doesn’t pretend to be a news analyst. He’s a comedian. He doesn’t have to put together a point by point rebuttal of everything BO has said to prove he’s “60%” full of crap. All he has to do is call a spade a spade and bust out BO for the a-hole he really is.

  • Walter DeGraw

    To Disenfranchised:
    My point was not to defend O’Reilly’s substance- for all I know, he could be 100% full of crap- my point was that Letterman presented Zero facts to back up his claim, and some facts would have been useful. If an interviewer calls someone a pejorative but then admits he has no facts to back it up, that interviewer looks ignorant at best and rude at worst.
    Would you respect someone that walked up to a person and called them an as*hole, admittedly with no basis or proof, and then defended his behaviour by later pointing out that some other person did indeed have a legitimate gripe?
    And, be honest here, are you someone that approached this with an open mind, or are you an O’Reilly hater who would have been happy to see him treated terribly, in any manner whatsoever?

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Juiced up defense spending, destablizing the fragile Soviet economy as they tried to keep up.

    Actually, the argument can be made that Reagan’s juicing up of defense spending actually prolonged the war since it did little to destablize the Soviet economy, as they didn’t react that much to it, and in fact, the increased defense spending by Reagan gave the KGB ammo to challenge Gorby as to the threat America posed.

  • Vinzago

    Cary,

    The vulgar post you so thoughtfully re-posted is not typical of liberals. It is by a single individual who is angry and inarticulate and neither end of the political spectrum holds the monopoly. Your referral to that post as being “typical” of anything goes to the heart of the problems we face in our public political discourse today- namely, polarization and demonization. Please, be better than that poster and rise above the fray.

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Walter:

    Read post #139, it sums up my feelings about your complaints.

  • Vinzago

    Disenfranchised,

    I agree. As Gorbachev was trying to ceate peace while maintaining the Soviet Union, Reagan was being aggressive and fueling hardline Soviet paranoia. It was to his credit, I believe, that Gorbachev was able to keep all those forces in balance for as long as he did. When the time came that he could no longer do that and something had to give, he sacrificed the USSR, the government of which he was the leader. What other world leader would do that in the name of peace? We all won the Cold War- *because* of Gorbachev and *despite* Reagan.

  • Rob D.

    “STOP SUCKING REPUBLICAN DICK FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, THEY COULD GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT YOU CUM-GUZZLING ARMCHAIR QUARTERBACK NEOCONS (ixnay your vote of course).”

    Typical Left attitude, if you can’t win, or don’t like what someone is saying spat worthless hate toward them, and all the left will applaud.
    _________________________________________________________

    THIS ISN’T ABOUT LEFT/RIGHT YOU NUMBNUT, I’m a libertarian. “You mean to tell me there’s more than 2 parties in this country and that Republicans have more enemies than just Democrats?” Yes Daniel Son, that is what I’m saying.

    It’s about partisan hackery by both Republicans AND Democrats, with an eager willingness to concede power over to far-away beauracrats so long as their party label wins. “Yayyyy, we won”. You won shit. Stick to sports if you like the horse race, politics isn’t a game. It shouldn’t be about which party can rule over my life the best, sorry.