Bill O'Reilly apologizes for trusting the the lies of the Bush Administration!!! :O

[Phokus]

Well, he sorta waffles on it by saying he's more skeptical of the bush administration at the beginning of the interview but he doesn't think bush intentionally lied at the end of the interview, but still, pretty courageous. I've been turned off by O'reilly for the past couple years, but i admit, it takes some balls for him to admit he's wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.



The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.


"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."


"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.


O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.


While critical of President Bush (news - web sites), O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied. Rather, O'Reilly blamed CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites).


"I don't know why Tenet still has his job."


He added: "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be."


O'Reilly anticipated the presidential election would be a close race, adding he thought Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts would be a formidable opponent against Bush.


"It will be a very close race. The nation is divided," he said

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Well, he sorta waffles on it by saying he's more skeptical of the bush administration at the beginning of the interview but he doesn't think bush intentionally lied at the end of the interview, but still, pretty courageous. I've been turned off by O'reilly for the past couple years, but i admit, it takes some balls for him to admit he's wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.



The anchor of his own show on Fox News said he was sorry he gave the U.S. government the benefit of the doubt that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons program poised an imminent threat, the main reason cited for going to war.


"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."


"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.


O'Reilly said he was "much more skeptical about the Bush administration now" since former weapons inspector David Kay said he did not think Saddam had any weapons of mass destruction.


While critical of President Bush (news - web sites), O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied. Rather, O'Reilly blamed CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites).


"I don't know why Tenet still has his job."


He added: "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be."


O'Reilly anticipated the presidential election would be a close race, adding he thought Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts would be a formidable opponent against Bush.


"It will be a very close race. The nation is divided," he said

Well, this is the second time I've seen the big man show a little growth. Maybe next week he'll admit the the buck stops in the oval office, not at CIA.

 

[feralkid]

It takes a big man to look you right between the head and apologize.


Thank you Bill, may we please have another?

 

[UltraQuiet]

I'll be impressed when he says it on his own show to his own core viewers.

 

[tnitsuj]

Well he isn't a total prick after all.

 

[HardWarrior]

I don't think he's a prick. He's just like most rich people who talk for a living. He's isolated, stuck on himself, doesn't read enough and has a job to protect.

 

[Ldir]

It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

 

[chess9]

I have stopped to listen to O'Reilly on two or three occasions (I avoid stupid people if I can.) recently and I detect a waffling, a sort of, maybe I'm not right all the time, attitude just barely creeping into that dense forest of certitude he tries to project. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be a salutory development for journalism.

-Robert

 

[DealMonkey]

At least O'Reilly is more intellectually honest than some of the other conservo-bot talking heads like Hannity and Limbaugh and some of the others around here. Ahem.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

Right....

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.

Whatever though, the ~!s need something to yap about so why not this.


Oh and I found this ironic.
" before the goons arrive" and " They do not try to be mature. They just troll."
Hmmm....

CkG

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Well, this is the second time I've seen the big man show a little growth. Maybe next week he'll admit the the buck stops in the oval office, not at CIA.

maybe he'll realise that Tenet told us all that Saddam was not a signifigant threat well before the war started. i kinda doubt it though.

 

[Phokus]

Heh, i missed this part of the transcript:

"What do you want me to do, go over and kiss the camera?" asked O'Reilly, who had promised rival ABC last year he would publicly apologize if weapons were not found.

Same old bill, is there any time when he's NOT combatative? "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIKE CUT HIS MIKE!"

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: chess9
I have stopped to listen to O'Reilly on two or three occasions (I avoid stupid people if I can.) recently and I detect a waffling, a sort of, maybe I'm not right all the time, attitude just barely creeping into that dense forest of certitude he tries to project. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be a salutory development for journalism.

-Robert

Yes it would.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.


CkG

Please explain the difference.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Well, this is the second time I've seen the big man show a little growth. Maybe next week he'll admit the the buck stops in the oval office, not at CIA.

maybe he'll realise that Tenet told us all that Saddam was not a signifigant threat well before the war started. i kinda doubt it though.

I was surprised O'Reilly could shapes his lips to admit THIS. Anything further is icing on the cake.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.


CkG

Please explain the difference.

He didn't claim anyone lied. "O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied." - from the OP. Guess we'll just skip that little tidbit though.

Care to point out where he said someone lied?

"Whatever though, the ~!s need something to yap about so why not this.

"

CkG

 

[CaptnKirk]

Excuses, excuses, and on and on . . . ad naseum.

 

[Phokus]

So when he says he's more skeptical of the bush administration, what does that mean exactly?

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.


CkG

Please explain the difference.

He didn't claim anyone lied. "O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied." - from the OP. Guess we'll just skip that little tidbit though.

Care to point out where he said someone lied?

"Whatever though, the ~!s need something to yap about so why not this.

"

CkG

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.


CkG

Please explain the difference.

He didn't claim anyone lied. "O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied." - from the OP. Guess we'll just skip that little tidbit though.

Care to point out where he said someone lied?

"Whatever though, the ~!s need something to yap about so why not this.

"

CkG

Because, like I said, he has a job to protect. Here, let me just say it. It REALLY looks like the president and his cabinet lied up one wall and done the other and had the AUDACITY to think that even if we found out the truth later, we would easily fooled by another lie "We went there to help them!". It also looks like they wanted this action LONG before the American public was in a vengeful enough mood to allow it to happen.

This isn't the sort of stuff that qualifies as unprecedented in US politics, CAD.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Phokus
So when he says he's more skeptical of the bush administration, what does that mean exactly?

Ask him.

CkG

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus
So when he says he's more skeptical of the bush administration, what does that mean exactly?

Ask him.

CkG

It was a rhetorical question oh bright one

Clearly, he means that there's a credibility and trustworthyness gap for the bush administration, at the very least.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Phokus
So when he says he's more skeptical of the bush administration, what does that mean exactly?

Ask him.

CkG

Phokus, it means that he's PUBLICLY not drinking that Bush-flavored Kool-Aid anymore without smelling it first. Always sound advice when it comes to any politician.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.


CkG

Please explain the difference.

He didn't claim anyone lied. "O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied." - from the OP. Guess we'll just skip that little tidbit though.

Care to point out where he said someone lied?

"Whatever though, the ~!s need something to yap about so why not this.

"

CkG

Well, duh Cad. Nobody in here suggested that O'Reilly is claiming that Bush lied. Where did you get that from? Are you just making stuff up so you can knock it down? Oh brother . . .

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir
It is good to see some right wingers can accept reality.

I wanted to post this before the goons arrive. They will bury this with smears of O'Reilley and Reuters. They do not try to discuss. They do not try to be mature. They just troll.

As some would like to skip over...Oreilly did not apologize for trusting the lies of the Bush Administration. He just apologized for trusting them on the WMDs which he said he'd do if no WMDs were found. Now I don't think he needed to do that yet but he can do as he sees fit.


CkG

Please explain the difference.

He didn't claim anyone lied. "O'Reilly said he did not think the president intentionally lied." - from the OP. Guess we'll just skip that little tidbit though.

Care to point out where he said someone lied?

"Whatever though, the ~!s need something to yap about so why not this.

"

CkG

Well, duh Cad. Nobody in here suggested that O'Reilly is claiming that Bush lied. Where did you get that from? Are you just making stuff up so you can knock it down? Oh brother . . .

Read the title monkeyboy.

CkG

 

[laFiera]

He added: "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be."



I think in the past he said that we had the best intelligence on the planet etc....Of course, i coudl be wrong, but either way, the fact that he's actually admitting that our intelligence ain't the best. So all those red alerts, and plane threats...well, they don't seem to be coming from the best intelligence do they....?