For all those out there that think Fox news is a puppet for the Bush administration and that Bill O'Reilly is just a conservative pundit, think again. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/people_nm/campaign_bush_oreilly_dc_3 Pundit O'Reilly Now Skeptical About Bush Tue Feb 10, 9:25 AM ET 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
I'm one of the few people on ET that are. I have already stated that I get most of my news information from the LEFT not the right. Unlike my liberal friends on ET that would never watch a conservative news program or read a conservative paper or newsmagazine, I get most of my information from the left not the right. Just because I am a conservative does not make me unfair and unbalanced.
ART, what a wonderful argument you make yet again. I love how you always cite examples and post facts to back up your arguments. Oops, thats me not you. Sorry. And aren't you one of the posters who was attacking Bill O'Reilly and Fox news as being too right winged? I guess you have to bite your f*cking tongue now huh. It sucks to have to eat your words doesn't it?
where is James Stock??? Emergency room still recovering NOW THAT'S a FAIR and BALANCED ETer all is 45 aliases included
Anyone that takes seriously Billy O'Really has problems. Despite a H Ah Verd education Billy is stupid and no deep thinker.
Well, I don't want to comment per se on BO'R but I was among those that felt that finding the WMD's would be nothin' but net. And was very gung ho about the whole war thing. Now, I am also very disillusioned that it could be indeed a fabrication. There are some whispers here and there that Iraq may have spirited them out to Syria (no, no just from Debka -- a US govt source also mentioned it briefly as a distinct possibility they are looking into). But that doesn't detract from what seems to be a wholesale failure in the intelligence and political department. As well as presenting a whole new hornets nest. I mean, what if they are in Syria, hidden underground? What are we supposed to do? march over there and over throw yet another government?
This is maybe the most humorous post ever on ET!! Maverick, you can't be serious. Why did you never answer this post (below) from the "This is sick" thread? Read what you wrote. Yeah, you get your "unbalanced" news from the "left"....you wouldn't even look at the New York Times....you said so yourself!!! What "Left" publications do you read? Subscribe to? Please!!!!! Express your opinions. They are as valid as anyones. But telling us you are un-biased? Telling us you get your news from the left? ROFLMA!!! 02-08-04 11:22 AM Re: Re: Re: Re: This is sick! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Maverick74: I mean I know liberals all over supporting Nambla. For those of you that don't know that is an organization that teaches grown men how to molest young boys as young as 4 years old. Yes, liberals actually have donated money to defend this organizations rights in court. Sick yes, but also very true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this a fact? Or is this just what you would prefer to believe? Can you give an example from a real source? You "know liberals all over supporting Nambla"? How do you know them? Do they go to the same gym as you? Belong to the same church? Are they in your motorcycle club? How do you know them? Are they in your Tuesday night poker game? Just shooting from the hip, I personally don't think of the "Deliverance" type sickos as your typical "liberal". But hey, that's just my take on it. What do you base your statements on? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Maverick74: Most liberal judges let pedophile and rapists out on the street with merely a slap on the wrist. Now I know why I hate liberal judges. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We know you "hate" liberal judges. You use the word "hate" quite a bit. Do you notice that about yourself? But again, is what you say fact? Or what you prefer to believe? How many liberal judges do you know? How many have you ever spoken with? And can you give an example of when a "liberal" judge let a pedophile or a rapist "out on the street with merely a slap on the wrist"? Mav, saying things does not make them true. Even reading things does not make them true. It does not surprise me at all that you would not take the few moments to subscribe to the NY Times on line. After all, why read a paper that holds it's writers accountable for being accurate? Why read a paper that publishes op-eds from all shades of the political spectrum? What are you afraid to learn? Peace, RS