O’Reilly: ‘You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President of the United States’
O’Reilly: ‘You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President of the United States’
Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, who argues in a new book that Osama Bin Laden is “cheering” the progressive movement in America, was invited to the White House yesterday for an exclusive interview with President Bush. It was Bush’s third interview with O’Reilly.
Last night, just before he broadcast the first installment of the interview, O’Reilly explained to his viewers that, “You cannot be confrontational with the President of the United States.” Instead, according to O’Reilly, “President Bush will have his say.” O’Reilly added, “I think it is important to look ahead rather than to look back. What good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?” Watch it:
Full transcript:
This is my third interview with the president. He does get a fair shake here but he also gets tough questions, as everybody does. Now interviewing a president is not like interviewing anyone else on the planet. You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States. You can be direct, but you can’t be disrespectful.
Over the next three nights, President Bush will have his say. You will know exactly where he stands on the most vital issues facing america and the world. Because every presidential interview is finite — time is always a concern — I decided to concentrate on the conflicts — Iraq, Iran, North Korea and terror — rather than on domestic issues. Also, I think it’s important to look ahead rather than to look back. what good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
94 Responses to “O’Reilly: ‘You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President of the United States’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
so, o'reilly is in contact with osama, that he knows what osama is cheering on?
October 17th, 2006 at 9:39 amso, o'reilly is in contact with osama, that he knows what osama is thinking and doing? why isn't he being interrogated at a secret prison NOW?
October 17th, 2006 at 9:40 amNot that I'll watch any of this moron's interviews, but I'll be interested to hear of he asks any questions regarding Clinton's failure (for whatever reason) to capture Bin Laden. Since any questions along those lines would fall into the category of "looking back."
Of course, some believe looking back and learning from one's past is a valuable part of growth. Conservatives don't adhere to this philosophy.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:41 am"I think it is important to look ahead rather than to look back."
So, O'Reilly is going to stop blaming Fmr. Pres. Clinton for everything that Pres. Bush has done or failed to do! Wow! I'm shocked!
October 17th, 2006 at 9:42 amYeah, looking back never does any good. Lets forget about 9/11 and the Holocaust, and the Civil War... nuthin' worth learnin' bout thar folks, git on now...move along, everthin's unner control....taint' you worry none bout no nook-u-lar weppins.
O'Reilly is a propogandist monkey and Bush is the worst excuse for a President I have ever seen. He has disgraced the office and our country.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:44 amOsama bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist. Why would he be cheering progressive political causes. That would go against every fiber in his screwed up body.
But then O'Reilly has never been one to concern himself with reality or facts. It would be expecting too much for him to be changing now. There is a reason he makes Keith Olbermann's "worst person in the world" list on a regular basis.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:47 amWatch me
October 17th, 2006 at 9:48 amBush and O'Reilly, now thats a pair that will beat a full house.
A right wing nut house that is!
October 17th, 2006 at 9:50 amHolding Bush accountable is confrontational? It's only confrontational to the person being asked the questions - and if that person is in the wrong.
Bill decided to focus on ALL the topics Bush would like to talk about himself - he's a self-proclaimed war president, and the war is all he ever seems to talk strongly about. So of course Billy will choose those topics.
What good does it do looking back? I'll remember that next time you bring up ANY history what-so-ever. If that includes Bill Clinton, JFK, or George Washington. Apparently - history doesn't matter to you.
Which makes sense. You refuse to admit you've said certain things even though they are recorded on tape. But in your world history doesn't matter.
Give us a BREAK Bill! ALL OF US know that history is only irrelevant if it contains information that puts you in the wrong.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:50 amYou cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States. You can be direct, but you can’t be disrespectful.
Coward.
Caption Contest:
October 17th, 2006 at 9:50 amTalk, Forrest, talk.
Does this mean every time "Foley" comes up (pun intended), the idjiots on the right wont claim... Studds did this back 20 years ago!
Hear that right wing nutjobs? Your second in command of propganda commands you to not bring up the far past! After all you never learn from things like facts any way.
I've seen bumper stickers, tag lines, etc of "Who would OBL vote for"
Nothing has caused more people in the middle east to hate the west than Bush and his sock puppet Blair.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:50 amIt's so perfect that knuckle-head is being interviewed on fox by billy.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:52 amIt really couldn't be any funnier . . . and bill . . . trying to be serious as he
speaks to the camera like his viewers all have gwb's i.q. !
There's no need to look back. We can just wait for Bush and his cronies to rewrite history.
Oh wait, they're already at it.
Never mind...
October 17th, 2006 at 9:54 amIt's going to be a very big Bra to hold these two boobs.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amDUMB ,DUMBER ,DUMBEST .
October 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amBill, I would like to see you interviewing Chomsky.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:55 amO’Reilly: ‘You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President of the United States’
Yup. That's why O'reilly and the right were never confrontational with past presidents (Clinton.) Sure....
As for looking back, I second (third, fourth??) the comments that if looking into the rationale for the Iraq war is pointless rehashing, then why is it acceptable to look back to blame Clinton, look back to try and reopen an investigation into Sandy Berger, etc. It's not looking back O'reilly objects to, it's putting the abysmal failure of Bush under srutiny.
Praying for a Democratic Congress,
October 17th, 2006 at 9:56 amLilah
What good does it do to bring up the President lying to start an endless war with a country that was no threat to the US? Gee...I thought O'Reilly was never going to trust Bush again if there were no WMDs.
But what good will it do.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:59 amWho watches this crap??? Some repubs say this dude is an idiot.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:00 amThe logic of Bill O'Reilly...
Will question Bushie about North Korea, but not WMD.
Go figure.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:01 amBill O'Reilly - Good Morning America - 3-18-03 -- "And I said on my program, if -- if -- the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
When will people that go on O'Reilly's show start bringing this up?
October 17th, 2006 at 10:01 amO’Reilly: ‘You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President of the United States’
And that's why we have the Boy King today, boys and girls...
October 17th, 2006 at 10:03 amBecause every presidential interview is finite
Or anyone, for that matter. Does this guy listen to what he says?
October 17th, 2006 at 10:04 amO’Reilly added, “I think it is important to look ahead rather than to look back. What good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?â€
What good does it do to talk to the victim? The rapist will have his way.
That's the kind of people we're dealing with, here.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:08 am.
"You cannot be confrontational with the president of the United States."
Unlike when he interviews anyone with an opposing view. He is so confrontational that he appears frieghtened.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:08 amBill I can't understand a word you are saying with that cock in your mouth.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:10 amActually, I would wager money that Osama would be cheering on the right-wing of America as they are dumb enough to play right into their hands, stirrring up a hornet's nest, rallying more troops to his cause.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:11 am"You Cannot Be Confrontational With The President of the United States"
Can we remind you of this come 2008 and we get a Democrat President? Would you make the same statement about the Congressional leadership? Even come January?
Just asking...
October 17th, 2006 at 10:13 amDoes this guy EVER think for himself? I wonder if the last part of the interview shows O'Reilly giving Bush a BJ...
October 17th, 2006 at 10:16 amYou should never stop looking back on why the U.S. government has killed thousands of innocent civilians including kids - and Bush has spent more money in office than any other President in history.
This idiot O'Reilly takes no responsibility for his part in the mass murders and lie's or even the NeoCons part - he just scraps the whole issue off like a piece of gum stuck to his shoe - which is about how much the innocent is worth to him.
American's need to stop joining the Armed forces and giving your lives up to make politicians and Corporations even richer ... look around - 80% of the problems in the world are caused by 20% of the governments.
You think the Neocons give a shit if the Iraqi's are free? or you for that matter.
These guys (and Bill Clinton too) choose money over politics when it comes down to it - Money is their religion. That's why Clinton made Reagan & Bush senior's NAFTA program his first priority when he was elected - instead of dismantling it like he should have.
They are all in it together folks .... Democrats and Republicans alike.
NAFTA, earmarks, lobbyist's, and hedge funds killed America.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:16 amBush is confrontational, HE is a (perhaps the biggest) bully. What are most children taught early on? That you stand up to bullies, and they usually turn out to be not so tough. I think Bush fits this mold perfectly. There was one journalist who did this, I forget his name, and Bush just started poking him in the chest and saying it was his job to protect him. We need more of this... he'll soon break down.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amP.S. Try comparing Oreilly to Nazi appeasers, that'll wind him up.
Of course you can't be confratational with Bush. He will declare you a terrorist and render you to a secret prison to be tortured.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:17 amWatching Bill O'Reilly and bush doing an interview is like watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel about dung beetles and how they lay their eggs in balls of crap. The topics discussed are interesting but the substance is still just about a bug and a ball of shit.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:19 amO'Really was for looking back before he was against it.
Remember that old "promise" O'Reilly gave on ABC's GMA?
Bill O'Reilly - Good Morning America - 3-18-03 -- "And I said on my program, if -- if -- the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again."
October 17th, 2006 at 10:21 amF*ck Bill O'Reilly. Who gives a sh*t about Bill O'Reilly?
George W. Bush signed the Military Commissions bill in the Rose Garden this morning.
I wonder what the signing statement says?
October 17th, 2006 at 10:26 amDo you really think B.O. would ask any real hard hitting questions? B.O. has already received the questions from Rove like "When did you learn it was your destiny to lead?" or " Has mountain biking steeled your resolve as much as your body, because you are in great shape".
Any other ideas for those questions us umerikans really want to know?
#34 That's proof positive this man is a snake oil saleman.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:27 amGeorge Santayana
October 17th, 2006 at 10:29 amThe reason people like O'Lielly don't want to look back is because they know they are too stupid to learn from the past.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:30 amO'Reilly and Bush: No Brain Zone
October 17th, 2006 at 10:36 am-- Theodore Roosevelt
October 17th, 2006 at 10:36 amIf you can't be confrontational with the President of the United States, what is sense of having a democracy and a "free press." Take your journalistic skills, go to Russia, get a job with PRAVDA an interview Putin, Billy boy.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:37 amI'm sure Osama Bin Laden rests easy every day that Republicans control the White House. Not only doesn't he have to fear being captured or killed, he knows Bush will capitulate to all his demands.
When people say Bush started 2 wars that he lost (Iraq and Afghanistan), they're forgetting that the USA was also defeated single-handedly by Bin Laden under Bush's incompetent and fear-driven administration.
Democrats should remind people everyday how we were defeated on mulitple fronts because Bush and the current Republican "leadership" have the worst record on national security from 9/11, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Iran, to North Korea, to Katrina, etc., etc., etc.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:38 amwill someone please get the video when he squirts? anyone that has this much vitriol should make a good explosion when he does finally blow.
poor thing is so twisted, he doesn't even know how funny he is
October 17th, 2006 at 10:38 am-- Bill O'Reilly
October 17th, 2006 at 10:41 amf*ck accountability!
October 17th, 2006 at 10:46 amOf course you can't be confrontational. It says so right in the agreement to the interview. That's why Chimpy and the gang only go on Faux News. Having BillO or any of these other hacks call these things interviews, like they are actually journalists, makes me ill.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:50 amBill's Nostalgic For Soviets
October 17th, 2006 at 10:51 amSmiff:
The thing about Bullies is that they view being above you or more powerful than you as being the rightful position. How often has a Bully hit someone, and when hit back they get angry and think hitting you a second time is "now we're even." Then when they need to justify further bullying they refer back to the time you his them...totally ignoring the fact that they were bullies long before that.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:56 amO’Reilly: ‘You Cannot Be Confrontational With The Dick-tater of the United States’
That's what BO meant to say.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:05 amYou are right, Bill. What good would it do to rehash WMDs? Especially when you try to rehash something that didn't exist.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:06 amDon't look back. Don't look ahead. Both are not reality. Deal with now.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:07 amIf you dont want to look back
THEN QUIT BRINGING UP BILL CLINTON!!!!!!!!
Frauds every single one of them.....
October 17th, 2006 at 11:13 amSounds like something out of 1984.
Still, how long will people buy this stuff? Even the kool-aid drinkers must be wondering about George Bush.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:13 amO'Reilly is confrontational with everybody else, but he slobbers for Pres. Bush because he is a certified Dubya Dunce Decider lover!
October 17th, 2006 at 11:19 amDid you notice the scrall had a fine print scrall stating;
"All questions in respect to the President were submitted in advance for National Security Purposes. As a condition of such an interview Fox News Productions will edit the clips in the most favorable light and be give final review prior to airing to the Department of Admin Propaganda. Fox News Productions will provide future oriented questions so in no way to infringe upon, challenge, or interfere with the Presidents denial, delusions, or digestion. Any and all reproduction of such material without the explicit consent of the RNC is strictly prohibited."
October 17th, 2006 at 11:23 amThe warm and fuzzy side of Bill O.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:24 amLame!!!!!!!!
You can be confrontational with the President of United States if you have a set of BALLS - but we all know that O'Lielly has none.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:02 pmWe mustn't speak ill of the king!
October 17th, 2006 at 12:23 pmO'Reilly's head is so far up Bush's asshole that I can't see where one begins and the other ends.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pmDon't confront the president. It's not like he's used to heathed debate on any issue.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:29 pmNever watch o'reilly. I have no respect for the fool.
The problem is no one will confront this idiot of a president. Someone needs to step up, grab the idiot by the ears and get in his face and start demanding he tell the truth and accept responsibility. To every Bush supporter, the past 6 years don't exist. They and Bush take the saying, 'live one day at a time' to a whole new level.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:33 pmDon't bring up domestic issues? Gee, I wonder why ;-)
October 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pmBush has lied so much that he has made himself delusional. Watching him is like going to a mental institution and watching the insane.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:51 pmYou can't be confrontational with the president???!!! I think Bill Clinton would be surprised to hear that.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:55 pmTo even think of O'Reilly as a journalist is ridiculous. He has no credentials except his disregard of the truth, his hate- spewing rhetoric against American citizens who expect their government to tell the truth, and his desire to be part of the 'in crowd' no matter how horrible they are.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmIf the Fairness Doctrine still existed, ( Reagan got rid of that along time ago) Fox News could not exist. It should not be allowed to darken our airways- best thing is to never turn it on or allow its lies and propaganda into your home. Change is coming! Please everyone, get out and Vote!
We need to take back our democracy from the fascists.
"You cannot be confrontational with the President of the United States" -- WTF?!?!? What country does O'Reilly think he's living in?? Or perhaps I should rephrase that...in what sort of country does he think we should be living in?
Puh-leeeeeeeeeze...if O'Reilly were living during the Revolutionary War, there'd be a word for people like him. That word is Tory! This country wouldn't have existed if it hadn't been for people who had the courage to confront and challenge their leaders. Admittedly, one does not want to be belligerent with the President (especially this President, who to all appearances is overly prone to taking offense) -- but the implication that one should walk on eggshells when interviewing him is so patently absurd as to be almost laughable...that is, if it weren't such a horrible reflection on what this country is coming to. It's not only an insult to the Presidents who have gone before, many of whom have endured hard questioning of their own -- did the exalted nature of the office stop reporters from confronting Clinton? -- it's an insult to the office simply as an abstract concept. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the damned kitchen already...anyone who isn't resilient enough to withstand hard questioning once in a while from a nation of free people ought never seek the Presidency, or any public office for that matter. It's quite possible to ask pertinent and challenging questions while still remaining respectful -- then again, I think we all know that Dubya wouldn't have agreed to the interview in the first place (and especially not at such a delicate time for the GOP as this) if he had any reason to believe that the interviewer wouldn't be bending over backwards on his behalf. Or perhaps I should say bending over forwards...?
Asking tough questions? By avoiding domestic issues and focusing solely on the War On Terror, that's the one thing that O'Reilly didn't do and he knows it. Dubya is a one-trick-pony with a one-track-mind -- if O'Reilly didn't talk about the War On Terror, the man would have next to nothing to say. How anyone with even one functioning brain cell left could perceive O'Reilly as anything even remotely approximating a serious journalist mystifies me...
October 17th, 2006 at 1:17 pmI'm so tired of this dumbass hypocrite.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#31, the reporter was Matt Lauer. I'm glad Matt stood his ground (literally, not necessarily journalistically) when Bush was threatening him.
#33, love the comparison!
I'm planning to email BillO and remind him of his promise of an apology if there were no WMDs found.
Yesterday I emailed him to tell him that I hoped that any female he had ever had sex with visits him in the studio and kicks him really hard in the balls, while saying "Well, at least no woman is going to have her life put in danger from a pregnancy complication from you!" That was in response to his comment about "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things." (Can't you just hear Keith Olbermann doing his BillO imitation?)
October 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmExpect O'Reilly to play softball with the President.
October 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pmHmmm..... if *I* was a Dear Leader I certainly would like to have such sycophants around me but have a few mocking and disdaining words for them behind their back. The he heee.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:15 pmHmmmmm... the trolls won't even touch this one!
October 17th, 2006 at 2:40 pmlet me tell you something o'lielly. i dont give a rats ass if you are the f. pope. did you get that. i'll spit in that mf. face. who is (p)resident bush for me not to confront. did you forget we the taxpayers are paying their flippin wage. therefore he is ours to do away with as we please. so why can't we claim them as dependents? the whole entire system is a fraud and they are laughing at us. repubs=genevacis and the dems=gambinos.
October 17th, 2006 at 2:44 pmto hell with all of them.
Everybody says don't,
October 17th, 2006 at 3:06 pmEverybody says wait,
Everybody says can't fight city hall,
Can't upset the cart,
Can't laugh at the king!
Well, I
Say
Try!
I
Say
Laugh at the kings or they'll make you cry.
O'Reilly: “I think it is important to look ahead rather than to look back. What good does it do to rehash WMDs? Does that do you any good?â€
I've met worms with more backbone than this devourer of other people's feces.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pmHe doesn't want to be confrontational with the president because he doesn't want to die.
October 17th, 2006 at 3:59 pmHe meant "You Cannot Be Confrontational With The King of the United States The man of GOD"
October 17th, 2006 at 4:13 pmu dont think orielly looks like a nut
October 17th, 2006 at 6:03 pmO'Reily is a vagina.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:17 pmThis can only mean that Bill O'Reilly is going to skulk on over to Chris Wallace's office and give him a severe whuppin'.
October 17th, 2006 at 6:28 pmI served my country for twenty four years and retired in 1973. Nineteen of those years were on Submarines during the cold war. Of those, The missile Boats were the one's when Prince George of the low IQ and temper tantrums bothered me the most. He is the one who has his hand on the button to unleash those missile's. A person of his sanity is as dangerous as Lil Kim. The boat itself only knows the US is under attack. What ifd this imbicle decided to unleash these weapons on any nation?
O'Rielly is as insane as BUSHIE. Let us all pray that someone, somewhere keeps BUSHIE under control!
O'Rielly should as DUBYA a ton of questions including Why did you say after the first plane hit the World Trade Center,"He sure must have been a bad pilot." Then after the second plane hit, WHY DID YOU SIT ON A CHILDS CHAIR FOR SEVEN MINUTES WHILE THE TOWER'S WERE FALLING DOWN.
Then leave Florida and head west!!!!
WHY, WHY, WHY, Did the American people let him steal two elections!!!
Trust must be earned, Not given!!
October 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pmO’Reily is a vagina.
Comment by EMan
Excuse me? As proud long-time owner of a gorgeous vagina, I resent that remark.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:33 pmBush signs torture bill; Americans lose essential freedom. October 17, 2006
George W. Bush got what he wanted, ostensibly as a tool in his unfocused "war on terror": By signing into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush has made it legal for the C.I.A. to continue operating torture facilities in undisclosed, foreign countries, and for the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended for individuals who are designated "enemy combatants" against the U.S. (Designated by whom? That question remains unanswered.) The law also "establishes military tribunals that would allow some use of evidence obtained by coercion [that is, torture], but would give defendants access to classified evidence being used to convict them." (Reuters)
The provisions of Bush's new torture law mean that Americans have lost the key, constitutional right on which Anglo-American criminal law (and criminal-law procedures in true democracies in general) is founded; that's the basic right of an individual to know why he or she is being apprehended and detained. Now, technically, as in Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia, anyone labeled an "enemy combatant" - again, by whom; by Bush? - can be whisked away and never heard from again. That kind of authority, in the hands of corrupt or untruthful politicians, may or may not be an effective tool in some kind of "war on terror," but it certainly can be a useful tool when it comes to silencing their opponents.
In an Orwellian pronouncement dutifully reported by Voice of America, the taxpayer-funded "news" service that acts as a mouthpiece for the administration, Bush said: "The United States does not torture....It is against our laws and it is against our values. By allowing the C.I.A. program to go forward, this bill is preserving a tool that has saved American lives." Bush's claim flies in the face of numerous reports of torture conducted by American officials at U.S. military prisons or secret locations overseas.
October 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pmExcuse me? As proud long-time owner of a gorgeous vagina, I resent that remark.
Comment by Zooey
OMG.
October 17th, 2006 at 9:25 pmDon't his fans feel like he's always talking down to them? How do they stand to listen?
October 17th, 2006 at 9:49 pmgoddamn I can't stand this douchebag.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:34 pmLetterman friken slammed him.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:51 pmOMG, a caption to that pic, anyone, I am thinking of an intruder of some sort...
October 17th, 2006 at 11:52 pmBO isn't too bright. And you morons who watch/listen to him are even more idiotic.
October 17th, 2006 at 11:57 pmCaption contest:
A little KY...please....?
October 18th, 2006 at 12:23 amWow! I finally get what O'Reilly is saying! Our president is so weak and such a poor leader, that we true patriots must stifle our criticisms. We can't make it too obvious for those evil-doers to find out what a boob Bush really is.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:31 am[...] Original post by Judd [...]
October 18th, 2006 at 10:39 amfiled under: DIPSHIT
October 18th, 2006 at 5:17 pmIs Bush dumb because he's got a southern accent, dumb because he's a self-professed Christian, or dumb because he doesn't think hate disappears when occupation does? The world can only handle SO MANY unfunny Dane Cook wannabe armchair comedians, people. I can now commence ignoring ignorance.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:47 pmWhen, "respect" trumps truth-seeking, democractic action and real discussion, we're all in trouble.
October 19th, 2006 at 4:27 am