As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Neal Gabler implied on FNC's "Fox News Watch" that he wanted the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol to go to Iraq and be killed so that he could attend the conservative writer's funeral.
On Monday, FNC's John Gibson took issue with Gabler's despicable comments during his radio program, calling Gabler a "lowlife," and "a coward" because "he will not come on the air to defend the things he says."
But that was just the beginning (audio available here courtesy our friend Johnny Dollar):
That lowlife appears on Fox. His name is Neal Gabler. He's a coward. He will not come on the air to defend the things he says. He knows that he has a free shot on the "Fox News Watch" with Eric Burns to say outrageous things like that. And he's gonna get away with it. Neal Gabler will not come on this program.
Media Matters will not cover that offensive thing he said. Media Matters will not call him to account for that absolutely low thing he said in which he seemed to call for Bill Kristol's death. Lara Logan does not go around Iraq, covering Iraq, without a bodyguard. Richard Engel of NBC News doesn't go around Iraq without a bodyguard. But Gabler suggests Bill Kristol go for a walk around Baghdad without a bodyguard assures us he will be killed. Probably true. Neal Gabler invites Bill Kristol to go get killed, and he will do him the favor of attending his funeral.
This is about as low and vicious and slimy and cowardly a thing anybody could say, especially if you won't later go defend it, which Neal Gabler won't, because he's a coward. He sits at home and writes these goofy little books like "The Life of Walt Disney," and spouts off like he was bathtub boy [Keith Olbermann]!
So let me count the ways: a Disney biographer is a hatchet-man for the left; a comedian is the left's favorite newscaster; runner-up is a third-rate sportscaster who somehow morphed into commentator on current history.
Bravo, John! That sums up the current liberal icons in the media quite well, thank you very much.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mr. Gibson, Beautiful Job!
October 23, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Bighead227If more good people would stand up to the outrageous statements, disruptive acts and even violent measures employed by the radical left, I assure they would not be as brazen and bold as they are now. In fact, I believe that just as with this coward Neil Gabler, who has apparently gone into hiding, the disruption of Mass-Don't taze me bro-F***Bush idiots running amok in this country today would quickly crawl back under the rocks from which they came.
I watch the show and saw
October 23, 2007 - 10:51 ET by Dan The Man 2I watch the show and saw when he made the staement. It was just an off color statement made by Gabler in a discussion. Neal thought he was among fellow travellers and the remark fell flat. It was kind of unremarkable at the time, not that it wasnt telling and stupid, but Gabler is on there to show the world how the left really thinks.
One thing I like about the show isthat the people on it are diverse and have honest opinions about the media and the world.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Agreed, Dan the Man, I
October 23, 2007 - 11:05 ET by JerAgreed, Dan the Man, I recorded the late rebroadcast and watched it the next day. I can't believe such a big deal is being made over this non-story.
Gabler's quip wasn't particularly funny, but if he is going to get skewered over this, then nobody should be defending O'Reilly's invitation for Al Quaeda to come blow up San Francisco. That statement was a hundred times worse than Gabler's.
I like diverse political debate also. It's the reason I regret that Crossfire and Capitol Gang are no longer on CNN.
Jer
Jer, date time and place
October 23, 2007 - 11:50 ET by bassndudeJer, date time and place please. Are you sure BillO said this? If so, there should be a transcript somewhere. Link please. Ooooorr are you telling a lie....again?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Look son, you can stop with
October 23, 2007 - 11:59 ET by JerLook son, you can stop with the "lie" business right now. I've conducted myself in an honorable manner here, and I would appreciate it if you would too.
Jer
Poor Jer...then link it. If
October 23, 2007 - 12:07 ET by bassndudePoor Jer...then link it. If it is not true, it is a lie. That is a pretty cut and dry statement. Sorry if your little liberal feelers were hurt. Just a question anyway. I dont recall BillO saying such a thing, per say. I do remember him refering to terrorists and SF, but HE did not invite them to blow it up. Taking things out of context, is also a lie. Sometimes the truth hurts. I simply asked for clarification and verification.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Maybe, bassndude, you
October 23, 2007 - 12:56 ET by JerMaybe, bassndude, you should reread your post. You were not simply asking for clarification and verification. You also asked me if I was "telling a lie...again?" My "little liberal feelers" weren't hurt. I was incensed at the accusation. I've been a member here for over four months and this is the first time anyone has even remotely hinted that I would lie. It says a lot for NewsBusters, but not much for you.
Anyway here is the link. You'll note it's to the hated MediaMatters site. But they have the audio available. There's no question about the authenticity. Let me know if you have any problems with accessing it.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100008
Jer
Your statement "should be
October 23, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Dan The Man 2Your statement "should be defending O'Reilly's invitation for Al Quaeda to come blow up San Francisco." and the clip are 2 totally different conversations. O'Riely said "Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." So he said this in response to a city that recieves Federal funds taht wants to ban the military from just about every aspect, that they want to be their own country. And he further says that the US military wgho tehy hate so much will not lift a finger to help them.
In no way did he invite Al Quada to blow up SF. So yes you were lying or at the very least being Clintonian with your words.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I wondered what analytical
October 23, 2007 - 13:48 ET by JerI wondered what analytical gynmnastics you would attempt in an effort to twist the plain meaning of O'Reilly's words. I must say you were surprisingly inept. You scored an embarrassing 2.35...and that includes a 7 from the Iranian judge. My suggestion...get back in the gym, Dan The Infantile--you need a lot more practice. I'm heading over to where the field is a little stronger.
Jer
Jer: Let us assume for a
October 23, 2007 - 17:05 ET by BDJer:
Let us assume for a moment that a state within our union decided to do the following:
1.) Prohibit the basing of US troops within its boundaries.
2.) Prohibit the use of military recruiters within its boundaries and had a resolution in the state legislature urging children within the stae not enlist, nor serve as officers in the US military.
3.) Enact laws that would shield enemies of our nation in a time of war.
4.) Passed resolutions in its state legislature urging our nations defeat in time of war.
Then let us say that that state seceded from the US.
Would the US government be within its rights to decide to not defend that state from attack by the forces that it is currently at war with?
Jer
October 23, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
I have to agree with Dan. Directly from that transcript, O'Reilly didn't invite al Qaeda to blow up my lovely San Francisco. Instead, as the residents voted to try and prevent military recruitment on campuses, O'Reilly said:
That's much different than what you presented when read in its full context. And, frankly, as someone who lives in the Bay Area, and can't abide the way the military are treated here, I quite agree. If San Francisco, a city I DEARLY LOVE, mind you, wants to prevent military recruitment, whilst not allowing military ships to dock in the Bay, then it shouldn't expect military protection before, during, and after an attack.
Why is that such an awful statement to make, Jer? Isn't it logical? Should the U.S. government and taxpayers around the nation allocate military resources to a city which refuses recruitment and our ships?
Please explain why this is either errant or offensive?
Now, in reality, the government isn't going to listen to O'Reilly or anybody else in America that agrees. However, that doesn't mean the sentiments expressed are inflammatory or out of line. JMHO. ns
So, Noel, you agree with
October 23, 2007 - 14:20 ET by JerSo, Noel, you agree with bassndude and Dan that I'm a liar? Look, I don't concur with the anti-military proposals in San Francisco or anywhere else [and the one in question was voted down by the way], but O'Reilly's remarks were an outrage--and I did not misrepresent them. [BTW, my sister and her family live in Mill Valley and they certainly didn't find O'Reilly's words very comforting.] My statement was a fair and reasonable summation of what he said. And if some draw different inferences, that's fine. As you know, my take on Gabler's statement differed from yours, but I wouldn't dream of calling you a "liar" because of that differing view.
Expanding on what I said to bassndude, I've made a determined effort to conduct myself here in a civil and respectful mannner. I've never engaged in name-calling [except just now in response to Dan calling me a liar], I have been polite and cordial with everyone I've "debated" with, and the overwhelming majority have reciprocated in kind. But I'm not going to stay around here and have my integrity attacked.
Frankly, having defended you in the past against gratuitous attacks, I thought you might do the same for me. Instead you support those who gratuitously attacked me.
So, good luck to you and NewsBusters, you can keep my donation, but I'm out of here.
Jer
Run Jer! Run! And what you
October 23, 2007 - 14:35 ET by bassndudeRun Jer! Run! And what you said about BillO was a ?? Misrepresention is what? And this is the first time you misconstrued what someone said? No, its not Jer, and you know it. Honest debate is one thing, making false accusations about someone is something else again. Its a lie.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Jer
October 23, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
As I just e-mailed you, I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not calling you a liar. Instead, I agree that you're misinterpreting what BOR said in this segment.
I hope that resolves the matter to your satisfaction. ns
Jer I apologize for calling
October 23, 2007 - 16:55 ET by Dan The Man 2Jer I apologize for calling you a liar, I will however say you have been Clintonian with your words concerning your acusation. I remember some of that exchange and it was after a protracted conversation with some activist. The point BOR was making and I agree with him is SF is saying the military is wrong and we dont like it and BOR says good you dont want recruiters then no military aid either.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Jer
October 23, 2007 - 14:40 ET by bassndudeI am perhaps a little more blunt Jer. But I dont take litely to propaganda and false accusations. From anyone. And this is not the first time you have done this. Hence the "again". The fact you were incensed is perhaps because you were plainly called on your accusation. BTW, MediaMatters? Really now.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
President Bill Clinton said
October 23, 2007 - 12:26 ET by Dan The Man 2President Bill Clinton said he was honorable also and he did not lie, but the truth was out there and no matter how much the press tried to suppress it it was revealed to the light of the day. So unless you link then we must believe you and Clinton are both liars.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan the Man...see link in
October 23, 2007 - 13:03 ET by JerDan the Man...see link in response to bassndude above.
Jer
LOOK SON, U CAN STOP WIF TEH
October 23, 2007 - 12:32 ET by bretzysdudeLOOK SON, U CAN STOP WIF TEH "LIE" BUSINES RITE NAO. I HAS CONDUCTD MYSELF IN AN HONORABLE MANNR HER, AN I WUD APPRECIATE IT IF U WUD 2.
Who let the 11 year old in?
October 23, 2007 - 12:48 ET by Six String Spiff...Somebody is fooing with these posts. Gee.. I hope NB does the RIGHT THING.
The American Revolution Continued
Quick someone shoot me Jer
October 23, 2007 - 11:53 ET by Dan The Man 2Quick someone shoot me Jer just agreed with me. However ORiely said nothing of the sort. I dont want SF blown off the map just the people to realize what side of the bread the butter is on.
Oriely Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I can't believe such a
October 23, 2007 - 12:09 ET by Jack BauerWhy not?
The Soros/Clinton inspired Media Matters, for instance, exists solely for Democrats to make big deals out of non-stories.
You must have noticed.
AGRED, DAN TEH MAN, I
October 23, 2007 - 12:31 ET by bretzysdudeAGRED, DAN TEH MAN, I RECORDD TEH LATE REBROADCAST AN WATCHD IT TEH NEXT DAI. I CANT BLEEV SUCH HOOJ DEAL IZ BEAN MADE OVAR DIS NON-STORY. GABLERS QUIP WUZ NOT PARTICULARLY FUNNY, BUT IF HE IZ GOIN 2 GIT SKEWERD OVAR DIS, DEN NOBODY SHUD BE DEFENDIN OREILLYS INVITASHUN 4 AL QUAEDA 2 COME BLOW UP SAN FRANCISCO. DAT STATEMENT WUZ HUNDRD TIEMS WORSE THAN GABLERS. I LIEK DIVERSE POLITICAL DEBATE ALSO. IZ TEH REASON I REGRET DAT CROSFIRE AN CAPITOL GANG R NO LONGR ON CNN.
Neil Gabler a stereotype of himself.
October 23, 2007 - 10:55 ET by CTI'm always amazed when no one reaches around and bitch-slaps the punk when he spews these outrageous screeds.
CT, the look on his face in
October 23, 2007 - 10:59 ET by MikeBCT, the look on his face in the photo at the top looks like he got b****-slapped. Maybe he is just amazed that not everyone in the world, or even the media doesn't think the same way he does.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Here's Neal's Excuse
October 23, 2007 - 11:02 ET by Caringwhiteguyhttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23417115-details/Shorter+people+'have+a+chip+on+their+shoulder+which+makes+them+unhealthy'/article.do
Neal Gabler, think you'd
October 23, 2007 - 11:03 ET by drillanwrNeal Gabler, think you'd offer to attend this reporter's funeral too?
The situation in Iraq is incredibly complex -- and the products of the ‘Surge’ are far too fragile to survive a Coalition drawdown (Part 1 of 2)
http://jeffemanuel.blogspot.com/2007/10/situation-in-iraq-is-incredibly-complex.html
And they say Fox isn't fair
October 23, 2007 - 11:10 ET by drillanwrAnd they say Fox isn't fair and balanced ...
The fact that Neal Gabler can sit on their air waves and spout off such tripe is quite evident of Fox's allowing both sides to be heard.
What the FNC nay-sayers complaint is the fact that a comment/opinion/view is called into question or challenged, and not just left laying there like some pile of steaming waste ...
Useful Left-Wing Idiots
October 23, 2007 - 11:53 ET by NoMoreClintonsDon't forget the other useful idiots like Alan Colmes and Jerry Rivers. I'd throw Greta in there too but thankfully she stays away from politics most of the time.
But I'll never forget her performance on CNN cheerleading for Al Gore during the time the 2000 election was hanging by a chad.
Yes, FOX is fair and balanced - you don't see the others giving the conservatives a voice all that often.
The apathy we Americans have
October 23, 2007 - 11:22 ET by BeowulfThe apathy we Americans have been displaying for the last several years encourages this kind of behavior. The media, through back-handed endorsement or disregard (depending on how the issue fits their agenda) causes it to grow (like a tumor). I've been saying for several years that the Lefties are so like spoiled little children, throwing temper tantrums and name calling when someone disagrees, making underhanded and usually amateur attempts at character assissination, and their obsessive attempt to regain political power. They, like little children, constantly test their boundaries to see how much they can get away with. With Americans not raising the BS flag, and the media handing out partisan free passes, the Lefty bounds have steadily widened. FOX, while sometimes toeing the party line of "acceptable" news reporting, are the only ones who ever call people out on comments like this.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
100 times worse?
October 23, 2007 - 11:33 ET by Ran56JER.. link please.. to BOR's horrible comment.
Neal is an idiot, idiots say stupid things, end of story.
Well, Ran56, 100 times
October 23, 2007 - 11:49 ET by JerWell, Ran56, 100 times worse is an understatement. Gabler's remark was rather lame humor, but it wasn't terribly offensive [and if you have followed my posts to any degree at NB, you should know I haven't been shy about strongly criticising over-the-line rhetoric from the left].
But I'll get you the O'Reilly link ASAP.
Jer
Calling anything Gabler says
October 23, 2007 - 12:00 ET by robert108Calling anything Gabler says "humor" is a real reach. He's a vicious leftie ferret.
Still waiting on that
October 23, 2007 - 12:26 ET by fosstenStill waiting on that O'Reilly link...
(cue Jeopardy music)
Is there a statute of limitations that expires and a claim becomes a lie in the absence of evidence to support it?
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
WELL, RAN56, 100 TIEMS WORSE
October 23, 2007 - 12:33 ET by bretzysdudeWELL, RAN56, 100 TIEMS WORSE IZ AN UNDERSTATEMENT. GABLERS REMARK WUZ RATHR LAME HUMOR, BUT IT WUZ NOT TERRIBLY OFFENSIV [AN IF U HAS FOLLOWD MAH POSTS 2 ANY DEGREE AT NB, U SHUD KNOE I HAVENT BEEN SHY BOUT STRONGLY CRITICISIN OVAR-TEH-LINE RHETORIC FRUM TEH LEFT].
BUT ILL GIT U TEH OREILLY LINK ASAP.
Conservatives need to STOP PLAYING NICE
October 23, 2007 - 12:46 ET by Six String SpiffLook, I'm all for being nice to people.. to an extent. Why wont we fight fire with fire? What's with this mamby pamby attitude of not 'stooping' to their level? When the very fabric of this country is being torched by the radical left with their hateful comments and LIES, I don't give a DAMN about niceties. I'd much rather we fight back just as hard than to continuously try and calm the wild dogs down. The Democrats have made it painfully clear they intend to stop at nothing to 'take back' the Whitehouse. There used to be civility where to politicians were blind to one anothers party affiliation while clinking brews in the pub. Not any more. We have allowed this to go on FAR too long. Stand up and fight back!
WhooHooo
October 23, 2007 - 12:58 ET by kdoliverWhoohooo-- 5-8 is not short!!!
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
Gabler uses Media Matters
October 23, 2007 - 13:40 ET by SkepticalOneDuring the break on Saturday's show Neal Gabler was going on about the Right-Wing media assault. The interesting thing about the comments were his admission to reading Media Matters and now we know where he gets his talking points.
John Gibson gets it right. I am a regular viewer of Fox News Watch and have written and complained about Gabler a few times over the years, his inane comments and knee-jerk hate for anything right of a Clinton is just tiring.
Here is the link to the video (don't know how long it will be there).
http://www.foxnews.c...
"Still waiting on that
October 23, 2007 - 15:03 ET by ckc1227"Still waiting on that O'Reilly link...
(cue Jeopardy music)
Is there a statute of limitations that expires and a claim becomes a lie in the absence of evidence to support it?"
No need for a stature of limitations. In the case of liberals like "Jer", it's usually a lie right from the very beginning.
Who (or what) is this
October 23, 2007 - 19:42 ET by MikeBWho (or what) is this bretzysdude thing? Obviously a lefty, as all it can do is SCREAM ALL THE TIME. And, just as obviously, a product of the public school system judging from its grammar, spelling and syntax. Bretzy, quiet down, learn to make a cogent, logical statement, and start dealing with facts. That, or just go back to DailyKos to hang with folks just like yourself.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan