However, this was a mere opening act for what was to follow as you can see in these Part 1 and Part 2 videos. Here are some of the highlights, or lowlights, from the interview:
DAVID LETTERMAN (holding up O'Reilly's book): I want to tell you and this book is a crazy best seller. How many weeks has it been on the best seller list?
BILL O'REILLY: Six months on the best seller list.
LETTERMAN: Here's what breaks my heart about this. Because in my mind I think of you as a goon. But then when you look at this picture, look at how sweet and adorable that kid is and it breaks my heart because I have a sweet and adorable kid like that and I think, "Oh great! What if he too becomes a goon!
Letterman obsessed at length about Rush Limbaugh to the extent of cheap shot smears until Reilly flustered Dave with this exchange:
LETTERMAN: He's tubby. For a long time he had his housekeeper buy him illegal drugs...
O'REILLY: Do you really think it's nice to do that to Limbaugh? I mean really. This is a serious question. They set him up as a strawman. Nobody takes this seriously.
LETTERMAN: I think he set himself up.
O'REILLY: Why? He's a radio talk show guy. He goes on the radio just like you go on TV. He does a show. You either like it or you don't. Nobody forces you to watch or listen to you or Limbaugh. Why cheap shot the guy? I mean why bother?
[A visibly flustered Letterman sighs and speaks softly for a moment as if to himself.]
LETTERMAN: That's a good question.
[Then Letterman, tries to scream somewhat humorously past his self-embarrassment.]
LETTERMAN: YEAH! OH YEAH! WHATEVER! CAN YOU PROVE THAT?
O'REILLY: Now you know why I'm number one for a hundred months.
A few moments later, O'Reilly tried to say something which elicited this screaming reaction from Letterman trying to be funny although he seemed somewhat angry underneath:
LETTERMAN: PLEASE! PLEASE! WILL YOU JUST GIVE ME A MINUTE!!!
Further along, David admits that, despite his many criticisms of Bill O'Reilly, he never watches the show:
O'REILLY: I'm going to send over some tapes so you can watch the show and know what the hell is going on. Alright?
LETTERMAN: I have no idea. I can't find the show. I don't know where it is.
(Crosstalk)
O'REILLY: If you have watched the show you would be much smarter.
LETTERMAN: I can't stay up that late.
O'REILLY: It's on at 8 PM, Dave.
Your humble correspondent isn't sure if Dave was serious about never watching O'Reilly but he sure seemed proud of his ignorance. However, Letterman can always be sure of big ratings when Bill O'Reilly is on as was shown by this exchange towards the end of the interview:
O'REILLY: My mom is watching. Is your mom is watching?
LETTERMAN: My mom is watching Leno.
O'REILLY: Is she? Not if I'm on.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'd quit watching Letterman
April 1, 2009 - 10:05 ET by SeftonI'd quit watching Letterman years ago because of his obvious bias, but my wife switched over to this interview last night and we caught most of it. Again, Letterman comes across as an ignorant, condescending liberal ass who knows he has a liberal audience and plays it for everything he can.
Truth is, he repeated almost every liberal talking point (and weak argument) you would expect from this hack.
O'Reilly did make him squirm a couple of times, but could have come down harder if he wanted.
Racing
April 1, 2009 - 14:24 ET by midiaIs it any wonder he like auto racing? He's always turning left. Hah!
Letterman clip worth watching
April 2, 2009 - 10:49 ET by MaximusBraveheartSefton your comments are right on. The clip was worth seeing. The Libs cannot OPEN their mind up to even consider the options on the table so they look down on anyone not invoking their role call of Lib enforcement. Obama keeping track you know from his own mouth. Liberal Facism here. M-B
Letterman No Class Unlike Carson
April 1, 2009 - 10:08 ET by Redrowan2000I watched Carson for years and never knew if he was a conservative or a liberal. He was there to entertain to get our minds off of the days problems for an hour or so. Letterman must have his ego massaged every day and show every one what a left leaning meanspirited pedant he is. The movie industry has shown what they can do to an industry. They have killed attendance and the awards are a political lovefest. But thank God the mainstream media is still there keeping us informed with a balanced view (April Fools).
I really used to like Letterman before you could see his political fingerprints on most of his material.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
This is exactly why I don't
April 1, 2009 - 10:09 ET by SeashellThis is exactly why I don't watch Letterman. He's just plain rude. I don't know why BOR goes on his show. Dave's audience is probably not going to buy Bill's book or watch his show. It's just a waste of BOR's time and an unnecessary aggrevation to him.
So he can show clips on his
April 1, 2009 - 11:00 ET by Chris NormanSo he can show clips on his show the next night and he and his guests can analyze how wonderfully he did...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Why does BOR gone on the
April 1, 2009 - 10:52 ET by balboaWhy does BOR gone on the show? Because it's great exposure for him. He wants to go up against Letterman because it'll be in the news and on blogs. It's a win-win situation, which BOR needs to combat Beck's latest surge and Dave can always use the ratings.
Bal
April 1, 2009 - 10:57 ET by SeashellYou are right. I stand corrected.
The fact that we are talking about it now proves your point.
Johnny Carson proved
April 1, 2009 - 10:15 ET by 10ksnookerYou didn't need to be a idiot to do late night commedy with style.
When Carson quit, I quit watching.
10k.... Same here. I've
April 1, 2009 - 14:27 ET by bigtimer10k....
Same here.
I've tried watching some of these shows, don't like them, there is no comparison to Carson...if there was I would watch.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Carson's Political Neutrality
April 1, 2009 - 14:39 ET by Kingfish17I saw an interview with Carson well after he retired from The Tonight Show. Sure, he was quite liberal, and proud of it. When I learned of his politics, it didn't change the way I felt about his entertainment career one little bit. He never bashed us over the head with his personal political views. He was pretty much an equal opportunity comic when it came to his jokes.
But I think there was a reason for this. The 50's, 60's, and 70's where a different time for television and entertainment in general. People had a very limited number of options when it came to television, three channels in the 50's, maybe 5 in the 60's and not much more in the 70's. Networks and entertainers couldn't afford to allienate 40-50% of their viewing audience. It would have spelled disaster.
Now, with 100's of options to choose from the market is forced to become a niche market. Would a straight down the road late-night show with no political edge even survive?
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
yes
April 1, 2009 - 19:22 ET by lotrWould a straight down the road late-night show with no political edge even survive?
In a word, yes.
It's not about being apolitical (although I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing), but rather balanced. Go ahead and make fun of Bush. But don't do it to the exclusion of those with the (D) behind their name, the current POTUS not excluded. It's very rare these days, as NB constantly reveals.
Letterman
April 1, 2009 - 10:16 ET by cvgbuckeyeI would comment about Letterman but the last time I was asked to comment about human fesces, I turned the offer down so to remain an equal opportunity commentor, I shall decline.
whats that smell?
I enjoyed the interview thoroughly!
April 1, 2009 - 10:22 ET by timotheI thought Bill did a great job of exposing Letterman last night!
However, he missed one big opportunity. At one point Letterman asked a question about Cheney plotting Iraq so his buddies could get rich. I was hoping O'Reilly would have slayed him by turning the question back around on Dave, but instead, he joined in by slamming Cheney for not appearing on his show.
He still did good, though.
"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."
→ Letterman's insulation
April 1, 2009 - 10:31 ET by Cool ArrowMy favorite part was before the interview when Letterman read off a list of comebacks (Oh yeah? Who told you that? Says who?).
I predicted to myself he would get stumped at some point and use them for comic relief. I forget the issue, but Letterman did have to reach for his gimmicks at one point.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cheney
April 1, 2009 - 10:56 ET by allanfCheney is the liberal "Darth Vader". I have yet to hear even a cogent set of allegations of what Cheneyhas done wrong.
So what do liberals say Cheney has done?
allanf
April 1, 2009 - 18:20 ET by deerjerkydaveI agree. Maybe I'm one of the last to think Cheney was one of the grown ups in the White House. The whole Scooter Libby scandal was a farce by the Dims and their propagandist media.
I agree with Cheney in being angry at Bush for not giving Libby a pardon. His arrest was the result of a witch hunt and Libby got caught in the net.
To O'Reilly, all other
April 1, 2009 - 11:18 ET by Chris NormanTo O'Reilly, all other "sins" are trumped by the mortal sin of not appearing on his show.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Even excluding his politics I find him a despicable creature.
April 1, 2009 - 10:26 ET by jazboI honestly don't understand his appeal unless it's mostly to other very angry and frustrated psychopaths. I suspect a severe emotional trauma of some sort during Letterman's childhood. I certainly don't care to know the details of it though.
Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.
*chuckle*
April 1, 2009 - 10:27 ET by katainkentwell BOR is good for something anyway.
_____________________________________________________
Obama does not perform as advertised. I'd like a refund.
Taxed Enough Already.
It's more and more painful staying up for 'Late Night' ...
April 1, 2009 - 10:44 ET by metaphorsbwithuI'd like to know which has dropped farther, Letterman's level of humor, or his viewing audience? I watched Dave for years, still think he can be funny and entertaining, but he has become unwatchable because of his attempts to translate his disgust of anyone who disagrees with liberals (Letterman insists he is an "Independent") into laughs - and with the same old tired jokes and stereotypes.
metaphorsbwithu
2 creeps chatting
April 1, 2009 - 10:51 ET by Red JeepThey both deserve each other. I'm convinced Bill O'Reilly would do an Ed Schultz if given enough money. What arrogance he displays when he claims Rush's increased audience is due to O'Reilly's ending of his radio show, not the criticism of the Democrats.
Bill O'Reilly only started his radio show when Rush went deaf in an attempt to get Rush's listeners. The 2 listeners O'Reilly had left don't account for the surge in Rush's ratings.
I think I'll move two TVs into the same room so I can not watch O'Reilly's show twice as much, and Letterman's show too.
you're right Red.....
April 1, 2009 - 11:18 ET by connman..they deserve each other. Bill's a bag of wind solely interested in the sound of his own voice. I thought it interesting when Bill said he never talks about people he hates. BS! Does Imelt and the rest of NBC which he mentions nightly not ring any bells? Speaking of which I was disappointed that BOR neglected to mention Bath tub boy when clueless Dave was going on about the Fox guys being too smart to actually believe what they were saying. Memo to Bill Blowhard, that sir was in insult!
Two creeps indeed
April 1, 2009 - 14:10 ET by Kingfish17I tried watching a little bit of BOR the other night but I was forced to turn off his show at the five minute mark when he said that the United States needed to be more like Singapore.
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
I'll never forget one
April 1, 2009 - 11:05 ET by misterbee241I'll never forget one interview BO made with Letterman. Bill asked Dave straight out if Letterman wanted the US to lose the terror war. Letterman just sat there silent, you know one of those pregnant pauses. He never really did give any kind of answer.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
That's because it's a stupid
April 1, 2009 - 11:09 ET by balboaThat's because it's a stupid question.
→ Is it?
April 1, 2009 - 11:17 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe you're right. Given the definition .
Certainly O'Reilly already knew Letterman's opinion, but wanted to expose him to the audience.
So technically, you're right. The question was stupid.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
OK
April 1, 2009 - 11:59 ET by cvgbuckeyebalboa: OK, fair enough. Now I want to ask you:
1. Prior to Der Fuhrer Obama being elected, were you rooting for the US to win the war in Iraq?
2. What do you think the of Der Fuhrer's policy regarding the war in Afghanistan?
3. What do you think of Der Fuhrer's renaming "The War on Terror?
Ca and CVG,
April 1, 2009 - 12:18 ET by UpNorthI'm sure you guys noticed that whenever you ask a liberal a question, trying to pin them down to make a definitive statement yes or no, they usually flee, hands over their ears, screaming "NO NO NO"?
I'd have to guess that Balboa's answer to #1 would be "NO".
I'd have to guess that Balboa's answer to #2 would be"Not in my name, but now that the Obamunist is in charge, it's ok, maybe".
As to #3, I'm sure he's happy with it, as the GWOT was GWB's war, which was illegal, according to the libs, right up to the time the Obamunist decided to stay in Afghanistan and not surrender in Iraq.
NO NO NO! (Didn't want to
April 1, 2009 - 12:53 ET by balboaNO NO NO!
(Didn't want to disappoint someone as prescient as you.)
Yes
April 1, 2009 - 13:00 ET by cvgbuckeyeUpnorth
Among other common traits, most liberals are not happy having a yellow streak up their own backs, they want everyone else to have one with them. Their approach to the world has always had an (affeminate?) tone to it, unless you haven't noticed.
There is a very good reason that masculine world leadership of humanity is Biblical. If left to the liberals, the argument regarding a national language would already be settled: it would be German.
Well, upon second thought, we would probably have to go back about 250 years and it would be split between Old English and French.
Stunning analysis. Just
April 1, 2009 - 13:51 ET by balboaStunning analysis. Just tremendous work.
1. I was really hoping we'd
April 1, 2009 - 13:53 ET by balboa1. I was really hoping we'd lose. I was looking forward to a USA ruled by Islamic law.
2. I don't bother myself with details such as "policy."
3. There's a war on terror?
OH thank goodness
April 1, 2009 - 14:12 ET by cvgbuckeyebal
Thank goodness you're still alive. We got worried when you took so long to answer. We were afraid that you had finally thrust your head up Der Fuhrer's backside so far that you fell all the way in.
How's that for a stunning analysis you ornery rascal you!
Bill O'Reilly is
April 1, 2009 - 11:24 ET by marpelBill O'Reilly is annoying. I used to watch him, but he aggravates me now; interrupts the guests, talks about himself too much, etc. And, David Letterman is exactly like him, except he used to be funny. That's probably why Letterman doesn't like him...he's too much like himself.
Nonetheless, I'm glad I missed it.....a bunch of bloviating...
This Letterman is an
April 1, 2009 - 11:32 ET by MozillaThis Letterman is an unwatchable joke. We want a good people as President and in Congress and not this stupidity that the Far left has become. Letterman's support for this regime in the White House is horrible. This isn't even the Democrat party of the past. These far left vicious people aren't working for the common person. They are far from helping us. Letterman supports an idiot as Teleprompter in Chief. Obama has made more gaffe's than Bush. Memo to Letterman..your guy is ten time worse than Bush. I don't need to watch Letterman's propaganda. I am boycotting him.
Bill O is doing a good job exposing Liberal bias on his show. So keep up the good work. This interview highlights the elitist thinking of the left. They have become way too irrational for me.
That is just plain rude
April 1, 2009 - 11:38 ET by Calypso Jonesfor a host to call his guest a goon. Obviously letterman is envious of Bill's success as a writer and his appeal to a large audience. In my opinion, Letterman has no right to criticize the lifestyle of ANY
ONE else considering his own.
O'Reilly's style can be
April 1, 2009 - 11:40 ET by EugeniaO'Reilly's style can be very annoying, but he does perform a service
in exposing criminals in whatever sector he finds them, whether they're dispicable judges who let child rapists free or GE CEOs who do business with Iran who killed hundreds of American soldiers. Exposing George Tiller the Baby Killer was crucial. Americans need to see the faces of these people and their criminal acts.
Why?
April 1, 2009 - 11:51 ET by slickwillie2001Why does O'Reilly do it? Because every time he does he beats the crap out of Letterman. Granted, Letterman is so dimwitted, that's not hard to do.
But folks, Leno is really no better. Leno has some personality and fewer mental problems than Letterman, but he is just as far left as Letterman. His latest schtick is showing fake clips of what President George W. Bush is doing in retirement, and showing Steve Bridges doing goofy physical comedy. Craig Ferguson is even worse, and the new kid whose name I forget is just as liberal. I can't comment on O'Brien because I can't watch him. Late night talk shows are owned by the far left. I would not be surprised to hear that Letterman is on the morning talking point conference calls. And none of these 'comedians' will lay a hand on the messiah.
Call a Medic
April 1, 2009 - 12:06 ET by Rusty WeissI used to love Letterman. Always considered him the more talented of the late night comedians. His goofiness always felt more real to me than the canned stand-up style of Leno.
That said, it is becoming glaringly apparent that in recent years, Letterman is beginning to succumb to a disease that doctors commonly refer to as Olbermanningitis.
The disease is marked by 3 common symptoms:
Dementia/Delusions of Adequacy (more commonly referred to as 'liberalism')
An unhealthy obsession with a more talented member of the media/entertainment genre
Overcompensation of ego due to constant realization that one's ratings are always second fiddle to their rivals (Olbermann to O'Reilly, Letterman to Leno)
I urge Mr. Letterman to induce vomitting by watching either his own show or Countdown, and immediately call for medical assistance.
Rusty
Letterman
April 1, 2009 - 12:21 ET by SapphireI haven't watched Letterman in years (except in clips I see on the news). But he is sooooo hypocritical (common to the leftists) he stinks. Can you believe the punches he made at Palin's daughter and her boyfriend, making fun of them because the boyfriend now has decided not to marry her. Really? Letterman has a child with his girlfriend about 9 years ago and finally married her last week. His business, but then Palin's daughter not marrying is also her business.
Well I'm glad Bill O'Reilly cleared up a few points
April 1, 2009 - 12:22 ET by nwahsBill O'Reilly cleared up a few points that have been confused here.
Rush Limbaugh's ratings surge is because of O'Reilly getting out of talk radio four weeks ago. According to O'Reilly, he was in direct competition with Rush. Also, O'Reilly notes while he is a journalist, Rush is simply a talk show host and entertainer.
And the operator says forty cents more for the next three minutes
Trying to stir the pot
April 1, 2009 - 14:20 ET by Kingfish17It's becoming more apparent that BOR is employing the KO tactics of trying to get publicity on someone elses radio/television show by denegrating said person. He is trying this more and more with "his friend Rush Limbaugh", but I doubt that Rush will take the bait.
(And I think BOR has broken the 1.00 correlation of mentioning on every show that he has an ivy league degree.)
"When will Barack Obama apologize to the American people for destroying their once great nation?" - MSM 2012
No, I doubt O'Reillys
April 1, 2009 - 14:36 ET by BDNo, I doubt O'Reillys departure from talk radio had much to do with it. he has been ably replaced by Fred Thompson who took over what limited audience he still had.
I find the Limbaughs audience increase has likely been due to the "Besieged Nature" of the public which has a large percentage of people who see the actions of the current administation as anathema and seek somone to validate their observations. Historically, Limbaughs audience has contracted when conservativesa re in power and expanded when the liberal loons run amok.
This thread needs a little truth....
April 1, 2009 - 21:07 ET by timotheFirst, I don't know how the posters in this thread can claim Bill O'Reilly was crediting himself for Rush's ratings. You'd have to take BOR's comments completely out of context to draw that conclusion.
BOR was trying to infer that his radio ratings would suffer even worse if he still had to compete with Limbaugh. He "got out" at just the right time, meaning, he would have been crushed even worse had he stayed.
Second, there is no bad blood between Limbaugh and O'Reilly, at least not from Rush's side. He went out of his way to thank BOR for stating the truth about his war with the Democratic party. BOR, for his part, will sometimes attempt to marginalize Rush's influence, but he has never taken Rush on about his ideology.
Guys like Letterman and nwahs, who attempt to pigeon-hole Rush, BOR, and Hannity into one mind and one viewpoint, are completely ignorant by choice. This doesn't surprise me as I have long believed it is next to impossible to study conservatism with an open mind, then patently reject its principals as group think. In truth, the group think comes from those who attempt to marginalize and besmirch the character of conservatives rather than debate the merits of conservative ideas.
"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."
Oh I get it
April 2, 2009 - 11:28 ET by nwahsBOR words weren't nuanced properly.Everything ditto is properly and carefully nuanced over a period of at least 3 weeks of sponsored shows :)
"Now today we'll discuss the third word I so brilliantly uttered."
This isn't about conservatism, its about dittoism - there's a HUGE difference, and if you think its about conservatism, you could fit what you know about conservatism in a thimble. I have no doubt you've learned more about self promotion than conservatism from Rush and Bill O'Reilly. You're confusing self promotion with conservatism.
And the operator says forty cents more for the next three minutes
Typical....
April 2, 2009 - 12:01 ET by timothe"...you could fit what you know about conservatism in a thimble..."
When you can't back up your claims with ideas and truths, then smear the opponent. It's cool. I'm sure it makes you feel better, nwahs. And that's all that counts, right?
"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."
Let me get this straight
April 2, 2009 - 12:51 ET by nwahsYou suggest I'm ignorant by choice, yet are offended when I suggest you are confusing conservatism with self promotion? You're not the first poster to do something like this. I've seen posters call me everything in the book then accuse me of ad hominem without missing a beat. Only thing I can figure is people don't read what they post, which is a little strange.
And the operator says forty cents more for the next three minutes
O'Reilly and Olbermann are
April 1, 2009 - 12:22 ET by HeaterManO'Reilly and Olbermann are both douchenozzles. Please find someone who's not an asshat to represent conservative views. I like Pat Buchanan, but I guess he's too old.
Why not Monica Crowley? She's way hotter than Ann Coulter, plus she can actually back her sh1t up.
Please don't compare Odorman with...
April 2, 2009 - 10:29 ET by jawebster1O'Reilly. O'Reilly may be wrong on some of his opinions but at least he bases his opinions on truth and not on lies. As for Crowley and Coulter, they are both attractive and they are both Conservative. That makes them equally hot. Hoover? Not so much. Jim Webster
Agreed
April 2, 2009 - 11:54 ET by lotrO'Reilly = Patriot (by and large)
Olbermann = Pinhead (24/7)
BOR B*!ch-slaps Letterman
April 1, 2009 - 12:24 ET by steve2526Because in my mind I think of you as a goon. But then when you look
at this picture, look at how sweet and adorable that kid is and it
breaks my heart because I have a sweet and adorable kid like that and I
think, "Oh great! What if he too becomes a goon!
Better to be a goon that a washed-up liberal tool, Dave.
That was fun to watch, even though it was clearly a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
A member of the right-wing media
I had forgotten why I never
April 1, 2009 - 12:53 ET by d1carterI had forgotten why I never watch Letterman anymore, now I remember...
O'Reilly vs Letterman
April 1, 2009 - 12:54 ET by TheCynicI love seeing O'Reilly on Letterman. I also like O'Reilly's monologues. I hate his talk show but then, I hate the talk show format in general.
But I love him when he's on someone else's show because the pressure is off. He takes time with his answers and you can see how sharp he is when it comes to political matters. Letterman blows his top whenever politics come up as a topic and he always looks like a bafoon next to O'Reilly. Letterman just can't keep his cool when you disagree with him on a serious matter.
Which is exactly how almost every liberal I have ever known also behaves. Odd coincidence, that.
I agree
April 1, 2009 - 17:42 ET by general companyBOR's Talking Points are pretty good, some one else said it already, but BOR serves an importaint function. His support for the kids, and some of his chasing around thugs and crooks I think provides a service that we dont get enough of. I know some dont like it, but some of these folks need exposing, I would rather a nut like Springer was doing it.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Well
April 1, 2009 - 13:24 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI can believe that little davy is stoopud enough to believe what he says.
The first shot davy took should have been answered with;
"Well, I've been number one for 100 months, and you have never been number one at anything".
http://gjresult.com
Letterman Enjoys It
April 1, 2009 - 14:36 ET by ledurchiO'Reilly's latest joust with Letterman is a perfect example of the "Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty - and the pig likes it" axiom. Letterman caters to those who have reverence for nothing of consequence. His audience is most appreciative when values are mocked, not so much that they agree with Letterman, but that their measure as a person is so much more lacking compared to someone who has values.
Letterman's show is a car wreck.
Letterman
April 1, 2009 - 15:22 ET by northoneis a PINHEAD!!
If you listen to Part 2 of the video that P.J. provided, you
April 1, 2009 - 16:08 ET by Rush Fanrealize that David Letterman and Bill O'Reilly agree on some important items:
{*} Going into Iraq was a mistake.
Letterman: "500,000 Iraqs killed. 5000 American men and women killed. For what reason? To get rid of Sadam Hussein? To turn that country into a hot bed of terrorism where it hadn't been a hot bed of terrorism before?"
O'Reilly: "I'm not going to defend the Iraq war. I don't think it was worth going there. And I've said that on the air many times. I don't think the blood and treasure was worth it...... It was a mistake. A historical mistake."
{*} On President Bush
Letterman: "I didn't realize the deficit that this country had established for itself or been forced into for eight years until the previous tenant had left the house. .... To me, the United States government was essentially closed for eight years"
O'Reilly: "I think they could have been a lot more open about what they did, and I don't think President Bush is going to go down in history. I think he will be in the lower tier Presidents."
{*} On Vice President Cheney
Letterman: "Let's talk about Cheney. Cheney's the venile one right?"
O'Reilly: "I don't have much use for the Vice President. I don't like the way he handled the whole situation. He wouldn't come on my program. I asked him a million times to come on."
-------------
Neither Letterman or O'Reilly seem to be aware of, or place much importance on, the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that Sadam Hussein and his sons killed, tortured, raped and maimed, or the support Sadam Hussein provided to terrorists.
I understand Letterman. To me, Letterman represents the lack of critical thinking and intelligence that is common on the left.
I don't know what to think about Bill O'Reilly. But if he doesn't understand the importance of ridding the world of Hussein and his sons, and giving the Iraqi people the opportunity for freedom, he's not my kind of person.
===================================
No wonder the country is in a mess;
half the people are below median
intelligence.
Hi RF.... Just wanted to
April 1, 2009 - 16:26 ET by bigtimerHi RF....
Just wanted to say thank-you here....you spoke for me....and then some.
I feel the exact same way regarding all of this.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
To me, it's the support of
April 1, 2009 - 16:30 ET by balboaTo me, it's the support of terrorism that stands as the reason to take action, even though that's not how it was sold.
He was evil, but there are PLENTY of evil leaders across the globe that we do nothing about, seemingly.
Once again, I must cuation
April 1, 2009 - 17:12 ET by BDOnce again, I must cuation you that the administration put forth all 16 rationale for going to war, it was the press who focused on a singular issue.
I find this
April 1, 2009 - 18:17 ET by UpNorthshocking, but I agree, the selling job, of S. Hussein's support of terrorism was shoddy, at best. And, Hussein did have opportunities to avoid all that fell on his head. He did use chemical weapons, more than once, and the UN wrung their hands, he did violate so many UN res's and the UN wrung their hands. He did fire on Coalition aircraft, in violation of a cease-fire HE asked for, and the coalition dropped a few bombs, and early on, bombed a building after telling the Iraqis we were going to bomb the building, giving them time to move everything in the building. There was more than enough justification for the Iraq invasion, there was a bad job in articulating why there was enough justification.
Rush fan.. indeed some serious idiot beliefs they share
April 1, 2009 - 16:33 ET by Gary HallA few musings on the points you mentioned.
Iraq. I think a safe bet would be that Saddam's existence in Iraq had already resulted in something around 2 million human deaths prior to the March beginning of the end of Saddam's reign of terror. The deaths began long before Pres. Carter gave the nod of approval to Saddam for Iraq's invasion of Iran which cost around 1 million lives. The Clinton administration and human rights groups are on record that over 1/2 million children died during the Clinton years from the sanctions alone. Clinton had 5 named major military operations in Iraq; largest being the 5 days of Desert Fox (for which he just bombed the ____ out of them, and then abandoned any concerted Iraq policy. Hundreds of thousands of others were slaughtered by Saddam, and hundreds of thousads of others were killed between the Gulf War, and 8 years of bombing under Clinton.
1/2 million Iraqi's killed, since 2003, he said? Not by us. Besides do a count. On a handful or two of horrible suicide bombings carried out by thugs and terrorists, we'd hear about 80, 100, 125, and on one or two occassions over 200 people being killed. To substantiate 500,000 killed in 6 years time, that would be an average of 228 people killed each and every day for 6 years? The media was quick to report every single attack and quick to provide the numbers - we must be missing thousands of news accounts.
The deficit. By the end of 2003 (the 2003 deficit was $378 billion), $1.3Trillion of projected surpluses had dissapeared. Of that amount, just over $300 billion is assignable to the tax cuts and to the Iraq War. The US budget was driven deep back into defict spending mostly because of the economic fallout from the dot.com bubble crash of March, 2000 and the cost of 9/11 (including the economic fallout from). Bush can certainly be held partly responsible for a good bit of the deficit that followed - but any logical thought process would quickly reveal that had Gore been president, that either the deficits would have been worse, or the economy would have never recovered as it did for a number of years.
Talking about the Vice President? Let's talk about the current one, and just how embarassing this drunk can be.
(;~> gary
that was another point that I didn't like
April 1, 2009 - 21:18 ET by timotheThe claim of 500,000 Iraqi deaths has been debunked early and often. The actual number is just under 95,000 over 6 years. Yet BOR didn't take him on with that point.
I sorta understand why, though. (which is yet another reason why BOR and Rush cannot be compared to each other) BOR did not want to get into a "he said, she said" discussion with Dave, despite the loaded questions. Instead, he wanted to use humor to get his points across so he could win over the audience. (Rush would never compromise on a position to win over anyone.) Although I disagree with BOR's tactic, I can't condemn him as a populist. He has articulated his views on The Factor enough for me to know that he does not hate Bush nor disagree with Bush's decision to go into Iraq.
"Contempt prior to investigation is ignorance."
timothe.. very good points
April 2, 2009 - 17:42 ET by Gary Hall"..The claim of 500,000 Iraqi deaths has been debunked early and often.."
Yea, I agree that it has; however, and this is a big however, the information did not get debunked by out national mainstream media - which would never correct any guest that claimed the outrageous number. And while I very much got into your analysis of O'Reilly - and I suspect agree with that angle - it's really too bad that someone with his voice, just doesn't seem to have a deep concern about correcting such garbage, when it's staring him in the face. I like the guy quite a bit - but he still does not do his homework.
anyhow - (;~> gary
Re If you listen...
April 1, 2009 - 17:06 ET by slickwillie2001Re Letterman and the national debt. O'Reilly could have offered to take Letterman down to the Times Square 'national debt clock' to show him that it's not been a big secret. Maybe Dave can't see it through the tinted windows of his limo.
And re the 500,000 dead in Iraq (?) it sounds like Dave may have accepted the nonsense liberal activist numbers. Some of this was started by the British medical journal The Lancet, since debunked. If you do an honest accounting of average deaths per year because of Saddam, and deaths since, there are more alive today than would have been had Saddam stayed. Also, these fuzzy liberal numbers obscure the fact that terror bombings in Iraq are responsible for the majority of the dead, whatever that number is.
Too bad O'Reilly could't debunk some of this nonsense.
BOR has no palotas. He
April 1, 2009 - 17:04 ET by ConservativeRexBOR has no palotas. He should have hit Letterman up about Bristol Palin. BOR is such a "good guy" towards children, right?
Well, I seem to remember Letterman just hammering the Palin girl and by extension her mother Gov Palin, for being a single mom. Letterman's kid was born to a single mom.
If liberals didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
Letterman's 500,000 number should have been challenged,
April 1, 2009 - 18:31 ET by daveinbocabut BOR either doesn't know it's less than a quarter of that # or cleverly tried to move the conversation into the final phase. That was when the liberal audience finally realized that BOR was slowly cleaning the Dunceboy's clock, and DL was visibly non-plussed. The applause for BOR was equal or louder than to DL's weak cheap shot responses.
BOR is a bore now that he is so self-absorbed, humorously [or not?] ascribing Rush's gigantic boost in audience numbers with the demise of his own unlistened-to radio talkfest.
And DL signaled the current version of Russian Association of Proletarian Entertainers [RAPE] on the JournoList that Glenn Beck is the new target, now that the Pravda-on-the-Hudson had a big front-page above-the-fold story and DL swallowed his party line all the way to his ample anus.
I checked a Salon link under your link on Memeorandum, the libtard's guide to the commentariat, and they didn't have a reference to the DL smackdown by BOR. Methinks they know when silence is the better part of valor.
O'Reilly is #1
April 1, 2009 - 21:44 ET by ConservativeMissourianO'Reilly won this exchange hands down. Letterman knows he can play the crowd on his show because of their liberal bias. So when O'Reilly brings up good points, Letterman just makes a joke and then goes on to the next subject. I don't ever see Letterman going on The Factor. He can dish it out but can't take it, and has no real solutions to any problems. He just likes to complains like most other liberals that have a stage to be heard from. Letterman called O'Reilly a "goon." Good argument Dave!
Re O'Reilly
April 1, 2009 - 23:07 ET by slickwillie2001Don't forget, it's Letterman's show and his director controls the 'applause' sign, and they are mostly the typical Manhattan free-ticket crowd.
Re Rush Limbaugh, it was Letterman that brought up the topic of Rush, not O'Reilly. It was maybe a little pretentious of BOR to claim that his departure from radio is somewhat (?) responsible for Rush's increased ratings, but for all I know there may be some truth there.
I never watched this
April 2, 2009 - 00:15 ET by RR GOPI never watched this jackass to begin with...just clips of him on other shows, and sometimes his opening monologue because I was too tired, lazy or otherwise occupied to change the channel.
Gotta love Bill. He is one of the few out there that sticks up for Conservative values and does it well...and he does strive to be fair which is annoying sometimes, because the Leftist talking heads have no compunction to
Also, Bill is a well-educated Conservative that makes the Left feel uncomfortable, because according to their propaganda, Conservatives have little education beyond the eighth grade.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
RR GOP - Bill O'Reilly is no conservative I am familiar with.
April 2, 2009 - 12:58 ET by Rush FanYou couldn't have watched the videos, especially the second video, and come to the conclusion that O'Reilly is a conservative.
If you don't want to watch the video, than at least look at some of the conversation between Letterman and O'Reilly that I posted above.
You and I are fans of George W. Bush. I also believe that Dick Cheney served his country very well throughout his life in government. I don't know how you feel about overturning Sadam Hussein, but I believe it was the best thing to happen since the creation of peanut butter and jelly.
Bill O'Reilly turns thumbs down on all of the above. Again, he is no conservative I know, and certainly not a conservative that Rush Limbaugh would recognize. Bill O'Reilly is as conservative as Colin Powell (who as you know supported Barack Obama).
It is my opinion that Bill O'Reilly leans a little right of center. But Bill O'Reilly doesn't support conservatism. He supports O'Reillyism. Bill O'Reilly is primarily just out for Bill O'Reilly.
If he can go on Letterman, or The View, or any liberal TV show and tell these liberals who hate Bush that he doesn't care for Bush either, than he will do so to sell his books and be asked back on these shows by his liberal hosts.
What Rush Limbaugh said about moderates such as John McCain and Colin Powell applies to Bill O'Reilly to a tee:
"Powell's not a Republican. McCain's not a Republican. These guys are not even mavericks. They are Washingtonians. Washingtonians have their own culture and their own desires, and it is to matter. They don't care who's in power, they just want to be closely associated with whoever is. That's the name of the game and they want press adulation. They want to be loved and adored by the media, they want fawning treatment, they want to be thought of as something special, unique, dignified and so forth, and that's the Washington establishment."
I don't understand why any Republican...
April 2, 2009 - 10:09 ET by jawebster1would want to watch Letterman. I watched him gratuitiously insult Rush when Rush was a guest on his show. That was years ago and I haven't watched since unless you count the clips they run on O'Reilly's show. I listen to his insults and to me it sounds like he is talking about himself. Goon? If ever a goon walked the earth, he is it. Jim Webster