Well, I think that they truly believe that America is the single biggest danger to the modern world.
I don't think, Bill, that they believe that they have a dog in this terrorism fight. I think they think it's a fight between two groups of fundamentalist, the fundamentalists who are the Islamists. They don't much care for them.
But then the fundamentalists in the Bush administration, who have this messianic view of the world that they can make the world in their own image. And I think they're more petrified of the Bush fundamentalism, as they refer to it, than they are the Islamists.
Yikes. That about says it. O’Reilly then asked a pivotal question: “Do you really believe, though, that the New York Times, Sulzberger, Keller, all of these people over there, want the United States to lose in Iraq?” Ingraham answered:
Well, I think a win for the United States is not going to be great for the New York Times, because they have been so committed to "America is on a wrong-headed path in Iraq. America is trying to force things in Iraq. And America has blown it in Iraq."
If Iraq ends up ultimately, years from now, looking back on it as success, well, it's like the New York Times on their views in the 1980s...about the no nukes movement. They've been proven on occasion after occasion after occasion to get it wrong. They're getting it wrong on immigration. They're getting it wrong on terrorism.
O’Reilly then pointed out a seemingly logical complaint about the Times given its recent behavior: “To actually put your editorial position above the welfare of the country and the war. Because everybody -- everybody knows if Iraq becomes a democratic state and terrorism is defeated there, it's the better thing for America and the better thing for the world.” Everybody but the folks at The Times, Bill.
What follows is a full transcript of this report, along with a video link courtesy of Crooks and Liars.
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, stated in the "Talking Points Memo", I am convinced that some in the American media are constantly undermining the Bush administering and by extension, the war on terror. But as always, I could be wrong.
Joining us now from Washington, a lady who is rarely wrong, and she's told me that on many occasion, syndicated radio talk show host Laura Ingraham. I was impressed by Marvin Kalb's spirited and sincere point of view at the top of the program that the New York Times, the national treasure, protecting our rights, making sure that the crazy politicians don't get out of hand. He really, really believes it, Kalb. He really does. He sees it so opposite from the way I see it and I think the way you see it.
Is there any way that we can convince people like Professor Kalb that there's something more in play here?
LAURA INGRAHAM, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don't think so, Bill, because I think Marvin Kalb is a very nice man, and I know he was your professor and he didn't fail you. So there must be something.
O'REILLY: It was a pass-fail. I didn't take any chances on it.
INGRAHAM: I got the view from -- in the makeup room, by the way, that you got a B plus but a very strong B plus from him. That's what he told me.
But look, he believes that the New York Times is an absolute national treasure, and the New York Times believes that it truly is being patriotic when it publishes the banking records that, you know, of story when it publishes a photo of the secretary of defense's vacation home, as it did last week.
O'REILLY: Yes, I know, that was awful. Awful.
INGRAHAM: That was bizarre.
O'REILLY: It was awful.
INGRAHAM: I mean, they showed the security camera in the photos. They think they're being patriotic when every day page after page after page is devoted to what's wrong with America and what America is doing wrong. That's their vision of being patriotic. We have -- I have a different vision of what being patriotic is.
O'REILLY: But what is driving it? I mean, you must have thought about this because you do talk about it on your radio show quite often. What drives it?
Now, I cited the three columnists, Dowd, Rich and Herbert, and I could have brought in Krugman, the socialist economic thing. Every day. They hate Bush, these people. They late him. It's personal with them. That's what they do.
INGRAHAM: He's (inaudible).
O'REILLY: There's nothing. He never does anything good, ever. Every column is a smash. Every column is he's horrible. But is it more than just "I hate George W. Bush"? Is there more to it than that?
INGRAHAM: Well, I think that they truly believe that America is the single biggest danger to the modern world.
I don't think, Bill, that they believe that they have a dog in this terrorism fight. I think they think it's a fight between two groups of fundamentalist, the fundamentalists who are the Islamists. They don't much care for them.
But then the fundamentalists in the Bush administration, who have this messianic view of the world that they can make the world in their own image. And I think they're more petrified of the Bush fundamentalism, as they refer to it, than they are the Islamists.
O'REILLY: That's very good. That's a very good analysis, messianic thing that they feel that Bush is some kind of guy who's a religious nut, you know.
INGRAHAM: Yes. Reads the Bible every night.
O'REILLY: And then, by extension, it all goes through that. I mean, the gay marriage, the abortion issue, all of these issues.
So if they can break him down, if they can break him down on the war on terror, the war in Iraq, if they can make his strongest card weak, then they can beat him on the others.
Do you really believe, though, that the New York Times, Sulzberger, Keller, all of these people over there, want the United States to lose in Iraq?
INGRAHAM: Well, I think a win for the United States is not going to be great for the New York Times, because they have been so committed to "America is on a wrong-headed path in Iraq. America is trying to force things in Iraq. And America has blown it in Iraq."
If Iraq ends up ultimately, years from now, looking back on it as success, well, it's like the New York Times on their views in the 1980s...
O'REILLY: Was wrong.
INGRAHAM: ... about the no nukes movement. They've been proven on occasion after occasion after occasion to get it wrong. They're getting it wrong on immigration. They're getting it wrong on terrorism.
O'REILLY: To actually put your editorial position above the welfare of the country and the war. Because everybody -- everybody knows if Iraq becomes a democratic state and terrorism is defeated there, it's the better thing for America and the better thing for the world.
But see, I can't bring myself to think that Sulzberger and Keller are that venal.
INGRAHAM: I don't think they think it's that important. I think when you listen to Sulzberger's graduation speech that he gave at SUNY New Paltz about a month ago, it was the most negative, pessimistic Vietnam-censored speech that I think -- one of the most negative speeches I've every heard from a journalist or a media figure in the United States.
And that's really how they view the world today, Bill. It's not morning in America; it is evening in America. And there's no end in sight.
O'REILLY: OK.
INGRAHAM: And just to follow on our other point, I think what their goal is, you know, global liberalism or socialism, whatever you want it call it.
O'REILLY: Progressive, progressive.
INGRAHAM: Whatever you want to call it.
O'REILLY: Secular progressivism. That is the goal. And I believe you're right again. I think Sulzberger is a true believer; he hires other true believers. But I can't make Marvin Kalb believe that page after page after page, when you go to the movie section, you've got A.O. Scott, far left, Alessandra Stanley, television, far left. Book reviewer, Noam Chomsky is, you know, the greatest book in the world.
INGRAHAM: I don't even get reviewed in the New York Times.
O'REILLY: They hate you. You and I -- you and I are Huns. I guess you're a Hunette. I'm a Hun.
INGRAHAM: I'm happy to be a Hun.
O'REILLY: Yes. So we're not important. But when you -- when you present the evidence to a guy like Marvin Kalb, who I don't think is a...
INGRAHAM: Well, he doesn't believe it.
O'REILLY: Doesn't accept it.
INGRAHAM: Remember, The New York Times presents his world view. I don't blame Marvin Kalb for saying that "thank God for the New York Times because the New York Times more often than that not will represent what his world view is.
O'REILLY: I think it's losing a little cache. I think the paper is losing a little cache.
INGRAHAM: But Bill, can I say one thing?
O'REILLY: Yes.
INGRAHAM: Dexter Filkins is one of those reports along with John Burns in Baghdad doing a great job. Really doing a great job.
O'REILLY: They're good. They're good. They have talent over there but overridden by the culture of the place. If you go in tomorrow and say, "Hey, Laura and Bill, did you see them last night on 'The Factor'? They were great." You're out the door.
Thanks Laura, as always. In just a few moments, Greta on the nasty fight developing between the parents of a man who disappeared on a cruise and his widow. Hide the children. Our report, coming next.
