Bill O'Reilly uses bogus facts to shup up a guest

[Dan474834]

Richard Dawkins, one of the most intelligent people on Earth nowadays, said O'Reilly should be fired. I agree.

[erik4727]

SHUP UP!

[JustinLB82]

This video is not representative of it's title, but anyhow, Bill O'Reilly is too U.S. major news corps what Don Cherry is to the CBC in Canada. Why do any of you take him seriously? Let him have his word cause he's old and we believe in equality like that, but it doesn't mean you have to consider his bigoted outdated opinions.

[maggosh]

@JustinLB82 No, no, see, that argument's invalid. Don Cherry is enjoyable and entertaining. O'Reilly is a fascist liar who should have never become a journalist.

[hefnicity]

So, how is asking a question using bogus facts to shut up a guest? Really? Is that the best you could do?

[marinefrenzy]

Lol, America has never been a republic for over sixty years. Just because it was founded as a republic, doesn't make it a republic. It's actually fascism now.

[karn33333]

oreilly always uses incorrect information to shut up a guest.

[bmw200000]

fuck u bill

[coryepps]

1. He said, "What if..." sound hypothetical to me, not factual...

2. I wasn't aware that "shup" was a word...

[leafsfan9917]

he said WHAT IF, that isnt a fact that was a very real possibility at the time

[jgestiot]

@leafsfan9917 What if you are a child molester? What if you are a potential murderer? What if you are a dick wasting everyone's time here? oh, I did not accuse you of anything, I just said "what if"....

[leafsfan9917]

@jgestiot no I am talking about context... something said before it is disproven is contexually possible...

[jgestiot]

@leafsfan9917 You're losing your mind here. Where I come from, you need to prove allegations. You cannot just sit back and wait for others to prove that something does not exist. You have to prove that WMDs existed because you can never prove that they don't exist. You must be one of the idiots who supported the invasion of Iraq.

[leafsfan9917]

@jgestiot I cannot really comment on supporting the invasion of Iraq because that would be retrospectivley, so therefore your accusation of that is invalid, at the time of the invasion I didnt really have a valid oppinion on it so it cant be said if I supported it or not, and is it wrong to take pre-emptive measures to ensure that something terrible does not happen? is it wrong to do what you believe is the best thing to protect innocent people and stop an injustice? no it is not...

[jgestiot]

@leafsfan9917 One of the great advantages of retrospectively considering events is that you learn from them. The dicks who supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan need to do a lot of retrospective stuff. If the pre-emptive measures are something terrible, you have not avoided something terrible, you made it happen. You caused it.

[leafsfan9917]

@jgestiot well retrospectivly it wasnt a good thing... but at the time there would have been no way of knowing that, just as there is no way of knowing how afghanistan is turning out (by the way I dont like the american approach to things, it has gotten a lot more violent since they increased the number of troops) and pre-emptive actions are in concept not necisarilly bad although they have the potential to be, please dont get angry with me I dont dislike you just disagree with you...

[humparepatta]

@leafsfan9917 haha you gotto stop watching Don Cherry, he has no clue about world politics and no he never won a Stanley cup either although he had one of the greatest defensemen in Bobby Orr, why? cause he's a bone head

[MrGreenPoop1000]

@jgestiot Saddam Hussein was a murderer. Good riddance to him.

[bizarrrr]

@leafsfan9917 sounds intelligent... but it isn't. this way you can justify even genocide because you had the "feeling" that the targeted ethnicity would have otherwise destroyed the rest of mankind. that doesn't make sense to me.

[seanymo]

@leafsfan9917 i am with you. The intelligence was saying that there was an imminent threat to america. Therefore it seemed the smart thing to do was attack first. If someone has cancer and the doctor believes there is a chance of it spreading and become a fatal condition the doctor would operate and remove the cancer. Pre emptive measures are aimed at neutralising the situation with the intelligence at hand before the situation gets out of control and irreversible.

[MrGreenPoop1000]

@jgestiot Various Intelligence agencies outside of the U.S. believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Based upon that, they invaded.

There's no crime.

[jgestiot]

@MrGreenPoop1000 Rubbish. There was more evidence against the presence of WMDs in Iraq than anything that suggested Saddam might have some. People like you try to rewrite history a long time after the event. There were books published by experts proving that if Saddam had any WMDs they were useless.

[jaffey2006]

@leafsfan9917 hahaha damn dude you got fucking owned

[jaffey2006]

@leafsfan9917 hahaha damn dude you got fucking owned

[AlanAyazyam]

I hate when people shup me up.

[DitchPlainsMusic]

they main question here is, Jgestiot you had it right, what gives America the right to have WMD's and not the middle east? we are not the police of the world obviously contrary to popular opinion

[Hanz780]

WMD's are NOT nuclear weapons. They are any weapons biological or nuclear. Specifically in the case of Iraq, we called them biological

[jgestiot]

And we also knew that 95% of Saddam's biological weapons were either destroyed or had expired. That's in Scott Ritter's book and it was published well before the invasion in 2003

[shockwaveization]

@jgestiot lol..wmd expiration dates?

[jgestiot]

@shockwaveization Yes, WMDs expire. The biological stuff does not stay active forever. The Americans knew that a large portion of his weapons were not potent at all.

[KekiEscobar305]

Love The Miami Herald :) Mostly left wing unlike this bullshit ass show...

[brownjr26]

Being the most popular news show the past decade has nothing to do with being rational or understanding history. O'Reilly has incredible charisma and that is why he succeeds. I wish people would smarten up and not accept his word as gospel.

[KyeSoze]

Did you really just try and make fun of me for not having your Youtube posting skills??? Quite proud of that achievement, are you? Well I hope they gave you a ribbon or something because you are what america is all about my friend!!

[KyeSoze]

I fully understood what your point was. And further understood that you could not ascertain my original point, which is why I made it very clear. The rewriting of history is: how everyone (I'm sure including you) were stating it as fact that saddam had WMDs (as in chemical weapons), possibly biological weapons, and was pursuing nuclear weapons to such an extent, that at the end of Gulf War 1, they were over a decade closer than we predicted. But now act like you knew they didn't all along.

[KyeSoze]

A nuclear weapon is a WMD. The reason behind the invasion of Iraq is the same as whats going on with Iran. A country is hell bent on having nuclear weapons and keeps working toward that end; until we call their bluff. Shortly before the invasion the inspectors were attempting to do their job, but they were still being resisted by saddam.

[jgestiot]

A nuclear weapon is a WMD but ntot all WMDs are nuclear. That was my point and you probably do not even understand why I made it. You are an idiot rewriting history. Shortly before the invasion, the inspectors were doing their job. And what gives America the right to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? How about you open your eyes and learn how threads work here rather than always posting a new thread.

[KyeSoze]

Most countries have WMDs? Only 9 have successfully denotated a nuclear weapon thus far. Israel is believed to have them but has never confirmed it. Iran may be getting closer. But you are missing the point. Saddam agreed to not have them AND to give inspectors complete access to all sites, which he refused to do time and time again. Inspectors stated they believed he was using stalling tatics to move forbidden material and avoid detection.

[jgestiot]

You've lost your mind. Saddam never had nuclear weapons. So if you equate WMDs with nuclear weapons as you just did, then what was the invasion of Iraq about? You are failing a basic historical understanding of the weapons inspectors and sanctions regimes in Iraq. Saddam had the right to have enough of the games played by the Americans and British, killing thousands of children. Were the inspectors in Iraq doing their job shortly before the invasion?

[KyeSoze]

My facts were relavent in that people were saying saddam didnt have WMDs, when it is a proven fact he had possessed them. All the major intelligence agencies across the world believed he still possessed them. It was impossible to achieve your "irrefutable" standard as saddam denied access to UN inspectors. Which was a violation of the terms of the cease-fire of the first gulf war. Which means the cease-fire is null and void and we should have be at war with Iraq by default anyways.

[jgestiot]

Most countries in the world has weapons of mass destruction. Doh! What the intelligence agencies were saying is that he had the capability and the intent to use them aggressively against neighbours and that the threat had to be dealt with. And they were wrong. And you are a complete idiot because at the time of the invasion, Bush asked the weapons inspectors to get out. They were in Iraq doing their job and were not denied access to sites. Fool!

[KyeSoze]

I used facts, while you simply make an unsubstantiated dogmatic assertion. And yet you think I am the idiot. Wow how can you not love the irony?!?

[jgestiot]

You used facts that had nothing to do with the issue. In order to invade a sovereign country, another country must have irrefutable evidence of an imminent threat. The world cannot afford idiots like yourself who walk around the place carrying long bows. Your "facts" are in fact just an excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. America is a terrorist nation with weapons of mass destruction. Should we invade it?

[KyeSoze]

Some one should tell the tens of thousands of Kurds saddam killed with chemical weapons (which the UN classifies as a WMD) that saddam had no WMDs.... oh wait you cant because they are dead.

[jgestiot]

You idiot. You have no understanding of the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Go do some reading and come back later.

[TheAbear360]

what bogus facts?

[jeangrey65]

That the intelegent reports stated that they moved the weapons of mass distruction to Syria and Libya....never happened. The fact that he said "What if" made it conjecture and not worthy of being admitted as "news" or " honest reporting. Wow, what a suprise coming from fox news.

[TheAbear360]

but thats just it. he said what if. maybe he wanted to hear the speakers opinion on what if they were moved. god your intelligent. it was a discussion, not news. you people who are balls deep in slamming fox for liking republicans are soo ill informed. and misled and are much liek sheep. believe anything obama tells you.

[jeangrey65]

You asked "What bogus facts" and so I answered. The fact is there were no weapons of mass distruction, and O'Reilly kissed Bushs Ass his entire presidency. Bush got his info from leaders like Putin (Russian president incase you didn't know that). We were played on so many levels to do the dirty work for other countrys by given false information and to say "What if" what is the point? Note that is says Fox News and not Fox hypothesis. Then again, it should be.

[worldmayhem]

its funny, even Bush and Cheney said there were no WMD's but many Repubs insist there were.

Is it any wonder we are now looking at a possible WW3!

[FinsterFlummoxing]

O'Reilly is an independent. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

[jgestiot]

And I'm Jesus Christ :)

[FinsterFlummoxing]

Here's what gets me. We have the FCC and the rain down hard on people who use profanity. Yet, they are the same licensing entity that controls the very airwaves the FOX pollutes.

Now, I ask you which is more dangerous. An obnoxious morning drive DJ dropping the F bomb, or FOX News perpetrating a fraud and inciting right wing zealots to act out violently...like perhaps say...I don't know..maybe murder a doctor who performs abortions. Fox News is the modern day form of Nazi propaganda.

[FinsterFlummoxing]

Bill O'Reilly = Joseph Goebbels

[TheAbear360]

your an ignorant tool. a TOOL

[RedPhroggz]

What the hell is bogus facts? That's not even a real term.

[jgestiot]

You need to look up the dictionary.

[talibq]

What the hell is your username RedFag or Redfucker.

[dawgpost90]

Bill is that you?

[RedPhroggz]

No, it's Ben Matlock.

[dawgpost90]

Um as is Bill O'Reilly...

[kevin1278]

Bill-O is intimidating? If you're intimidated by Bill, you're a pussy.

[wowbullistic]

Agreed.

[brazzii]

bill gets away with everything cuz he can talk and is intimidating somehow but if someone goes up there with the rights stuff and confidence he will get shut down and i cant wait

[Mega420kid]

way to go,o'reilly dickrider.

[Oaken007]

How the FUCK does Bill O'Reilly get away with interrupting people all the damn time? He hates it when it's done to him. What a douche.

[randycash39]

What if the reports are true?

that is the stupidest reason to ever go to war, you mean they can just make up some horrible lie about a country and then go to war with them based on the fact the it "might" be true. fox news and the bush admin really pulled a fast one on us.

[xbinix]

Media talks some truth and some bullshit but O'reilly, he just talks crap, hurts people, makes people angry and is just a plain idiot.

[malikishot]

Its nothing new really.

[pricer5]

How is this Bogus....He said "What IF the intelligent reports are true". He wasn't making any claims or saying it was fact. Bill said WHAT IF? He was asking the guy a question.

[tripleb2128]

yeh the only prob with that statement is that Islam has told us time and time again they are at war with us so kinda stupid and VERY dangerous to not be at war with them dont u think???

[jgestiot]

What is stupid and very dangerous is putting all Moslems in the same bag, most of which are peaceful citizens in many societies. The best war that could happen is for ignoramus paranoid idiots like yourself to suspect your own kind and start shooting each other.

[atown2k3]

What the hell does this have to do with Islam. Islam is not at war with you. Terrorist who are using islam as an excuse, islam is against what terrorist do....fucking retard, when a white christain kills someone does anyone say " christian" is at war with us...Stupid

[DonCurtis88]

fuck Bill!

[jakeyjoo]

Haha. Bush spent billions upon billions of dollars to defend America, and it did shit all.

Obama didnt spend a cent, and said "America is not and never will be at war with Islam" that comment is better than 10 million machine guns, and 5000 attack helicopters.

[schradersl2]

Stop the revisionist history. Just 3 days after 9/11 Bush nationally said, "we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war, that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve...We should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror.''

4 days after that he visited the Islamic Center of Washington mosque to show support for the Muslim community and admonish anyone who took violent action against Muslims for the attack.

[ShockBack]

What's your point? Words mean absolutely nothing, especially to the Bush/Cheney admin. George Bush also said that the United States treats detainees humanely. Take a look at the recently declassified ICRC report and then take a look at Bagram, Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib policies over the last eight years and then tell me how much these declarations by Bush mean. While your at it, take a look at the internal Bush Admin memos on detainee treatment.

[schradersl2]

My point is Bush bent over backwards to assure the Muslim world our beef was with the killers only. My point is Bush was successful in the most important job the CinC has; protecting America. 7 years without a terrorist attack on US soil and decimating AQ are Bush's accomplishments.

And I have read those memos. Anyone who considers that torture is not living in the real world. My siblings and I performed every one of those acts (except waterboarding) to eachother.

[thundersteps]

i know i remember when me and my brother used to piss on each other and stick batons up our asses. another fun game we would play was "i'm gonna force you to stay up for a week and renounce your religion" . god dammit i miss those days.

[Elephant1960]

Only two words: fuck America!! And no, my first name is not Usama.

[thzorg]

"Only two words: fuck America!! And no, my first name is not Usama."

You forgot... For allah!!! alalalal boom!

[iloveurmom154]

fuck you

[Elephant1960]

fuck you too, piece of shit

[Reqrezentin]

I agree fuck America.

[imorron]

You can go to Hell then

[Reqrezentin]

I don't want to join America.

[fujisamadallama]

america is a facist republic, you think average people have more sway over the country than large corperations/banks?

[srryforowningu]

statistics are so retarded it you can't make up an estimate when itz the individual that decides what they're doing

[mohamedbongfish]

who ever said democracy was so legit?

[hurricanebros]

it never has been its always been about controling money not paper a 100 buck aint shit a paper bills worth 11 cents its the gold that has resourses George Washington knew how the economy was gunna get when people started the idea of "credit"

[Saromatae]

jgestiot is right about Oreilly. He is always interrupting some person who knows what they are talking about with some made up statistic. Or some boorishly bad analogy. What Oreilly is doing in this discussion is called obfuscation of the facts. It is not a real reflection of any of the intelligence, even the little that was available to the public. He wanted to parrot the Bush docrine so he can score some points. The ride is over Oreilly, back to the alley's with you and your neo-con ilk.

[BoontronMisslebeef]

Bill O'Reilly is the "Tokyo Rose" for the Republican party.

[Saromatae]

No the U.S.A is not a democracy you're right. Its a republic.

[TariusChade]

rofl nice saromate!

[twocows360]

Actually, it's a democratic republic, though not in the purest sense of the former.

[Saromatae]

No actually the U.S.A is a Constitutional republic. To be specific. Which utilizes some democratic processes like leadership election. lol

[evilsinz]

"No actually the U.S.A is a Constitutional republic. To be specific. Which utilizes some democratic processes like leadership election. lol"

Constitutional my ass, read the patriot act. We used to have a Representative Democracy. The states are democratic, but as a whole they are a republic. We elect democratically those to represent us. But the Electoral College is not a democracy (hence Gore did not win)

Democracy = popular/city vote

Republic = small town/city vote

[gunrockusmc]

yes we are a republic.

[Gestotamoseke]

i especially love the line he says about how 'its our own policy that's creating terrorism - you're living in a dream world by continuing

to say that terrorists hate us because of our freedom, or jealous of our lifestyles.. " bill - proudly represents the arrogant dumbasses of this nation.

[ThaDonk]

Notice Oreilly said "What if" the intelligence reports are true. He DID NOT say "It is a known fact that the intelligence reports are true..." which is what you are implying by this video. I have to agree it was a hypothetical question for debating purposes.

[jgestiot]

Notice how easily you fall for his trick. The evidence was that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. There was a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that his arsenal had either been destroyed by inspectors or that his chemical weapons had expired. So he should have been saying "What if he does not have any?" as any good and real journalist would.

[snookumsthacat]

ThaDonk, I agree with you. Unfortunately everyone else is just nit picking for reasons to take away O'Reilly's credibility.

[upabittoolate]

bill oreilly does that every time. he fabricates shit then doesn't allow someone to make their point.

[annpetasupporter]

"bill oreilly does that every time. he fabricates shit then doesn't allow someone to make their point."

I know, seriously, wtf...

[upabittoolate]

o'reilly is basically the voice of conservatives. what he does is the embodiment of how they think & their practices

[annpetasupporter]

Yeah, I think the only difference is that he is not as good at hiding it...

[mrsocko551]

Are you kidding me? That was a hypothetical question. This video is garbage.

[jgestiot]

You're kidding yourself. He interjected when the guest made the very valid point that the threat is was not immediate. He used the hypothesis in order to refute the factual point made by the guest. It's not only bad journalism but it is also intellectually dishonest. This video is important in showing the tricks use in the media to discredit valid points. There was no threat from Iraq, none at all. That's the fact and it should have been allowed to drive the debate rather than be silenced.

[mrsocko551]

No im not kidding myself. I happen to be an open minded person who listens to both sides of an arguement. They had a full debate. Bill spun his point in. Your type of garbage is everything wrong with the media. You chop a clip into 15 seconds and try to spin it into something out of hand. What was the facual point? Too bad we dont know cause you wont show the whole agruement. Go watch MSNBC and soak in you spoon fed opinions by yourself. Ill listen to everyones side.

[jgestiot]

The factual point is that there was no immediate threat. Listen!

[mrsocko551]

How is that a fact? I mean its probley true but that not a fact. Also he didnt state that there was no immendiate threat he stated that we should figure out if there is and bill followed up with a hypothetical question. Are you afraid of hearing a full agruement from both sides? Don't you want to understand things inside and out? Or do you need to be spoon fed your ideology? Im not debating your war status im debating your missleading propaganda garbage that reminds me of bush.

[jgestiot]

He said "I don't think the case has been made that the threat is immediate". There was no immediate threat to the United States from Iraq. It is a fact because it is true. O'Reilly used the hypothetical question to smear doubt over the fact. You accuse me of misleading propaganda but that's exactly what I expose. He should have agreed that the case has not been made or given facts supporting the immediate threat. What does ideology have to do with it?

[TehBloggaar]

NObama . tumblr . com

McCainSucks . tumblr . com

Obama . biz . ly

Support these sites!

[xanderkhaan]

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

[jgestiot]

Every country either has or is seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. The question of relevance here is this: Was there an imminent threat to the United States in 2003? Attacking another country should be the very last resort, not the first step.

[kaybee333]

he's saying "what if" because the facts were known by NO ONE at the time...it was stirring up debate...and when i see a video 17 seconds long, i know that you're taking crap out of context...i think cnn has some job openings if you're interested, you witless foool

[jgestiot]

The facts were known by a lot of people. They all knew that they did not have a case for invading Iraq. You do not invaded a country because you suspect something. You invade a country when there is a clear and immediate danger to yourself. There never was any such thing. Nothing is taken out of context, I am just presenting a highlight. I have 300 hours of that stuff on videotape. And it's pretty much the same propaganda from Jan to Mar 2003.

[Lionsblood]

Why does it seem like your videos are only around 20 seconds long?

[jgestiot]

After 20 seconds or less, you get the drift of what pollutes the airways on FOX. I have 300 hours of videotapes taken from Fox News around the time of the invasion of Iraq. I will post a lot more when I have the time.

[midnightbullcat]

Mr. Steinback wrote a column Jan. 21,2003 about a war that will disgrace the principles exemplified by visionaries of this great nation. A war that we would shoot first, not even being provoked. A war that would liberate the Iraki's by killing them. I use to tease Robert and called him a "BUSHWACKER." I thought he was critical of the President because of the fact he was a Democrat. He seemed to be the only one jumping up and down waving a red flag. Years later we see his fears and consequences.

[almaster666]

there were no weapons

and no one really seems to care that much

sad...

[tannedstamina]

Bill O'Reilly is a c*nt.

[jgestiot]

I agree that he is a cant. He can't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

[tannedstamina]

;-)

[davidesle]

O'Reilly is saying "what if", meaning he's speculating or w/e, doesn't seem like a bogus fact to me.

[jgestiot]

"What if" is used by propagandists like O'Reilly to cast a doubt on something that is pretty clear. The case had not been made on reliable evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or that he had moved anything to Syria or elsewhere.

[jgestiot]

There were no reports from intelligence agencies around the world that Iraq was moving any military equipment.

Bill O'Reilly is using a weak "what if" to justify a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. There is a difference between "what if" or "could have" and facts establishing the immediate threat from Iraq.

[Neoatomica]

Excuse me? Where do you draw your facts from?

I don't mean to be abrasive, but I have several close friends in army intelligence, and one in logistics and supply train. They hear things you would never hear even after analyzing +300Hrs of fox news.

Then again they might just be more government fabricated lies, and I myself an agent of them?

The truth is simple, we know they have WMDs.

Why?

The US Government has the receipts. We sold them.

[jgestiot]

Former Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter wrote a good book before the invasion where he details the whereabouts of the weapons.

There were no weapons of any significance as there existed documentation to prove the destruction of 95% of Saddam's arsenal, some of which was bought from the Americans.

You can have friends wherever you like, this stuff has been investigated to death. There was no weapons-related reason to invade Iraq. It was all bullshit.

[Neoatomica]

This is shit poor. those are not bogus facts. in the weeks before we invaded Iraq. intelligence agencies around the world reported MASSIVE Supply and Equipment movements from Iraq to the surrounding nations, most were suspected to be sensitive medical, and chemical manufacturing equipment. nuclear weapons, and chemical/biological weaponry could easily have been transported during this period without being noticed.

this video is pure crap.

[jgestiot]

We now know that all the noises about the mobile labs and the rest of it was hot air. There never was a factual basis for it. There were no movement of supplies anywhere before the invasion. The Americans had full control of the air space over Iraq, they could have destroyed any convoy.

[jgestiot]

What rubbish! 1) there was no massive movement of anything reported by any intelligence agency. 2) it's his country and he moves what he wants. 3) any country right now could be moving any kind of weapons anywhere in their territory. Should you attack them too? 4) It was well-known (and former Chief Inspector Scott Ritter wrote a book about it) that the Iraqis could not possibly have WMDs in any significant numbers. Taking all intelligence available then, Iraq was of no danger to anyone.

[US185VOSS2]

tell that do the dead Kurds........DA

[jgestiot]

That's a clayton point. A point you are making when you are not really making a point. Are you afraid to say something clearly so that it can be scrutinised here? Are you saying that at the time of the invasion there was some kind of genocide against the Kurds or others happening in Iraq? Because if that is your point, it is false.