← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · DakotaBlue
Thread ID: 20698 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2005-10-19
2005-10-19 14:51 | User Profile
Drudge reported that O'Reilly had a rare interview with a Newsday reporter in which he says he's now spending a great deal of money on bodyguards to protect himself and his young family. That the threats against him are particularly vicious and ominous and he takes them seriously, as does his TV crew.
He checks into hotels separately from his family and they're constantly being photographed with cell phones and then the images are placed on the internet, a dangerous situation to be sure, especially when anonymity is so important. It's clear to him that the mission he's on and the success he's having aren't worth the life he and his family are being forced to lead.
This leads to a bigger question. What will happen if people like O'Reilly are forced off the air because of death threats to them and their families? What does that say about the free press and its role in securing an open exchange of ideas. Someone once said, that without an unfettered press there can be no freedom for the people. I believe that, and while I sometimes disagreed with O'Reilly's take on an issue, I was always glad he was there.
He said he'll think of walking as far away from the Fox offices as he can get when his contract is up in two years. He must be under considerable pressure to make such a statement. I hope he doesn't but I understand if he does.
2005-10-19 15:08 | User Profile
O'Reilly is a disgrace to journalism and a disgraceful American traitor. He promotes hatred of a false enemy while providing cover for the real enemy which is the US government and their Zionist masters. O'Reilly does not represent the so-called "free press". If it was up to O'Reilly and his ilk, the United States would be an openly one-party system where dissidents would be jailed or shot, just like in the old Soviet Union or Cuba or China.
Not surprised that people hate him so much.
2005-10-19 15:30 | User Profile
Oye Vey, O'Rilley the shabbos goy...you gotta be kiddin' me...who takes a jew's a$$hole like O'Reily seriously...???
2005-10-19 15:44 | User Profile
Who cares if anyone offs a warmonger like O'Reilly? The world would be a better, more truthful place.
2005-10-19 15:54 | User Profile
Of all the "pretend patriots" and ââ¬ÅJew surrogatesââ¬Â on the air today... I believe O'Reilly is the most disgusting.
In O'Reilly's fantasy world, the Jew can do no wrong while all those who oppose the Jew are evil. O'Reilly characterizes international interventionism and Zionism as the spreading of democracy while labeling patriots who defend their countries as insurgents and terrorists.
I'm reluctant to admit that I find his discomfort... pleasing.
2005-10-19 19:55 | User Profile
Let go of the "Jew" thing for a minute and look at the more important implications of intimidation of journalists. The Left doesn't like him because he goes after the causes near and dear to their traitorous hearts. So by extension, Mike Savage is next because he runs a no-holes-barred kind of talk show when he goes after Jewish lawyers in the ACLU and wetbacks who are destroying our country. Or Tom Tancredo because of his stance on immigration or Bob Grant because of his unerring assessment of blacks. Or do you think this kind of Soviet-style censorship is selective enough to hurt only the people you dislike?
I seem to remember that O'Reilly was the only one on TV taking on Bush about open borders and he's relentless about it. He takes on the Hollywood crowd whenever they show their heads above the tall grasses and his latest mission is to crack down on governors who don't support harsher sentences for pedophiles in their state. He can't be all things to all people, not even Reagan measured up under those guidelines. But he's a lot better than what came before him.
As for him being a traitor, well, I think the idiocy of that statement speaks for itself.
2005-10-19 20:19 | User Profile
O'Reilly is an idiot, loudmouth, necon bully. However, I do dislike intimidation by harassment and thuggery, even if the target is as much of a jackass as Mr. No-spin.
For the record, Lou Dobbs was talking about illegal immigration way before O'Reilly. O'Reilly merely saw its populist appeal after Dobbs had done the spadework.
2005-10-19 20:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE]As for him being a traitor, well, I think the idiocy of that statement speaks for itself.[/QUOTE]
Defending O'Reilly as a serious journalist/commentator kinda reeks of idiocy too. Big deal, O'Lielly doesn't like illegal immigration. Even leftists don't like it. However, I've never heard him talk about [U]legal[/U] immigration as a somewhat negative effect for millions of White Americans. Have you?
O'Reilly called anyone who spoke out against the Zionist war on Iraq as "traitors" and that he'd "spotlight" anyone who would dare do so. In that case, O'Reilly is a traitor to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
And, is the US government intimidating O'Reilly, or just regular folks who hate the hate that O'Reilly belches out against false enemies on a daily basis?
2005-10-19 20:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]O'Reilly is an idiot, loudmouth, necon bully. However, I do dislike intimidation by harassment and thuggery, even if the target is as much of a jackass as Mr. No-spin.
For the record, Lou Dobbs was talking about illegal immigration way before O'Reilly. O'Reilly merely saw its populist appeal after Dobbs had done the spadework.[/QUOTE]
[B]With all due respect to Dobbs, whom I admire, O'Reilly came on the scene much later. That he chose to pick up that flag and run with it doesn't diminish OReilly's sincerity in the least. Frankly, he could have avoided angering a whole bunch of really despicable fanatics by steering clear of this issue completely. As for jumping on the populist bandwagon, he's seems to have missed his footing on that wagon more times than not, which tells me his pr compass isn't infallible. I have major problems with many of his positions and I've said so throughout the years, but that's not the main point of my post.
What I think of him is irrelevant. That a bunch of Leftist radical, anti-American thugs could silence him in this way is a dangerous precedent.I'll challenge anyone on that point. [/B]
2005-10-19 21:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Defending O'Reilly as a serious journalist/commentator kinda reeks of idiocy too. Big deal, O'Lielly doesn't like illegal immigration. Even leftists don't like it. However, I've never heard him talk about [U]legal[/U] immigration as a somewhat negative effect for millions of White Americans. Have you?[/Quote]
[B]Do you know anyone, pol or journalist with whom you agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. I doubt it. He irritates me often with his shoot-from-the-hip approach but he takes on issues the mainstream media won't touch, and for that he should be commended. And who the hell is a serious journalist these days? The last ones to appear on the scene are either dead or retired. The new crop are a bunch of Democrat-point men in journalist's clothing, so let's not play that game, shall we. O"Reilly probably thinks of himself as part muckraker and part commentator. I think that's a fair appraisal.[/B]
[Quote]O'Reilly called anyone who spoke out against the Zionist war on Iraq as "traitors" and that he'd "spotlight" anyone who would dare do so. In that case, O'Reilly is a traitor to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.[/Quote]
[B]He zeroed in on people like Sheehan whose message had less to do with her son and more to do with lambasting this country. She deserved his scrutiny and criticism. He also condemned Jackson, Wrangel and Sharpton for their witless and abusive attacks on the president that had more to do with sinking the Repubs than condemning the war. Do you have a problem with that? [/B]
[Quote]And, is the US government intimidating O'Reilly, or just regular folks who hate the hate that O'Reilly belches out against false enemies on a daily basis?[/QUOTE]
[B]Most regular folks, as you call them, don't hate BillyO at all, attested to by his ratings. As to the "hate" you allude to, define it please. I don't get that sense, so what are you hearing that the rest of us aren't? [/B]
2005-10-19 21:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Let go of the "Jew" thing for a minute and look at the more important implications of intimidation of journalists. The Left doesn't like him because he goes after the causes near and dear to their traitorous hearts. So by extension, Mike Savage is next because he runs a no-holes-barred kind of talk show when he goes after Jewish lawyers in the ACLU and wetbacks who are destroying our country. Or Tom Tancredo because of his stance on immigration or Bob Grant because of his unerring assessment of blacks. Or do you think this kind of Soviet-style censorship is selective enough to hurt only the people you dislike?....
As for him being a traitor, well, I think the idiocy of that statement speaks for itself.[/QUOTE]For the record, thanks for sticking up for O'Reilly DakotaBlue. On this board there's been a tendency for a certain ideological hyperfastidiousness to creep in that condemns all the major conservative commentators - like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter, (let alone Mike Savage) basically just because they haven't joined us on the Iraq war. And for which it almost seems like we've become indistinguishable from the left in our description of them.
I know I see a few more of the left's criticisms as having a certain ring of truth now, but basically I and I think Sam Francis still see these guys as representing in their own way middle america, a middle america which we don't want to be to dogmatic about, the way so many anti-war libertarians do by marching in communist anti-war rallies.
2005-10-19 21:54 | User Profile
I come to a traditionalist conservative forum expecting discussion in a gentlemanly like manner only to read comments from supposed adults condoning violent attacks on a man and his family. Very dissapointing. More discussion on Eliot and Churchill needed.
2005-10-20 00:05 | User Profile
O'Reilly has it easy compared to Nationalist spokespeople. You gotta wonder about people like this who are thrown up by destiny into harm's way and they retreat, yet they are full of vim and vigour for other people to die for their country.
2005-10-20 03:13 | User Profile
[quote=Okiereddust]For the record, thanks for sticking up for O'Reilly DakotaBlue. On this board there's been a tendency for a certain ideological hyperfastidiousness to creep in that condemns all the major conservative commentators - like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter, (let alone Mike Savage) basically just because they haven't joined us on the Iraq war. And for which it almost seems like we've become indistinguishable from the left in our description of them.
I know I see a few more of the left's criticisms as having a certain ring of truth now, but basically I and I think Sam Francis still see these guys as representing in their own way middle america, a middle america which we don't want to be to dogmatic about, the way so many anti-war libertarians do by marching in communist anti-war rallies.
I will second your motion, although Hannity irritates me and Coulter is a shrill harradin. The censorship, or attempts at silencing free speech is the issue. Extortion. Threats to do ill to one's family unless one shuts up.
That crap is just plain wrong. O Reilly may be an ass, but I will defend to the death his right to tell such lies and expose himself as an ass. There is a certain balance to that, I think.
AE
2005-10-20 12:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=adam 1860]I come to a traditionalist conservative forum expecting discussion in a gentlemanly like manner only to read comments from supposed adults condoning violent attacks on a man and his family. Very dissapointing. More discussion on Eliot and Churchill needed.[/QUOTE]
You must understand that the leftist, God hating, kosher, and feminine media have duped them. They strongly lack discernment, which is why they are so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Simply put, they are their worse enemy’s best friends.
2005-10-20 12:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue][B]Do you know anyone, pol or journalist with whom you agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. I doubt it. He irritates me often with his shoot-from-the-hip approach but he takes on issues the mainstream media won't touch, and for that he should be commended. And who the hell is a serious journalist these days? The last ones to appear on the scene are either dead or retired. The new crop are a bunch of Democrat-point men in journalist's clothing, so let's not play that game, shall we. O"Reilly probably thinks of himself as part muckraker and part commentator. I think that's a fair appraisal.[/B]
[B]He zeroed in on people like Sheehan whose message had less to do with her son and more to do with lambasting this country. She deserved his scrutiny and criticism. He also condemned Jackson, Wrangel and Sharpton for their witless and abusive attacks on the president that had more to do with sinking the Repubs than condemning the war. Do you have a problem with that? [/B]
[B]Most regular folks, as you call them, don't hate BillyO at all, attested to by his ratings. As to the "hate" you allude to, define it please. I don't get that sense, so what are you hearing that the rest of us aren't? [/B][/QUOTE]
If you're going to defend a fake conservative like O'Reilly, then you should be willing to defend the "evil liberal" Dan Rather. Dan Rather's is a pure case of government intimidation of a media man because Rather filed a truthful report about our Furher's pathetic and sad military record.
How about it Dakota?
2005-10-20 13:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]If you're going to defend a fake conservative like O'Reilly, then you should be willing to defend the "evil liberal" Dan Rather. Dan Rather's is a pure case of government intimidation of a media man because Rather filed a truthful report about our Furher's pathetic and sad military record.
How about it Dakota?[/QUOTE]
**Silly bunny… **
Two letters on "Rather-gate" Wednesday, September 22, 2004
[Related article: "ENOKIAN: Memogate Rather than the truth," September 21, 2004] Dan Rather's "mea culpa" for passing off forged documents and peddling falsehoods to damage the image of sitting president and possibly change the outcome of a presidential election borders on the absurd. His actions and that of his network constitute tabloid journalism and election tampering of the worst kind. CBS was not "misled". CBS is not the victim here. The victims are the president, his family, the American people, and the family of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, whose memory they defamed by claiming he was the author of the forgeries. It's bad enough that the documents weren't real. But Dan Rather wanted them to be real and it is not far-fetched to believe that he wants to defeat President Bush so badly that he would ignore the basic rules of authentication, fact and source-checking that every first-year journalism student is aware of. This tarnishing of the once-proud network of Edward R. Murrow and Eric Severeid is eerily reminiscent of Watergate, which began as a "third-rate burglary" and had as its "unimpeachable source" someone known as "Deep Throat." Rather-gate began as a third-rate forgery and if CBS has not picked out a name for its source, let me suggest "Deep-Doodoo." Dan Rather is like the cop who testifies in court that, sure, he planted the evidence, but it was because he "knew" the guy was guilty. Even now he says the documents may be fake, but what they say is true. Huh? They pledge to conduct an "independent review" just as O.J. once promised to find the "real killers." Dan Rather spoke at a Texas Democratic Party fundraiser three years ago. Dan Rather interviews former Texas Democratic Lt. Gov and Kerry fund-raiser Ben Barnes on "60 Minutes II". Disgruntled Texas Guardsman Bill Burkett, who passed on the forgeries from an unknown source, was put in contact with Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart by a CBS producer and also spoke with former Georgia Democratic senator and Kerry ally, Max Cleland. Hello? Can anyone connect these dots? Daniel John Sobieski Chicago
I can't for the love of me stop thinking about how different government and politics would be if the referee weren't cheating! This Dan Rather stuff has been going on for 50 years for crying out loud. He is a despicable media man as are over 90% of the self-admitted liberal democrat so-called journalists in America. They have long ago shamed the profession of journalism. Bias by Bernard Goldberg is over two years old and that whistleblower book blew the lid off of CBS and exposed Rather as an elitist who naturally loathes virtually all things conservative. This rings painfully true throughout all so-called American mainstream media. It blew the lid, that is, only for those who want to see the truth. Obviously the problem is that the media continue down their dirty road. And moreover, the masses of good Americans seem impotent. I don't know the number but masses of folks are brainwashed by Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, the NY Times and our two main papers in Chicago. And don't forget the brainwashing done to our elders by Walter Cronkite. This has been happening for years! Can anyone imagine the daily two-inch thick headlines that local Chicago media would be spitting out if our city council were 49 of 50 republican marionettes with a republican king? Imagine your TV with breaking news and democrat press conferences to expose the Cook County corruption and the mob/union/cousin-run city hall. Republican corruption will never be tolerated very long. George Ryan lasted a short time because he was a pal of Richie Daley and he pushed liberalism. A corrupt political camp pushing conservatism would not last one second, not one second. It appears Rather will again get away with this with an "I'm sorry..it was an honest mistake...blah blah.blah" At this point, there is only one thing to do: We conservatives, Christians, traditionalists, real Americans, honest folks, republicans, spiritual and religious people, fighters for truth, lovers of honesty, patriots, justice-seekers, fair-minded Americans, etc., must wage war against the media in America. A boxer can not win if the ref and judges are cheating and the fix is in. It is impossible for conservative public policy to take hold as long as the shots are being called by the Chicago Sun-Times, Tribune, Rather, and that ilk. Carl Segvich Chicago [url]http://www.illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=19675[/url]
Rathergate creeps closer to DNC, Kerry
"It would seem that Bill Burkett, a disgruntled former TANG officer, and virulently partisan Democratic activist, is the one responsible for the forged Killian memos. Further investigation reveals that the connection runs thru former Georgia Senator Max Cleland, the DNC, and possibly the Kerry campaign as well. If either DNC or Kerry are found to be in any way involved, all persons could well face federal charges. Captain Ed provides the best recap, as usual. ([url]http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/[/url])
"In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats over the past few months, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."
"In another message, dated Sept. 4, Burkett hinted he might have had advance knowledge of some details in an explosive segment that aired Sept. 8 on the CBS News program "60 Minutes."
Please read on... [url]http://pennywit.com/drupal/node/view/1429[/url]
CBS source: Kerry Campaign wanted documents But Burkett denies plotting with Kerry campaign to damage Bush
The source of a discredited CBS News report on President Bush's National Guard service says Kerry campaign adviser Joe Lockhart asked him for the supporting memos, which now are regarded as forgies.
In an interview, Bill Burkett, said he had a phone conversation with the former adviser to President Clinton.
Burkett said he suggested a "couple of concepts on what I thought [Kerry] had to do" to beat Bush. In return, he said, Lockhart tried to "convince me as to why I should give them the documents."
Lockhart has told the Associated Press he does not recall talking about Bush's National Guard records with Burkett ...
Source: [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40617[/url]
Dan Rather was complicit in defrauding the American public in an attempt to defeat a sitting President. Rather must be fired now. Congress should subpoena CBS News' lawyers and all documentation of their advice.
"Contact CBS News via this lnk.
Your local CBS affiliate can be found via this link.
CBS sponsors and their contact info is listed here.
Here are links to well considered tips on how to urge Congress to initiate the hearings.
Here is a link to a downloadable Excel file with CBS affiliates that includes station names, postal addresses, phone and fax numbers, rank in market share, and web pages. Here, from the same website, is a service that will forward, at a fairly nominal expense, a variable-sized batch of faxes demanding Rather's resignation to CBS executives, affiliates, and/or major shareholders. Here's an email address for the outside/nonmanagement directors of CBS' corporate parent, Viacom. And here is a collection of some additional contacts. [Added these links by update on Wed Sep 15 @ 2:33am and @ 6:05pm — Beldar]"
[url]http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2...ther_was_.html[/url]
The truth still matters to some people...
[url]http://leatherpenguin.com/MT/archives/2004_09_15.html[/url]
"This is unbelievable. I'm sitting here, watching Rather try to use the opinion of an 86 year old woman, whose existence he only discovered when other people did the leg work his team should have done in the first place, to save his hoary ass. A woman who is already on the record as loathing President Bush, considering him unfit to be President back in 2000.
A woman who everyone who has been following this story unfold--bloggers and Big Media alike--knows has just been rushed to Black Rock, spent the last few hours being pampered and prepped, and now is wheeling out a story--all supposition, BY HER OWN DESCRIPTION AT ONE POINT--to try and deflect the story back to his friggin' talking points and away from the fraudulent documents."
In their attempts to assist John Kerry, CBS and Dan Rather simply refuse to stop their “reporting” of bogus stories. The latest (‘reported’ Tuesday on CBS Evening News With Dan Rather) is their story about President Bush bringing back the draft; a frequent Kerry campaign theme. Although MoveOn.org (a Dem and George Soros sponsored 527 group) sent hundreds, if not thousands, of fear-based ‘Bush plans draft’ emails to college campuses, the truth is that only the Dems (headed by Charley Rangel) have proposed a draft; not Republicans. Knowing full well the story was false and partisan, still CBS and Rather aired the story.
Another problem with this most recently faked anti-Bush story is that Dan Rather’s chief interviewee (Beverly Cocco) is the head of the Pennsylvania chapter of the activist group People Against the Draft. The group’s pretense is that it is ‘non-partisan’. But, it is an anti-war and anti-President Bush. This assembly is left-leaning. Bi-partisan? Not a chance. CBS and Rather failed (refused?) to mention this during the airing of its patently mocked-up tale. This time, neither CBS nor Rather can claimed they were “duped”. They aired, yet, another bogus story…on purpose.
The arrogance of CBS and Rather is reflected in ALL of old liberal media, in their embracing the policies of the Dem Party. They are truly unlicensed 527 groups, operating under the pretext of news organizations. As First Amendment protection is afforded to news organizations, no doubt their left-leaning attorneys have told them “go for it!” The problem, of course, is that with these current false stories, CBS (and the rest of MSM) has crossed over into deliberate campaigning for John Kerry. This is illegal…IE not allowed by a [protected] “news” outfit. CBS is just the most [recently] vocal that condescendingly says “we can do and say whatever we want and no one can touch us!” Isn’t it time for someone to touch them, if not bring them up on charges? I think it is.
[url]http://www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/sept391.html[/url]
CBS Planning Another Anti-Bush Hit Job?
"FactCheck.org, a group headed by former CNN and Wall Street Journal reporter Brooks Jackson, examined the controversy and declared, "Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports-based on other sources-that Bush quoted in his 16 words."
Ironically, one of the pieces of evidence used by the CIA in making the case that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa was a confidential report brought back from Africa by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. But Wilson changed his story publicly and became a media darling when he made the claim that Bush was lying about the matter.
Wilson, who also became an adviser to John Kerry, got away with his dangerous deception for over a year until the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued a report confirming that Wilson's report to the CIA actually provided evidence of Iraqi interest in uranium. This report is what led reporters for the Washington Post and other media to write stories finally setting the record straight about Wilson. "
[url]http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/...b-730861.shtml[/url]
Rathergate: DNC-BS News
"In the distance, one could hear the plaintive, thin whining of a very small violin as Dan Rather mournfully intoned, "We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism." It brings to mind an observation made by Ralph Waldo Emerson of an unscrupulous acquaintance: "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." After Rathergate, the first thought of any critical mind upon hearing Dan report anything -- including that the Pope is Catholic, that the Earth is round, or that fire is hot -- should be: Is Rather telling the truth? Since CBS and Rather have elevated rumor and supposition to high journalism, let's indulge ourselves a bit and evaluate Rather's claim to be favoritism-free.
Rather and Chung never did walk away as winners. Their partnership ended badly in 1995, with nasty rumors about how Rather had been infuriated that Chung was dispatched to cover the Oklahoma City Bombing instead of him, and how he exploited a flub made there by Chung to push her out of the "CBS Evening News" nest, effectively ruining her career. All these humiliating, clumsily biased, and risible moments would be forgotten if Rather could destroy George W. Bush. "
You really should read this entire article... [url]http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=15260[/url]
Bush's Honorable Air National Guard Service By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) September 20, 2004 George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) -- 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat -- 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush's because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions. Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee's Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left. Lt. Bush's opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft -- both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don't remember looking ahead (and I'm sure Lt. Bush didn't either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard's Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 -- the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.) Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed -- but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country's National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush's mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard. I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don't strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell AFB in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training; one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range; one crashed on take off; one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield; and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low level state-side training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I've been in F -105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their war time mission. We got really good at flying "Missing Man Formations" and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Lt. Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all weather scrambles and during training exercises as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit. Cowards (or people who lack courage) don't take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot." "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," Colonel Killian wrote: "He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing." As a Fighter Squadron Commander in the Air Force (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and having been in fighter squadrons during my career in the Air Force, all I can say is that the young people who make up these squadrons (like Lt. Bush) are the cream of the crop, top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission challenge presented to them, anytime, anyplace and anywhere. Everyone in a unit realizes that they serve to protect the National Security Interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized -- with short notice -- to deploy anywhere in the world. During the Vietnam conflict, military pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot rotation requirements. F-105, F 4 fighter pilots, and the pilots of other combat aircraft were routinely rotated out of the combat theatre after completing their 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. Military, for which there were relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active duty force as well as ANG and Reserve forces could be very accommodating to those who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as Lt. Bush going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the challenges facing the services of a pilot surplus. Also, commanders were lenient in allowing individuals to fulfill their service obligations in ways not involving flying duty. Such arrangements were coordinated at the unit level. Just as Lt. Bush's supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to -- since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this fact out so that the public knows that Commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the Unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a Squadron Commander, I can tell you this -- we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time -- everyone is accounted for. We reported the status of all our squadron personnel daily to a higher level in our organization. Likewise, Lt. Bush's Squadron Commander of 30 plus years ago (Lt. Col. Killian, now deceased), would have known where Lt. Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush's documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. As Lt. Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, F-102s were being phased out of the Air National Guard. What we know is that he served honorably; he flew fighter jets; he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F -102; he served our country; he met his Air National Guard requirements and he received an Honorable Discharge. The attacks on Lt. Bush are designed to diminish Lt. Bush's service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some thirty years after Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge. This is truly reprehensible and driven by political adversaries like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Terry McAuliffe and their left-wing media surrogates. (Go to cspan.org for the White House Press Briefing with Scott McClellan on 02/10/04 -- the impetus for me to write this letter.) There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Lt. Bush's honorable service to our country. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democrat Party (as represented by Sen. Kerry from Massachusetts and Mr. Terry McAuliffe of the DNC) that will stoop to any depth to obtain political power to include: attacking the motives of our service members (ANG and Reserve); it is a fringe element that is willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander-in-chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism; it is a fringe element that places political power higher on their priority list than U.S. National Security; otherwise, they wouldn't be denigrating and diminishing ANG and Reserve Service in an effort to undermine the credibility of the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces. Political leadership should be looking ahead not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind I will make several comments: (1) I served with true heroes, although none of the guys I served with ever considered themselves heroes -- they just put their butts on the line every day whether flying in operational, combat or training units; (2) Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an Air Defense mission. He is a true hero that our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud of; and (3) the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election -- as is being done by Sen. Kerry and Mr. Terry McAuliffe. Like many veterans of Vietnam, I returned to a country that was, for the most part, unappreciative of the service rendered by our fighting forces. It is sad that this attack on our commander-in-chief results in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms that never returned to United States -- having given their lives for their country. Although it is fair to recognize Sen. Kerry's four month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turn coat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. As part of the anti-war movement with Jane Fonda, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the Armed Forces of the United States would be to vote into office (as commander-in-chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat. Further, military people understand that Sen. Kerry has voted against the major weapon systems needed by the military to carry out their mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Senator Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm's way. As we all know, since Sept. 11, 2001 our country has been at war with international terrorism. Instead of supporting our national leadership (in taking the battle to our terrorist enemies), a cabal of power-hungry politicians, supported by the liberal media elites and their vitriolic followers, have done everything they can to undermine our war on terror, our troops and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. Today we look with pride at our service people who risk their lives everyday for us. I'm grateful that we now have a population that, for the most part, appreciates our armed forces and their efforts to defend us. We need to fully support our soldiers and their president. Our country's success in fighting the war on terror depends on our (1) supporting those that are on the front line protecting us and (2) standing by the president who is taking the battle to the enemy. We have not been attacked in the United States after 9/11 because we have a president and an administration that have been proactive in going after the national security threats to United States. Just think about how our national security would likely have been handled by the anti-war left of the Democrat party and Sen. Kerry. We would probably still be debating what to do in the United Nations; Afghanistan would likely still be under control of the Taliban; Iraq would still be under the control of Saddam Hussein, and cities in the United States would have come under attack on multiple occasions as terrorist organizations were further emboldened by our meek responses. And it wouldn't be surprising if we were negotiating with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to preclude further attacks on our cities. The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Who do you trust? Addendum DNC - Kerry Campaign - CBS 60 Minutes Left-Wing Allegations and Fraudulent Documents Response to DNC Video "Fortunate Son The Democrat National Committee (DNC), the Kerry Campaign, CBS 60 Minutes and their liberal media supporters have launched the fifth major attack on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The purpose of this attack is to enhance Kerry's election prospects by dishonoring President Bush's service in the Air National Guard (ANG) and undermining his credibility as Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces. Concurrent with the airing of Dan Rather's (CBS' 60 Minutes program on 09/08/2004) hit piece on President Bush, DNC's Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Senator Tom Harkin piled on with vitriolic attacks on President Bush's service record. CBS' program (using fraudulent documents to launch their attack on President Bush) served as the kick-off call for a coordinated nationwide attack on Bush's ANG record. "Operation Fortunate Son" is the code name that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC have given for their attacks on George W. Bush's service in the Guard. Lying Allegation: The DNC alleges that President Bush falsely claimed he served in the United States Air Force and therefore lied about his military service record. This is the DNC's specific allegation: "George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," "George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service," Response to Allegation: When I went through flight training in the United States Air Force (USAF), we had Air National Guard (ANG) Officers in my pilot training squadron. For economic reasons, the ANG turns to the Air Force to do its undergraduate pilot training. President Bush served in the Air Force for more than a year (as an ANG officer) while going through USAF flight training. Also, the United States has exchange officers from other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) that come to the U.S. to fly in our Air Force flying squadrons. Upon return to the UK, these Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots would say they served in the USAF (as an RAF Exchange officer) and that's what would be reflected in their personnel records. Similarly, our flying officers are assigned to squadron flying positions in the RAF. Their personnel records would reflect that they served in the RAF (as an USAF Exchange Officer). Additionally, as part of Lt. Bush's training (prior to attending USAF Flight Training), Lt. Bush was placed on active duty with the Air Force for 120 days. This would be another basis for saying he served in the Air Force. To deny that fact would mean that all service people who are in training status are not serving their country. This would be absurd but nothing surprises me any more with the DNC/Kerry Campaign and what they will do and say in their quest for power. Conclusion: The DNC doesn't know what it's talking about. You don't have to be an active-duty Air Force officer to serve in the Air Force as either an ANG pilot or an exchange pilot. George W. Bush's description in his campaign literature as having served in the USAF and ANG was correct; he did not lie about his service record as alleged by the DNC. Influence Allegation: Another allegation is that Lt. Bush used political influence to get in the ANG. Response to Allegation: President Bush's father (President George H.W. Bush) has publicly stated that the Bush family did not pull any strings to get George W. Bush into the ANG. George W. Bush got a pilot slot in the ANG because he took the steps necessary to make himself a worthy applicant. Left-Wing Democrats have alleged that there were 150 applicants trying to get in the ANG; that Bush was a "Fortunate Son" who was given preferential treatment; and that he was leapfrogged over all these applicants based on political pressure and special influence. This is a false charge. Here are the facts. Most applicants were applying for ANG enlisted positions not for pilot training. The highest number of pilot applicants that the Texas ANG Group had (at any one time) during the Vietnam War was around ten. The reason for this very low number was there were stringent educational, security clearance and physical requirements that had to be met for pilot training in the ANG; also, there was a high "danger factor" in flying the F-102 aircraft. For every ten pilot applicants, usually only two were selected by the ANG to attend USAF pilot training school. The question everyone needs to honestly ask themselves is: Why wouldn't the ANG want George W. Bush in their organization? How many Yale graduates do you think the ANG had to choose from (probably only one) his name was George W. Bush? So when George W. Bush went for his interview with Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt (Texas ANG Group Commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston), it would seem to me that Col. Staudt's decision to select George W. Bush for pilot training was a good one for the ANG - separate from any other consideration. Given that George W. Bush ended up being President of the United States, one might conclude that Colonel Staudt was an excellent judge of character; that he made the right decision. Ben Barnes, another one of CBS' 60 Minutes helpers in orchestrating the attacks against President Bush's ANG record, states in his interview with Dan Rather that he helped George W. Bush get into the ANG. The only problem is that Ben Barnes previously swore under oath that he had nothing to do with getting George W. Bush into the Guard. Additionally, this question came up in the 2000 election and Ben Barnes' daughter asked her father if he had anything to do with helping George W. Bush get into the ANG. He told his daughter no (that he didn't help Bush get in the Guard). So what has changed? Ben Barnes is now a big fund raiser and supporter of John Kerry and may have a job with Kerry - should Kerry be elected President. This is the "reliable source" Dan Rather used to attack President Bush and help validate the content of CBS' fraudulent memos. Conclusion: I believe that the liberal media - agenda driven - propaganda machine has not presented a fair and balanced perspective about George W. Bush's ANG service, instead, their many articles have left readers with the impression that George W. Bush was given preferential treatment over 150 ANG applicants and that the only way he would have been selected for a pilot slot would be if someone helped him politically; nothing could have been further from the truth. Default Allegation: George W. Bush defaulted on meeting his ANG Service Requirements Response to Allegation: Lt. Bush entered the ANG in May 1968 and took his last (F-102) flight in the Guard four years later in April 1972. His flying tour included pilot training and than operational flying in the F-102 (111th Tactical interceptor Squadron). During Lt. Bush's time in the Guard he accumulated hundreds of hours of flying time; he served his nation honorably; he flew close to 4 years straight and performed Guard duties in 1972 and 1973 satisfactory to his Squadron Commander (Lt. Col Killian) and satisfactory to the ANG; he was given an honorable discharge in October 1973. It was not uncommon for pilots to depart the ANG earlier than their established service commitment back in the early seventies. Allowing pilots to transition into civilian life served the best interests of the ANG in managing its pilot force. Why? The answer is simple: there were too many pilots versus the number of cockpits required to keep pilots current in their assigned aircraft. The glut of pilots was the result of a phase down of flying operations in Southeast Asia and Vietnam. Also, it was common for ANG pilots (who were going to leave the service) to work out with their commanders, assignments not involving flying duty. The benefit to the individual was that it helped work the transition from ANG service to civilian life. The benefit to the Guard was that they could replace less experienced pilots with "high flight time" combat seasoned pilots. An issue that keeps popping up is: why Lt. Bush didn't take an annual flight physical? The answer is simple. Lt. Bush was not going to continue flying F-102's in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. His squadron was scheduled to convert from an operational to a training squadron. Since Lt. Col Killian is deceased, it is impossible to know the dialogue that went on between Lt. Bush and Lt. Col Killian. What we do know is that Lt. Bush received an honorable discharge. Like all Guard members, Lt. Bush was required to accrue a minimum of 50 points (annually) to meet Guard service requirements (a minimum of 300 points in six years). What the liberal media may not have covered in their many articles about Lt. Bush's ANG service is that Lt. Bush accumulated 954 points - exceeding the six-year Air National Guard requirement for service - threefold. Of course, everyone knows this, right? All those investigative reporters must have brought this fact out a dozen times. I just must have missed it. Byron York in his September 9, 2004 article provided the numbers I use in the below chart. All I did was add up the points. NOTE: Any objective reporter could have totaled the numbers to give people a more balanced perspective on Lt. Bush's ANG record; they chose not to. Now let's look at the ANG point system and how Lt. Bush measured up against it. Accumulating Points toward Air National Guard Service Requirements As you serve in the Air National Guard, you accumulate points toward meeting your ANG service requirements. When Lt. Bush was serving, the minimum points required (annually) to meet ANG requirements was fifty (50 points). The DNC, Kerry Campaign and Liberal Media are obsessed with validating that Lt. Bush earned all the ANG points necessary to qualify for his honorable discharge. They are particularly concerned with points accumulated after April 1972. I've constructed the chart below to show that Lt. Bush not only met his annual requirements but exceeded them threefold - 954 earned versus a 300 point minimum requirement. Lt. Bush's strong record of Guard service supported his early release from a six-year service obligation to attend Harvard Business School. He received an Honorable Discharge in October 1973 having served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days. BUSH EXCEEDS AIR NATIONAL GUARD ANNUAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS (THREEFOLD FOR A SIX YEAR PERIOD) Air National Guard Service Period Minimum Annual Requirement ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush May-68 to May-69 Minimum Annual Requirement - 50 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 253 May-69 to May-70 Minimum Annual Requirement - 50 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 340 May-70 to May-71 Minimum Annual Requirement - 50 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 137 May-71 to May-72 Minimum Annual Requirement - 50 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush -112 May-72 to May-73 Minimum Annual Requirement - 50 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56 Jun -73 to Jul-73 Minimum Annual Requirement - 50 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 56 Ref: [url]http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx[/url] Minimum Annual Requirement - 300 ANG Points Earned by Lt. Bush - 954 Fraudulent Documents Used to Attack Bush Multiple salvos are being fired at Bush by the DNC, Kerry Campaign and their liberal media surrogates - to dishonor President Bush's service in the Air National Guard and undermine George W. Bush's credibility as Commander-In-Chief. The preponderance of evidence is that the Kerry Campaign was the planned benefactor of the CBS 60 Minutes hit piece on President Bush. But something went terribly wrong; we have a fraudulent document scandal and the mask has been pulled off CBS' extraordinary effort to undermine the President of the United States; help the DNC and get Kerry elected President. It appears that CBS' 60 Minutes attack on Bush helped to get (in one fell swoop) thousands of liberal writers to dust off their last article (bashing President Bush's ANG service), touch it up and re launch it. This massive left-wing driven effort hopes to get the media focus off of Kerry and back onto President Bush. Now look at the Fraudulent Memo to File (below) produced by CBS. As of 09/15/2004, CBS' 60 Minutes stands by its story that the memos were copies of original Air National Guard documents. Observations regarding the 18 August 1973 memo: Typewriters used by the Air National Guard in 1973 (at the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron) lacked the technology to produce the 18 August 1973 Memo for File -- to the specifications of today's Microsoft Word technology. The technology lacking was proportional typeface, superscript, curly apostrophes, Times New Roman font and vertical spacing. Should you have doubts that the memo is a fraud (after viewing my re-type), then validate the memo yourself. Instructions: Take the 18 August 1973 memo that CBS says is a copy of the original document produced in 1973 and copy it into Microsoft Word. Then set your font to the default setting - "Times New Roman Font 9". Don't change anything from Microsoft Word default settings; i.e., the type size (font 9), tab stops, and margins. Now type the memo that CBS says Lt. Col Killian typed over 30 years ago. Walla, you get the 1973 message exactly. The spacing is the same, letters line up (look above and below each sentence) and line breaks are the same. Since anyone can quickly ascertain that this document is fraudulent merely by going through the above exercise (you don't need a documents expert, handwriting expert or typewriting expert), then why weren't the DNC, Kerry's Campaign and CBS able to determine that these documents were fraudulent (using their experts)? Other Points about the 18 August 2004 Memo for File: Filing a memo with "SUBJECT: CYA" is unlikely; files are subject to inspection. During the years Lt. Bush was in the Air National Guard (ANG) the abbreviation for an Officer's Efficiency Report would be O.E.R. not OETR. Col. Staudt retired from the Air National Guard on 1 March 1972 almost 1ý years before the date of the fraudulently constructed memo of 18 August 1973. Staudt would not be in a position to exert pressure on Hodges or Killian (to sugar coat Lt. Bush's O.E.R.) because he was not in the command line of either; he was retired. Lt. Bush would not be getting an O.E.R. from Lt. Col Killian because he wasn't under Lt. Col Killian's observation for the number of days required to rate him. Also, Lt. Bush was leaving the Air National Guard and such a report would be of no advantage to the Guard and no advantage to Lt. Bush for career advancement in the Guard. The import of an O.E.R. (being rendered on Lt. Bush) would be minimal since he was on his way to Harvard Business School and leaving the military. I'm not going to analyze the other CBS memos but offer this comment. Most of these memos would be a lot about nothing even if they weren't fraudulent. It's fascinating that the content of these memos just happen to coincide with the attack points used by the Kerry Campaign/DNC. The DNC, Kerry Campaign, CBS' 60 Minutes and the liberal media establishment know nothing about ANG flying units; know nothing about the conversations Lt. Bush had with Lt. Col Killian 30 years ago; know nothing about what Lt. Col Killian authorized Lt. Bush do (regarding meeting his service requirements); know nothing about what they talked about concerning Lt. Bush's flight physical and know nothing about the views of the officers holding command positions at the time Lt. Bush served in the ANG. But what all of us now know (based on the recent comments of ANG Colonels and Generals) is that George W. Bush was seen as an excellent officer, a top-notch pilot and highly respected by the officers and commanders who flew with him in the ANG. We know, also, that he was greatly respected by his Fighter Interceptor Squadron Commander - Lt. Col Jerry Killian -- based on comments of Killian's wife and son. We know that Lt. Bush received an Honorable Discharge from the Air National Guard. Despite all the positive comments of the commanders in Lt. Bush's ANG chain of command (as well as the pilots that flew with him), the DNC/Kerry campaign and the mass liberal media continue belittling the service of our Commander-In-Chief. Kerry's efforts to malign Bush's military service in the Air National Guard and undermine President Bush's credibility with the American people (while promoting himself as a war hero) will not be well received by the American people. See my article: Kerry's Strategy to Undermine Bush CLICK HERE Zell Miller best discribes John Kerry's qualifications for Commander-In-Chief (Click Here). President Bush has served as Commander-In-Chief for three and a half years. We can judge his performance. I'm voting for the re-election of President Bush. What Should Happen Now? CBS must divulge who gave them the fraudulent documents. It's okay for news organizations to protect information sources. It is not okay for them to use their journalistic cover to protect people who have played a part in a hoax on the American public. The use of fraudulent documents (in an effort to influence the outcome of a national election and take down a sitting President) is serious criminal activity and needs to be fully investigated and prosecuted.
John Wambough is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During his career in the Air Force, Colonel Wambough flew F-105 and F-111 tactical fighter aircraft. His combat tour in Southeast Asia was in the F-105s with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Also, he served in Current Operations at 7th Air Force Headquarters, TanSon Nhut Air Base, RVN. He was a Fighter Squadron Commander (F - 111E aircraft, 55 TFS, Royal Air Force, Upper Heyford, United Kingdom) and later Group Commander at the same base. He served on the Air Staff and Joint Staff in the Pentagon -- and attended the National War College. He was head of the Joint Studies Group at Tactical Command Headquarters, Langley AFB, Virginia and completed his service in the Air Force as Commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group and Commandant of the United States Air Force Air Ground Operations School, Hurlburt Field, Florida. He retired in March 1990 - having served 28 years in the Air Force.
[url]http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2004/jw_0920.shtml[/url]
2005-10-20 13:37 | User Profile
Blah, blah blah yappy Gabby. Yeah, I see where you come from......I can hear you now.....(with heavy mouth breathing):O'Reilly goooood. Dan Rather baaaaaad. Duh, duh, duh.
2005-10-20 13:42 | User Profile
Okie, AE and Gaby:
All your comments hit the nail on the head. The reason the Conservative movement will never become a driving political force is for the very reason you're witnessing here on this forum. We have an affinity for eating our own, but under the circumstances cited in the topic opener, the rationale behind their blind hatred is even more troubling and indefensible. Contrast this with the way liberals react to attacks on their comrades and you understand political naivite.
2005-10-20 13:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Blah, blah blah yappy Gabby. Yeah, I see where you come from......I can hear you now.....(with heavy mouth breathing):O'Reilly goooood. Dan Rather baaaaaad. Duh, duh, duh.[/QUOTE]
Hmm....what a thoughtful comment. Thanks for your input - now I know you're sincere when you enter a discussion...you're not just giving factless points of view. Do you work for CBS by any chance? ;)
2005-10-20 13:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Hmm....what a thoughtful comment. Thanks for your input - now I know you're sincere when you enter a discussion...you're not just giving factless points of view. Do you work for CBS by any chance? ;)[/QUOTE]
You argument sucks. You offer nothing but double standards. You're an obvious shill. Do you work for the GOP?
If y'all are worried about poor Billly O'Reilly being attacked for his views, and y'all are worried about media censorship, then why is it OK that Dan Rather was run out of town, by the US Government nonetheless!? And Dan was telling the truth too. Unlike O'Lielly who uses hyperbole and half-truths to make his sordid "talking points"?
Let's hear ya spin this one.
2005-10-20 13:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]If you're going to defend a fake conservative like O'Reilly, then you should be willing to defend the "evil liberal" Dan Rather. Dan Rather's is a pure case of government intimidation of a media man because Rather filed a truthful report about our Furher's pathetic and sad military record.
How about it Dakota?[/QUOTE]
[B]BillyO doesn't call himself a Conservative, and frankly, neither do I, but I'm grateful for the times he takes Conservative positions and those are many. To call him a traitor because of his war position is just nonsense.
As for your comment about Rather, I don't see the connection. Condemning what's happening to BillyO and turning a blind-eye to Rather's hypocrisy, arrogance and deceit have absolutely nothing in common, so I don't get your point. [/B]
2005-10-20 13:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Okie, AE and Gaby:
All your comments hit the nail on the head. The reason the Conservative movement will never become a driving political force is for the very reason you're witnessing here on this forum. We have an affinity for eating our own, but under the circumstances cited in the topic opener, the rationale behind their blind hatred is even more troubling and indefensible. Contrast this with the way liberals react to attacks on their comrades and you understand political naivite.[/QUOTE]
Since, when was Bill O'Reilly ever in our camp, pray tell? Jeeeezus. I can't believe this. You are right however, DB, the Conservative movement will never become a driving political force, sadly, as evidenced on this forum.
2005-10-20 14:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue][B]BillyO doesn't call himself a Conservative, and frankly, neither do I, but I'm grateful for the times he takes Conservative positions and those are many. To call him a traitor because of his war position is just nonsense.
As for your comment about Rather, I don't see the connection. Condemning what's happening to BillyO and turning a blind-eye to Rather's hypocrisy, arrogance and deceit have absolutely nothing in common, so I don't get your point. [/B][/QUOTE]
O'Reilly does consider himself a Republican, and he surely poses as a Conservative whether he says it or not. And if Bill can call dissenters traitors, then he's open to being called one too, for marching lockstep to a false and dangerous policy and leading other unsuspecting Americans to the same drumbeat.
And Dan Rather is hypocritical and arrogant, but O'Reilly isn't necessarily?!?! You don't make sense. I thought you were more free-thinking than that.
2005-10-20 14:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]You argument sucks. You offer nothing but double standards. You're an obvious shill. Do you work for the GOP?
If y'all are worried about poor Billly O'Reilly being attacked for his views, and y'all are worried about media censorship, then why is it OK that Dan Rather was run out of town, by the US Government nonetheless!? And Dan was telling the truth too. Unlike O'Lielly who uses hyperbole and half-truths to make his sordid "talking points"?
Let's hear ya spin this one.[/QUOTE]
Talking to you is like talking to a leftist jew. There is no truth in you…. conversation over, mentalhead.
2005-10-20 14:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Talking to you is like talking to a leftist jew. There is no truth in youââ¬Â¦. conversation over, mentalhead.[/QUOTE]
Talking to you is like talking to an idiot. And if you're a conservative, I AM a jew. You're dismissed.
2005-10-20 14:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Since, when was Bill O'Reilly ever in our camp, pray tell? Jeeeezus. I can't believe this. You are right however, DB, the Conservative movement will never become a driving political force, sadly, as evidenced on this forum.[/QUOTE]
[B]He doesn't claim to be in anyone's camp, which may just be disingenuous palaver, but due to the extent that he champions what's important to paleo's I cheer for him. And to the extent that those on the left are trying to silence those debates, I cheer louder for him. The slimes who are threatening him should be tracked down, tried and jailed. It's that simple for me. This should not and cannot be tolerated. The left is desperate and this proves it. BillyO is cutting too close to the bone for them to sit quietly.[/B]
2005-10-20 16:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]He doesn't claim to be in anyone's camp, which may just be disingenuous palaver, but due to the extent that he champions what's important to paleo's I cheer for him. And to the extent that those on the left are trying to silence those debates, I cheer louder for him. The slimes who are threatening him should be tracked down, tried and jailed. It's that simple for me. This should not and cannot be tolerated. The left is desperate and this proves it. BillyO is cutting too close to the bone for them to sit quietly.[/QUOTE]Well there are certainly limits to how far he goes. His [URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16952&highlight=Duke+O%27Reilly"]interview of David Duke[/URL] was a disgrace.
Even Sean Hannity, with his [URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=109897&postcount=1"]past ties to Hal Turner[/URL], seems a little less neocon PC at heart.
O'Reilly's problems are troubling, but I think it has mainly to do with his "shock jock" persona. There are lots of other conservative personalities on TV now who basically seem to live a normal life. Abrasive personalities though do encounter problems, whether you're guys like Alan Berg or O'Reilly.
I think its unfortunate what O'Reilly is suffering, but I think we have good reason for resisting a categorization of him as some right-wing martyr, although there are issues involved that raise some concern.
2005-10-20 16:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]This leads to a bigger question. What will happen if people like O'Reilly are forced off the air because of death threats to them and their families? What does that say about the free press and its role in securing an open exchange of ideas.[/QUOTE]
It says they don't exist in this country and hopefully will help hammer that fact into the brains of conservative fans of O'Reilly who still cling to out-dated notions of an 'open exchange of ideas', logical debate and indeed, democracy itself.
2005-10-20 18:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well there are certainly limits to how far he goes. His [URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16952&highlight=Duke+O%27Reilly"]interview of David Duke[/URL] was a disgrace.[/Quote]
[B]I missed it but I'm not surprised. BillyO sometimes is too ignorant for intelligent viewing. This may be his way of currying favor with the opposition in an attempt to appear balanced, but in doing so, he frequently appears uninformed and cowardly. At that point I'm always reminded that he's rather dull at times and prefers to follow and not lead. Case in point. When the story broke about white high school kids wanting their own "white" prom, he laced into them with a vengeance. It was the typical Irish hot-head, street fighting kid whose temper controls his actions. He never addressed the issue of black on white crime that informed those kids' decision. Instead, he used it as a platform to denounce racism and excoriate the far right fringe. I was incensed. But then again, look at his conduct with Phil Donahue recently. The same mindless verbal assault. I suspect he's either not exceptionally bright or he knows that he has to throw some bones to the opposition and the reasons for that could be anything. I see him treat black radical thugs with more respect than is warranted but he'll take David Duke over the coals. So he's a mixed bag. Despite all of it, I'm glad for whatever Conservative views he airs. As I see it, it's better than nothing. [/B]
[Quote]Even Sean Hannity, with his [URL="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=109897&postcount=1"]past ties to Hal Turner[/URL], seems a little less neocon PC at heart.[/Quote]
[B]Can't stand him. Won't watch him. But I heard him give it to Charlie, The Red, Wrangel over entitlements to blacks. He didn't back down. Hammered away. Wrangel was caught off guard. Sean made every word count. He did good. I'm glad he's there too. [/B]
[Quote]O'Reilly's problems are troubling, but I think it has mainly to do with his "shock jock" persona. There are lots of other conservative personalities on TV now who basically seem to live a normal life. Abrasive presonalities though do encounter problems, whether you're guys like Alan Berg or O'Reilly.[/Quote]
[B]I think anyone who takes up any Conservative cause runs the risk of being labeled a shock jock. It's the ideas that are shocking the left not the behavior.[/B]
[Quote]I think its unfortunate what O'Reilly is suffering, but I think we have good reason for resisting a categorization of him as some right-wing martyr, although there are issues involved that raise some concern.[/QUOTE]
[B]He's the first TV personality to confront these issues on TV from a different angle. It took some amount of courage to buck the prevailing winds, even if he didn't anticipate the backdraft from the Left. But when he began to beat back CNN and especially the Left's 60's leftover, Donahue, that's when I suspect the big guns came out. I don't think of him as a martyr, but I sure like his style. It's refreshing to hear someone talk the way we all do and not couch it in some media double-speak. He airs issues that are important to me. I'm grateful for that too. I'd like to see him confront the rats who are after him and beat them to a pulp. But I'm just that kind of a hairpin.
And I have to admit, if this were happening to Al Franken instead of BillyO, would I care?? Not a bit. I consider him the enemy. [/B]
2005-10-20 18:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue][B]I think anyone who takes up any Conservative cause runs the risk of being labeled a shock jock. It's the ideas that are shocking the left not the behavior.[/B] [/QUOTE]
I disagree completely. There's plenty of liberals over at DailyKos that give positive feedback and respect for Pat Buchanan. Many of them agree with him on many things, although they don't agree with him completely. Yea, some simply don't like him. However, bring up Bill O'Reilly over there and everyone scorches the guy. Why? Shoot, even the left-leaning Counterpunch runs Paul Craig Roberts commentary. Why? Could BEHAVIOR have something to do with it.
[QUOTE][B]And I have to admit, if this were happening to Al Franken instead of BillyO, would I care?? Not a bit. I consider him the enemy. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, at least we know where you're coming from. It's obvious double standards have no impact on your support for one guy over the other. And for the record, I get more out of listening to Air America than I would ever get out of listening to an O'Reilly character.
2005-10-20 20:47 | User Profile
[quote=xmetalhead]And for the record, I get more out of listening to Air America than I would ever get out of listening to an O'Reilly character. I do not understand why you are choosing one above the other. They both have a detrimental effect on America and Conservatism. Liberalism has now replaced conservatism with neo-conservatism. I'm only 20 and lots of my friends believe Bush is conservative. Who is to blame for this? Not neo-conservatives (they are a third way of idiocy), Liberalism itself. It has been our enemy since the enlightenment. Neo-conservatism is a post-liberal philosophy that irving kristol came up with while eating a reuben sandwich.
2005-10-20 23:57 | User Profile
[quote=xmetalhead]You argument sucks. You offer nothing but double standards. You're an obvious shill. Do you work for the GOP?
If y'all are worried about poor Billly O'Reilly being attacked for his views, and y'all are worried about media censorship, then why is it OK that Dan Rather was run out of town, by the US Government nonetheless!? And Dan was telling the truth too. Unlike O'Lielly who uses hyperbole and half-truths to make his sordid "talking points"?
Let's hear ya spin this one.
Rather has been a self important ass for years. He was once a professional journalist, however, he seems to have fallen into the trap of believing his own line of BS.
I saw a lot of the early years of 60 minutes. I have learned how journalists set up stuff like that, and how they edit it. (Some good training, that was, for my own self defense.)
He deserves his fall for, among other reasons, failing to sustain the professional standards he was taught in journalism school.
I think DakotaBlue raised a good point: do we buy the BS of any of the media figures lock, stock, and barrel? Nope. I haven't for years. Grains of salt, sometimes spoons full of salt, needed to be taken with most of that stuff anymore . . .
AE
2005-10-21 00:01 | User Profile
[quote=Okiereddust] I think its unfortunate what O'Reilly is suffering, but I think we have good reason for resisting a categorization of him as some right-wing martyr, although there are issues involved that raise some concern.
Not a right wing martyr, I don't think, but a Free Speech martyr, and not at the hands of the government, unless whoever is getting on his back is doing so for government persons as yet undisclosed.
I can't stand Al Sharpton's utterances, but his damned foolishness comes across so well via his exercise of free speech that he becomes, except to entitlement fools, his own worst enemy in a PR sense. He is so blatantly full of crap.
AE
2005-10-21 02:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I disagree completely. There's plenty of liberals over at DailyKos that give positive feedback and respect for Pat Buchanan. Many of them agree with him on many things, although they don't agree with him completely. Yea, some simply don't like him. However, bring up Bill O'Reilly over there and everyone scorches the guy. Why? Shoot, even the left-leaning Counterpunch runs Paul Craig Roberts commentary. Why? Could BEHAVIOR have something to do with it.[/Quote]
[B]Since when did liberals earn the right to complain about behavior after their unwavering, unending and slavish support for the two slimiest, dangerous, degenerates to occupy the White House? [/B]
[Quote]Well, at least we know where you're coming from. It's obvious double standards have no impact on your support for one guy over the other. And for the record, I get more out of listening to Air America than I would ever get out of listening to an O'Reilly character.[/QUOTE]
[B]I can easily make a distinction between a ghetto ni**er and Condi Rice, can you? "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people"...Mark Twain. [/B]
2005-10-21 04:26 | User Profile
I've heard O'Reilly make a reference to bodyguards. Whether that is due to some folks actually wanting to do him bodily harm or the sort of self promoting sensationalism that made him famous from his sleaze show A Current Event I don't know. I'd prefer that he not be targetted if the former is true and for him just to be shown up as a fool. If O'Reilly does turn out to be part of the claque that [U]knowingly[/U] lied us into the Middle East mess I'd prefer to see him and everyone else involved put on trial as a war criminal. My on choice on whether he is a fool or a knave is the latter.
2005-10-21 05:34 | User Profile
I agree with everything XMH has said above. O'Reilly is a neocon slimeball, and he's far too quick to call other people "traitors" when he's one himself. If he had his way, those of us who oppose the War for Israel would be being persecuted all across the country. He doesn't give a crap about freedom of speech for those he doesn't agree with, and he doesn't give a crap about the Constitution or America's founding principles -- the very things that are supposed to define this country, but no longer do.
Is it right for people to threaten him physically for his views? No. But I have no sympathy for him.
2005-10-22 21:26 | User Profile
[quote=Angler] Is it right for people to threaten him physically for his views? No. But I have no sympathy for him.
"Be careful what you wish for, for you are sure to get it."
O'Reilly wanted to be a big shot, a famous media commentator. He has made some dough off of becoming one. With that sort of profile and fame come consequences. (See also stalkers and Hollywood stars . . .) So, now he has to spend some dough to hire bodyguards.
Karmic balance, after a fashion, particularly as he has a gift for alienating those with whom he disagrees.
AE
2005-10-22 22:27 | User Profile
Passionate media types are and should be subject to facing consequences of what they've stood for. Foaming types like O'Reilley aren't just passive observers and objective commentators, they are active inciters to action.
Now, I'd like to see the same effect for those nominally "liberal", not only shabbos goys like shilreily.