We Decide, you Shut Up

Cain

Straussian
Joined
May 31, 2002
Messages
15,524
Location
Los Angeles
In Harper's Magazine I read a partial transcript of O'Reilly's interview with Jermey Glick, whose father died in one of the towers on 9/11. After the interview, Glick says O'Reilly told to "get the f*ck out of here before I tear you to pieces."

This comes from http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/oreillyglick.htm

He's more hysterical than usual...

O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed...

JEREMY GLICK: Well, actually, that's not true.

O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement?

GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved.

O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement.

GLICK: As an individual.

O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that.

GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising...

O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So...

GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support...

O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising.

GLICK: ... escalating...

O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to.

GLICK: It's marginal -- right.

O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this.

GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate.

O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but...

GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush...

O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are.

GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that.

O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed...

GLICK: What I'm saying is...

O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that.

GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.

O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to...

GLICK: Maybe...

O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you.

GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics.

O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think.

GLICK: Well, OK.

O'REILLY: You're -- I want to...

GLICK: But you do care because you...

O'REILLY: No, no. Look...

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care.

GLICK: ... to rationalize...

O'REILLY: Here's why I care...

GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide.

O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...

GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families.

O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people.

GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me.

O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why?

GLICK: Why?

O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country.

GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel...

O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right.

GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14...

O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the...

GLICK: On September 14...

O'REILLY: Here's the record.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

GLICK: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

GLICK: OK.

O'REILLY: In respect for your father...

GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government...

O'REILLY: Out of respect for him...

GLICK: ... not the people of America.

O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to...

GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority.

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

GLICK: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.
 
Glick is obviously a bedwetting pussy, to bad he wasnt killed.
 
I tend to agree. :rolleyes:

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
 
Cain said:
I tend to agree. :rolleyes:

Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

Did she really say that?

As for O'Reilly, he just demonstrates how thin the veneer of credibility is for his cause.
 
Cain said:


Ann Coulter said it best: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

I tend to stay away from extremist demagogues like Coulter and "oriellysucks.com", but if you feel the need to give legitimacy to such propaganda. By all means. :)
 
a_unique_person said:




As for O'Reilly, he just demonstrates how thin the veneer of credibility is for his cause.

What "cause" is that?
 
Yes, she did say that (Ann Coulter 2/6/02, speech at Conservative Political Action Conference)

I tend to stay away from extremist demagogues like Coulter and "oriellysucks.com", but if you feel the need to give legitimacy to such propaganda.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. If your original comments were made in earnest (I thought it may have been sarcasm), then there's no point replying. Oreillysucks.com/ is only cited as a source, and I quoted no editorial content from that site.

The quote taken from Coulter -- if anything -- delegitimizes her.
 
Not having much access to TV, I don't know O'Reilly very well. But this interview is moronic.

Anyone who claims sympathy and solidarity with 9/11 survivors is in no position to abuse a family member of someone who died there. O'Reilly ought to have respectfully allowed the guy to present his views without interruption and badgering. At the end, he might have said, "I thank you for taking the time to share your feelings with us. I'm afraid I see things a little differently myself."

This display is embarassing. O'Reilly comes off as an ego maniac who has to humiliate his opponents.
 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/coul-f27.shtml

Coulter was unapologetic afterwards, claiming that her statement was a “huge hit with the audience.” About 3,500 people attended the four-day CPAC conference, the annual gathering of far-right elements in the Republican Party, which was held January 30-February 2 in Arlington, Virginia. Representatives and supporters of some 70 organizations and publications participated. (It was at the 1994 CPAC conference that the Paula Jones sexual harassment case was publicly launched against the Clinton White House, at a press conference organized by a group of right-wing activists.)

Coulter’s comments, and the audience reaction, are an expression of one of the most important realities in American political life—the emergence within the political establishment of a significant fascist layer, cultivated and promoted by sections of corporate America and the media, which now plays a dominant role in the Republican Party and wields enormous influence within the Bush administration.
 
DrBenway said:
O'Reilly ought to have respectfully allowed the guy to present his views without interruption and badgering.


Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.
 
Re-read the interview, it was glick who kept cutting off O'reilly.

What are you talking about?? The transcript is right there; O'Reilly initiates most of the interruptions. Watch any of O'Reilly's so-called interviews.

Here's my favorite part:

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts with a non sequitur]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

[Glick "interrupts" to complete his sentece]

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts again]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

[O'Reilly's fatuous and irrelevant remark:]

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

[The CIA did indeed support the Mujahadeed against the Soviets]

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

[O'Reilly interrupts with another non-sequitur]

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.
 
"GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. "

O'Reilly learned the hard way, don't put a woo-woo on primetime. What's next? A family member of a 9-11 victim who is a black helicoptor john birch woo-woo?
 
Cain said:


What are you talking about?? The transcript is right there; O'Reilly initiates most of the interruptions. Watch any of O'Reilly's so-called interviews.

Here's my favorite part:

O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts with a non sequitur]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father!

[Glick "interrupts" to complete his sentece]

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan...

[O'Reilly interrupts again]

O'REILLY: Who killed your father.

GLICK: ... didn't kill my father.

O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

[O'Reilly's fatuous and irrelevant remark:]

O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

GLICK: So what about George Bush?

O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

[The CIA did indeed support the Mujahadeed against the Soviets]

O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it.

GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

[O'Reilly interrupts with another non-sequitur]

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.


Again, re-read the interview. Glick has more dialogue, and he interrupted Orielly first.
 
Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.
 
a_unique_person said:
I thought it was supposed to be an interview. You ask a few questions to get them started. When they dry up, you as a few more.

Actually, its more of a debate. If you knew anything about O'reilly's show, you would realize that. Do they have "The Orielly Factor" in australia?
 
corplinx said:
Why would anyone be surprised O'Reilly interrupted the guy, he guy was a total mark for left wing conspiracy propaganda. If this guy had been a John Bircher, people would be cheering the guy getting interrupted and O'Reilly not letting him change subjects or make statements without backing them up.


That reminds me of the time he had the christian fundy on his show debating him on gay adoption. Orielly tore the guy up.
 

Back
Top Bottom