O'REILLY: ROSIE STORY IS HUGE (But 9/11 Claims Aren't)
O'Reilly's latest installment of attacks against Rosie O'Donnell-- in response to her yet-to-be-addressed 9/11 claims-- have now reached the point of becoming definitively ludicrous.
He attempts to link-- fallaciously-- a "lack of coverage" over Rosie O'Donnell's 9/11 statements (after weeks of continuous coverage on The Factor) with lack of coverage on issues with illegal aliens. As thousands of stories go under-reported every day, there is no meaningful link here, though one is certainly implied. Meanwhile, O'Reilly portrays himself as a righteous defender-- policing the press and defending border issues.
Guest Bernie Goldberg also attempts to associate Rosie and her statements with insane hypothetical racist statements.
PUNDIT MASTER Bill O'Reilly-- who asserts his 'domination over cable news' during commercial lead-ins-- claims that Rosie is a "HUGE STORY" SUPRESSED BY A MEDIA "CABAL" THAT REFUSES TO REPORT -- but the story is not on her remarks on 9/11 but rather the rhetoric question: has Rosie gone too far?
The massiveness of the Rosie story is backed up by the unsubstantiated claim that "this is a major problem for a major corporation" with "tentacles to Barbara Walters" and "all kinds of implications"-- none of which are anything but vague notions suggested under duress of spin.
The importance to O'Reilly seems compounded by the media "blackout" over the story-- despite sensational coverage by MSNBC, Good Morning America, EXTRA!, E!, ABC NEWS and others. But for O'Reilly, these reports are no better than the "cabal" that refuses to report on Rosie-- as they avoid the "issue" of whether her statements went to far and focus only on the 'feud' between O'Reilly and O'Donnell.
But does the Rosie story hold legitimate newsworthiness? Jane Hall says she hasn't researched it, to which O'Reilly blurts back "It doesn't matter... I'M telling you the truth about it."
O'Reilly does, of course, have a point about media silence-- the real story, however, is not Rosie, but the substance of her 9/11 claims. O'Reilly may claim, quote: "Bernie's right. I'm right. You're wrong. And I can prove it," as he did in this segment, but he rarely-- if ever-- makes ANY attempt to qualify his fallacious remarks, many of which are merely red herrings to begin with.
The Official Story of 9/11 continues to be defended at all costs, as massive evidence to the contrary continues to be suppressed and under-reported by a nefarious cabal, which includes-- in part-- an unscrupulous class of establishment media flunkies.
In this clip-- as with any other Fox segment on 9/11 Truth-- the substance of 9/11 claims are routinely dismissed as absurd (or equivalent epithet) and its messenger is either regarded as a "nut," a "kook" or otherwise defamed as opportunity allows-- though Fox does deserve credit for being the most dedicated reporter in mainstream media of 9/11 'conspiracy theories.'
Hats off to O'Reilly for fighting to give 9/11 Truth the media attention it deserves.
HIGHLIGHTS WORTH BREAKING DOWN:
O'Reilly responds to statements by Howard Kurtz-- a "nut" whom O'Reilly lambastes for 'defending' O'Donnell. Kurtz said that "sliming Rosie" is a distraction from real questions over Bush's intentions/desires and preparations for war with Iran.
O'Reilly responds 'logically', quote: "These questions are absurd based on this week's ....uh....I mean, come on, it's absurd."
Though he fails to make a valid point, his guest JANE HALL agrees and responds by saying: "She was wrong," countering suggestions by Rosie that the Iranian hostage situation was provocated/staged.
Hall goes on with unsubstantiated and 'unbalanced' claims that the "President of Iran-- actually-- was the one trying to do this for his own internal purposes." Having proven her point, Hall then concludes, quote: "So, Rosie O'Donnell was wrong."
Jane Hall goes on to make a contemptuous fool of herself -- backing up O'Reilly's criminal attempts to erode the protection of the First Amendment while pretending to refute, counter and "balance" him. In fact, Hall explodes at O'Reilly's accusation of her being far-left, inciting the second of the following quotes:
Jane Hall states: "I think it is VALID to question whether Rosie STEPPED OVER THE LINE WITH 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES" (yet would it not thusly be valid for Rosie to question the validity of the 9/11 Official Story?)
Moments later, JANE HALL adds to this conundrum, referring to her previous statement: "I SAID SHE DIDN'T HAVE A FIRST AMMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE WRONG AND BE A WACKO."
O'Reilly's other guest, Bernie Goldberg, also puts out the "logical" commentary that "saying the Government blew up the towers on 9/11 is NOT A CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT-- IT'S AN INSANE STATEMENT"-- again, without qualification of why the 9/11 claim cannot be explained within a paradigm of rational thought.
RELATED: FOX NEWS RATINGS CONTINUE SLIDE from September 26, 2006
CLICK ON THE BANNER TO BUY TERRORSTORM IN HARD COPY