O'Reilly yesterday
Posted By: TTer2 on 2008-10-23
In Reply to: and what about JOY ON THE VIEW? - ??
Did you see O'Reilly yesterday, it was hysterical watching Joys face and hand motions
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
O'reilly
I cant stand to watch O'Reilly, he tries to portray that he knows everything and yet he is just a blow-hard..Someone who professes to know all but knows nothing..
I
He was on O'Reilly
last night and he didn't say he wanted the elderly to fend for themselves. He said that their benefits should be cut back because people are drawing out much more than what they paid in and it is going the bankrupt the whole thing. I know it doesn't exactly sound pleasant to say but he is right in the fact that some people are getting twice as much as what they paid in and there won't be anything left for those of us paying into the system now. Yes, the elderly paid their dues but why should they get twice as much what they paid in when the working class who is contributing to it now for when we get older...we WILL have to fend for ourselves because there will be nothing.
I don't watch O'Reilly. ?????
duh
O'Reilly quitting?
O'Reilly quitting, Woo..Hoo..Watch Olbermann dance around his desk, LOL!
O'Reilly can't be trusted
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/01.html#a8537
The right jumped all over Dan Rather when he made a mistake one time, yet they don't even whimper over something even more irresponsible and egregious happening twice with O'Reilly.
Obama/O'Reilly
BIll O'Reilly is a mysoginistic, race-baiting bigot who believes that everyone who is a guest on his show should kiss HIS butt. IMO he gives real journalists a really bad image and should have been kicked off Fox eons ago
He patiently sat with O'Reilly
I don;t think he should have done that. To pretend that Fox is actually a news outlet does the voters a disservice. But hey, that;s the kind of guy he is.
Frank/O'Reilly
I was cheering that Bill is BACK! I've been fit to be tied over his lingering lethargy for the last period of months, and have written to complain, too.
There's a lot more on the web about Barney Frank and how filthy he is (in more ways than 1) this whole thing. He should've been put in jail along with Chris Dodd and Palsen, etc. Barney Frank's former lover worked for this outfit before they split many years ago. I've read so much on it that I don't recall which place I read it, but obviously you won't find any of this investigative stuff on the driveby channels. Even FNC doesn't put some stuff out there, which ticks me off. But I find it, anyway between the conservative blogs, sites, talk radio, etc. And these sources can be easily checked, so the libs can throw all the hissy fits they want. If they honestly think it's okay to give literally ANY party a free pass just b/c it has your letter or preference behind it, that's just nuts! I'm dying to clean out the RINOs in "my" party. They don't belong there.
Coulter vs. O'Reilly...(sm)
Okay, I almost laughed myself to death watching these two morons go at it last night. My favorite part of the interview would have to be:
COULTER: No. No. I said more books.
O'REILLY: I sell more books than you do.
COULTER: No, you don't.
O'REILLY: Yes, I do.
COULTER: No, you don't.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478046,00.html
O'Reilly said last night that
Barney will be on the factor tonight. Barney Frank is a moron and a crook. I also wish he would buy himself some teeth. Surely he makes enough money to get a decent pair of dentures.
O'Reilly: Twisted spin, again.
A quote:
O'REILLY: Massive neglect? Let's take a look at that bit of overstatement. Halfway through President Clinton's tenure in office, the poverty rate was 13.7%. Halfway through President Bush's tenure the rate is 12.7, a full point lower.
[COMMENT According to statistics obtained from the U. S. Census site, when Bill Clinton began his term as President in 1993, the poverty rate was 15.1%. By the time Clinton left office the poverty rate was 11.7%. By 2002, under George Bush the rate began to rise again to 12.1% in 2002, 12.5% in 2003 and 12.7% in 2004.
According to the Christian Science Monitor this most recent increase was unforeseen by analysts who expected the number to drop along with unemployment and may indicate a disturbing trend. While the poverty level for Asians declined and it remained stable for Hispanics and African-Americans, the only group that saw an increase was non-Hispanic white Americans living in the midwest. In other words there are 1.1 million poorer red state residents this year than there were last year.]
O'REILLY: In 1996 the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2% of the budget. ... However, the Bush 2006 budget allots a record-shattering $368 billion for poverty entitlements - 14.6% of the entire budget - a huge increase over Clinton's spending. Did the elite media mention that? Jesse Jackson mention that? Of course they didn't. Because it's much more convenient for Evan Thomas and others to imply that America under President Bush has turned its back on the poor. But it's absolute nonsense. Even in the midst of the war on terror [Note: Did he mean the war of choice in Iraq?], this country is spending a massive amount of money tryin' to help the poor. So why the lie? Because political gain can be made off the suffering of others, that's why. Those who oppose the Bush administration don't care about the truth. They only want to advance their own agenda, so once again the No-Spin zone rides to the rescue.
Hard-working Americans are providing the poor with Medicaid, food stamps, supplemental security income - that's free money - child nutrition programs, welfare payments, child daycare payments, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care, adoption assistance and health insurance for children. But, it will never be enough for the Jesse Jacksons and Howard Deans of the world. Never! If they told you the truth, they'd go out of business.
Now, I fully expect to be attacked by the far-left media for tellin' you all this. I'm sure they'll label me a racist, a shill for Bush, stuff like that. But, I don't care. The dollars don't lie. We are a generous nation. And that is the truth.
COMMENT
Most of the poor in this country WORK, many of them hold down two and three jobs. If you want to read a damning book on this topic, I suggest you get Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickeled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America. Ms. Ehrenreich went underground and worked at minimum wage jobs for a year. She discovered a few unpleasant facts about life on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Self-satisfied, replete, rich men like Bill O'Reilly sit in their posh offices and scare hard-working Americans into believing that their taxes go to indigent scofflaws who sit at home guzzling beer, smoking pot, eating chips and watching TV. Those of us closer to homelessness know this is not the case.
When he mentioned that SSI (social security supplemental income) is free money, he neglected to say that it is money that goes to disabled Americans or that providing health coverage for children reduces trips to the emergency room!
Sometimes I wonder how many poor people Mr. O'Reilly actually knows or has associated with on a long-term basis? For the past 15 years I've been involved in a local program that offers music scholarship to needy families. In that time I've taught 7 different children from 7 different poverty situations and I came to know the families personally. Most of the adults in the family work really hard. Sometimes the kids worked, too, after school. Some had parents trying to break a drug habit (yes, they held down a job) or schizophrenic parents (who were incapable of working) or an abusive parent (who worked, then took it out on the family), but most were blessed with caring parents who were doing the best to provide for their children against almost impossible odds.
So when I hear guys like O'Reilly spout their simplistic tripe implying that the poor are sucking the lifeblood out of hard-working Americans, I see red.
Also, I don't trust O'Reilly's numbers on entitlement programs simply because he never once used the words inflation-adjusted dollars. If he was simply quoting raw numbers, I'd like to remind him that 15 years ago the dollar went farther. Additionally, he did not indicate through graphics or verbally whether or not there was parity between the two budgets, i.e., was he citing figures that included exactly the same programs in both figures?
Given O'Reilly's dubious track record, one cannot accept his statements without independent verification.
O'Reilly was on the Daily Show
the other night. Did you see it? It was pretty funny. 
I'd hardly call O'Reilly journalism, now would you? sm
He has a talk show. That isn't journalism and most conservatives I know don't care for him.
O'Reilly vs Obama, tomorrow pm. So much for those
nm
obviously Bill O'Reilly or Rush
Humboldt is spoon feeding the FOLKS this federal reserve nonsense. Sign. Blink. Startle. Jerk.
Yeah, like when Bill O'Reilly had this to say sm
He first said this about the Spears situation:
"On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves. And by the way, the mother, Lynne Spears, has reportedly already sold pictures of the upcoming baby of her 16-year-old for a million bucks. Incredible pinhead."
And this is what he had to say about the Palin situation:
"Millions of families are dealing with teen pregnancy, and as long as society doesn't have to support the mother, father or baby, it is a personal matter. Some Americans will judge Governor Palin and her family, and she will have a hard time running for vice president if there is much more chaos. For the sake of her and her family, we hope things calm down. This country needs a vibrant policy debate, not a soap opera."
I am not defending Spears at all, but that is 1 example of a pinhead. 
I saw clips of that on The O'Reilly Factor.
I was cracking up. "Your name is Joy. You're supposed to be joyful." LOL! If she wants to be on a TV show like that, she really does need to lighten up and at least add to the conversation instead of just acting like she has a severe case of PMS.
Beck and O'Reilly and Hannity...
and for that matter Olberman and Matthews are not journalists, so-called or otherwise. They are commentators, which means they comment on the news, not report it. They share their opinions about news stories and have other people on their shows to discuss their opinions. It's not news, it's not reporting, it's simply opinion and people that watch it know that.
People that watch Fox are not uneducated or 'dittoheads' - it just so happens that our opinions and feelings about government and what's going on in this country and the world jive with most of the opinions on Fox. If you watch MSNBC or others it's because your opinion jives with what they're saying.
It doesn't give either group the right to say the other is brainwashed or pathetic, it just means we are of a different mindset and personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - if everyone was always of the same mindset, the Revolutionary War would have never been fought and we'd all be singing God Save the Queen.
You just have to remember to respect that people have different ideas and beliefs than you do - you don't have to agree, but at least have some respect.
Also Rep. Hoekstra was on Bill O'Reilly
last night.
What I believe is this is going to be one world government with the U.N. being the governing body. Yet, the U.N. owes the U.S. millions of dollars for the building and land they meet in. They haven't paid in years (at least since some time in the 1990s).
Saw O getting off the plane and he didn't look very happy. First time I didn't see him with that big smile on his face. He looked a bit worried. Could it be that he now realizes being Prez is not so easy? That not everyone in the world is wowed by his charm?
Actually Bill O'Reilly debunked this.
ACORN is not taking over the census for entire states or the entire US......however, they will be conducting the census for certain areas. So they won't be in charge of the whole shebang, but they will be doing this for some areas.....which in itself is scary considering the fraud that went on during this past presidential election.
O'Reilly is not a "Pub". He's an independent.
nm
Bill O'Reilly is not right-winged.
He is in independent and he does lean to the conservative side. I basically state something that happens to be similar to what O'Reilly says and it instantly makes what I said stupid, huh? Is that how it works?
I couldn't care less how ACORN competes for grants, etc. If they are dishing out money to the dems, you don't think the dems will push for them to get said tax money. Just like the unions and the dems pushing for more union control.....why.....because unions pay big bucks to democrats and their campaigns....duh.
As for ACORN...there are people within ACORN itself who don't like what is going on. I truly feel that there is something seriously wrong going on with that organization. What exactly it is....I don't know, but I sure has heck know the news media won't even try to uncover it. They are too busy kissing Barry's mixed butt.
You have spoken out against O'Reilly frequently...
polls do prove more and more people are listening to him, so that must be saying something about how they are truly feeling about Obama and it AIN'T positive.
For the most part, people who voted for him are NOT happy with what he is doing. I can name 10 neighbors on one side of my cul-de-sac alone who voted for Obama and is now regretting that vote. They have seen exactly where all this debt is heading, straight to their wallets and they definitely don't make 250K or more a year. It is going to grab them elsewhere but tax them to death none the less. If that's 10 out of my small cul-de-sac alone, I won't even bother to tell you how many at our community pool over several blocks of our neighbors are now openly regretting their vote.
They are definitely not happy with how he is handling anything because he isn't capable of handling anything..... he's nothing more than a puppet and someone else is pulling his strings.
If he gets healthcare reform through, you won't have to worry about who gets in the white house, because you'll be too taxed to death to care.
Wow, you've learned a word from O'Reilly
 tells me you must watch. Again, exactly what does Rush say that is wrong? I'm waiting.
He is afraid of Bill O'Reilly, it's as easy as that....
Obama can handle the butt kissing and egg shell walking of Olbermann and Matthews but when it comes down to it, Obama can't answer real questions that would be poised to him by Bill.
Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, et al. sm
Hilariously shows how the hipocrasy knows no bounds:
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086
This above is a link to the Daily Show with John Stewart. I love his show, and Stephen Colbert's. I'm not a political junkie (yet) so I need a *lot* of comic relief with my politics in order to stomach it.
Both sides are hypocrites, it's true. But I swear, the Republicans are so much funnier. The mental gymnastics they're having to go through in order to claim SP has "experience" alone is a sight to see. (Watch the clip above if you don't believe me. Oh, and you can see S. Palin making a good point near the end of it for all of you who are fans of hers.) In fact, Jon Stewart said he's putting "county first" in supporting Obama, because McCain being the pres. would make his job (as a comedian) so much easier...
Oh, and have no fear, anyone. I balance out the political comedy with a healthy dose of serious political coverage too. The most serious I can find lately is the stuff on PBS. You know, the calm, old-style journalism type, free of the crawl at the bottom of the screen, free of all the hype and wild graphics at the bottom of the screen, free of people shouting because they actually take turns letting each other talk. Anybody else miss that kind of reporting, where it's kinda boring to watch and you have to actually listen and pay attention to more than sound bites? Ah, well. I'm rambling...
I caught a clip of Bill O'Reilly
chewing Barney Frank a new butt during an interview. He basically told him to claim the blame instead of trying to push it on others and called him a coward. I was just sitting on the couch with my mouth open in shock. I'm glad someone told the stupid SOB though. Needless to say, Barney Frank didn't get to say much. Also, if Barney Frank got all that money from these banks, why can't he afford to get some dentures on the top? I can't stand to hear him talk. PUT SOME TEETH IN! SHEESH.
OMG! Bill O'Reilly was on the View today!!!
Joy was hateful through the whole thing. I used to like her but not anymore.
She's always arguing with Liz and now she even told Bill that she doesn't hate him, she just dislikes him. You know why? He tells it like it is and she even seemed furious that he and Barney Fife got into it on his program. It makes her sound like she likes Barney and she definitely doesn't believe he had anything to do with the downfall of FM/FM. Bill tried to explain it but you think she would listen? Heck no. I just can't believe how hateful she can be!
O'Reilly is obnoxious and everyone smart hates him nm
liz is polish what do you expect
O'Reilly, etc. are not "the regular news."
Try watching the morning news at 6 a.m. or during the day until 5-6 p.m. That's the news I'm talking about.
O'Reilly and the others are like Chris Matthews, Keith Oberman, and all those other fellas. They are more like a political talk shows. That's not news.
I have no problem with O'Reilly calling this guy a baby
--
Bill O'Reilly did not promote violence.
Liberals don't promote violence, huh? How about the gay rights protestors who physically knocked a cross out of an older woman's hands because how dare she oppose their opinion?
8 October 2005, Seattle, WA:
Veteran's Home Vandalized
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/243...html?source=rss
4 September 2005, Louisiana:
Democrat Senator Threatens Violence Against Bush
Mary Landrieu: I'll Punch Bush, 'Literally'
1 September 2005, National:
Leftist Radio Host Encourages Looting
Sean Hannity
25 April 2005, National:
Leftist Radio Threatens to Assassinate Bush
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=17878
17 February 2005, Portland, OR:
Former Pentagon Adviser Assaulted at University
Protester throws shoe at Richard Perle - Politics - MSNBC.com
24 January 2005, Milwaukee, WI:
Five Democrats Charged with Election-Day Tire Slashing
JS Online: 5 charged in GOP tire slashings
8 November 2004, San Francisco, CA:
Muslim/Democrat Mob Attacks College Republicans
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15855
30 October 2004, Durango, CO:
Liberal Professor Assaults Conservative Student
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/artic...ews041030_1.htm
22 October 2004, Tuscon, AZ:
Conservative Commentator Assaulted at University
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...ch22-ON-CP.html
5 October 2004, Orlando, FL:
Democrat Mob Storms GOP HQ, Injures Staffers
Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney Headquarters In Orlando - Politics News Story - WKMG Orlando
October 2004, National:
A Pattern of Leftist Hatred
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=40898
17 September 2004, Huntington, WV:
3-Year-Old Girl Attacked by Democrat Thugs
Washington Times - Democrats accused of ripping Bush signs
20 March 2003, Madison, WI:
Republican Heaquarters Vandalized
JS Online: GOP headquarters in Madison hit with bricks, paint bombs
11 March 2003, Los Angeles, CA:
Peaceniks Destroy 9-11 Memorial
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=31473
1 April 2005
Violent leftist/Democrat physically assaults conservative Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002026.html
13 February 1996
Liberals steal press run of conservative newspaper Carolina Review in an effort to preserve victory for their liberal candidate
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu.../16/12704.html
1 March 2002
Liberals steal entire press run of a monthly conservative publication at the University of California-Berkeley and harass and intimidate its staff
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=26652
30 November 2004
Entire run of the November issue of the Yale Free Press, a conservative student publication, was stolen over the Thanksgiving break
Yale Daily News - Editors say Yale Free Press stolen
October 1999
Liberals at California State University at Sacramento stole 3,000 copies of the student newspaper. They were enraged because the paper, The State Hornet, had published the picture of a Hispanic man being arrested and charged with resisting arrest at a football game.
Nat Hentoff
1992
Liberals vandalize offices of The Collegian at the University of Massachusetts
http://collegefreedom.org/95press.htm
Happy Hanukkah, Bill O'Reilly! (see article)
Happy Hanukkah, Bill O'Reilly! |
 |
Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Texan for U.S. Senate 2006
No lyin'
No cheatin'
No stealin' |
Read More...
You may have noticed Barbara Radnofsky’s little dig to the ridiculous Bill O’Reily in her blog ads. If this is your first time to meet Barbara, she is running for U.S. Senate against Kay Bailey “perjury is just a technicality” Hutchison. Visit her website at www.radnofsky.com. Kay Bailey needs to be defeated. She is one of the lead characters in the corrupt republican regime. * Richard Morrison's diary :: ::
*
She is one of the republican senators that received money from the Coushatta Indians at the direction of Abramoff.
Additionally, she received campaign dollars from ADCS, Inc., the PAC that was tied to Duke Cunningham.
Finally, after a $5000 contribution from Alaska’s Ted Stevens, she switched her vote to support the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Kay Bailey needs to go. Behind her smiling face and “moderate” reputation is another corrupt republican that stands for nothing but power and money.
I call on Kay Bailey to return those corrupt donations. And I call on each of you to support Barbara with donations from the grass roots, both volunteer time and money. Please support Barbara as you supported me. www.radnofsky.com Fight on! Richard Morrison
Permalink
|
|
![src=http://stat.blogads.com/xpslcfodidbefoifbepsh/drudgeretort/p.gif?3288970=11&3293684=3]() |
Held my nose and watched the same O'Reilly blather
made his pathetic atempt to delcare war on the NY Times, Rasmussen, etc. This is what sore losers do when they feel themselves in freefall. O'Reilly got his drawers in an uproar because he and Focks are down in the ratings and is'nt used to the idea of being #3 behind Olbermann, Cooper et all. Poor Bill.
Phil Donahue is the man. Had Bill O'Reilly shaking in his boots.nm
He makes good points and the only thing you get from his stance is that he doesn't want to fight the taliban, which is unfortunate for you NOT true.
Give a quote where he says the US should not fight the taliban.
The Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly page sm
is a great idea. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Malkin are at the top of my list for rabid vermin. There are some other great links there too, some funny.
I saw Kirsten Powers, a democratic strategist, on O'Reilly last night. She says
pretty much stick a fork in him, he's done. I think so, too. I saw some of those two women's posts. They were beyond hateful, anti-Christian, virulent Bush haters, foul, foul gutter language. What was he thinking!
According to Bill O'Reilly...Obama moving ahead in polls! (nm)
I watch Daily Show & O'Reilly and split the difference! NM
X
Thanks to you both; yesterday's
it was time to come out of anonymity so we can better identify the trolls in order to ignore them. So thanks to Democrat for making the case.
Actually, I think that is what JM did say yesterday. nml
.
Yesterday's interview on
Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out. You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions. So by all means, read at your own risk.
MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein
NBC News
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.
Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.
And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.
MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That's correct.
MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.
MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?
MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?
MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.
(Videotape, July 6, 2005):
MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"
MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.
And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.
MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.
MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.
MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?
MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.
MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.
MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.
MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?
MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.
MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?
MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.
MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.
I saw him on CNN yesterday. Here's the video.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Seymour_Hersh__U.S._involved_in_0813.html
I found it very interesting, and you're right, he's yet to get it wrong.
Until yesterday, I never saw you post here at all. sm
The moderator has posted several times that as long as the posts remain respectful, we may cross post. Not all liberals, by the way, believe in abortion. This is an ethical issue, not a political one, though it does seem that the liberals fly the abortion banner high and proud.
I saw this yesterday . Wonder if Fox will broadcast this?
zz
check yesterday.
nm
it was on woldnetdaily yesterday & others
Not that y'all would know anything about sources other than MSLSD and the gang.
Yesterday's news.
su
I'm not sure where it is, but one of your friends from yesterday
kept bugging Debbie about it. Maybe she knows where the rule is.
I think it used to be that we were asked to post links, so as to save disk space for the MTStars website, something like that.
That way, we can click over to read what is posted. Also, it gives you backup to your posts for verfication. Much better to see who's point of view it is, and from what website in your link.
Does anybody know if this rule still exists under the new management??
Wow, I posted this yesterday and...
Today there are no comments? Fascinating. I thought surely someone would leap to McCain's defense and/or find a way to justify his behavior.
We were talking about this yesterday...sm
....and thinking it will take years to implement, but still.....we should all be preparing for a career change eventually. I have by branching out into general transcription.
Ain't change grand....I'm wondering exactly whose job(s) it's going to save...
|
Bill O'Reilly calling it Quits?
