Well...Bill asked for one of those himself, dear...

• as we speak - nPS
  • Well all the Dem congress can do... - Americangirl
    • YEP, that is why their approval rating is .... - Observer
      • just bidin' our time . . . - reveille
        • "Our opposition.." You are the voice of the liberal board? - Observer
          • I don't see where she said "our opposition" - Observing
            • If you are talking about the guffaws... - Observer
    • pointless investigations like - reveille
      • Well...Bill asked for one of those himself, dear... - Observer
        • Shoot..left out the best part...subpeona specified 30 days! LOL. (nm) - Observer

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.

You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.

How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?

BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.

But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...

O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.

MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?

You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.

O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.

But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?

All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?

MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.

O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.

MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.

O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...

MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.

In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.

We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...

O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.

MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...

O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.

MAHER: Whatever it costs.

O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?

MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.

O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.

MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.

O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.

MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.

O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.

MAHER: Thank you.

O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.

MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.

O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?

MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?

O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.

MAHER: Yes.

O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.

But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.

There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.

I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.

MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.

O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.

Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?

MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.

O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.

Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.

MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.

O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

I appreciate your time spent on the Chomsky quotes, however, they are out of context from the overall essay.  Some do seem a bit inflammatory, but I must admit I see the truth in a great many of them.  The US can be a great and noble country, but it often isn't and hasn't been.

Your last paragraph I don't understand - but I have grown tired and have to finish my evening's typing.

Bin Laden isn't dead.  If he were dead, enlarged, beautifully matted and gold-framed photos of his bloody corpse would have been shown repeatedly on every television screen in the world. 

Does it make sense, in your warped world, to go after the man who had NOTHING to do with 9/11 while ignoring the one who WAS responsible for it?  By the way, have you heard?  The Taliban has strengthened.  You have your president to thank for that.

But don't worry about another terra attack.  Ain't gonna happen.  Bush has repeatedly said he is the only one who can keep us safe.  Wouldn't be prudent to have another terra attack before he leaves office.

This was a quote he made back in 2003 -

‘’These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,’’ said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘’The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.’’

You know what they say about lying down with dogs......well, he was romantically involved with a dog, uh, I mean, executive from Fannie Mae.....

If I were him I sure wouldn't want my face plastered on any newscast anymore. 

The bottom line is that no matter how uncomfortable waterboarding is, terrorists do not fall under protection of the Geneva Convention.  Also, Pelosi was briefed on this type of interrogation and her story is fastly crumbling apart.  The only reason I want them to go after Pelosi is to show that the dems knew about this too and didn't seem to have a problem until now.  Just like a lot of dems didn't have a problem with going to war in Iraq until now. 

As for Hannity...if the best rebuttal you have is that we shouldn't waterboard terrorists because Sean Hannity won't do it for charity.....well....our conversation is done here.

 I said no such thing.

And one of the other voices in your head has already judged me and declared that the Rapture will pass me by, which is fine with me.  Would prefer to spend eternity with those who are nice, loving, kind and HAPPY.

Scarborough's record is public and well known.

So is the objectivity and blatant refusal to ever tell the truth of Bush and his worshippers.

Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.  I can see why you love him.

Why don't you go back to the CON board?  You're showing your colors more and more with each post, and they ain't a pretty sight.

General Giap of the North Vietnamese army wrote his memoirs after the war.  He posted that the antiwar movement in the United States gave the North Vietnamese hope after Tet, when they were decimated and ready to surrender.  It gave them hope, prolonged the war, and eventually led to our precipitous departure.  No, I am afraid you are wrong about your facts.  Here's the post from the 1st Cav. 

Tet Offensive -- Monica
what are the cause and effects of the TET offensive? and who won this campaign? I don't really get this event! can someone tell me the story in a easier version?  I am in the 9th Grade. Monica,   

Here is an answer to a very complex question.  The Tet Offensive of 1968 was an initiative of the North Vietnam Army to have the civilian population of South Vietnam join them in their offensive and efforts to overthrow the South Vietnam Government, forcing the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces.  

The Tet Offensive of 1968 was conceived by General Giap, commander of the North Vietnam Army and his staff.  General Giap earlier in his career planned and executed the battle at Dien Bien Phu which drove the French out of Vietnam in 1954.  During the battle of Dien Bien Phu, General Giap stated  he was willing to lose 10 men for every 1 enemy soldier killed, which indicated that a person's life in Vietnam was cheap.

By the end of 1966, North Vietnam had suffered large causalities in manpower and supplies through the bombing of the North and the fighting in the South. They consider the war was at a stalemate. North Vietnam would need a major victory if they would continue on with the war. Thus the planning for what is known as the Tet Offensive began with General Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) and his staff.

The battle of Khe Sanh (Jan. 21, 1968) was the prelude to the Tet Offensive of January 31, 1968.  The battle at Khe Sanh was similar to that of Dien Bien Phu in which the Vietnamese had surrounded their enemy and cut off all land routes for supplies and evacuation.  Khe Sanh had two objectives besides the obvious objective in defeating the Marines.

1. Diversionary tactic to draw American attention away from the cities of South Vietnam and more towards Khe Sanh.

2. Remind the people of South Vietnam of another battle that took place 14 years earlier at Dien Bien Phu, which would encourage South Vietnamese to join the VC in throwing out the Americans as they did with the French.

The North Vietnamese Army fought the battle at Khe Sanh and the National Liberation Front (VC) fought the Tet Offensive, which attacked the cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam.  

It should be noted that NVA units who were not participating in the Khe Sanh siege supported the VC in their attacks on the cities during the Tet Offensive.  

National Liberation Front - (Also Known As) Viet Cong or VC were comprised of South Vietnamese civilians and North Vietnamese advisors who lived in the cities and villages throughout South Vietnam.  They were part of the North Vietnamese forces in reuniting the two countries as one.

A cease-fire began on January 30, 1968 for the Vietnamese new year of Tet, which falls on the first new moon of January. On January 31, 1968 the Viet Cong broke their cease-fire and attacked many cities and provinces throughout South Vietnam. In Saigon, a small number  of VC (19) were able to reach the American Embassy grounds, but did not gain entry into the embassy itself.

In the Northern part of South Vietnam, the city of Hue was taken over by the V.C. and executions of city officials and their families took place.  The initial reporting indicated the number of people executed was in the thousands (2,300 persons executed in and around Hue during Tet 68 - Time Magazine 31 Oct 69).

Saigon was the center for most if not all of the news agencies that were covering the war in South Vietnam.  Tet offensive of 1968 was the first time, during the war, that actual street fighting took place in the major cities.  Rear support personnel and MP’s did the initial fighting by American troops until support from infantry and armor could arrive. These men did an outstanding job in defending the cities, airfields and bases along with the embassy. The news media were able to capture this street fighting on tape in addition to the attack on the American Embassy. This new offensive was immediately brought into the homes of American families through reporting by television and the press. The sensationalism of this reporting brought forth a misrepresentation of the actual facts that took place during the Tet Offensive of 1968. The reports led the American people to think that we were losing the war in Vietnam and that the Tet Offensive was a major victory for North Vietnam. This was not the case. The VC suffered such high casualties that they were no longer considered a fighting force and their ranks would have to be replaced by North Vietnamese regulars. The civilian population of South Vietnam was indifferent to both the current regime in South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The civilian population, for the most part, did not join with the VC during the Tet Offensive.

The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded It was essential to our strategy, referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. Mr. Tin surmised, America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win. Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat.

The military defeat of North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968 became a political victory for North Vietnam because of anti-war demonstrations and the sensationalism of the news media.   The North Vietnamese interpreted the U.S. reaction to these events as the weakening of America's resolve to win the war.   The North Vietnamese believed that victory could be theirs, if they stayed their course.

From 1969 until the end of the war, over 20,000 American soldiers lost their lives in a war that the United States did not have the resolve to win.  The sensationalism by the American news media and the anti-war protests following the 1968 Tet Offensive gave hope to Communist North Vietnam, strengthening their belief that their will to succeed was greater than ours.  Instead of seeking a successful resolution at the Paris Peace Conference following the disastrous defeat of the 1968 Tet Offensive, they employed delay tactics as another tool to inflame U.S. politics.  This delaying tactic spurned further anti-war demonstrations.  Those who sensationalized their reporting of the war and those who supported anti-war demonstrations are guilty of giving our enemy hope. Because of their actions, they must share partial responsibility for those 20,000 + Americans deaths. 

We won the war on the battlefield but lost it back home on the college campuses and in the city streets.

Has anyone see this video yet?? 

I do not remember specificially but you asked me where were my legs and my mouth. What did I do besides coming to the C board and whining and I answered you.

The peace **movement** as you call it is different from a peaceful nonviolent approach to life. The movement is but one small fraction of trying to live a life of nonviolence. The **movement** shows its face big time when a tragedy the size of Iraq erupts but most of the time we work behind the scenes.

Again, this is our board, I'll preach to the choir as much as I want. If you don't like it, don't read it, how simple is that.

You seem to see promotion of a peaceful existence as one thing and that is resistance to war, or conflict or whatever they are calling it these days. It's all about the **them**, the politburo, the Viet Cong, the communists, the socialists, the terrorists. I don't see things that way. I see a bigger picture, bigger than this country or Iraq or Iran or China or this planet or this galaxy. I have been instructed in no uncertain terms how to behave towards my fellow man. There are no riders attached. That is the part that seems to be so hard for you to deal with. Christ instructed us to love our brothers as ourselves, to do for the least of our brethern as if we were doing for Him. He does not say, except for the drug addicts, the alcoholics, the bums, the slackers, the liars and thieves...there are no riders. That is for Him to sort out, not me.

The terrorists you refer to are everywhere. It is a mind set, not a place.  They are here in our country, they are certainly in Europe, in the Philippines, in Africa, in the islands of the South Pacific, Indonesia. It makes no sense to go somewhere else and protest. We have to look at ourselves first, always. Your approach seems to be to wage war on everyone. I think that is an exercise in futility.  I will stick with my approach. I will continue to pray, continue to do the things I have always done. I empathize with your position, knowing where you come from but I will never see killing as a way to accomplish anything positive. I also sincerely truly and honestly believe the terrorists hate each other more than they hate us and that we would not be in any more danger if we left Iraq than if we stay; in fact, I think just the opposite, the longer we stay, the worse things will become. It is a horrible position our troops have been put into. They were sent into an immoral, unethical, illegal snake pit by people who have never seen a day of combat in their lives, who got out because they had **other priorities.** And now they're stuck and we're stuck and whatever way we extricate ourselves it will not have a good outcome. My own personal opinion is that it is better to get out now and save what lives we can. I know you disagree, so be it.

By the way, I have one question for those of you who have served in the military or have husbands who have done so or are still doing so, doesn't the fact that people like Cheney with 5 deferments bother you/them. That no one who has sent people into war have actually been there themselves. Doesn't that bother you??

These are just from the past week.  There's plenty, plenty more, a veritable ton to choose from......

_________________

Can we just admit it...you don't care what the facts are.

What a twisted value system. Twisted.

Here she is folks...the aspiring Ann Coulter of the liberal board.

Don't pretend you actually talk about issues here. You don't.

You do not believe your own platform.

Yeah....liberal compassion. I see a LOT of that on this board....
-
Ahh....the writ handed down from she who decides who and who does not deserve compassion. lol.

You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic.

Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white.

Again...if this is a liberal trait then God save us from liberals...

Typical pile on attack liberal tactics. Just admit it. You know they are lying, you just don't care.

What a twisted, twisted set of values you have.

Denial, denial, denial. It is so patently obvious...you cannot get past the Bush hatred...cannot see the forest for the trees. Amazing....utterly, completely, amazing

You have so much class, reveille...really, so much class. You could not debate an issue if your life depended upon it. Let us hope that it never does.
 
LOL. You do love to wallow in it.... (to Piglet)

he is FOR the secret ballots because he said that companies start intimidating workers when the subject of unions come up, telling them, we will have to cut your pay, prices will go up, we will have to lay off most of our workers and finally, "we'll have to close our doors."  So it cuts both ways.  I'm sure he'll be more than happy to expound on  his RABID pro-union stance if you're sure you're ready for that.  LOL

Yes, I know Todd Palin is a card-carrying union member and good for him but that still doesn't mean I want to see his wife in the White House!!!!