Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Correct quote

October 24, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

Craig Tucker’s letter of Oct. 22 quoted Bill O’Reilly as saying “all terrorists are Muslims” from the well-publicized TV show “The View,” last week. That was the premise of his entire letter. In fact, Mr. O’Reilly did not say that. I was watching the show. He said, “Muslims killed us on 9-11, and 70 percent of Americans feel building that mosque on the site is inappropriate.”

Minutes later, on the show, after the uproar, Mr. O’Reilly apologized for not qualifying his comment to “Muslim terrorists” killed Americans on 9-11. I think we should forgive him the earlier comment in the heat of the moment, and under attack, I might add, from several members of the cast from “The View.”

And I forgive Mr. Tucker for not having his facts correct about Mr. O’Reilly’s comments. These things happen when we are passionate about what we believe!

Comments

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

Would O'Reilly forgive anyone else for a slip up? Sorry. He doesn't deserve it. I saw the unwarranted and patently false hit job he did on the KU professor back 2003. As I recall, everyone of that professor's words were gladly portrayed out of context by O'Reilly who also accused him of not only being a pedophile, but promoting it. That professor received death threats, as did his family. His home was vandalized. O'Reilly took a discussion about the challenges disabled people face with the subject of sexuality and called it "wheel chair sex day." Every bit of that astroturf scandal was gladly cast as something it wasn't by O'Reilly to help a wacked out state senator from Witchita get her name in the press.

So don't go crying for a man who tries to justify denying Muslims a place to worship through yet more 9/11 Islamic xenophobia. The man drives ratings with fear and as a result he's done a lot of damage to good and innocent people. As far as I'm concerned, if you live by the gun, you die by the gun.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"As I recall, everyone of that professor's words were gladly portrayed out of context by O'Reilly"

Mr. Tucker, in his LTE, did not take an O'Reilly quote out of context, O'Reilly never said what Mr. Tucker quoted him as saying. Slight difference.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 11 months ago

Check and mate, nota. Well done.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

you're right. it's not comparable at all. o'reilly accused a distinguished sexaulity professor of being a pedophile and of promoting its exercise throughout society. he did so without any proof and inspite of an onslaught of student testimony to the contrary. every bit of it was done based on an anonymous student who turned out to be the former intern of the senator who filed the complaint. she was due to graduate that fall with a degree in political science. my guess is that she got her job.

i was in that class when it happened. can't put to words what it was like to know that every question and coversation was being piped straight to the state legislature and to foxnews only to hear them mocked or twisted on national television and radio or used to try and kill funding for ku. the only way students felt comfotable asking questions, often very personal ones, was to write them down and have them answered at the next class period. other teachers started pulling back as well, afraid they'd be o'reilly's next target. not to mention what that professor and his family went through with all the threats and vandalism. it was sickening. but that's what o'reilly does to people. that's his m.o.

so o'reilly was misquoted. talyor's vehicle may have been incorrect but the message ceratainly was not. i'll shed no tears over it.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

I know this is probably over your head, but try to keep up.

Was it O'Reilly that accused your (apparently quite) beloved professor, or the student you mentioned?

I guess I can't help but wonder, fitz, if you're equally as outraged and incensed every time some clergyman is excoriated in the national media based on nothing more than the allegations of an alleged victim, sometimes decades after the fact?

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

actually, it was o'reilly. the initial complaint by sen wagle (who never bothered to so much as call the university before introducing her legislation) was that the class was "offensive". after sen wagle's bill to strip the school of social welfare of all its funding was vetoed by sibelius, the good senator and her former intern were fast-tracked to the national stage via o'reilly to plead their case. o'reilly then went on autopilot to independently float the charges of pedophilia. he upped the ante all on his own. again, none of it was based on fact or history.

and yes, i think the national media, almost all of which is corporately controlled, is a tremendous failure. fox is unique because they command such a large audience share and are so over the top that the others play off of their tune. that should not be mistaken for an innocence of cnn, msnbc, abc, nbc, cbs, etc. however, the complicity and failure of these organizations does not exonerate o'reilly or fox for the things they've done to people. that's like saying we shouldn't talk about the murder a person committed because others have committed murder as well.

all of that said, this LTE is a defense of o'reilly. therefore everything he and his network have done to degrade the discourse is fair game. the author chose to correct a misquote of o'reilly. okay fine. but ignoring all of the evidence in front of us about the initial LTE's accuracy of the man's intent is just as disingenuous, if not more so.

i welcome a fruitful discussion of the broader failures of american media, but this story was about o'reilly. his actions and my criticisms of him are within the scope of the initial discussion. if we're going to criticize what is probably an honest mistake by an amateur writer of an LTE, then let's talk about the failure of the man and his organization who are supposed to be professionals and should know better.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

"actually, it was o'reilly. the initial complaint by sen wagle (who never bothered to so much as call the university before introducing her legislation) was that the class was "offensive". after sen wagle's bill to strip the school of social welfare of all its funding was vetoed by sibelius, the good senator and her former intern were fast-tracked to the national stage via o'reilly to plead their case."

Read your own words. "their case". O'Reilly may have given them the forum, but he didn't invent the allegations out of the blue.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

got it. o'reilly is a completely neutral medium whose sole objective is merely to link the common voiceless folk of the world. glad you cleared that up for me.

btw, you neglected the rest of what i wrote in that paragraph.

"o'reilly then went on autopilot to independently float the charges of pedophilia. he upped the ante all on his own. again, none of it was based on fact or history."

looks like tayor isn't the only one who needs to work on his journalistic ethic. please stop sound-byting in order to defend the indefensible. bottom line, o'reilly used his platform to twist, misrepresent, distort and concoct a narrative that should be far beyond the pale for someone as apparently intelligent and independent as yourself.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

Again:

Did he create the story?

0

Majestic42 3 years, 11 months ago

I laughed long and hard when I saw the video of Reid saying he saved the world. Many on the left are simply deluding themselves into thinking they are needed and loved.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

NoFitz, "denying Muslims a place to worship?" Really? For months now, the proponents of this project have been between a mosque and a hard place. On the one hand, they've claimed that it's a place of worship (hiding behind the First Amendment), while at the same time denying that it's a place of worship ("Gee, folks, quit calling it a 'mosque' - it's really just a 'community outreach center'"). Aside from the fact that the proponents of the project don't seem to know what it really is, there are over 80 mosques in New York City where people of the Islamic faith can worship. NoFitz, this isn't about a "place to worship." If you think it is, you're naive.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

brilliant analysis, elder. love how you changed the subject from O'Reilly's ethically bankrupt brand of "journalism" to splicing hairs over what to call the mosque/community center. (note: either name is 100% more intellectually honest than calling fox "news" or decalring it "fair and balanced")

i assume if it is just a "mosque" and not a "community center" that all would then be right with the world for you and your LJW cohorts? no more problems if we call it a mosque? if we let you name it can they move forward with their project so that the rest of us can finally move on?

i didn't think so.

i'm all for equal opportunity depsotism though, elder. we need to spread it around a little bit. perhaps veterans shouldn't be allowed near the hallowed ground of the ok city memorial either. we should probably start rooting out any and all veterans' organizations within a given radius of the site. after all, it was a veteran who hit us on that day and we have to respect the dead.

better yet. how bout i give you the FoxNews/O'Reilly treatment for disagreeing with me? long time favorites and greatest hits like:

"why do you hate your country, elder?"

"Shut up! Cut his mic!"

"if you question your president in a time of war then you, sir, are a traitor."

"is elder a terrorist? some people think so."

"anonymous sources say elder is a pedophile."

"i think elder has a deep-seated hatred for brown people."

"if we let elder get his way, i fear for the future of our country and the safety of our kids. the germans had a name for it. they called it a final solution."

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

NoFitz, how does one "splice hairs?" Just curious.

Assuming that you're not illiterate (the jury's still out on that one), perhaps your vile hatred of Fox News, which you've allowed to get under your thin skin, is causing you to go bald.

Interestingly, now you can't seem to decide whether it's a mosque or a community center either. As I said, however, this isn't about whether this is a "place of worship." Based on your last rant, it's now quite evident that your calling this project a "place of worship" in your original post was in fact the result of your patent naivete on this subject.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

don't hate the player, hate the game elder. it's clear you've got nothing on o'reilly or fox so I guess a semantical fit about what sign to hang outside of a muslim-controlled buidling in new york becomes all important to an armchair warrior in lawrence. talk about being under someone's skin, the semantics of this topic must itch, eh elder?

what do you care what anyone calls it anyway? they can call it a slip-n-slide as far as i'm concerned. it changes nothing. what i do care about are group-thinking zombies that execute on fox's every command, particularly when it's at another's expense.

by the way, since fox and its minions decided this was a matter of national survival, muslims (and other brown people) across the country, who had nothing to do with any acts of violence, started getting harassed and threatened. how does it feel to be a part of that? how does it feel to know that some kid's getting bullied or beaten at school because fox needed to make a splash and that people like yourself legitimize it? my guess is that it feels pretty good. not thinking for yourself or taking responsibility for the consequences of your positions must.

sad sad sad.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

Foxfits, I'm still puzzled why you chose to connect anything I said with Fox News. The point I made (which, by the way, you still haven't refuted) has been covered well by all the media. You've railed at Fox News again, this time in each paragraph of your last rant, and are obviously obsessed with it. Somehow I doubt that you've been similarly offended by the blatant bias that oozes daily from the pages of the New York Times and weekly from The New Yorker, not to mention MSNBC and CNN.

Of course, hypocrisy has never troubled radical leftists like you.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

yeah, yeah. "the most trusted name in news". i got it. no use fighting a catchy slogan i suppose.

and to be honest elder, no. i have no idea what point you're trying to make. i criticized the defense of a man who's made a living off of smearing and inventing the news and even offered a relevant, local example. rather than stay on topic and argue the merits of that defense, you chose to nitpick my word choice to create an entirely different argument because, for some reason, calling it a 'mosque' bothered you.

you're defending a man (and by default a network), who's made a living out of trying to destroy people, because apparently you and i can't agree on whether it's a mosque, community center, or a slip-n-slide. again. got it. makes total sense.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

Foxfits, it's perfectly appropriate on this forum to comment on anything that another poster has said. Your statement about "denying Muslims a place to worship" was and is both ridiculous and naive. You made a foolish assertion, I called you on it, and all you can do is criticize Fox News. Since supporters of this project have said on various occasions that it isn't a mosque but a "community center" of some kind, this isn't about "denying Muslims a place to worship." Your attempt to make this sound like a religious group that can worship at any of over 80 mosques in New York City can't exercise their freedom of religion simply because of this controversy is laughable. I've demonstrated why that is, and your obsession with Fox News is irrelevant.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

you left out the part that this mosque, and yes it is a mosque, has been there for years already. it's been in a basement, but its been there the whole time. all this project aimed to do was to expand it. so the fact is, we're both right. it's a place of worship and a community center.

you also left out the role fox news and o'reilly continue to play in elevating yet another non-issue to a status of national importance and distraction. considering that this LTE was initially about correcting a misquote of o'reilly by another LTE author, i think it's perfectly reasonable and appropriate to reflect on the professional ethic that o'reilly and his network have aspired to.

i don't see why you insist on getting bogged down in the semantics on my choice of words. again, call it what you want to. i don't really care, but you're missing the point. if we're going to go into convulsions over the journalistic ethic of an amateur writer's letter to the editor, then let's also talk about the subject of that letter, which is a man and a network who are supposed to be professionals but woefully lack the same ethic this author pines for.

none of that is to defend other networks, which i also believe are painfully childish as well. in my opinion fox is the most blatant and destructive, but that's beside the point and tangential. this LTE was about bill o'reilly and the commments he's made not just on 'the view,' but on his own show housed at the foxnews network.

0

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

How many churches are enough? Or synagogues? Or, etc.?

Is there some sort of magic number that means once there are so many, it's ok to prevent that faith community from building more?

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

no there isn't a magic number. that's what freedom of religion is. my personal preference is that we move away from religion as a governing structure or philosophy. however i certainly support the right of people not to be forced into my personal religious preferences as a way to structure their personal lives. if people want to build churches, they are free to do so. it's when a dominant religion attempts to constrict the less dominant or impose its will on the society at large that we begin to have problems. as far as i'm concerned, that is one of the few times the government should get involved in religion--to protect the religious rights of the minority, which includes my right not to be religious, against the religious preferences of the many.

0

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

Yes.

My comment was a response to cato's many comments about how many mosques there were already.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

my apoligies. i thought you were talking to me.

0

cato_the_elder 3 years, 11 months ago

Foxfits and jafs - rumbling, stumbling, bumbling, with no idea what the other is talking about.

No surprise there.

0

Centerville 3 years, 11 months ago

Thanks, Sarah. Maybe the LJW could hire you as a fact checker. That position seems to be vacant.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 11 months ago

The news staff is fine. The editorial/opinion page/LTE writers could use a little bit of work. But hey, couldn't we all?

0

Mike Ford 3 years, 11 months ago

facts don't matter to bullies, volume does, right archie bunkers....

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

For once you're right, tuschie. Craig Tucker didn't care a thing about facts when he wrote his LTE.

0

Jimo 3 years, 11 months ago

No, the Cordoba Center is named after the city where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in harmony and prosperity for centuries, a Muslim city where Christians and Jews fled to because of the tolerance it offered in a hateful, intolerant "Christendom." Indeed, as the Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes, "Both Christians and Arabs co-operated at this time to make Cordova a flourishing city, the elegant refinement of which was unequalled in Europe." That's the reason you hate a 21st century Cordoba.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 11 months ago

He hates it because you say he does? Wow, you must be a Jedi or something.

0

Jimo 3 years, 11 months ago

" I think we should forgive him the earlier comment in the heat of the moment,."

No, his comment was part and parcel of a repeated theme from fascist demagogues who see short term political gain in demonizing billions of people at the expense of destroying this nation's long term national security by alienating our mutual allies in this struggle.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 11 months ago

Were the terrorists in fact Muslims?

If they were could it be they were not actually representing Muslims?

So what does being a Muslim have to do with 9/11/01?

Bill O’Reilly being an extremist does not make all news anchors extremists.

We should more concerned about: A. How did the terrorists get by Bush,Cheney,Rice,Rummy and the NSA? They had been living but a few blocks from NSA headquarters....hmmmmmmmm. Agencies were aware of this. Bush was advised that there was something about to happen.

B. Bush,Cheney,Rice and Rummy lying about WMD's in Iarq

C. "Yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities(Bush admin) ignoring their regulatory responsibilities." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

0

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

The Community Reinvestment Act specifies that their loans are to be "safe and sound".

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

that's an excellent point, jafs.

so the real question we should be discussing is why they weren't "safe and sound." the answer is most certainly bi-partisan and the problem is four-fold. first, we allowed banks to lend at will and to gamble with the loans by misrepresenting their ratings. second, we failed to ensure parity between wages and inflation by encouraging the outsourcing of our jobs and ignoring wage stagnation/ depletion. third, we encouraged, both governmentally and corporately, the use of debt as a tool to create welath. finally, we have failed to educate people about how to manage their money, how to spot a scam, or how to see through marketing campaigns that drive them to grossly irresponsible levels of consumption. that lack of edcuation has is now intergenerational.

we have morphed into a system where if people stop borrowing, the economy begins to die. the entire effort of the fed has been to keep rates low to encourage more borrowing and more debt. we've done nothing to replace the debtor-economy with a real economy: one that actually produces goods and services.

long story short, this doesn't get better--no matter who we have in office. citizens united will make political parties irrelevant and erode our ability to respond to anything other than the wishes of the largest donors with every election cycle. this once democratic republic has become a plutocracy, something that will become increasingly apparent over time. by then, it will be too late.

0

jafs 3 years, 11 months ago

I think first those who are claiming the CRA loans were the problem would need to demonstrate that those were, in fact, what created the problem.

So far, each time I post the criteria, nobody posts any evidence that it was those loans that were problematic.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 11 months ago

Exactly Merrill...let's let Bin Laden live in peace already. We probably even owe him an apology. Maybe Obama could have him to the White House for a beer?

(It was probably a Christian conspiracy against Islam anyway.)

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 11 months ago

According to a 1997 Newsweek story Iraq did away with WMD"S under Clinton.

Cannot blame Carter and Clinton for the behavior of corrupt republicans. Although I might scold them for NOT taking into consideration that given the opportunity the repubs will steal the country blind. Repubs have established a criminal like pattern = the USA cannot afford the new republican party.

Case or two or three in point:

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist( millions out of work) "There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and were part of the Bush Jr. administration.

Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this was about one quarter of our national debt").

The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time. George Herbert Walker Bush then took $1.4 trillion of taxpayers money to cover the theft. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  1. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers(millions out of work) Yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities(Bush admin) ignoring their regulatory responsibilities." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  2. Only 3 major Financial Institutions were at risk in spite of what we’re told ? "There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America and Citigroup, Those three were clearly in very weakened form. Many of the other big banks simply were not. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

BTW FOX news is not a news organization it is a Tea Party Repub PAC.

0

mr_right_wing 3 years, 11 months ago

Looks like it is time for someone to pull a 'merrill' and post the direct quotes of leading democrats demanding that the Bush administration look into WMDs in Iraq. (...are the names Kerry and Gore big enough for you?)

How conveniently some forget about that.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

merrill (anonymous) says…

"According to a 1997 Newsweek story Iraq did away with WMD"S under Clinton."

And yet even Clinton's wife apparently didn't believe that. In her rather impassioned (for Hillary) Senate floor speech, before voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, she listed the evidence that, at one time or another, Saddam was working on WMDs. Her decision was not based on anything she was 'lied to' about, but rather on the fact that we knew he had them (or was developing them) at one time, and it was up to him to cooperate with the inspectors to prove they were gone. He didn't. Too bad for him.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 11 months ago

"And yet even Clinton's wife apparently didn't believe that. In her rather..." Like Hillary ever believed anything her "husband" ever said. Those two are married for political purposes only.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

actually. that's not accurate. before the invasion, they were in compliance with the inspections and the un inspectors had the access and cooperation they needed. we invaded anyway.

Blix welcomes accelerated cooperation by Iraq Saturday, 8 March 2003, 12:08 pm Press Release: United Nations http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0303/S00109.htm

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

Actually, it was completely accurate. At the time Hillary made her impassioned speech before voting to authorize the use of force (in October), the inspections had not resumed (not until the following month). Saddam had played that game for years and would have continued to do so indefinitely if ineffectual buffoons like Blix had their way.

0

NoFitz 3 years, 11 months ago

perhaps, but since we used UN resolutions and the failure to comply with them to justify our actions, it was the UN's call to make. If they were satisfied with the progress, then we had no standing to invade. It was a crafty game of doublespeak we used, first by invoking UN resolutions to go to war then snubbing the UN when we didn't get our way. So its a legitmate organization when we want to go to war, but wrong and incompetent when they don't align with our intent.

It's kiind of like how people love to celebrate the constitution when it comes to owning a gun, but paint conspiratorial pictures when it comes to separation of church and state (and vice versa). it's all evidence of a culture that values the cherry-picking of facts, history, laws and ethics to gratify an immediate impulse. drug addicts do the same thing. they conjure up any rationale they can to justify another fix.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 11 months ago

Woo hoo! Haven't seen this set of links in several hours now. I'm sure everybody will read all the associated drivel this time!

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 11 months ago

I know I've mentioned this before, but what the heck, repeating things about merrill seems somehow justified.

A couple of weeks ago he posted one of his usual 'it's all Bush's fault' rants. It included things that 'Bush wants us to believe ' - in the present tense. He's been posting these same mindless litanies for literally years and doesn't even read them himself to see if they're still current.

0

Majestic42 3 years, 11 months ago

Not to mention the oft-forgotten fact that... ...drum roll please....and pay attention, merrill..... BUSH. ISN'T. PRESIDENT. ANYMORE. In conclusion, knock it the heck off.

0

booyalab 3 years, 11 months ago

"Muslim terrorists" is only marginally better. I think we'd all agree that the most culturally-sensitive term for them is "commercial aircraft demonstrator".

0

beatrice 3 years, 11 months ago

"under attack, I might add, from several members of the cast from “The View.” "

Conservatives -- always the victims.

0

Kyle Reed 3 years, 11 months ago

The simple fact that the show "The View" is on the air makes us all victims.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.