Larry King Live 9/28

[SteveMacD]

So, I was talking to my mom on the phone last night. She had been watching Larry King Live and asked about this annoying blonde. Mom said this woman was conservative, obnoxious, and would talk over everybody else. I said it sounded a bit like Ann Coulter. So I watched the rerun, and yes, it was indeed Ann Coulter. Never in my life have I seen a woman who either needed to get back on her meds and/or get laid as badly as does Ann Coulter.

[strandinthewind]

So, I was talking to my mom on the phone last night. She had been watching Larry King Live and asked about this annoying blonde. Mom said this woman was conservative, obnoxious, and would talk over everybody else. I said it sounded a bit like Ann Coulter. So I watched the rerun, and yes, it was indeed Ann Coulter. Never in my life have I seen a woman who either needed to get back on her meds and/or get laid as badly as does Ann Coulter.


Ann is a sow. She almost never let's anyone finish speaking and when she does she smirks and then tells half truths or just lies.

For example, she fairly recently exclaimed the war in Iraq was going slendidly and could not understand why all the liberals were lying to the contrary. Then, Bill O'Reilly, who is hardly a liberal, corrected her and she just went on lying.

Though a google search will yield many more, here is an article I liekd on the two of them that is telling and factual:


Bill O’Reilly Takes on Ann Coulter
By Scott Spicciati Editor | Bill O'Reilly Watch
July 30, 2003

In a surprisingly different tone from Bill O’Reilly’s last interview with Ann Coulter when he told her, “It’s (Slander) a good book,” Coulter is finally put on the spot in a place where you’d think she would be safe--FOX NEWS Channel.

Bill O’Reilly, the self-proclaimed Independent, opined on two books last year that were released around the same time: Michael Moore’s “Stupid White Men” and Ann Coulter’s “Slander.” Moore is the liberal and Coulter is the conservative. Guess which book got the “biggest example of spin” award in an O’Reilly column? Moore of course. When Coulter appeared on the factor to promote a book that explains that conservatives don’t have a voice in the media, the conservative pundit was told by O’Reilly that her book is good. The spin award goes to Moore.

But the interview went a little different this time. Maybe even Bill O’Reilly knows when conservative rhetoric goes too far. This interview also exposes more of Coulter’s charming attitude that isn’t always evident in her columns. However, the interview also proves O’Reilly’s preference of attacking the Left when Coulter is just as extreme as any liberal, including Al Franken--who by the way is a comedian; not a politician. Here are a few highlights from Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Ann Coulter on July 22, 2003.

BILL O’REILLY: With us now is one of the most successful right-wing pundits, Ann Coulter, the author of the best-selling book, “Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.”

All right. Your book's doing great, and it's doing better than your first book, and you have a very big following.

But I don't know why you're so vitriolic in your writing, and let me give the folks an example, if they haven't read your book. Kate Moss. You know this little waif, Kate Moss, this little model. She probably didn't even go to high school. Here's what you say about Kate Moss. This is unbelievable.

"Even model Kate Moss took time out from her drug habit to wrap her head around the war issue. Terrified that an attack on Iraq could lead to an attack on Colombia and dry up her supply, she was foursquare against the war." Now come on. I mean Kate Moss?

ANN COULTER: Well, that is one of the frivolous chapters. It's toward the end. I do cover the celebrities, and that's a chapter that really is just for laughs.

Here she has just admitted that part of her book can’t be taken seriously, saying they are “frivolous.” How reliable is a book with chapters that are “just for laughs” and similar to supermarket tabloids that “cover the celebrities?” Coulter also has no problems gloating over “Treason’s” success.

COULTER: You know, his (Frank Rich) book sold about six copies. Mine has sold 150,000 in the first three weeks.

O'REILLY: Look, there's no question that you have a following, but it's preaching to the choir.

COULTER: I don't think so any...

O'REILLY: You're not making any converts.

COULTER: ... more than you are.

Interesting how Coulter makes no specific references to whom she has converted. Now we move to a part of the debate where O’Reilly makes Coulter the lesser of two evils when she’s compared to comedian Al Franken.

O'REILLY: But I'm not debating what's in your book, all right. Although I disagree with some of it. You have a perfect right to say it, and you make a lucid case for it. Millions of people buy your book. I'm objecting to your method.

See, Al Franken is a vile human being, would you agree? He is. Would you agree?

COULTER: After seeing your exchange with him, yes, I would.

O'REILLY: All right. He's a vile human being. But he does almost what you do...

COULTER: No.

O'REILLY: ... in the sense that he hates all conservative and moderates. He hates them, all right. Now I don't think you hate them because I know you hang around with Maher.

By saying Coulter hangs around Bill Maher, a liberal, he makes the case that Coulter doesn’t hate all liberals the way Franken hates all conservatives. Does this mean Franken has no conservative friends? Apparently so, according to O’Reilly.

COULTER: No. No. For one thing, at this point, I'm funnier than Franken.

O'REILLY: Yes, you...

COULTER: He used to be funny.

O'REILLY: No, you've always been funnier than Franken. I'll give you that.

COULTER: Now he's just, you know, a bubbling cauldron of anger and hatred, especially toward you, I hear.

O'REILLY: Well, I threaten him because I see through him, I know what he is. But even the conservatives have said that your rhetoric is so over the top, you may be hurting your own cause.

COULTER: People have a lot of reasons to criticize other people. This is often what was done to McCarthy. I mean Eisenhower was worried -- had a lot of reasons to be worried about McCarthy. He -- McCarthy was more popular than Eisenhower.

O'REILLY: So you don't -- you're not going to concede a little bit that you might too over the top?

COULTER: Not in the least.

End of transcript.

There is a clear double standard in how O’Reilly treats public figures. If they’re on the left, they are either spin doctors (Moore) or vile human beings (Al Franken) But never has O’Reilly attacked any specific individual on the right. He says “people on the right” without ever naming names.

O’Reilly attacked Franken for his ruthless tactics, specifically for targeting Rush Limbaugh in his book, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.” But he never calls out Coulter for dedicating an entire book to President Clinton titled “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” O’Reilly also never calls out Rush Limbaugh because he’s too busy going after Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Anyone who studies Coulter, whether it be a fan or critic knows that she flat-out dismisses any form of liberalism. But O’Reilly doesn’t think so because she is friends with Bill Maher therefor she is not a sweeping liberal-basher.

To be fair, O’Reilly has a reason to be mad at Franken, especially after the release of Franken’s upcoming book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.” It is reported that an unflattering picture of O’Reilly dons the cover of the book along side Ann Coulter. I’ll have to wait for the book to be released before I can make any final judgments on that.

To get the scoop from Franken’s side on why he doesn’t like O’Reilly too much, check out his interview with Buzzflash.com.

http://aggressive-voice.com/zz569.html

[strandinthewind]

Hmmm - I had to post this one sep. for some reason - oh well --

Ann Coulter on Iraq and Immigration

Friday, August 05, 2005



This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," August 4, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Great Debate" segment tonight, according to a new Pew Hispanic Center poll, illegal aliens (search) continue to pour into the USA at a rate of about a half million each year. We discussed that earlier in the broadcast. And still little is being done to stop the flow.

Also, if you watched "The Factor" last night, you heard two FOX News military analysts say the war in Iraq (search) is not going well. Iraqi army units are behind schedule in training, and terrorist attacks are increasing in that country.

A little more than a year ago, Ann Coulter (search) was on this broadcast and opined that the war in Iraq was going well. Does she still believe that?

Ann Coulter joins us now from Washington. She's the author of the book, "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)."

OK. You saw our segment last night with Hunt and Cowan. They're very honest guys. They're rooting for the USA to win in Iraq, as am I and you, and they say things are getting worse there. What say you?

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "HOW TO TALK TO A LIBERAL (IF YOU MUST)": I think I was amazingly prescient a year ago when I said things were going well. I mean, since then we've had a free election in Iraq in which women voted, Shia, Sunni. They're working on a constitution. We had a free election in this country. In the last six months we've killed or captured about 50,000 insurgents.

And, you know, I heard last night's report but it's getting to be like background noise. I mean, I'm not a military expert. I don't know about the details on the ground. But I've been hearing that things are going worse since at least over a year ago. That cuts both ways. If things have been going worse, why isn't the elite Republican Guard (search) massing outside Manhattan right now?

O'REILLY: Because we're not in any danger of losing the war there. That's not the danger. We're not going to lose as long as we're there and as long as we were in South Vietnam we're not going to lose. That's the biggest myth in the world that the USA lost the war. We didn't lose the war.

COULTER: Yes, we kind of did. I think we did lose that one.

O'REILLY: I don't. I disagree with you. But that's a debate for another day.

COULTER: They're living under communism, Bill.

O'REILLY: The crux of the Iraq matter is are we going to win this war? Now look, attacks by insurgents on coalition troops, not civilians, have risen from 47 a year ago to 65 today. So that means that these insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them, are able to mount more attacks than they were a year ago.

Now, all the political stuff you cited is correct, but it doesn't mean anything if this country is not going to be able to get the insurgency under control. And I don't think we have enough troops in there to provide the security needed to do that.

COULTER: OK, well, that point you brushed over about how we didn't lose the Vietnam War, I actually think is very important, because all of the carping about what's going on in Iraq right now is going to lead to the same sort of defeat in Vietnam, which you are saying isn't a defeat.

We withdrew. We were humiliated. We didn't back up our allies, and they are now living under communism. Is that what people are asking us to do in Iraq now? I mean, what is the point of this?

I can understand generals disputing it. Like I say, I'm not a military expert. You aren't a military expert. I'll let them dispute the details. But what is the point of talking about this on TV? It's going badly. We need more troops. What, that we should withdraw? What is the point?

O'REILLY: No. Anybody who says we should withdraw is absolutely putting all of us in danger, because that would embolden the terrorists, and they would do something else. So I want to win.

But I don't think we have enough people in there, coalition forces, to provide the security that that country needs at this point. Now, if the Iraqi units, brigades, you know, what Hunt says, that's way behind schedule. They're just not stepping up.

There's a lot of them. A lot of people are signing up, but they're just not effective.

Now, just one more thing on the Vietnam. For you to say we were humiliated in Vietnam, look, the United States armed forces did not lose one engagement, not one. Not one. And we pulled out of there for political reasons.

COULTER: That's right. That's right. That's precisely the point I am making, Bill.

O'REILLY: We didn't lose that war on the battlefield.

COULTER: That's right.

O'REILLY: Because our political will was not there.

COULTER: We lost it because of broadcasters like Walter Cronkite going on and saying, "We're losing. We're losing. The red coats are coming. It's over." Demoralizing the American people, a Democratic Congress not backing our allies.

And that's why I don't really understand the point about carping about every casualty, every bombing, every death. War is hell. That's why people say war is hell. At no point during a successful war, I mean, nobody would say after D-day, "Well, that went well." When Americans are dying you never say that's a great thing. But to say we're losing the war is preposterous.

O'REILLY: Nobody said we were losing the war.

COULTER: Well, what are you saying?

O'REILLY: I'm saying that we don't have enough people there to provide the security that we need.

COULTER: How do you even know that?

O'REILLY: To make the improvements that have to be shown for the American people to continue to support the effort.

COULTER: Well, that's apparently...

O'REILLY: Listen, I mean, look, I'm telling you the truth.

COULTER: We don't have enough people at the border. We don't have enough people to keep us safe in Washington, D.C.

O'REILLY: Absolutely.

COULTER: We don't have enough people to stop, you know, bear attacks in New Jersey. OK. What's the point?

O'REILLY: Look, here is what's going to happen. If at this time next year the situation in Iraq is the same as it is now, Republicans will lose all kinds of things in the elections. Hillary Clinton will be elected...

COULTER: But according to you, it should be worse now than it was last year.

O'REILLY: Well, it's not according it me. It's according to all the statistics that our military analysts have uncovered. Not according to me.

COULTER: Last year I said the war was going well. You said the war was going badly. I've just run off a whole slew of things that I consider magnificent successes in the past year, and by contrast we don't have the elite Republican Guard massing outside of New York City or charging — we do have to take the war to them, as we see from the bombings in London and the idiotic response in New York. We can't check every bag of every person to board every subway from now until kingdom come. We have to take the way to them.

O'REILLY: Look, we all know that. A realistic assessment of this action...

COULTER: This constant harping, I think, is just going to lead to another Vietnam, or at least I don't think it will because I think the American people are better than that. But I don't know what the point of it is. War is hell.

O'REILLY: The point is you want to win the situation. And the point is we aren't winning right now, according to our military analysts.

Let's get to the border.

COULTER: We don't win until we win.

O'REILLY: Let's get to the border. Now, certainly we're not winning that. Certainly that chaos has been going on for six years under President Bush, and he hasn't improved the situation one iota, as far as I can see. Do you disagree with that?

COULTER: I do not.

O'REILLY: Thank you. My God.

COULTER: I do not. And it's being going on a lot longer than six years.

O'REILLY: I know, but you expect the Clinton and the Democrats not to do anything.

COULTER: Right. Right.

O'REILLY: But you don't expect a president who's committed to our national security to allow this to happen.

COULTER: Right. No, it's absolutely baffling. Sometimes you have to do the principled thing even if it will cost you votes. Here, doing the principled thing will win you votes.

And still Republicans and Democrats, as you say, they don't really care about national security, but the Republicans, I think George Bush seems to think that this will hurt him with the Hispanic vote or hurt Republicans with the Hispanic vote, which is crazy.

It's a complete misreading of Proposition 187 in California, which a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of. People forget about that. It was a court that overturned that. That was denying public benefits to illegal immigrants.

A majority of Hispanics voted in favor of that. To equate Hispanics with lawbreakers it seems to me is the racist position here, but I think that's what's driving the Republicans.

O'REILLY: All right. Well, you and I agree on that. We disagree a little bit...

COULTER: I'm glad to hear that.

O'REILLY: But I want everybody to know, I want to win in Iraq, and I don't think we have the resources right now to win. If the Iraqis step up and improve their performance, yes, but that has not been proven.

Ann, always a pleasure. You're welcome any time. Thank you.

COULTER: Thank you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164866,00.html

[dissention]

I really cannot stand Larry King, I find him obnoxious and quite possibly the worst interviewer out there, so the double threat of him and Coulter would make me retch. I only tune in to him when the guests are good, but he's still like nails on a chalkboard. I suppose we can all be grateful that Nancy Grace isn't on his show anymore. Thank Allah for small favors.

At least Newsnight is now officially going to be two hours every night with Anderson Cooper and Aaron Brown. I love watching it just to see Brown get all huffy and pissed off.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Interesting reads, thanks..She is def. off her rocker.

[DavidMn]

I really cannot stand Larry King, I find him obnoxious and quite possibly the worst interviewer out there, so the double threat of him and Coulter would make me retch. I only tune in to him when the guests are good, but he's still like nails on a chalkboard. I suppose we can all be grateful that Nancy Grace isn't on his show anymore. Thank Allah for small favors.

At least Newsnight is now officially going to be two hours every night with Anderson Cooper and Aaron Brown. I love watching it just to see Brown get all huffy and pissed off.
How many freakin heart attacks has he had now?

[DavidMn]

So, I was talking to my mom on the phone last night. She had been watching Larry King Live and asked about this annoying blonde. Mom said this woman was conservative, obnoxious, and would talk over everybody else. I said it sounded a bit like Ann Coulter. So I watched the rerun, and yes, it was indeed Ann Coulter. Never in my life have I seen a woman who either needed to get back on her meds and/or get laid as badly as does Ann Coulter.
Calling Brwn_eyes0511 :laugh:

[JazmenFlowers]

I really cannot stand Larry King, I find him obnoxious and quite possibly the worst interviewer out there, so the double threat of him and Coulter would make me retch. I only tune in to him when the guests are good, but he's still like nails on a chalkboard. I suppose we can all be grateful that Nancy Grace isn't on his show anymore. Thank Allah for small favors.

At least Newsnight is now officially going to be two hours every night with Anderson Cooper and Aaron Brown. I love watching it just to see Brown get all huffy and pissed off.

I agree - he aggravates the piss out of me. No structure to his questions.

[JazmenFlowers]

Calling Brwn_eyes0511 :laugh:

HA! I was thinking the same thing.

[dissention]

I agree - he aggravates the piss out of me. No structure to his questions.

I love it when he says stuff like "We only have a minute left- tell me about your stint in rehab? How was it?"

It's like, WTF, Larry?

[DavidMn]

I love it when he says stuff like "We only have a minute left- tell me about your stint in rehab? How was it?"

It's like, WTF, Larry?
Larry King= ME ME ME ME

[gldstwmn]

Katrina Vanden heuvel was great on Larry King last night.

[dissention]

Katrina Vanden heuvel was great on Larry King last night.

Damn, I missed it. What did she have to say?

[gldstwmn]

How many freakin heart attacks has he had now?

About as many times as he's been married.

[gldstwmn]

Damn, I missed it. What did she have to say?

She handled the wildebeast quite deftly. I caught about the last 10 minutes of it. I'm hoping they rerun it this weekend. :)

[dissention]

She handled the wildebeast quite deftly. I caught about the last 10 minutes of it. I'm hoping they rerun it this weekend. :)

Wildebeast! :laugh:

Transcript Time for me.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Ann is a sow. She almost never let's anyone finish speaking and when she does she smirks and then tells half truths or just lies.

For example, she fairly recently exclaimed the war in Iraq was going slendidly and could not understand why all the liberals were lying to the contrary. Then, Bill O'Reilly, who is hardly a liberal, corrected her and she just went on lying.

Though a google search will yield many more, here is an article I liekd on the two of them that is telling and factual:


Bill O’Reilly Takes on Ann Coulter
By Scott Spicciati Editor | Bill O'Reilly Watch
July 30, 2003

In a surprisingly different tone from Bill O’Reilly’s last interview with Ann Coulter when he told her, “It’s (Slander) a good book,” Coulter is finally put on the spot in a place where you’d think she would be safe--FOX NEWS Channel.

Bill O’Reilly, the self-proclaimed Independent, opined on two books last year that were released around the same time: Michael Moore’s “Stupid White Men” and Ann Coulter’s “Slander.” Moore is the liberal and Coulter is the conservative. Guess which book got the “biggest example of spin” award in an O’Reilly column? Moore of course. When Coulter appeared on the factor to promote a book that explains that conservatives don’t have a voice in the media, the conservative pundit was told by O’Reilly that her book is good. The spin award goes to Moore.

But the interview went a little different this time. Maybe even Bill O’Reilly knows when conservative rhetoric goes too far. This interview also exposes more of Coulter’s charming attitude that isn’t always evident in her columns. However, the interview also proves O’Reilly’s preference of attacking the Left when Coulter is just as extreme as any liberal, including Al Franken--who by the way is a comedian; not a politician. Here are a few highlights from Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Ann Coulter on July 22, 2003.

BILL O’REILLY: With us now is one of the most successful right-wing pundits, Ann Coulter, the author of the best-selling book, “Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.”

All right. Your book's doing great, and it's doing better than your first book, and you have a very big following.

But I don't know why you're so vitriolic in your writing, and let me give the folks an example, if they haven't read your book. Kate Moss. You know this little waif, Kate Moss, this little model. She probably didn't even go to high school. Here's what you say about Kate Moss. This is unbelievable.

"Even model Kate Moss took time out from her drug habit to wrap her head around the war issue. Terrified that an attack on Iraq could lead to an attack on Colombia and dry up her supply, she was foursquare against the war." Now come on. I mean Kate Moss?

ANN COULTER: Well, that is one of the frivolous chapters. It's toward the end. I do cover the celebrities, and that's a chapter that really is just for laughs.

Here she has just admitted that part of her book can’t be taken seriously, saying they are “frivolous.” How reliable is a book with chapters that are “just for laughs” and similar to supermarket tabloids that “cover the celebrities?” Coulter also has no problems gloating over “Treason’s” success.

COULTER: You know, his (Frank Rich) book sold about six copies. Mine has sold 150,000 in the first three weeks.

O'REILLY: Look, there's no question that you have a following, but it's preaching to the choir.

COULTER: I don't think so any...

O'REILLY: You're not making any converts.

COULTER: ... more than you are.

Interesting how Coulter makes no specific references to whom she has converted. Now we move to a part of the debate where O’Reilly makes Coulter the lesser of two evils when she’s compared to comedian Al Franken.

O'REILLY: But I'm not debating what's in your book, all right. Although I disagree with some of it. You have a perfect right to say it, and you make a lucid case for it. Millions of people buy your book. I'm objecting to your method.

See, Al Franken is a vile human being, would you agree? He is. Would you agree?

COULTER: After seeing your exchange with him, yes, I would.

O'REILLY: All right. He's a vile human being. But he does almost what you do...

COULTER: No.

O'REILLY: ... in the sense that he hates all conservative and moderates. He hates them, all right. Now I don't think you hate them because I know you hang around with Maher.

By saying Coulter hangs around Bill Maher, a liberal, he makes the case that Coulter doesn’t hate all liberals the way Franken hates all conservatives. Does this mean Franken has no conservative friends? Apparently so, according to O’Reilly.

COULTER: No. No. For one thing, at this point, I'm funnier than Franken.

O'REILLY: Yes, you...

COULTER: He used to be funny.

O'REILLY: No, you've always been funnier than Franken. I'll give you that.

COULTER: Now he's just, you know, a bubbling cauldron of anger and hatred, especially toward you, I hear.

O'REILLY: Well, I threaten him because I see through him, I know what he is. But even the conservatives have said that your rhetoric is so over the top, you may be hurting your own cause.

COULTER: People have a lot of reasons to criticize other people. This is often what was done to McCarthy. I mean Eisenhower was worried -- had a lot of reasons to be worried about McCarthy. He -- McCarthy was more popular than Eisenhower.

O'REILLY: So you don't -- you're not going to concede a little bit that you might too over the top?

COULTER: Not in the least.

End of transcript.

There is a clear double standard in how O’Reilly treats public figures. If they’re on the left, they are either spin doctors (Moore) or vile human beings (Al Franken) But never has O’Reilly attacked any specific individual on the right. He says “people on the right” without ever naming names.

O’Reilly attacked Franken for his ruthless tactics, specifically for targeting Rush Limbaugh in his book, “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.” But he never calls out Coulter for dedicating an entire book to President Clinton titled “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” O’Reilly also never calls out Rush Limbaugh because he’s too busy going after Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Anyone who studies Coulter, whether it be a fan or critic knows that she flat-out dismisses any form of liberalism. But O’Reilly doesn’t think so because she is friends with Bill Maher therefor she is not a sweeping liberal-basher.

To be fair, O’Reilly has a reason to be mad at Franken, especially after the release of Franken’s upcoming book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.” It is reported that an unflattering picture of O’Reilly dons the cover of the book along side Ann Coulter. I’ll have to wait for the book to be released before I can make any final judgments on that.

To get the scoop from Franken’s side on why he doesn’t like O’Reilly too much, check out his interview with Buzzflash.com.

http://aggressive-voice.com/zz569.html

I'm pretty much giong to stay away from this thread...but just so you know O'Reilly was proven wrong...and once again ANN was right!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Treason: O’Reilly Vs Coulter
By Bruce Walker (07/25/03)

Bill O’Reilly, who normally resists conventional dogma, demonstrated in consecutive nights on his Fox News program that the master of no-spin is as incapable of penetrating the Orwellian fables that surround Senator Joe McCarthy and anti-communism as any establishment pundit.

When the discussion of Joe McCarthy came up, Ann challenged O’Reilly to identify a single victim of the dead Senator. O’Reilly hid his obvious ignorance by declining to get “drawn in to” an argument about whether McCarthy was good or bad. The senator was “bad” because “everyone knew it.”

Ann pressed; Bill retreated. He noted that “everyone” knew about the abuses of the House Un-American Activities Committee. While it is an undeserved compliment to the ignoramuses of college campuses today to assume that students or professors have even heard of HUAC, Ms. Coulter noted the patent absurdity of O’Reilly’s assertion: Senator Joe McCarthy was never on the House Un-American Activities Committee.

What is amazing about Bill O’Reilly’s confused statement is that Ann Coulter notes in Treason that McCarthy attackers invariably place this United States Senator in the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

On page fifty-six of Treason, Ann points out that the New York Times even had a crossword puzzle which asked for “Sen. McCarthy’s grp.” and the supposedly correct answer was HUAC. How could such an obvious mistake become part of a crossword puzzle? Those on the Left do not care about facts.

But Bill O’Reilly, not a fanatical Leftist, should care about facts. Sadly, not only did Bill fail to cite a single example of an innocent person besmirched by Senator McCarthy (there are none) but he inaccurately identified Senator McCarthy as a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee (although his guest, Ann Coulter, had highlighted this as the penultimate example of Leftist brainwashing.)

The saddest aspect of bumbling by O’Reilly, however, happened the next day, when he responded to a viewer’s defense of Ann Coulter by commenting that anyone who did not know that anti-communists in the early 1950s were working closely together was ill informed.

I admire Bill O’Reilly, but his knowledge of the Cold War and the vast treason that preceded the Cold War appears almost non-existent. The real story of HUAC is a perfect example of this ignorance. The House Un-American Activities Committee was created at the insistence of New York Congressman Samuel Dickstein, who was a liberal Democrat.

The purpose of this committee was not to investigate organizations and individuals sympathetic to Communism, but to investigate organizations and individuals sympathetic to Nazism. Dickstein himself was a Soviet agent with the cover name of “Crook.” Samuel Dickstein was a traitor working for communism in Congress, and he did it purely for the money.

So, HUAC and McCarthy are interchangeable? McCarthy never served in the House of Representatives. HUAC was created by the Democrats in the House of Representatives, and not by the Republicans in the Senate. The man responsible for creating HUAC was a liberal Jewish Democrat congressman from New York instead of a conservative Catholic Republican senator from New York.

Oh, yes - one other trifling detail: Wisconsin Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who was exempt from military service, volunteered to serve in the Army Air Corps and did so with distinction in one of the most dangerous combat roles of the Second World War - tail gunner on a B-17 Flying Fortress. New York Democrat Congressman Samuel Dickstein, who was responsible for creating HUAC, was a traitor in the employ of the Soviet Union who sold out America for nothing more noble than money, with the cover name “Crook.”

Ann Coulter does not cover Dickstein in Treason, but the true origin of HUAC is a perfect example of the reason why Ann uses the brass knuckles rhetoric which seems to bother Bill O’Reilly. The treason of Samuel Dickstein has been known for eight years. Scholars of the Cold War even provide details on the amount of his pay - $1,250 a month - in books on Soviet penetration of America.

These books reveal the greatest crime in American history. The damage caused by American traitors in the service of Moscow was greater, not smaller, than Senator McCarthy believed. But these books have received so little attention from the establishment Leftist media that well-intentioned and fair-minded men like Bill O’Reilly still believe the old mythology of noxious anti-communism.

If Bill would actually read Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Hollywood Party, The Secret World of American Communism or any of the other books which expose in detail by reference to redundant, reliable and independent sources the unbelievable damage done to the human race by American Stalinists, often still unrepentant Stalinists, then perhaps O’Reilly would not believe that Ann Coulter is too harsh. Indeed, O’Reilly might think that she was too kind.
http://www.americandaily.com/article/3464

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Bill O’Reilly picked the wrong person to be a human punching bag when he invited Ann Coulter on his show. His purpose was to position himself as an independent and Coulter as a "right-wing pundit." But Coulter tried getting into the substance of her book, Treason, and O’Reilly was exposed as a know-nothing on the subject of Joe McCarthy.

Rebutting phony charges that she is "mean," Coulter said, "I’m responding to 50 years of the liberal creation of a myth—turning an honorable American, a great American patriot, Joe McCarthy, into a virtual Nazi." O’Reilly responded, "I’m not going with that. I’m not going with that. A guy who used his power to do some good but a lot of bad too." Then the following exchange occurred:

Coulter: "Like what?"

O’Reilly: "He demonized people who didn’t deserve to be demonized."

Coulter: "That’s not true. Name one. There is not one."

O’Reilly: "I’ll name one—Dalton Trumbo."

Coulter: "He had nothing to do with Dalton Trumbo."

O’Reilly: "Sure he did. It was the House of Unamerican Activities Committee. And who was overseeing that?"

Coulter: "He was known as Senator McCarthy. He was in the Senate not the House. Everyone confuses him with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee."

O’Reilly: "But who was overseeing that? Come on, you know the clubhouse rules." Coulter: "He had nothing to do with HUAC. You see this is part of the myth. Everyone says this. Everyone says HUAC."

O’Reilly: "All right, I don’t want to debate McCarthy. He’s dead...And I’m not debating what’s in your book."

O’Reilly embarrassed himself by not having the facts. Rather than admit he may have made a mistake, he tried to move on by saying that McCarthy was dead. Yes, that’s true. But the myth about McCarthy lives on in the minds of liberals and left-wingers and even Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly didn’t have the facts about Dalton Trumbo. Rather than being an innocent victim of McCarthy or even the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, the facts show that he spent time in prison for refusing to testify about Communist penetration of Hollywood. Steven Martinovich, who has written extensively about the Hollywood Communists, says Trumbo at first denied being a Communist and later admitted it.

To the credit of Fox News, the transcript of the O’Reilly show was posted on the Fox News web site, where people could see how he lost the debate with Coulter. Ironically, O’Reilly has himself been accused of "McCarthyite" tactics. Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee claimed during an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor that O’Reilly had used "McCarthyite" tactics in raising questions about former Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian’s involvement with terrorists. "Mr. Ibish," said O’Reilly, "it’s not fair of you to accuse me of being Joseph McCarthy for asking questions." Indeed, it was entirely appropriate for O’Reilly to raise these questions, and Al-Arian was later indicted as a leader of the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. McCarthy and O’Reilly were both right.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2003/08/11.html

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I love it when he says stuff like "We only have a minute left- tell me about your stint in rehab? How was it?"

It's like, WTF, Larry?

LOL...I know! And he doesn't even research or have any basic knowledge of the person before they come onto his show! He pronounces names wrong and just embarrasses himself!!!!

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I happen to enjoy watching LARRY KING, his best interviews are with politicians tough. I've always liked the fact that, even though he has hinted at being liberal off the show...ON the show he is completely unbiased. I'm surprised he has never interviewed Stevie. Also interesting is when he interviews death row inmates, etc...

Chris

[dissention]

Crikey, did anyone see Chris Rock on CNN? He was flying by the seat of his pants! The corker was when he said "I sound like ****, sorry!" :laugh:

His wife seemed like the second coming of Einstein next to that man.

[Serrart]

LOL...I know! And he doesn't even research or have any basic knowledge of the person before they come onto his show! He pronounces names wrong and just embarrasses himself!!!!

I like him, he lets a lot of space to the interviewed, making him/her expose, after an apparent quiet routine of basic questions.

Romy