This article talks about Bill O’Reilly admitting he was wrong to believe the WMD claims.
Of course, he still manages to blame the whole thing on Clinton.
Now, I’m not saying he’s wrong about Tenet, or that he’s right. I simply don’t know. I just find it so typical of the guy that no matter what goes wrong he can’t find anybody else to blame but Clinton and one of his appointees, while holding Bush relatively blameless. :rolleyes:
I want to give the guy his due for having the balls to change his opinion. That’s bold, even if some of his comments appear to be a little self-serving.
I’m also going to hold back on blasting FoxNews for not reporting this on their own website until after the broadcast of O’Reilly’s own show at eight o’clock EST tonight. My bet is it falls within the “Most Ridiculous Item of the Day” section, when O’Reilly most often talks about himself.
His about face was due to what he said in an interview on 2003.03.18:
Notice that Clinton was not mentioned before. Oh well, good that he accepted the facts; I still see the classic “blame Clinton” excuse. Dubiously used early to defend Bush, but after more than 3 years of Bush, it is now a pathetic excuse.
Didn’t catch that part, wanna quote it fer me?
…And then again, I just went to the Good Morning America website, and I can’t find a damned thing, either…
…except a plug for O’Reilly’s new book.
Ugh.
It was where he blamed George Tenet, a Clinton appointee and by extension Clinton himself.
That’s the way I took it, anyway.
It doesn’t take “balls” to change your view when all the evidence is against you, especially this late in the game. It take real “balls” to admit you were responsible for the error instead of finding someone else to blame – something that neither Bill O’Reilly nor his favorite ass-kissing Presidential Subject are familiar with.
Well, it doesn’t matter if Millard Filmore appointed Tenet - he’s been Bush’s man for 3 years.
It’s obvious. He shares a first name with George Clinton, the master and godfather of p funk, who shares a last name with Bill Clinton.
A>B>C.
Do we have to spell everything out for you?
I KNEW Parliament had a hand in this!
Clinton did tell Bush during the changeover, as he believed it himself, that Sadaam got the WMDs. Or at least Hussein had them. That was the intelligence Clinton received at the time.
It didn’t help at all that Sadaam was mocking Bush, and threatened him with what turned out to be sand, as well taunted the inspectors with military items that at best stretch the limits as to what he can make.
I for one hoped that Bush waited till the fall, and amass more infrastructure troops near Middle East. If Sadaam does more taunting on the inspectors, and keeps on singing “Autumn for bin Laden”, just about every other nation would have said, “That’s it!”
How better to get Tony Blair involed? Funkadelic wouldn’t have done it. Parliament, however, got his attention.
Obligatory Onion link
www.theonion.com/onion3307/clintondropsdabomb.html
Those guys must employ a third eye or something.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
A>B>C.
[QUOTE]
Ah. Easy as 1>2>3.
Is it at all possible to concoct a more feeble argument with a more tenuous chain of inference? I don’t think so. It was Yahoo!, not O’Reilly, who mentioned Clinton. There is plenty to go after O’Reilly about without making stuff up.
I was busy with other things last night and couldn’t see what O’Reilly had to say last night.
But I did take a look at his talking points. It’s… a little weird and I suggest you read it yourself. However, I think a little bit of a Freudian slip got caught in the transcript:
Yes, Bill. When you put it my way, I completely agree with you.
Um, Mr. King, again I think your rabid hatred of Mr. O’Reilly has caught you again.
That’s no Freudian slip. The guy isn’t as much of a conservative hack as half you guys think.
Bill’s crazy but not dumb and that WMD dog wasn’t hunting anymore. Survival as a “credible” and “independent” commentator would mean following a dog that’s still in the hunt.
But it is another nail in Dubya’s political coffin.
I totally disagree, Bruce_Daddy, but we’ve been through this before so I won’t belabor the point.
And I don’t rabidly hate O’Reilly, either. I watch him regularly, and I often find his subjects and commentary entertaining and often insightful. He’s actually proven very valuable here on the SDMB, since his TPM is quite often the marching orders many “independents” bring to ongoing debates here.
Exactly. If he was so wrong and full of crap, Bush should have said “take a hike, I’m getting a new guy”. That way, even if there were WMD in Iraq, he could have claimed total victory by saying his man “found” them. Or did he know all along and wanted a Clinton guy to set up? (Sorry, taking off the tinfoil hat now.)
I also get the feeling that Bill Clinton’s “We need to find the WMD in Iraq and topple Saddam” ideas/speeches/whatever were on par with “Yeah, honey, I’ll paint the garage this weekend.”