Posted on 02/24/2015 6:40:12 AM PST by Beave Meister
Doesn’t HH have a law background? I’ve heard him pick plenty of liberals apart in sort of a lawyerly way. I think he does good work.
Hugh is the current equivalent of Hiss defenders in the 40’s.
he won’t say a bad thing about Obama or his motivations. Swears Obama loves America, isn’t a Marxist and means well.
Upbraids anyone who says differently.
;-)
One of the greatest things Richard Nixon ever did was exposing Algier Hiss....That is the ONLY reason they persecuted him for whatever they said he did as President. What did Nixon do? From what I have read, nothing. He did NOT order the breakin, he did NOT order the IRS to go after political enemies (talked about it but didn’t do it.) He merely stood up for his employees and made ‘misrepresentations’ of what they did before he knew. I have read, but don’t know, ONE of the reasons for the break in was to get the info on John Kerry and the vote to assassinate Congress person’s by the VVAW.
Really? Have you read "Witness" or "The Looming Towers"?
Not at all. Hewitt is a shill for the Republican Establishment. Big difference.
“Hewitt is a shill for the Republican Establishment. Big difference”
Yes. He is the GOPe shill.
But he also is a denier of Obama’s Marxism and anti-Americanism.
There are those who believe that focusing on those things is ultimately unproductive. I think Hewitt belongs in this camp. Then there are those who believe that people who point these things out are wingnuts. Juan McCain falls into that camp. Look where it got him.
Bingo and to get a good idea of the hate the left had for Nixon, know that it was left over from the 50’s, when Nixon was commie-hunting. Hiss was one of his targets, and the left NEVER forgave him for it. Ask Helen Gahagan Douglas!
“Interviews” like this one are one reason I stopped listenting to Hugh many years ago.
He makes clear that he is not interested in what the “guest” has to say, and that he is determined to prevent his victim from passing along any facts or opinions to the audience.
Instead, Hugh launches into a barrage of bush league badgering which has no purpose or effect other than to annoy the person being interviewed.
Which is not to say that people like Corn don’t deserve to be annoyed — Hugh probably feels he is doing a public service in so doing.
But the end result is neither informative nor entertaining, — and makes for very poor radio.
CNN
What Bill O’Reilly has said about his time during the Falklands War
2/20/2015
http://www.money.cnn.com/2015/02/20/media/bill-oreilly-falklands-war
“2001: O’Reilly wrote in his book “The No Spin Zone: Confrontations with the Powerful and Famous in America,” that his time covering war made him ready for anything. “You know that I am not easily shocked.” he wrote. “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falkland Islands.”
“2008: During an interview on his Fox News show, O’Reilly once again described the protest, but said it took place “In a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands.”
O’Reilly responded to David Corn’s pointing out of these inaccuracies by saying on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly Talking Points Memo, 20/20/2015, “A Response to Mother Jones”:
“I never said I was on the Falkland Islands as Corn purports. I said I covered the Falklands War, which I did.”
From A & B to C to D to E vis-à-vis slight of hand? from Bill O’Reilly:
A and B.)
A.) “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones...in the Falkland Islands.”
B.) “In a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands.”
C.) “I never said I was on the Falkland Islands as Corn purports. I said I covered the Falklands War, which I did.”
Then to D:
D.) Here is the war zone (or riot?) tape from Argentina!
E.) See, I really did cover a war zone in Argentina!
But what seems to be gone is O’Reilly dealing with his statements in 2001 and 2008, which CNN pointed out.
Then come in the RINO’s pitting a left-winger (Corn) against a CINO (conservative in name only) and saying that those who look at what O’Reilly said back in 2001 and 2008 and take issue with it, question if what he said is ALL true, and so on are siding with a left winger (David Corn)!!!
Rally the troops!, circle the wagons!, talk then follows, while ignoring the irony that O’Reilly is hardly a conservative.
Brian Williams may be the last news anchor, reporter, journalist, etcetera (on either side of the political aisle) that will do what Brian Williams did as they will probably do what O’Reilly did.
I called talk radio here in Louisville on this and I said, “regarding O’Reilley, I don’t even like him. His Schtick is to be the ‘thinking moderate’, which is a preposterous concept. If you are ‘thinking’ you have enough knowledge to take a side.”
They didn’t like it because they consider him to be far right.
Excellent run down of the issue. I will reassess my position.
“There are those who believe that focusing on those things is ultimately unproductive. I think Hewitt belongs in this camp. Then there are those who believe that people who point these things out are wingnuts. Juan McCain falls into that camp. Look where it got him.”
Yes. Exactly what I am talking about.
Hewitt will go a little further and rather than simply say he doesn’t focus on those things he will say they are untrue.
It’s paid off for him. He will likely be one of the media panelists in the Republican debates.
“Then come in the RINO’s pitting a left-winger (Corn) against a CINO (conservative in name only) and saying that those who look at what O’Reilly said back in 2001 and 2008 and take issue with it, question if what he said is ALL true, and so on are siding with a left winger (David Corn)!!!”
Excellent nutshell analysis.
yet people here defend his mealy mouthed backtracking like he’s some conservative hero. He stated he was there. Now he’s speaking like Obama or Clinton with his little nuances. Screw him.
O’Reilly is a dumb blowhard, but Corn is a lying communist. Take your pick.
You can see from the photo that Corn is a nasty little man. His personal life must be miserable.
O’Reilly lied too. He can try and parse it any way he wishes, his words are on the record.
If more integrity in journalism means a few journalists get knocked off their high perches then so be it. I don’t really care which side they represent or purport to represent. If they all had to look over their shoulders the past decade and act more like they’re supposed to we wouldn’t have Obama in office.
I hope this is the beginning of a trend that gets towards more honesty and less idiots fluffing themselves up and playing gotcha games like they did with Walker.
OK. I haven’t listened to him in a while. You may be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.