Fairweather Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Sorry about the length of this, but I couldn't create a link. Looks like we're doing some good things in Iraq that The New York Times et al don't give a rat's ass about: Saturday, October 04, 2003 This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, October 1, 2003. Watch The O'Reilly Factor weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the Radio Factor! BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In our second Personal Story segment tonight, actor Bruce Willis (search) has just returned from Iraq, where his band, the Accelerators (search), entertained the troops. While over there, Mr. Willis offered a million dollars of his own money to the people who capture Saddam. Bruce Willis joins us now from Washington. Wow. A million bucks. What did you learn over there? BRUCE WILLIS, ACTOR: Well, I saw a humanitarian effort that I don't see in any of the newspapers here back home, Mr. O'Reilly. O'REILLY: Can you describe what you saw? WILLIS: What I saw was the military helping to get schools back open, helping to get hospitals back open, helping to get the power turned back on, working in the field to help get the Iraqi people back on their feet. O'REILLY: Now, what was the -- were you in Baghdad (search), or were you out in the countryside? WILLIS: I was not in Baghdad. O'REILLY: OK. WILLIS: I was in Mosul (search). I was in Kuwait (search). I was in some places that may not even appear on the map. O'REILLY: So you were out in what they call the bush, even though... WILLIS: In the dirt, yes. In the dirt. O'REILLY: What did you observe about the rapport between U.S. forces and the local people, the local Iraqis? WILLIS: There's a great rapport. I mean, obviously, there's still, you know, conflicts going on there. One of the things that the military feels, I think, is that what's happening right now, the guys that are, you know, still firing RPGs at, you know, the APCs and humvees, are actually from other countries right now. You know, they're really -- less and less of it is coming from, you know, inside of Iraq. O'REILLY: But the regular folks you saw, the Iraqi people, they seem to... WILLIS: They were happy to have the military there. O'REILLY: They were friendly to them. WILLIS: Yes. O'REILLY: Do you think you were managed over there and just shown things that would leave that impression? Did you get the feeling the bad stuff was maybe... WILLIS: Not at all. Not at all. I actually asked to go into places where I probably shouldn't have been. But, no, I don't feel like it was managed at all. O'REILLY: So, from your vantage point, you saw some good that the U.S. is doing, yet... WILLIS: I saw a lot of good. O'REILLY: You don't read about that in the L.A.Times or The New York Times. WILLIS: You don't read about it anywhere in the United States. And I was actually watching, you know, the news here in Washington last night, and it's -- it's just baffling to me that after we've, you know, successfully taken down a known gangster, known terrorist, who was in power in this country for 30 years, that anyone would suggest that we just abandon, you know, the Iraqi people now. It's just crazy to me. O'REILLY: No. It is. Now, you offered a million dollars of your own money to the guys who get Saddam Hussein. You might have to pay that because... WILLIS: They'll get it. You heard about that. Well, fortunately, and maybe unfortunately, the military themselves are unable to collect on that. If that... O'REILLY: I'm going over with my guys from Long Island now and we're going... WILLIS: Good deal for you. You could actually pick up the check. But if it does happen through military sources, I would -- I intend to donate the money to either a school or a hospital. O'REILLY: You should. Hospital, U.F.O. -- U.S.O., I should say. U.F.O., I don't know what I'm talking about. WILLIS: That's OK. O'REILLY: Now, in the world that you live in, the show business world, you're in a minority here by going over there. I have a list of some other stars who have gone over there. Drew Carey (search) went over, Roger Clemens (search) went over, Wayne Newton (search), Paul Rodriguez (search), but most of it is sniping at the government, and even at the military. They say we support our military, but every two minutes you hear another negative coming out of there. How do you react to that? WILLIS: I would like to -- I would like to suggest that anybody who is, as you say, sniping at the government to, you know, go over there themselves and see what I saw. I didn't hear one complaint from anyone in the military over there, and these guys are out there living in the dirt. They had great spirits, great morale. Had the opportunity to walk through Walter Reed hospital yesterday and see some of the, you know, some of the young kids who had come back. O'REILLY: The wounded guys. WILLIS: Yes, sir. O'REILLY: Do you engage your peers in a debate on this? Say you're on a movie set and there was Sean Penn (search) or Kevin Bacon (search). I mention them because they're in a new movie upcoming. Say you were on a set with them, would you debate them about this? WILLIS: No. I don't really feel the need to debate it. I believe the United States, everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion, and as I am entitled to mine. I just happen to be patriotic and I'm very happy to see that, you know, the United States was able to come in and, you know, take down Saddam Hussein. O'REILLY: Did the weapons of mass destruction controversy bother you at all? WILLIS: I don't think that's what it's about. I think this is about a war on terrorism. And it's about trying to stabilize Iraq. Stabilize the Middle East, which, God knows, could use some stabilization. And it is about a war on terror. I don't -- I don't know. Maybe people have a short memory, but the memory of those people forced to jump out of the World Trade Center will forever be etched in my memory. O'REILLY: They'll say, the opponents, they'll say Saddam had nothing to do with that. WILLIS: Well, they're certainly entitled to that opinion as well. I see Saddam Hussein as a gangster and a terrorist who raped his own country for 30 years, and to simply abandon Iraq now would be a crime. O'REILLY: Even Howard Dean and the others say, you know, we can't do that. No level-headed-thinking person is. By taking this stance, are you going to lose jobs in Hollywood? Are people not going to talk to you in [the L.A. restaurant] Spago (search)? Will you get stuff thrown at you? WILLIS: I don't think I'll have anything thrown at me. If so, I grew up in New Jersey so... O'REILLY: You could always go back there. WILLIS: Yes. O'REILLY: Your father was a military guy. Did that shape your thinking? WILLIS: No. I -- I just grew up, you know, being patriotic. I love this country. And it is -- look, it's an election year, and there are a lot of people out there that are jockeying to get their guy, you know, to get a new guy in the White House, and I think that the commander in chief is doing a really, you know, great job. O'REILLY: You know, the other side would say, look, I'm patriotic because I'm dissenting against the policy I feel is bad for America. They would say that. WILLIS: And what policy would that be? Would you be able to actually... O'REILLY: Sure. I hear it every day. The policy that we should have gone in with the United Nations, waited, not spent all the money, we're the big bully on the block. That's basically it in a nutshell. WILLIS: Well, I don't know anybody who's pro-terrorism except for terrorists, and I am certainly anti-terrorism. And I think that this war on terrorism is -- has long been overdue. You know, long before 9/11, if you look at countries like, you know, Sarajevo, Beirut. O'REILLY: No question stabilization has to occur. Mr. Willis, we appreciate it. WILLIS: Thank you very much. O'REILLY: Thanks for going over to see the guys and the ladies over there. It was nice of you to do that. WILLIS: Thanks for having me on the show. O'REILLY: I'm sure they appreciated you being there. WILLIS: Thank you, sir. Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2003 Fox News Network, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead_Mojo Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 its just a matter of time before more stories like this start to come out and people will learn the real truth of what is going on over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 My buddy said he saw Willis in Georgetown a couple days ago with Brooke Burns. Said Brooke was way hot. Of course, I'm never around to see that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Metalhead_Mojo said: its just a matter of time before more stories like this start to come out and people will learn the real truth of what is going on over there. What "truth" is being revealed here? This reads like just another Entertainment Tonight celebrity interview puff-piece. I like Bruce Willis, but he's not breaking any news here. The troops are helping to restore power? Sure they are, six months after they knocked it out. That's a bit like thanking the arsonist for helping to put out the fire he started. "O'REILLY: Do you engage your peers in a debate on this? Say you're on a movie set and there was Sean Penn or Kevin Bacon. I mention them because they're in a new movie upcoming (What the Hell has that got to do with anything? Is Bill just taking the opportunity to help plug the upcoming movie? This bit of phrasing is straight out of E-T. Puff, puff...). Say you were on a set with them, would you debate them about this? "WILLIS: No. I don't really feel the need to debate it. I believe the United States, everybody is certainly entitled to their own opinion, and as I am entitled to mine. I just happen to be patriotic..." Presumably anyone whose opinion differs is not patriotic? But don't worry, there's no need to get into a debate over it. "O'REILLY: Did the weapons of mass destruction controversy bother you at all? WILLIS: I don't think that's what it's about." Well, actually, that's exactly what this was all about. The fact they haven't found anything doesn't change the fact that the US invaded Iraq specifically to rid Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. That was the sole justification given to the UN Security Council, the American people, and the world. Any other reasons being kicked around now are simply attempts to rationalize the decision after the fact. "WILLIS: Maybe people have a short memory, but the memory of those people forced to jump out of the World Trade Center will forever be etched in my memory. O'REILLY: They'll say, the opponents, they'll say Saddam had nothing to do with that." Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al have also said that Saddam had nothing to do with September 11. It took them a couple of years to get around to it, preferring previously to always mention Sept 11 in conjunction with Saddam, and letting everyone assume they were somehow connected. But at least they did eventually get around to admitting the insinuation was wrong. Read a newspaper, Bill. You too, Bruce. Or perhaps you both did, but your memories are kind of short? Seriously, I'm glad Bruce had such a great time entertaining the troops, and that he found their morale to be so high. But if this was a celebrity puff-piece interview with a "liberal" celebrity, it would rightly be dismissed out-of-hand as precisely that - a celebrity puff-piece. The fact that Bruce is a "conservative" celebrity doesn't change the fact that this, too, is an empty puff-piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Oh yes, O'Reilly, such unbaised and truthful reporting to be expected from him! Just because Brucey said it's all good, doesn't make it so. You honestly think they would take him to a protest event in Baghdad or drive him down the road where a few U.S. soliders get picked off every week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 JoshK said: Oh yes, O'Reilly, such unbaised and truthful reporting to be expected from him! Just because Brucey said it's all good, doesn't make it so. You honestly think they would take him to a protest event in Baghdad or drive him down the road where a few U.S. soliders get picked off every week? God! Why are we listening to these actors (Willis, Schwarzenegger) anyway! THey make a living by pretending to be someone else. Entertaining yes. But downright creepy when they get involved in politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 ...unless, of course, they support your politics, eh Scrambler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Typical Fairweather bs Get a life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babnik Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 typical Matt bs. get a life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalhead_Mojo Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 you people had no problem when sean penn went on his "fact finding mission" to iraq before the big show started, oh wait a minute, you guys have the same politics, nevermind...i forgot you take them at their word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Fairweather said: ...unless, of course, they support your politics, eh Scrambler? Fairweather, I can't say that my ideas concerning politics have solidified yet. I'm not quite a one party animal. My politics changed in the mid-ninties to fiscally conservative, socially responsible like many folks though I wouldn't go too far as to say i'm a Bushie compassionate conservative. It seems that an actor playing a role in the political realm is a hired gun. Yeah, they're citizens too and should have the opportunity to dive in. But there’s just something mercenary about it. My understanding of the situation is that this is a great country and we can afford to do great things but do so intelligently, or at least should strive along those lines. I want to see things go well and I think the American people need to be shown the truth in all of its forms, good or bad. And, that O'Reilly/Willis interview is not the bottom line, just one part of the picture. It's just one perspective of a many faceted situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmberBuxom Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 scrambler said: I can't say that my ideas concerning politics have solidified yet. yur honesty is as remarkable as yurlack of conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrambler Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 AmberBuxom said: scrambler said: I can't say that my ideas concerning politics have solidified yet. yur honesty is as remarkable as yurlack of conviction. Exerpt from W.B. Yeats' poem, The Second Coming "Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all convictions, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." Did Yeats presage the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 AmberBuxom said: yur honesty is as remarkable as yurlack of conviction. So by "conviction" I take it you mean some sort of rigid, dogmatic, ideologically defined position on issues, since flexibility and pragmatism and a willingness to explore options apparently constitute a "lack of conviction"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Survey shows Fox led in misleading public Full story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2001757992_kay06.html Fox News Channel, like the White House, got a ratings boost from the aftermath of 9-11. The tactics were remarkably similar. Network executives gauged the nation's anger and panic and recognized war in Iraq as a rallying point, provided they gave viewers the sort of firm leadership unsullied by second-guessing. It was a smart call. Once war arrived, of course, Fox wasn't alone in the media campaign to win audience hearts. Other cable channels and networks made self-promotional hay from dashing correspondents, surrendering Iraqi soldiers and masterful bombardment set to music. What great TV we got. Too bad a lot of us were knuckleheads about the facts. A just-released report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) finds a majority of respondents have misperceptions about the war.* The results show 48 percent incorrectly believed that evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iraq has been found; 22 percent that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and 25 percent that world opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq. A walloping 60 percent overall held one or more of these misperceptions. How did we get to be such dopes? PIPA quizzed respondents on their main sources of news information. Their findings are at right. As you'll note, Fox's audience scored lowest. That's fodder for arguing the only place its "fair and balanced" motto really belongs is on the cover of a satirical best seller. "The more closely you followed Fox, the more misperceptions you had," said Clay Ramsay, PIPA research director. "No other news outlet came anywhere near that." He said that in a separate examination of viewers citing Fox as their primary source, 45 percent held all three misperceptions. Back to that chart. While the findings for Fox may not be a surprise, second among ill-informed viewers is CBS, long considered a bastion of anti-war liberalism by subscribers to Web sites like www.ratherbiased.com. Apparently, benightedness cuts across ideological lines, and no network or cable channel can claim its viewers are well-informed about the war's most critical issues. We're like one nation under "Duh." According to PIPA, political position was a minor factor: Supporters of President Bush and Republicans were more likely to have misperceptions. However, the report adds, Americans with opposing political beliefs held misperceptions, too. Three explanations spring to mind while contemplating this equality of ignorance. The first is that our entire for-profit television sector is engaged in a sinister conspiracy of misinformation. The industry so desperately wants favors from the White House, it suppressed facts contradictory to support for invading Iraq. But this is too wacky. It also unfairly discounts many reports; for instance, on ABC; that pointed out our grounds for war were shaky. And poor ABC still ended up with 61 percent of its audience believing at least one of those justifications. A more persuasive notion is that television's emotional story-telling superseded its factual reporting. All those stories honoring soldiers who died in Iraq had a self-justifying impact. So did the endlessly replayed scenes of joyous citizens toppling statues of Saddam Hussein. So did the patriotic frills adorning network graphics and that thrilling martial music. The end effect was a tacit endorsement of the venture. Let's also not forget that in the case of cable channels, this position had a practical payoff: The war raised ratings. Still, it's hard to sell a product that doesn't resonate at some level with consumers. That brings us to a third possibility: The attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, created a passion for action that overcame core beliefs. "We found a plurality of Americans felt a value conflict with the war," said PIPA's Clayton. "They had serious reservations even when they went ahead and supported it." Clayton also volunteered a fact about respondents asked to describe how closely they follow news. It turns out that print readers and those who listen to National Public Radio or watch PBS describe themselves as being devoted to keeping abreast of events; a profile that did not fit most commercial television viewers. In any event, both the news media and the audience could use some self-improvement. Luckily, it's never too late; I hear there's a presidential election just 13 months away. * The PIPA report analyzed seven nationwide polls conducted from June through September of this year. Margin of error is 3 percent; sampling size for the seven polls was 9,611, and sampling size for in-depth analysis was 3,334 respondents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Fox news misleads the public NO WAY!!!!??? the news media misleading the public!!!!!!!!!!! This is news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.