For me, it showed how Obama does not answer questions or take responsibility for
anything. When we elect a narcissistic personality like that, that's what
we get. Blame the other guy, which now is FOX News. I guess even the myopic
White House has finally realized that blaming Bush has run out of steam. It was
great for Americans to see just how disconnected from reality their President
really is. Hopefully we can pin all that stuff on Hillary, like they did with
Bush. It will be fun to watch Hillary act as if she never heard the name Obama
when she runs.
Why would Obama want to go on Fox and meet with OReilly? Is it
because his numbers are plummeting and he is grasping for straws? Is it because
he wants to show his base that he is willing to fight? Was it because he wanted
to honestly answer questions and provide truthful information to the American
people? Maybe it was because he wanted to help Fox' ratings? Maybe he was
bored?The president is nearly a lame-duck president. His image as
an honest person has been damaged by his lies about Obamacare. As his
healthcare law leads to massive numbers of policy cancellations (in less than 10
months), and as it leads to further redistribution, and as is penalizes small
businesses, and as it leads to insurance company insolvency, and causes a host
of other problems, there will be a backlash against Democrats. They know it and
they are scared.Republicans just need to patiently await the rage
that voters will feel towards Obama and Democrats.
Obama merely shifted from blaming Bush to blaming Fox - because he cant held be
responsible for anything besides rainbows and unicorns
@JoeBlowOur embassy was attacked by terrorists in Libya. The Obama
administration is avoiding action by holding to the crabbed definition of
al-Qaeda from 12 years ago. That's my whole point.
"In other words, they don’t fall under the AUMF [Authorization for Use
of Military Force] authorized by the Congress of the United States." "This is not Dempsey's policy. It came from the Obama
administration."From the Obama Administration? The AUMF was
signed by GW Bush in 2001Nice Try.
@Happy Valley Heretic "...and what do you call a person who creates
'acts of terror' ?"You and I would call that person a
terrorist. See if you can get Obama to do it."Please point me to
where I can find this policy."On the Time magazine website, in
an article entitled "Why the U.S. Military Can’t Kill the Benghazi
Attackers With a Drone Strike", by Mark Thompson, dated 02 Feb 2014. The
subtitle is "Even if they could be found, the U.S. has effectively tied its
own hands."The article quotes Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff:"The individuals related in the Benghazi
attack, those that we believe were either participants or leadership of it, are
not authorized use of military force....In other words, they don’t fall
under the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force] authorized by the
Congress of the United States. So we would not have the capability to simply
find them and kill them, either with a remotely-piloted aircraft or with an
assault on the ground."This is not Dempsey's policy. It
came from the Obama administration.
Why would Obama answer questions that have already been answered multiple times
at length, in such a short interview.To keep asking the same question even
though you have the answers is why O'Reily looks childish along with the
other echo chamber programs.Why didn't he treat him like
Palin...and ask hard hitting questions like ...What's your favorite
Not relevant at all. Neither informative nor especially entertaining. Will
change no minds about Obama. Haters will continue to hate. Supporters will
continue to support. Obama merely did what politicians do -- answered the
questions he wanted to answer and ignored those he didn't want to answer or
turn a supposed answer into a statement with only passing relevance to the
question. By the way, Orrin Hatch does all this as well as anyone in politics.
The question is whether the interview was relevant. The full transcript is
online. Google "O'Reilly Obama interview". Read the interview,
word for word, including all of the interjections. Read the notations, i.e.
"OVERLAP". See for yourself what took place. It's obvious that
the President had no intention of answering some of the questions. It's
obvious that he tried to change some of the questions, rather than answer the
question asked. It's obvious that his sense of reality is totally
distorted when he claimed that Nixon was more liberal than he is. Was Bill O'Reilly fair? I have no idea. What constitutes fair? Should
a journalist ask 1st Grade questions of a college professor? Wouldn't that
be insulting? Read the transcript carefully. The transcript is
factual. It contains every word uttered and the sequence. Then answer the
question asked by the headline, "How relevant was O'Reilly's
interview with Obama?" I think that it was very relevant. It showed
America that Obama either will not or cannot face criticism.
Sunstien told us we would hear of many conspiracies about the administration.
He said many would be false. Then he said and even if they are true,
don’t believe them, it just gets in the way.
In his typical condescending way, all bho did is avoid answering tough
questions, and express or display his distaste for Fox news, and anybody who
dares to question his actions or beliefs. And of course, as we see on these
boards, all leftist brown-nosers live in this fog of low information, and they
just give him a pass.
One must be delusional to believe that terrorism has been eradicated. It will never be eradicated. I predict that there will be another terrorist
attack on a consulate, embassy or American in the next year. And the year after
that, and the year after that.Just as there were many many in the
years prior to Obamas presidency.No folks. This was not an election
changer. It is partisan sniping. That is why only Fox news, and those on the
far right hammer at it continuously. They have nothing better.They
show no interest in fixing the problems concerning these types of attacks. They
have only one goal. To use this as a partisan political too.
Nate said: "He carefully avoided using the word "terrorist,"
choosing instead to refer to "acts of terror" by unspecified
actors."...and what do you call a person who creates "acts
of terror" ? Silly semantics at their worst."not
authorized to engage with anyone there who is not directly tied to "core Al
Qaida." I don't believe for a second that if we are being
attacked by anyone, that they would have to wait for them to declare their
connection to "core Al Qaida" before defending themselves. Please point
me to where I can find this policy.
To Joe's point this is the perfect example of the bubble Republican
ideologues live in that lost the election for them and is well on the way to
losing the next election.Republicans convinced themselves that one
of the Presidents main selling points for himself was he had eradicated
terrorism. Thus his cover up of a terrorist attack. Inside the bubble such an
admission would completely undermine his Presidency.Of course
outside the bubble no one heard the President make such a claim, and the issue
of terrorism was way down the list of primary concerns. Just keep
listening to yourselves and then talking to everyone else based on what you hear
from yourself and let's see how that works out for you next time.
@pragmatistferlife "The record is clear the President used the word
terrorist the very next day...."No, he didn't. He carefully
avoided using the word "terrorist," choosing instead to refer to
"acts of terror" by unspecified actors. There is a reason why this
distinction matters. Obama's foreign policy refers to jihadists as
terrorists only if they are directly affiliated with "core Al Qaida,"
the group that attacked us on 9/11/2001. It omits those jihadists who are
loosely affiliated with Al Qaida, or who simply make common cause with Al Qaida.
It is this way of thinking that got our ambassador killed at Benghazi.Here's something else Obama said in the speech you referred to: "We
will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible
act."This has not happened. The reason is the same: our forces
are not authorized to engage with anyone there who is not directly tied to
"core Al Qaida." As a result, the perpetrators walk free.
Benghazi.OReilly made it clear that the real issue for Republicans
is how it affected the election.Not one question about what we can do
different in the future to keep this from happening again. Not one comment on
improving security.It is 100% about how it affected the election.
They lipservice about "4 dead Americans" is clearly not the issue for
the GOP.So, it everything revolves around what Obama, and Susan Rice
said FOLLOWING the attacks. The right wing is so intent on finding
and external blame for Obama winning a second time, they embarrass
themselves.Had Obama come right out and said "this was a
coordinated Terrorist attack", you think Romney would have won the
election?Really? I dont see it. If the narrative that 47% of the
people automatically voted for Obama for FREE stuff, then Benghazi had no affect
on the outcome.So, concerning Benghazi, either concentrate on a way
to prevent it in the future, or move on.
So how did O'Reilly embarrass himself? He just asked some tough and honest
questions many people would like answered. Every journalist has bias,
O'Reilly included. When he agreed to go on the show, did the President
think he was going to be asked his Super Bowl choice and what his favorite color
was? Come on now...
I was waiting for O'Reilly to ask Obama about "Umbrella-gate".
Surely everyone here remembers Umbrella-gate since it was the lead story on
Fox's web site for at least two days. The fact is that Fox News makes
every effort possible to manufacture Obama scandals, with Umbrella-gate being
just one example.I've heard people defend Fox with the
assertion that MSNBC and other news sources are extremely liberally biased.
Well, that may or may not be. But some other news sources liberal reporting
certainly does not make Fox centrist nor unbiased. And anyone with a grasp of
reality knows that Fox is not centrist or unbiased.
How do you take responsibility for a scandal and a cover up that didn't
exist? Absolutely no IRS scandal after over a year of hearings and
investigations. In fact liberals were denied classification and conservatives
were not. Bengazhi..no cover up after a year and a half of
investigations both official and private. Everyone admits there were things
that could have been done to help prevent tragedy. All reports confirm help was
not denied, and the record is clear the President used the word terrorist the
very next day (ask Mitt Romney about that). Even if Susan Rice says
it was because of the video (which most reports say accounts for the crowd),
what in the world is she covering up?Yea the President didn't
take responsibility on Sunday because there was nothing to take responsibility
for. It was all right wing puff.
Is it easy from the cheap seats folks?How many times does the
President have to take responsibility for the Roll Out? Pelosi dose not need to
answer for him, he already has with a "I was wrong". He took
responsibility for his administration and guess what? He fixed it. How come
that hasn't made news? You know the million + that have signed up for
insurance online? I'm also curious, have any of you who seem to believe the
ACA is riddled with problems ever read the bill? Can you say with certainly
that you know what the problems of ACA are? Or are you taking someone
else's word for it? D Ray, I don't put too much faith in a
News Agency who's most popular reporter (Sean Hannity) boldly proclaimed
Obama hated children with Cancer because he allowed the Government Shutdown.
Fox has an agenda all right and it's not to expose the truth it's to
create fear. I am positive all you haters would never make a
mistake as President. My only question is why haven't any of you run yet?
Did y'all see the same interview I did? Because I thought O'Reilly
Nancy Pelosi encouraged lawmakers to vote for Obamacare, and read it later.
She, as many of those who voted for it, still do not understand how it is going
to work. She is responsible, it is her fault, everything that Obamacare is
struggling with are things that were not thought through or worked out before it
was passed. She didn't care.An American Ambassador is dead
under the President's watch...that is irrelevant? Right afterward he went
off to Vegas for a fundraiser, his re-election be more important than dong his
job. The past is prelude to the future. We deserve answers, we have received
only deflection. Of course there is an agenda with Fox-News, but
they are more open, ask more questions, do not go along with cover-ups so much
as other news media do. Perhaps respect for this President mirrors his respect
for Americans...such that he admittedly lied to us many times...that is not
respect, nor deserving of our respect. Not telling the truth, or hiding it,
that shows disrespect.
@isrred. Nice try but your of in the realm of semantics. The roll out, as
everyone knows, is the least of Obamacare's problems but nevertheless. When
asked why the government could not hire an organization to execute on the
Obamacare website competently Pelosi incredibly answered that she didn’t
know, she isn't responsible. Stewart couldn’t handle that response
and lost it, laughing hysterically at the Minority Leader.So, I ask you,
who's fault is it? No, wait, let me guess.... since no Democrats is
responsible for this mess,its GWB's fault! Of course it is!
No accountability, shifting blame, lying. So did one expect anything
differently? He's become an expert at it, and some people buy it.
That's why we are in such a mess right now!
"On a recent talk show, esteemed guest Nancy Pelosi was asked by John
Stewart about the Obamacare disaster and her answer was, 'I don't
know, I am not responsible'"Now now Mountainman lets not
make things up. Stewart asked Pelosi about the WEBSITE. Pelosi, in fact, was not
responsible for setting up and getting the website running. She's not a
programmer. Why WOULD she know why the website had issues at rollout?
I think the President tried to answer the questions but between O'Riley
continually interrupting and putting words in his mouth he was not able to. Besides that, how do you get answers for the questions asked in a five
minute interview? The questions were not simple nor are the answers. What? You
were expecting a coherent answer on Benghazi in less than a minute? Come on,
get real! Clearly this was an opportunity for O'Riley/Fox to
go on the offensive and make something out of nothing or try drudge up a past
situation that has been explained over and over again. I'm just surprised
Hannity did not want in on the deal.
@ Mike. On a recent talk show, esteemed guest Nancy Pelosi was asked by John
Stewart about the Obamacare disaster and her answer was, "I don't know,
I am not responsible"! Is that a beautiful example of desperation and
unaccountability or what? So very predicable and typical of the left! Its always
someone else's fault, always! You liberals are going to get a real surprise
in the November mid-terms!
It just demonstrated contrasting world views. But you republicans should quit
on the IRS and Benghazi. They are both losing issues that just make you look
Obama was being himself---blame, blame, and more blame
How relevant? 1 to 0. 0
Obama didn't provide any answers, just arrogantly expressed his irritation
about being asked the questions! No accountability whatsoever on the IRS abuses,
Benghazi cover-ups, the Obamacare lies, just implying that because O'Reilly
asked these questions, O'Reilly is the problem not the scandals. How dare
you ask me questions about my leadership failures? Fox News should be
congratulated on doing what real journalists used to do, hold politicians
accountable. If Richard Nixon had been a Democrat, there would never have been
an investigation and Watergate would have been swept under the rug!
It was Superbowl Sunday and BO was just checking the box. Knowing that Fox
viewers and the political talking heads were the only ones watching or
interested, Bill O'Reily used the opportunity to promote his image. It
reminded me of the interview Dan Rather did of George Bush when he tried to
create news instead of report it. The main street media reporting today is
nothing more than politcal theater and a total waste of time unless you're
a political junkie.
The future? "Past is prologue" saith the Bard.
How 'relevant' was it supposed to be? Fox, among others, make stuff
up; the president called them on it. Nobodys' mind will be changed on
either side of any issues.