How relevant was O'Reilly's interview with Obama?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    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.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:46 p.m.

    Obama merely shifted from blaming Bush to blaming Fox - because he cant held be responsible for anything besides rainbows and unicorns

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 5:46 p.m.


    Our 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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 4, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    "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 2001

    Nice Try.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    @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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    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 color?

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Feb. 4, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 4, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 4, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    @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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 4, 2014 5:50 a.m.


    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.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    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...

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 5:56 p.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 3, 2014 5:10 p.m.

    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. 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.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 4:41 p.m.

    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?

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    Did y'all see the same interview I did? Because I thought O'Reilly embarrassed himself.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 3, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    @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!

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    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!

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    "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?

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 3, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    @ 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!

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 3, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    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 desperate.

  • t702 Las Vegas, NV
    Feb. 3, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    Obama was being himself---blame, blame, and more blame

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    How relevant? 1 to 0. 0

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    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!

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    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.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    The future? "Past is prologue" saith the Bard.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 3, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    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.