From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Bill O'Reilly on Letterman last night

October 6, 2004 5:01 PM

Does anyone have this on their Tivo? I need a copy! Supposedly, he claimed (again) that the shut-up sequence was cut dishonestly.

UPDATE: If you are looking for the 2006 video of Letterman telling O'Reilly "60% of what you say is crap", you can get it from Crooks and Liars, and the blow by blow from the News Hounds.

More from the archive in Bill O'Reilly, Lies and Deceit, Outfoxed.

Bill O'Reilly on Letterman last night (10.06.2004)

Next Entry: Bill O'Reilly just compared John Edwards to Opie (10.06.2004)
Previous Entry: Universal Access to All Human Knowledge (10.06.2004)

Read the 168 comments.

raging red:

I watched it, but I don't remember him saying that (which doesn't mean he didn't). He did admit to being a pathological liar, though! That's definitely worth having on video. And right off the bat Dave told HIM to "SHUT UP!"

(Sorry, no Tivo.)

Oh, and in a completely desperate move, he actually brought the deed to his parents' house to show Dave. Nobody cares, O'Reilly, nobody cares. (What an ego.)

Wed Oct 6 2004 5:30 PM


I have not watched it yet but I have it on my Dish PVR. Let me know if you are still looking for a copy and I will try to get it to you somehow.

Wed Oct 6 2004 6:59 PM

Right Wing Robby:

Jim you must be one of Fox news biggest fans. You spend so much time watching them, trying to copies of appearances on late night tv and talking about them endlessly.

You want me to buy you some factor gear?

Thu Oct 7 2004 6:23 AM


I saw O'Reilly on Letterman, specifically he said Fox went thru their archives and found that O'Reilly had only said "shut up" 6 times in the past six years. One time per year. And that the producers of Outfoxed edited those 6 instances together 7 times each making it appear like 42 times.

Thu Oct 7 2004 8:07 AM

Jim Gilliam:

huh? that seems totally over the top .. 42 times? there are only 7 in the film. None of which were used more than once, and the only reason there wasn't more was because it was really hard to get old copies of programs by the deadline.

he said it 30 times according to slate:

as soon as that slate article was published, he never said it again. just like no one on fox says "some people say" after outfoxed was released.

Thu Oct 7 2004 8:35 AM

Jim Gilliam:


I'm a huge O'Reilly fan. I watch nearly every episode, I blog about him all the time, I've read his book "Who's Looking Out for You", and I even stood in line for 2 and a half hours to get it signed. (that's when I read it) Of course, that was before Outfoxed came out. He might recognize me now.

Thu Oct 7 2004 8:43 AM


Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Letterman. I guess you really need someone with one of those Tivo/DVD writer combos.

Thu Oct 7 2004 11:29 AM



Thu Oct 7 2004 2:23 PM

Tom from Madison:

About 2 months ago, I spent about 45 minutes skimming O'Reilly's book at the University Book Store in Madison, WI. The idea that O'Reilly is a champion of the common man is absurd. That so many buy into that notion is indicative of the propaganda world we live in.

My first clue about the inspiration for writing "Who's looking out for you?" was the dedication to Roger Ailes. I also noticed that O'Reilly definitely wasn't over-estimating the intelligence of his readers. This is 10th grade reading targeted at haters of all things liberal. It's simplistic pabulum for those looking to bolster the neo-con world view.

O'Reilly is probably best characterized as a demogue. He's got to be one of the most disingenuous spin practitioners on air despite his claims to the contrary. His claim to be a "news analyst" is laughable. His titillating exposeés of the porno industry, in which Fox is invested, also belie his claim to be a real journalist.

Most of the "facts" he uses serve the purpose of bashing his long list of hated organizations and individuals. This includes: the Ford Foundation, the ACLU,, MediaMatters, Bill Moyers, George Soros, Al Franken, etc.

He also frequently uses the neo-con tactic of "defining" the enemy in his own biased and bigoted terms. This is simply a way of building up a straw man and then tearing it down. Some frequently used terms for this are: Secularists, media elite, cultural elite, ...

If he was honest, O'Reilly would call his show "The O'Reilly Agenda" or "The Blarney Zone". His show is nothing more than slanted "analysis" for liberal haters. He's really very good at THAT.

Fri Oct 8 2004 7:22 AM


Whats wrong with a 10th grade reading level? Given that most people are public school educated
(unless you happen to be a child of public school teacher then you probably went to private school) and a tenth grade reading level is about as good as it gets.

The Flesch-Kincaid reading-level formula, a gauge widely used by publishers and educators for evaluating the difficulty of a text, rated the following:

Al Gore's statements in the 2000 debates where roughly appropriate to an eighth-grader.

George W. Bush spoke at a level almost a grade below during the same debates.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates, Stephen A. Douglas's speeches tested at nearly a 12th- grade reading level, and Abraham Lincoln's just above 11th grade.

In the Nixon-Kennedy debate, John F. Kennedy spoke at nearly a 10th-grade level and Richard M. Nixon just above 10th grade.

In the 1996 presidential election debates, Bill Clinton spoke at a level suitable for eighth- graders, and Bob Dole at a level right for the sixth grade.

As for defining the "enemy" in his own terms, why shouldn't he, it's his book. Al Franken sure as hell doesn't use Rush Limbaugh's point of view to write his pamphlets.

By the way, instead of thumbing though somebody else's copy don't be a tight wad, next time buy your own, its not a library.

Fri Oct 8 2004 9:27 AM


I think O'Reilly had a small clip on his own show on Letterman. I have it on Tivo. I tried to put Bill O"Reilly in a "wish list" on Tivo, but he's not listed as an actor. LOL. SO unless you know his schedule, you can't pre-program his name on Tivo. There is a funny clip on the MSNBC website from the Today show from yesterday Oct 7. Lauer asked O'Reilly to make a resolution and not say the word "shut up" anymore.

When O'Reilly tried to fall back on, "I only said it 6 times in six years." Lauer quickly stated that he had said it "29 times" by his research.

Fri Oct 8 2004 10:22 AM

Tom from Madison:


There's nothing wrong with writing at the 10th grade level--especially if you're writing for 10th graders. Personally, I've always enjoyed writers who were challenging intellectually. As a 45 year-old man whose reading tends toward the New Yorker and the Economist, I find O'Reilly's book to be too shallow and simple to be interesting. Besides, O'Reilly claims to be an ANALYST and a REAL JOURNALIST, right? Couldn't he develop his ideas a wee bit more?

I didn't buy the book because I refuse to subsidize fat cats like Ailes or O'Reilly. I did look it over because I was genuinely curious.

As far as the reading level of political speeches, that's really not the point. O'Reilly generally offers very few cherry picked facts and proceeds to answer a loaded question in about 2 minutes. I don't find this style to be enlightening, compelling television. I find it to be even less compelling reading. It's simply bite-sized propaganda for people too lazy to get off their asses and check facts.

Don't get me wrong, Bill O'Reilly has every right to make his case any way he wants to. When he dismisses opinions out of hand as he did with Jeremy Glick [ ], he belies his "Fair and Balanced" claim.

Yes it's fine to make a show about your own opinions, but he should be honest about it. O'Reilly is a propagandist. He just won't admit it.

Fri Oct 8 2004 10:31 PM


I would really like a COPY of the Letterman with Bill O'Reilly interview. Can someone please help me out. I will pay for it. I am at Please email me. Thanks.

Wed Jan 4 2006 12:28 AM


I tend to believe by reading this blog that you guys don't ever watch The Factor. I don't think you even watched O'Reilly on Letterman. Letterman did the same thing you guys are doing here. "I don't believe a word you say." "You're full of crap." "I just don't believe you."

Bill said "I respect your opinion, and you should also respect mine, but give me one example of something that I lied about on my show." David replies, "I can't because I don't watch your show." Bill then says, "Have you ever seen my show?" David: "No." Bill: "Then how can you form an opinion if you've never seen my show." David replies, "Things I've read about you." Bill then says, "Oh, you believe everything you read... Do you know what they write about you?"

Letterman looks down in what appears to be embarrassment and says "Bill, always a pleasure." as he extends his hand out to shake Bill's hand trying not to even look at him.

What do you know? Stuff he reads. And just like this blog, not a single point to argue that he lied on his show. I'm up for a real debate, but let's not make claims that we cannot substantiate.

By the way, I did record the Letterman show on my DVR. Be more than happy to post a link when I can pull it off of the box.

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:08 AM


home blogs forum rss donate about search
Home Âť blogs Âť Brent Baker's blog
Updated: With O’Reilly as Guest, Letterman Denounces Iraq War & Criticism of Sheehan
Posted by Brent Baker on January 3, 2006 - 22:46.
Displaying a hostility to President Bush and the Iraq war similar to that expressed by Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, on Tuesday’s Late Show David Letterman went further than I’ve ever heard him in revealing his derision for President Bush’s decision to launch the Iraq war and contempt for anyone who dares to criticize Cindy Sheehan. [This node, first posted at 10:45pm EST Tuesday based on a limited video clip preview of the show, was updated and substantially revised at 2am EST Wednesday.]

Letterman normally tries to make the guest look as good and entertaining as possible. But he greeted FNC’s Bill O’Reilly with disdain. When O’Reilly urged an end to tagging Bush as a “liar,” scolded Cindy Sheehan for calling the insurgents “freedom fighters” and urged people to be “very careful with what we say" in disparaging others, Letterman took him to task: "Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also." Letterman demanded: "How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?" And he tried to discredit O’Reilly’s contention: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?" When O'Reilly conceded that "no, I have not," Letterman castigated him: "Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?"

Letterman mockingly recalled: "The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?" Letterman demanded: “Why the Hell are we there to begin with?" When O’Reilly pointed out that the British, Russians and Egyptians also presumed Iraq had WMD, Letterman retorted: “Well then that makes it all right?" Turning unusually serious, Letterman soon lectured: “I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ. Honest to Christ." That prompted O’Reilly to contend: “No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter' on my program." To which Letterman fired back: “I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.”

Video excerpt (3:35): Real (5.8 MB) or Windows Media (6.8 MB) Transcript follows.

Letterman regularly has on guests from the mainstream media, but I’ve never heard him raise liberal bias with them, yet with O’Reilly he took the time to ridicule FNC’s motto: “This 'fair and balanced.’ I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint." O'Reilly requested: "Well, you're going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims." Letterman then admitted he hasn’t bothered to watch the program he felt comfortable criticizing: "Well, I don't watch your show so that would be impossible."

A transcript I put together of O’Reilly’s appearance on the January 3 Late Show with David Letterman on CBS, picking up after Letterman dismissed O’Reilly’s examples of hostility to Christmas:

Bill O’Reilly: “I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it’s a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it’s absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?”

David Letterman: “Yes, absolutely.”

O’Reilly: “Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him. That is putting us all in danger. So our philosophy is we call it as we see it. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. Robust debate is good. But we believe that the United States, particularly the military, are doing a noble thing, a noble thing. The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,’ we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history. And we should all take it very seriously. Be very careful with what we say.”

Letterman: “Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also.” [audience applause]

O’Reilly: “Give me an example.”

Letterman: “How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”

O’Reilly: “Because I think she’s run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.”

Letterman: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?”

O’Reilly: “No, I have not.”

Letterman: “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?” [applause]

O’Reilly: “I’m not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question.”

Letterman, referring back to O’Reilly’s examples of a war on Christmas: “Let’s go back to your little red and green stories.”

O’Reilly: “This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters,’ how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, waht about their feelings, sir?”

Letterman: “What about, why are we there in the first place? [applause] The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?”

Bill O’Reilly: “No.”

Letterman: “No, it was the intelligence gathered by his administration.”

O’Reilly: “By the CIA.”

Letterman: “Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There’s no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we’re in it it’s going to take a long, long time. People who expect it’s going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it’s not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of ‘Why the Hell are we there to begin with?’”

O’Reilly: “If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that’s obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin’s people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak’s intelligence agency in Egypt.”

Letterman: “Well then that makes it all right?”

O’Reilly: “No it doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we’re there?”

O’Reilly: “It doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “See, I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.” [audience applause]

O’Reilly: “No, I’m sorry.”

Letterman: “Honest to Christ.”

“O’Reilly: “No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you’re going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.”

Letterman: “Do you have children?”

O’Reilly: “Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter’ on my program.” [mild audience applause]

Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

Paul Shafer: “60 percent.”

Letterman: “60 percent. I'm just spit-balling here.”

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”

Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

O’Reilly: “Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read. You know what say about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat.”

Letterman: “You’ll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat”

O’Reilly: “I’ll be happy to.”

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:37 AM


I'd like to correct myself on a couple of things. In watching the interview again I realized that my quotes were not 100% accurate, the transcript above is correct. I don't believe my quotes gave an unfair depiction of the interview as but I want to be accurate. Also, though Letterman did appear embarrassed after admitting to not watching The Factor, there was some dialog between that and the handshake which was actually done very casually while making eye-contact.

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:50 AM


see for yourself

Wed Jan 4 2006 10:06 AM

Squirrel Girl:

O'Reilly began the interview with his stupid sham "war-against Christmas" b.s., making a big deal out of some public school in some small town that didn't allow red and green napkins at a classroom party.
Then, in discussing Bush's reason for going to was in Iraq, he said "“Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him."
How can Bush's lies about WMDs as an excuse to bomb Iraq be of less importance than whether a business chooses to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Puleeez.

Wed Jan 4 2006 11:40 AM

Squirrel Girl:

O'Reilly began the interview with his stupid sham "war-against Christmas" b.s., making a big deal out of some public school in some small town that didn't allow red and green napkins at a classroom party.
Then, in discussing Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq, he said "“Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him."
How can Bush's lies about WMDs as an excuse to bomb Iraq be of less importance than whether a business chooses to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? Puleeez.

Wed Jan 4 2006 11:41 AM

Brent Weeks:

I've not read a single comment on Letterman's rudeness. Who talks to people like that? I disagree with lots of folks, but I've never told a soul that 60% of what they say is crap. What happened to common courtesy? Oh yeah, I remember...the right doesn't deserve it! Come on people. My opinion should be listened to, but your an indiot? Letterman doesn't watch the Factor and guess what....I don't watch Letterman anymore. He just got shifted into my other list. And too bad, because he can be a fantastic entertainer.

Wed Jan 4 2006 12:33 PM


Bill O'Reilly: The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy...

This was after an appearance on the show in 2001. He goes on to talk about how you must win over the audience and they were with him that night, etc.

Wed Jan 4 2006 1:02 PM

Darren Hughes:

Mr. Weeks,

Your question: "Who talks to people like that?"
The answer: Bill O'Reilly, to whomever he doesn't agree with (and yes, I do watch his show, so I can definitively say this)

Wed Jan 4 2006 2:13 PM


Hey Bucko,

Why don't you put the whole version of Letterman debating O'Reilly up on your board.


Wed Jan 4 2006 2:37 PM


To ugtpwn3d,

If you want some facts about the many times that Mr O'Reilly has lied or spun information, you can look at the "Media Matters for America" website. Although I recognize they are liberal, and have liberal bias, when they report missinformation they do post the COMPLETE quote (or recording, or video clip) supporting their point. They do not "cherry pick", as Mr. O'reilly does.

To give you just one example (of many available), in the January 2 O'Reilly Factor, Mr O'Reilly stated that congress has been "fully" aware of the NSA spying on americans issue, which is not true by any means, and has been extensively reported. They were verbally told this, but were prohibited of discussing the matter further. Also, they were NEVER told that the NSA would be spying on americans.

Please check the website if you want examples of when O'reilly has lied.

On the Letterman interview: It's a shame that Mr. Letterman did not follow up on the accusations, because it really made Mr O'reilly look as if EVERYONE that says he lies is the same (i.e. does not watch his show).

By the way, I do watch the O'reilly show, and he is DEFINITELY not unbiased, let alone a journalist.


Wed Jan 4 2006 2:41 PM


I'm going to go with Brent Weeks on this one. Letterman has softballed every Democrat he's ever had on his show: Hillary and Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and on and on. He has shown nothing but deference to their views, agreeing, in fact, with most of them and asking the sorts of questions intended to give the interviewee a chance to further his or her own ends. To this point, I've excused him; he's as funny as hell and I just passed if off as a from-time-to-time excess from a Midwestern liberal.

But last night, with O'Reilly (with whom I frequently disagree and to whose rhetorical excesses I often take exception), Letterman was over-the-top. He was rude and disrespectful and ("with all due respect," as O'Reilly would say) he is now on my Official 100% Crap List. I've been a faithful fan since his earliest days on television but I am going to start going to bed 60 minutes early from now on.

Wed Jan 4 2006 2:52 PM

El Che:

Interesting comments. Of course, most of you are horribly mislead and out and out WRONG!!! Are you really so naive? You may not like O'reilly or Fox News...that is fine. We all have opinioins. But to question the war and get all excited about Cindy Sheehan is silly. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror (remember Kuwait?) Sadaam's regime paid suicide bombers in the West Bank to kill innocent Jews. And if that is not enough, he was harboring Al Queda in Bagdad. Do any of you remember the first gulf war? Sadaam lost and signed a peace treaty. He promised not to do several things. Yet after the war he did all the things he promised not to do. THAT ALONE gave the U.S. the RIGHT to attack and overthrow his dictatorial regime. Letterman was so shortsided in his question "yeah, but why are we there." David Letterman is naive and so is anyone that does not understand the scale of this situation.

Wed Jan 4 2006 3:04 PM

Jim Ignatowski:

Letterman's alleged "rudeness" pales in comparison to O'Reilly. Letterman tells it like it is. 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, could be high or low but O'Reilly is a b.s artist. It's too bad more people don't see that. I do watch the factor quite often and no on is more rude that that guy. O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine, it was good to see. I was sorry to see Jon Stewart treat him with kid gloves when he was on that show. Are Howard Stern and Letterman the only people to stand up this guy?

Wed Jan 4 2006 3:06 PM

Jim Ignatowski:

Letterman's alleged "rudeness" pales in comparison to O'Reilly. Letterman tells it like it is. 60% of what O'Reilly says is crap, could be high or low but O'Reilly is a b.s artist. It's too bad more people don't see that. I do watch the factor quite often and no on is more rude that that guy. O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine, it was good to see. I was sorry to see Jon Stewart treat him with kid gloves when he was on that show. Are Howard Stern and Letterman the only people to stand up this guy?

Wed Jan 4 2006 3:38 PM

Jim is Dim:


Give me examples of when O'reilly was rude. I mean concrete examples that you personally saw and or heard. Do not list supposed examples of Stuart Smalley or Al Franken or whatever his name is. Ok, the clock is ticking.

Wed Jan 4 2006 3:57 PM

Doug B:

O’Reilly may be a blowhard, but Lettermen did reveal his own celebrity-liberal- idiot thinking.
He never intended to have a fair debate, he just wanted to demonize O’Reilly. The pencil in the water thing was just plain rude.
I am not a fan of O’Reilly, nor Letterman, but this exchange really makes me dislike Letterman.
One more thing for you libs to chew on; go listen to R.E.M.’s song “New Test Lepper”, it is about Letterman’s show. Micheal Stipe is about as lib as you can get, but at least he is honest, and not a liberal out of trendiness.

Wed Jan 4 2006 4:26 PM


Liberals are extreamly entertaining!! Bill really pisses them off doesn't he? Hey, get a life Libs! Your smart only amongst yourselves, to everyone else your just a bunch of loathing, arrogant pinheads. Now, give me a spell check and a grammer lesson... at least your good for something.

Right Wing Zealot,

Wed Jan 4 2006 4:35 PM


It seemed as though O'Reilly won the match. I was pulling for Dave, but believe he fell short. Re; The O'Reilly Christmas thing: especially irksome. The "attack on our tradition" pales in comparison to Ward Churchill espousing against Native American genocide the night before on Book TV.

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:00 PM


Letterman is a jacka$$. I quit watching him way before O'Reilly even had a show. He is rude to other guests and gets cheap laughs from making cheap shots. O'Reilly is indeed very overbearing host, but most poeple who demonize him tend to forget what a decent person he is. He donates alot of money to charities. I'm sure Letterman does too. Still... I'm positive that O'Reilly has done more good in this world than Letterman could ever do.

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:29 PM


Hey Hec,

I think you meant "grammar" and "you're" (twice). Glad I could pull my liberal weight and help out with your "loathing, arrogant" remarks.

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:34 PM


Saddam supported West Bank terrorists.

Saddam DID NOT harbor Al-Quaeda.

Wed Jan 4 2006 5:54 PM


You Libs need to crawl out of the boxes you live in and take a look around. It never fails to amaze me how you just can't seem to formulate and substantive argument. When it comes to intelligent discourse you always fall back on insults, personal attacks and conspiracy theory. Letterman showed his true colors, he's a Kool-Aid drinking liberal who simply regurgitates the liberal crap that he hears and reads.

Wed Jan 4 2006 6:58 PM

El Che:


You are simply not correct in your statement. Iraq did harbor Al-Quaeda. Check your facts. Was Iraq behind the 9-11 attacks...NO! Did they cooperate and allow terrorist to travel through their country...YES!!! Did they let Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi into the country and treat his wounds after batteling U.S. forces in Afghanastan...YES!!!

Wed Jan 4 2006 7:14 PM


Bill O'Reilly's show today (wed 1/4, 5p Pacific) is playing the Letterman interview. He says it's available on his website to replay.

Wed Jan 4 2006 8:09 PM


This Bill O'Reilly show on now... repeats two more times tonight--Fox News Channel (360 on DirecTV) again at 8p Pacific and 1a Pacific.

Wed Jan 4 2006 8:40 PM


Why is Letterman so enamored with Sheehan? Does he believe that the mother of a soldier, his chosen profession, is immune from criticism because that son died doing what he believed in? Sheehan has gone against her own family to mock her own son's death as meaningless.

Once this bizarre women took her misguided crusade to the media to publicly blame Israel and Bush for her son's demise, she became open season for ridicule.

Letterman is better suited to skewering defenseless guest peons such as Howard Stern. One would think that if Letterman was going to have O'Reilly on he would have prepared for the encounter instead of just admitting that he is too lazy to do his own research. It appears that Dave subscribes to the Larry King approach to interviewing where ignorance is bliss.

Dave's sycophant audience's nervous laughter couldn't disguise the fact that even Paul could not rescue his boss from appearing as a peevish pusillanimous putz.

Wed Jan 4 2006 9:16 PM


You people are all hilarious! It's f'g TELEVISION, for chrissake. You have seriously jumped the shark in the standards dept.
Thanks for the fine entertainment.
I'm doing a study: Who has a job? Do any of you read newspapers? Thanks.

Wed Jan 4 2006 9:44 PM


Study data: I have a job and I don't read much of the newspaper, though I do sometimes glance at the Sports Section and work the crossword puzzle (and, while on the puzzle page, I might take in a few comics). I prefer live interview formats, where the interviewee has the opportunity to retort and challenge the characterizations put forth by the interviewer. I do enjoy the newspaper's puzzle though and have no qualms about paying the fifty cents for that.

Wed Jan 4 2006 10:23 PM


O'reilly got exactly whar he deserves

Wed Jan 4 2006 10:41 PM



Wed Jan 4 2006 10:42 PM


"I don't believe my quotes gave an unfair depiction of the interview..."

Oh really? Then why didn't you include the [applause] that O'Reilly received? Only Letterman received applause? Not from what I saw.

Letterman came of as a total jerk. Letterman knows the Factor is bad because he's read it's bad? OK, Dave. Nice research! Through the entire interview Dave was in his version of attack mode. O'Reilly never once became defensive or attacked Dave, no matter what nonsense fell from Dave's lips.

Wed Jan 4 2006 10:56 PM


I don't understand why you guys just can't speak out against O'Reilly without making up lies about him. Seriously, being a fan of his, it'd be easy to dig stuff up on him. He's very disagreeable. But jeez, making up the numbers of how many times he's said shut up? How lame is that? Wheres the fun in arguing politics if you guys are just going to throw numbers out there, such as 60% and all that.

Being a Letterman fan (yes, I am pretty non-partisan, I just enjoy politics), I didn't appreciate his behavior during the interview. He's a funny guy, and can prove to be intelligent at times, but unfortunately he didn't bring his A-Game. This article was obviously written by someone on the left, but I must disagree, I would say O'Reilly took this one home. I watched it twice (live and DVR), and jotted down key points and key reactions. (I'm writing a paper on the interview as we speak for Modern Entertainment and Politics class)

O'Reilly perhaps came into the interview a little too sure he was going to sure he was going to win, and even though I think he did win, he lost points with his arrogance being shown the way it was.

However, I don't the O'Reilly is a liar. Infact, to make the writer of the article even more upset, I do agree with some aspects of his views about the war on Christmas. Granted some of it is dramatized to make people react stronger, but some of it is undeniably true. "Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, Happy Holidays" are all accepted terms in the holiday-retail guide. Hmm... wheres Merry Christmas? Strange.

Anyway, good show. If you havent' seen it, theres a low quality clip on LimeWire you can d/l.

Wed Jan 4 2006 11:12 PM

Jim Again:

Note to Travis: If you read any newspapers, you'd know that there's currently a Culture War, i.e. left wing celebrities vs. right wing celebrities, which is why this interview is VERY important. It was basically a frontlines stand off, and very important as far as the current culteral conflict goes. (ahem) Glad you got a giggle out of it though, I'm pretty sure a rather funny 'Hi and Lois' is in todays paper...

Wed Jan 4 2006 11:18 PM


Letterman looked like a stammering uninformed nervous idiot! O' Reilly cut him down to size hilariously!

Wed Jan 4 2006 11:19 PM


Just from reading this I am amazed seeing the nature of many of the comments. The political atmosphere in the states has poisoned the national dialogue. Letterman was ruder than I have ever seen him this is true… O’Rielly is a partisan television personality this is true. I think what gets many liberals upset is that O’Rielly’s personal purports to have a ‘no-spin’ or neutral perspective which it does not. Anyways the exchange between Letterman and O’Rielly is more like ‘The Factor.’ Maybe Letterman was trying to make Bill feel at home. Nonetheless, Mr. O’Rielly is a big boy and can talk care of himself!

Wed Jan 4 2006 11:56 PM


I just caught a clip of this on O'Reily when I was flipping the channels. I didn't see Letterman last night because I was reading in bed, but I usually do watch him. So I found this hilarious. I was literally balled over laughing at O'Reily calling his appearance on Letterman as proof of a Culture War. What I found was proof that, like Dave, Bill is an entertainer, first and foremost.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:06 AM


If you want to see all of it go to O'Rielly's site. its there for free and uncut. I do think letterman looked uninformed. Its like letterman was a a dinner party trying to speak his views with out any facts. I am no fan of Bill, but letterman should of done some fact cheaking first.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:07 AM


I really enjoyed watching Letterman expose that self righteous twit for what he is. However, I think that Letterman was being kind when he surmised that sixty percent of what O'Reilly say's is crap. I suspect the actual figure is more like 98%.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:13 AM


I am no Bill O'Reilly fan (and before tonight I was a big D. Letterman fan), but that interview was one of the worst pieces of antagonistic, embarrassing garbage I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing in a give-and-take TV segment.

Dave's tactics lowered him, intellectually and personality-wise, to the level of basement mildew.

It is difficult to justify, under the given circumstances, a professional interviewer on a major network telling another professional, widely received front-man that he is full of "crap." The interviewer, Letterman, was unprovoked, yet he seemed predisposed to lash out wantonly and viciously at a man who was presenting issues upon which logical minds could easily disagree.

Letterman came across as extremely unlikeable, and as a man who had an axe to grind. The contempt was blatant and the baiting and vilifying of O'Reilly was obviously pre-planned. The entire segment was therefore ill-conceived and made Letterman look very much like the a-hole Cher once claimed he was, many years ago. "Unprofessional" does not quite cover it. Vindictive, bitter, and ugly are a bit nearer the mark.

O'Reilly -- who, again, I am not overly fond of, as he is a tad too pompous and self-aggrandizing for my tastes -- came across as the FAR bigger person; Letterman came across as a cockroach.

(By the way, with regard to comments above, I would be happiest NOT to have any smarmy liberal types adjusting my grammar or spelling; I am quite happy with these as they are. If you see something amiss, simply place it in your pipe and smoke it.)

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:54 AM


The only thing exposed on Letterman was Dave's benighted opinions on politics. Once Letterman wanders off his comfort zone of the gap-toothed clown of late night and assumes the Will Rodgers satirist style, he reveals himself to be a short-tempered simpleton.

One would figure Dave's stalker chic to extol his non-existent virtues as a pundit, but your contorted view of the proceedings qualifies you as heir to the stalker throne.

Thu Jan 5 2006 1:00 AM


Are all you left wingers lemmings just waiting to jump off the cliff, or what? You'll watch a debate between a left and right winger, and claim the left winger 'won' simply because you happen to agree with him. Really? Let's look at the facts:

-Bill could properly quote those he disagreed with (Cindy Sheehan's nutball comments about Iraqi 'freedom fighters')

-David Letterman claimed '60%' of what O'Reilly says is crap, and claims Bill should be 'careful of what he says' ... yet ADMITS HE DOES NOT WATCH THE FACTOR.

Ooh yeah, Robert, Letterman really 'exposed' O'Reilly.

This is what you left-wingers don't understand. George Bush, in your opinion, was the man who COULDN'T WIN. He supposedly looks like a monkey, talks like an invalid, lies continuously to the country, wages war on nations simply to steal their oil (MUUUWWAHHAHAHAHA!), wants to kill black people, wants to put old people out on the street, break into their houses at night and steal their perscription meds, all while giving billions of dollars to his capatalist buddies --


(sorry, I just liked the sound of that, so I'll say it again),


The reason for this (which you'll never get, since you seem to be campaigning against Bush yet AGAIN so he won't be re-elected a third time) is that you'd rather laugh with Letterman, laugh with Jon Stewart, laugh with Frankin and *shiver* Randi Rhodes than actually provide solutions. And you know what? We as conservatives have a secret. We actually WANT you to.

The reason is this: in 2000 you tried "Bush is Hitler! Republicans want to kill gays and black people!" - and we won. Then in 2004 you tried "Bush is Hitler! Republicans want to kill gays and black people!" - and we won. And do you know what we're hearing now? "Bush is Hitler! Republicans want to kill gays and black people!"

Yeah, keep it up. We want you to keep believing that your message actually resonates with Americans. We want you to listen to comedians on the radio and tv rather than political analysts. We want you to keep repeating the same mantras you've been beating to death since before 2000. We like the fact that you're willing to lose elections to 'worst President in history' so long as your late-night comedians are funny. We were DELIGHTED in the fact that Howard Dean says it isn't your party's job to provide solutions (you people need to run that guy again for office!). We want want people like Dean, Sheehan and Frankin, (to quote the Great El Rushbo) "front and center". The fact that people like you fine liberals can lose to this President twice, have no effect on terrorism, have no effect on the war, have no effect on the Supreme Court, have no plans for the future, have no idea what to even run on in the next election - BUT BE ON THE INTERNET THE DAY AFTER LETTERMAN SHOUTING 'VICTORY!' - well, that's honestly enough to send us conservatives into orgasm. At that rate we'll be winning elections until the end of the century.

What else can be said in summation?

Conservatives = making history
Liberals = becoming history


Thu Jan 5 2006 1:23 AM


Stick a fork in Letterma's Ass and turn him over-he's finished! He is about to go Dixie Chicks in his ratings! I used to like him too! No more!

Thu Jan 5 2006 1:29 AM


I can't believe what dumb animals we humans are. If I'd know this when I was a kid, I'd've killed myself a long time ago. Letterman was rude to a guest? No duh. That's his schtick and he's been doing it since day 1. Why do you think Oprah and others have avoided guesting in the past? He practically drove Nastassja Kinski to tears back in '82 because she came on with a stupid hair-doo. So, sure he's gonna go after O'Reilly. Because O'Reilly's a sleazy, lying jackass who pushes Murdoch's right-wing agenda like every other employee of Fox and the NY Post are commanded to do. And, yeah, when you consider all the people this administration has gotten killed in this war, it's no wonder Letterman was set to go after someone whose job it is to infect our country with this idiotic and dangerous Bushie bs. We've been fed so many "reasons" for the war by this administration - freedom, 9/11, wmds... Talk about flip-flopping! C'mon! Obviously they're lying! They've only ever wanted to take over the oil there and, more importantly, rule the world without anybody getting in their way. These people are self-interested facsists. And I can't believe I have to share the planet with people who are stupid and/or greedy enough to let these criminals govern us. Think, people! Why would the same people who screamed bloody murder about a president who lied about cheating on his wife, poo-poo a president who got us into a horrible war for no good reason? Who insists on breaking international torture laws? Who insists on being able to illegally spy on us? Who refuses to destroy the REAL person responsible for 9/11 because of personal business deals between his and Bin Laden's families? Who showed nothing but evil callousness in response to the Katrina survivors? Thank god I never had kids. I wouldn't know how to tell them how hard you have to FIGHT just to get people to act with simple human compassion and decency.

Don't bother responding to this, 'cause I'm outta here. I got here while looking for stuff about the O'Reilly-Letterman thing, and I should've stopped reading at "Right Wing Robbie." Christ.

Thu Jan 5 2006 1:47 AM


Nastassja Kinski (sp?) came on with a stupid hairdo back in the early 80's? Where was I? Do you have that on video???? Must see! Must! Seeeee!!!

Thu Jan 5 2006 2:13 AM



When Letterman or Leno take pot shots at politicians that is good humor (i.e - Good for Buisness). That being said, I think Letterman made a huge mistake engaging in his debate with O'Reilly. The country is split roughly 50 - 50 between the Left and Right. Due to the passionate nature of political viewpoints, taking a stance on either side is likely to inflame the other. A good COMEDIAN does not want to alienate 50% of the country, that is Exactly what Letterman did. In comedy, Seriousness = Bad for Buisness... I'm sure Leno will appreciate the boost though.

Thu Jan 5 2006 5:01 AM


60% of Letterman's jokes are crap but who's counting? Letterman is cluless when it comes to discussing anything intelligent to say. He attacks and condems anything he doesn't understand. He's more on his stooge Schaffers level and intelligence, that's why they laugh at each others jokes. Let's face it, no joking aside, the poor ol boy needs to be put out to pasture.

Thu Jan 5 2006 5:04 AM


i think you're all a bunch of panzies, no matter which side was right.

Thu Jan 5 2006 6:35 AM


I have one question:

If Letterman says that 60% of what O'Reilly says is "crap" - how could he make that judgment when he admits to O'Reilly (on his own show)that he has never seen/watches the "Factor"?

Thu Jan 5 2006 7:12 AM



Thu Jan 5 2006 7:46 AM


Pundit:(noun) a person of great learning.

Well, perhaps O'Reilly can legitimately claim that status. His areas of expertise are in mass marketing and self promotion, rather than politics or public policy.

Sadly, she ability to promote polarization and foment anxiety within the electorate is a sought after skill set within our overly consolidated media. O'Reilly is highly qualified in this area.

I am consistently amazed that so many Americans place creedence in the self-serving bellowings of TV and radio "personalities" like O'Reilly. But then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Madison Avenue types have become highly adept at selling us things we don't need or want over the years, and O'Reilly is certainly one of the foremost snake oil salesmen of his time.

Letterman simply recognizes O'Reilly for what he is.

Thu Jan 5 2006 8:08 AM


Well said CODK.

Thu Jan 5 2006 9:32 AM


You liberals really like to attack people. Why is that? Can't you guys argue civilly? Dave really went after O'Reilly.

Thu Jan 5 2006 10:29 AM


That was great television.

Thu Jan 5 2006 11:34 AM

David O'Connor:

A few days after the 9-11 attacks, I was watching THE FACTOR and was surprised by something O'Reilly said. I cannot remember it to give exact quotes, but basically he said that he didn't want to know anything about why al Queda attacked the US, he only wanted then punished.
One of the most important factors in fighting any war is knowledge about the enemy and it was proof of Billy Boy's ignorance that he did not attempt to educate, but rather supported the ignorance of the American public.
I am very much a right-winger, but a thoughtful and educated one. O'Reilly is not. He is also a sleaze bag (the phone-sex calls as evidence-these also made him seem rather pathetic), and a bully (his treatment of Al Franken was grade school stuff--apparently he couldn't think of anything else to do but to threaten him like a scared bully), and, he is also a liar, as he clearly showed when he claimed to have an advanced degree that is non-existent.
I don't know if Letterman is a liberal. He has always struck me as being more of a moderate politically. But, he certainly doesn't like O'Reilly much. For very good reasons, neither do I.

Thu Jan 5 2006 11:42 AM


I think letterman could have done a butter job, but the interview was good one to have shown on network TV.

For instance, when Bill mentioned the “silent night” song being “rewritten” for the students, he neglected to mention that the song was rewritten for a play by an evangelist. The play “The Little Tree's Christmas Gift” is about a small lonely Christmas tree, and is VERY CHRISTIAN. The kids at that school preformed the play several times. So Bill turned an example of pro-Christian school activities into anti-Christian scare tactics. Had David known this and pointed it out, Bill would have lost a huge amount of support for his phony war.

On the issue of “freedom fighters” Cindy was clearly referring not to the foreign terrorists who are blowing up Iraqis and Americans alike on the streets every day, but Iraqis who legitimately see this conflict as an invasion and rightly or wrongly, are fighting for freedom from American rule. Any time you invade and occupy a country, the citizens of that country who fight you are freedom fighters.

On the issue of that transcript with the (applause) for letterman only, take a look at the fox news website (no spin zone) transcript. Not only are several good points by letterman left out, but the (applause) appears almost exclusively after Bill’s comments, I have seen the video clip that is not how it went.

If anybody wants an example of Bill being rude to a guest, get the clip of the Jeremy Glick interview.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:02 PM


Correction.. Cindy was referring to foreign fighters, not actual Iraqis. It is true though, that a large amount of foreigners who have entered Iraq to fight Americans did so because they perceive Americans as evil invaders. In the grand scheme of things, if we were invaded in such a way, anybody coming in to help us fight off the invaders would be hailed as a freedom fighter. What Cindy was trying to point out, is that this was is not about Americans defeating a great evil, as much as its about two groups who are wrongly attacking the “great evil” in front of them while the real evil (the terrorists) hide in Pakistan.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:14 PM


There I go no reading the entire blog!

Let me echo "Anonymous"

Well said CODK!

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:28 PM


Sheehan is the queen of hyperbole. She believes Iraq is worse than Vietnam. This women is so emotionally and mentally unstable that if her son drowned in his bath tub she would condemn bath tubs as worse than Tsunamis.

The media wanted desperately to groom Mrs. Sheehan as the millennium version of the 1960's Joan Baez. Unfortunately for the media, Mrs. Sheehan veered off the reservation with her anti-Israel statements and general frumpy demeanor.

The flip side of the coin of America' s freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights is that the speaker's words are subject to analysis and even ridicule when that speaker substitutes hyperbole for facts and anti-Semitic rhetoric for political discourse.

Her son was a Humvee mechanic and a professional soldier. His job was to go where the Commander In Chief tells him, not debate whether he or his mother deems the theater of operations worthy of U.S. military action.

Now that Mrs. Sheehan has been relegated to oblivion by her own bizarre political ramblings, the media has returned to equally pressing issues such as where is Natalie?

She has made it clear in no uncertain terms that her son died in a senseless war in Iraq when he should have given his life for a noble military action such as eradicating Israel.

She also says she doesn't care that her politics have divided her family and led to her divorce.

She also believes the terrorists are just freedom fighters on a noble mission. They were completely justified in their attacks on the WTC and at the most the U.S. should have treated that incident as a matter for the police not the U.S. military.

Now that we understand what the terrorists want and why they don't care for Americans we can approach one of them without fear of them blowing themselves up in our face.

Apparently Ole Cindy, like her peacenik predecessors, never protest against the carnage and killings perpetrated by any county other than the United States. Cindy only has words of praise and admiration for the PLO and the Iraqi Insurgents. The latter being the ones who killed her son. That is a strange manner of grieving.

If Sheehan's son had died in Afghanistan would she be so outraged over her son's death? Probably. Her own words condemn American military involvement anywhere. So the CodePink and folks would have cultivated another mother whose son died in Iraq.

These demonstrators on stuck back in 1968. They haven't even updated their slogan, "The whole world is watching," from the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago, which was captured in the film "Medium Cool" of the same year.

Sheehan's son was a professional soldier. I'm sure she resented him for enlisting in the armed forces to begin with. It is ironic that she uses his death as an indictment on his beliefs for her own personal aggrandizement.

Of course Cindy also has problems with Israelis, whom she believes are trespassers in Palestine. She also believes Bush invaded and occupied New Orleans with the National Guard.

At least her son doesn't have to see the sort of fool she makes of herself even if it is at the expense of his memory.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:47 PM


The irony about CODK is that the only thing I ever hear from the right is “stop attacking my beloved Bush”.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I only heard one criticism of Bush in that interview and it was a valid one. Bush was wrong, and saying “well these other guys were wrong too” does not change that fact. And saying “But Clinton had the same evidence” doesn’t change that fact either. Here is a history lesson, Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. Having bad evidence is one thing, waging a war based on that evidence is a whole other enchilada.

Now let’s get one thing straight here, A: more people voted for Gore in 2000 then Bush. Claiming 2000 as a victory is like prancing around like a champion when you have three balls left on the pool table and your opponent scratches on the eight ball. B: actually political annalists are very clear about what happened in 2004. Bush won because of the anti-gay turnout. But yes.. He won. That’s fine. What you don’t seem to understand, is that his support is falling, and that has a lot to do with the fact that he is a failure. He has succeeded in very little, and the rest of the country is starting to realize that the people he has put into power don’t really know how to do their jobs.

In any case.. This is about the letterman interview. Sure he could have done some things better, but he was right about the Christmas war. It’s a fake story. Any real understanding of recent history will show you that we are becoming more Christian in this country. For every “happy holidays” moment, there are a hundred “marry Christmas” moments.

Oh who cares? You republicans are falling apart faster then a cheap suit. 2006 will be a good year for non-Neanderthals.

Thu Jan 5 2006 12:52 PM


Cicero “Sheehan is the queen of hyperbole.”

Sheehan is not the first and will not be the last person to refer to people fighting against an invasion as freedom fighters. She has certainly said some loopy things in the past, but picking up on that is pure sensationalism. It paints a picture (in the mind of somebody who doesn’t really know the history of the region or conflict), of her saying that 9-11 style terrorists are freedom fighters. She has always maintained that we should go after the perpetrators of 9-11, and that Iraq is the wrong direction. This opinion is shared by a very large number of people who’s life’s work revolves around middle east studies.

“The media wanted desperately to groom Mrs. Sheehan as the millennium version of the 1960's Joan Baez.”

Last time I checked, Fox news and the weekly standard were part of the media. Your sloganeering exposes your brainwashing. The reality, is that the only elements grooming Sheehan are the groups who are openly attacking the Iraq war, and no real elements of the “media” even come close to that.

“Her son was a Humvee mechanic and a professional soldier. His job was to go where the Commander In Chief tells him, not debate whether he or his mother deems the theater of operations worthy of U.S. military action.”

That is a non-argument. Nobody said it was his job to engage in that debate. But if you are suggesting that the mother of a lost soldier, or any other American should not be conducting that debate, then you are VERY wrong.

“She has made it clear in no uncertain terms that her son died in a senseless war in Iraq when he should have given his life for a noble military action such as eradicating Israel.”

Now you are lying.. a common tactic on the right.

“She also says she doesn't care that her politics have divided her family and led to her divorce.”

Families get divided for all sorts of stupid reasons, I hardly thing trying to stop a war that killed your son and could kill thousands more is a bad one.

“She also believes the terrorists are just freedom fighters on a noble mission. They were completely justified in their attacks on the WTC and at the most the U.S. should have treated that incident as a matter for the police not the U.S. military.”

provide a quote

Thu Jan 5 2006 1:07 PM


So nobody has anything to say about O’Reilly’s lie?

“Silent night”?

Thu Jan 5 2006 1:11 PM


When Letterman attempted to challenge O'Reilly's character for his condemnation of Sheehan's blathering about who was to blame for her son's death, Dave poll vaulted over the line of the entertainer and into the realm of a pundit. But since Dave has zero grasp of any historical or political facts, he just became a martinet of the George Soros/Michael Moore/MoveOn.Org/Code Pink/ brigade.

In your own words that seem to mirror Letterman's misguided sentiments, Sheehan is merely trying to stop a war that killed her son. Strange how she has not called upon the suicide bombers to stop killing "innocent" Iraqis, as well as U.S. military personnel. She has not made one statement condemning the actual people responsible for her son's death.

At least you agree that Sheehan's pro Insurgent and anti Israel rhetoric is "stupid." That is the word you used to describe the reason for the Sheehan family division.

Thu Jan 5 2006 1:32 PM



"Strange how she has not called upon the suicide bombers to stop killing "innocent" Iraqis, as well as U.S. military personnel."

Well, the suicide bombers don't work for Sheehan. Theoretically, our politicians do.

Thu Jan 5 2006 2:11 PM


“When Letterman attempted to challenge O'Reilly's character for his condemnation of Sheehan's blathering about who was to blame for her son's death, Dave poll vaulted over the line of the entertainer and into the realm of a pundit.”

As is so often the case with you guys, you are disjointed from reality.

Dave took issue with O’Reilly’s “taking exception to” Cindy’s motivation and position based on the fact that she lost a son in Iraq and Bill has lost no family members. That much is very clear. What is also clear, is that Bill was attacking Cindy from the very beginning, long before she referred to fighters entering Iraq as freedom fighters, and long before she made any comments about Israel. If you think O’Reilly is mad about the comparison thing, you need to take a few classes on the subject of linear time. O’Reilly has been mad at Cindy from day one and only because she attacks Bush and the Iraq war.

“But since Dave has zero grasp of any historical or political facts”

Historical facts? It seems you know very little about facts period. You stated above that Cindy made it very clear that she wishes her son had died fighting to destroy Israel. How you get that from “my son died to protect Israel” is very clear to me. Apparently, anybody who calls for Israel to get out of Palestine wants to destroy Israel in your book. Which puts you right up there with the people who believe that America wants to take of Iraq and kill all its people and take all the oil. You are making stuff up. opposition to the occupation in Israel does not equal a desire to see Israel destroyed. And pointing out (wrongly or rightly) that you feel the Invasion of Iraq had something to do with Israel is nothing new.

“Strange how she has not called upon the suicide bombers to stop killing "innocent" Iraqis, as well as U.S. military personnel.”

Strange how you haven’t either. In any case, her point is that if we left, the terrorism would stop.. which is wrong, but oh well.. the fact is, that the reason terrorist are blowing people up in Iraq, is because we are there inciting the violence.

The rest of your post is lies and just plane idiocy..

You are an armature debater.

Thu Jan 5 2006 2:21 PM


Here is a hypothetical.

Let’s say that tomorrow Bush invaded Canada, and the Canadians were resorting to territories style attacks against our troops because they have a small army.

Would you support the insurgents?

Would you call for the retreat of the US and by default the victory of the “terrorists”?

Answer cowards.

Thu Jan 5 2006 2:26 PM


Letterman says 60% of what Oreilly is 'crap'
and then says he never watches - so how does he know??

Thu Jan 5 2006 3:10 PM


This blog is like a boxing match, first a jab from the right then from the left.

Letterman and O'Reilly used each other to elevate their own agenda, ratings.

We all wear our ideological glasses and see others of the same thinking in a better light.

Letterman from the start was classless stirring O'Reilly's water with his pencil. It's like spitting up a loogy on your guest's food who you invited to YOUR HOUSE for dinner. Anything he said from that point, right or wrong, has little value to me.

In regards to writing at a 10th grade level, the issue to me is whether someone clearly communicated their message. Just because you have to have a dictionary by your side when reading a book doesn't mean the author communicates well; he may be trying to position himself as superior to the reader.


Thu Jan 5 2006 3:16 PM


Exactly what is an "armature debater?" Is that a combination of arm chair and amateur? You and Cindy share many similarities. you are both strident, feckless, and immutable in your socialist agenda.

I haven't called for the suicide bombers to cease and desist? Unlike your heroine Sheehan, I don't, or more accurately didn't, have the international media reporting my every utterance.

You had better look up the definition of "inciting" before you compose your next knee-jerk defense of left wing ideologues. If you think that U.S. soldiers and Marines are deliberately instigating suicide bombers to kill Iraqis then you are invincibly ignorant.

Thu Jan 5 2006 3:29 PM



Ok look, that was a typo.. I meant to say amateur. And I its quite obvious why I would say such a thing by looking at your last post.

Exactly where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? Don’t worry, I know where you got that idea, it was from Fox News.

“I haven't called for the suicide bombers to cease and desist?”

I haven’t seen it, and I’m damn sure you don’t have a transcript of every word that came out of Cindy’s mouth. How the hell would you know if she hasn’t said that?

“If you think that U.S. soldiers and Marines are deliberately instigating suicide bombers to kill Iraqis then you are invincibly ignorant.”

Did I say that? No I don’t think I did. But well you have quickly proven that you will put whatever words you wish into the mouths of others.

Again, I must point out that you are failing miserably and whatever it is you are trying to relay. I have been quite clear from the beginning about what I have grievances with, and they are hardly what you make them out to be.

You are obviously just another run of the mill right wing ignoramus. You know not of what you speak. You are ill prepared to debate. You need to just stop..

But before you do, why don’t you answer the direct question I posted above?

What would you do in such a hypothetical?

Thu Jan 5 2006 3:38 PM


Blah blah blah... Who is really as closely affiliated or aligned with either "side" to be so seemingly insensed at statements made by either O'reilly or Letterman? I have observed that Bill O'reilly can be a bit put-offish, yet I am entertained by his product. I don't base my political views solely on his commentary, or on anyone elses for that matter. David Letterman I have
been entertained by in the past, but by no means do I
consider his program a source of news or real informational value.

I am embarrassed by anyones public rudeness, whether it's in the media or in "real life".

Thu Jan 5 2006 3:44 PM


Conservatives ignored my post yesterday juxtaposing O'Reilly's "attack on our tradition" (X-mas censorship) with Ward Churchill expounding on genocide of Native Americans.

Thu Jan 5 2006 4:09 PM


As for liberals using "Hitler" too often against conservatives, here is a practical explanation:

America the Ruthless?

'America the Indifferent', a New York Times editorial, stated "...the United States and 188 other countries signed the United Nations Millenium Declaration, a manifesto to eradicate extreme poverty, hunger and disease...the percentage of United States income going to poor countries remains near rock bottom: 0.14 percent...The test is the percentage of national income we give the poor, and on that basis this country is the stingiest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations...and the world knows it." (12/23/04)

Non-profit America's Second Harvest Food Bank CEO (partner of Colorado's Care and Share Food Bank) made $204,000 in 2001, then $320,000 in 2003, and the UNICEF CEO made $358,000 in 2001 [Better Business Bureau;]. Consider these non-profit healthcare CEO salaries buried in the 'Money' section of USA Today: Catholic Healthcare West CEO--$1 mil. + $896,000 expenses/allowances; Memorial-Sloan Kettering CEO--$2.3 mil. "with 2 surgeons making $1.6 mil. each"; Kaiser Permanente's Foundation Hospital outgoing President--$7.4 mil.; and Universal Health Services CEO--$16.2 million dollars in 2003 ('Non-profit Hospitals Top Salaries May Be Due For a Checkup'; USA Today; 9/30/2004).

Non-profit funds are procured under the guise of altruism but become organizational charity theft when used for extravagant salaries. The rationalization is that such salaries are necessary to attract leading professionals within a competitive system, and are a drop in the bucket compared to overall healthcare costs. But isn't that a most terrible commentary on America to say the economy demands we act as pigs with the charity money?

The U.S. ranks #1 in amount of healthcare spending per person yet 37th in healthcare performance (World Health Organization). We are second-to-last of all industrialized countries in disabled persons earning capacity (annex to Society-at-a-Glance 2002) and 17th in life expectancy (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Editorialist Nicholas Kristoff cites the C.I.A. World Factbook ranking the U.S. 42nd in infant mortality, a "national disgrace....that the average baby is less likely to survive in the U.S. than in Bejing or Havana" (New York Times; 1/12/05). According to Dr. Kenneth Liegner's testimony before the New York State Assembly Committee on Health (11/27/01), a 7-year-old Lyme disease patient was kept alive on expensive medication until, due to insurance company policy, "she died within one month of cessation of intravenous antibiotic treatment." Liegner adds, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company had an important formative role in the creation of the National Institutes of Health. This raises the issue of possible ongoing undue influence of the insurance industry in setting national public health priorities".

On the other hand, although the U.S. is the only industrialized country with no pharmaceutical price cap, "The National Institutes of Health said rules designed to reduce conflicts of interest at the agency went too far. So instead of barring thousands of employees from owning stock in pharmaceutical and bio-technology companies, only about 200 senior employees will be affected...." ('NIH Revises Ethics Rule on Stock Ownership'; USA Today; 8/26/05). So it's not only insurance companies influencing public health policy. Tragically, "Right-to-Life" proponents legislate against universal healthcare, practicing socio-economic Darwinism in creating more American road kill. In Colorado Springs, considered the evangelical hub of the United States (see: Focus on the Family), lame beggar Lazarus [Luke 16:19-31] would be thrown in jail for panhandling and sleeping in a business mans doorway.

Bruce Deile

Thu Jan 5 2006 4:15 PM



Thu Jan 5 2006 4:30 PM


This addresses the Hitler/conservative thing again:

To the Editor: January 5, 2006

Re; 'City Studies Legality of Stricter Laws on Begging'; Colorado Springs Gazette; 11/27/05): In Colorado Springs, considered the evangelical hub of America [see: Focus on the Family], lame beggar Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) would be arrested and thrown in jail for panhandling and sleeping in a [downtown] business doorway.
Granted, it is common knowledge many misuse charitable donations. Either through alcohol/drugs and/or extravagant non-profit CEO salaries. If it appears unwise to give a panhandler or non-profit organization money, don't. But instead of inhibiting human rights, why doesn't Councilman Heimlicher inquire as to why Focus on the Family chooses not to provide their administrative salaries on the Better Business Bureau website

Bruce Deile

Thu Jan 5 2006 4:44 PM


well i just want to say one thing to u liberal peices of carp....david letterman is a immuture loser to say the least, he had no right to even talk to bill o'rielly like the way he did and a bunch of u out there that are democrats but i just dont see how u can justify that with being a christian...and if ur right with god there is no way you can be a democrat. and if u agree with dave about cindy she"man" ur defonotly right in the head and need to seek medical treatment...there is now way that someone that kills our american soldiers should be called a "freedom fighter" they should call them "terrorist" because they are a threat to our country!!!if u agree with me on any thing email me at an dtell me or if not you can still tell me!!!

Thu Jan 5 2006 4:59 PM


or just write a post a blog thingy with a response

Thu Jan 5 2006 5:15 PM



Not being knee deep in the issues of health care as you are, I still take some opposition to your rant.

Mainly that throwing money at problems is not in itself a solution to the problem. If corrupt governments take aid money without distribution to the people, why would we give them more money?
Just as giving money to a homeless person has a high percentage of chance to be used to purchase drugs or alcohol, why would I want to support that habit?

There comes a point when charity is abused that it taints the desire of people to want to give. Whether its organizations that, as your pointed out, misuse funds trusted to them, a homeless person who will lie to your face about his problems or countries who are so mismanaged that you would be a fool to give them more money.

There is a point in every country and person's life where they have to use their own desire for survival to survive.


Thu Jan 5 2006 5:23 PM



It’s hard to know where to start with you, so I will make this short.

A: a true “true conservative” would die defending Letterman’s right to talk to O’Reilly the way he did. Letterman was down right chummy compared to the way Bill talks to some of his guests.

B: being right with God includes following the law of the land of loving your neighbor. Bush breaks the law, and you obviously hate your neighbor.

C: according to your logic, if our soldiers were rounding up every Black, Jewish, and Hispanic person in this country and sending them to concentration camps, anybody using force to defend those people would be a terrorists.

You are truly ignorant, its quite sad to see what passes for discussion these days.

Thu Jan 5 2006 5:48 PM


So I am an amateur pundit and you are a professional? Does this mean that you are paid for your prosaic, perfunctory and pedestrian remarks by some entity? It seems your drivel could be retrieved from any liberal talking points posted on the web. So your own posts betray you as just another dilettante.

If people of your ilk stopped the cacophony in your head for only a moment you would understand that O'Reilly's positions on many social issues are anything but conservative:

He is against capital punishment.
He believes in global warming.
He is pro gun control.
He was against the war in Iraq, but now that we are there, believes we should finish the mission to get the Iraqis to handle their own affairs.

Had Letterman done some basic research he would have stumbled onto this well publicized fact. The last time Letterman appeared this embarrassed and helpless was when that inane Drew Barrymore jumped up on his desk and flashed her tits at him.

It would seem that bare facts and bare skin have the same effect on Dave.

Thu Jan 5 2006 5:57 PM



I don’t know where you got amateur pundit from. I said you were an amateur debater. Not that I get paid to debate, but I can tell you right now that you need some practice. For one, you need to get a handle on what you are trying to say, what your evidence is, and try you damn hardest not to lie or mislead.

“If people of your ilk stopped the cacophony in your head for only a moment you would understand that O'Reilly's positions on many social issues are anything but conservative:”

Again I must ask you to pay a little more attention to my posts. I don’t believe I ever called O’Reilly a conservative. His supporters call themselves that, but they are hardly conservative themselves.

“He is against capital punishment.”

" it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian…Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: it is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul." Bill O’Reilly

“He believes in global warming.” That’s not a political issue.

He is pro gun control.

“He was against the war in Iraq, but now that we are there, believes we should finish the mission to get the Iraqis to handle their own affairs.”

BS he was always for the war in Iraq.

Thu Jan 5 2006 6:23 PM


Of course global warming is a political issue. Where have you been? Those who support the contention are usually the far left Greenpeace types. I haven't made one statement that isn't recorded fact including Sheehan's antisemitic remarks.

Suppose you find one comment by O'Reilly that substantiates that he was pro Iraq invasion before 2002 and that he marginalized Sheehan before she cut her own throat with her alternating Communist/antisemetic/anti U.S. military proclamations.

This thread was originally about Letterman's offensive attack on all things O'Reilly. The truth is that Letterman probably shares more political and ideological positions with O'Reilly than he he cared to expose.

Thu Jan 5 2006 7:13 PM


well mr eric,
please give me an example of were our presidant broke the law....from my understanding if he broke the law he'd be intitled to a hearing in court for what he did just like and other citizen of the united states...and he is a very wise religous man and shares my religious values... i might of "hated my neighbor" in the last thing I wrote but u see god forgives us when we do things he does not like. thats the good thing about him,"our god is a forgiving god."...well at least mine is anyway...

Thu Jan 5 2006 8:34 PM

Evan Wilson:

All these wild-eyed Pelosi types can't stand O'Reilly for the simply reason that they can stand the truth about themselves. And everybody knows Letterman is just plain psycho. The credibility gap is so obvious.

Thu Jan 5 2006 9:06 PM


The following is an e-mail I sent to Dave Letterman. I know this will be as accepted as a fart in temple to the throngs of my liberal friends out here, but let us be realistic anyway:

I am no fan of Mr. O'Reilly however, how ridiculous you looked pandering to that subversive wacko Cindi Sheehan. Did any of your children serve this country in any capacity, or does that matter? Having the most unfortunate and tragic experience of losing a child in war, does not give one the right to subvert and pervert the tenets of this country.
You describe yourself as having a cursory understanding of the current situation. This was exascerbated by the rantings of your nescient concepts and baseless arguments. You his behind your desk and lobbed accusations without providing any true measure of comprehension. When you went in for surgery you might have asked them to give you some balls to go with that repaired heart. You are irrelevant sir and your opinion serves only to inflame news saavy individuals like myself.

Thu Jan 5 2006 9:53 PM


Oh, by the way, in the e-mail I did correct the mistake and write "hid" behind your desk.

Thu Jan 5 2006 9:55 PM


I watched the video (on MSNBC and on Fox to make sure the edits were the same) and it was really uncomfortable and tense. I really can't believe that a seasoned pro like Letterman would spark such a polarized debate and actually verbally attack his guest. Letterman just looked mean, ugly, and unappealing. The audience was clearly on his side, but on the end seemed to acknowledging O'Reilly as the winner.

I prefer Leno and now I know why. Letterman is just not good television and he's not as savvy as Leno.

Thu Jan 5 2006 10:55 PM


love the e-mail man.... My family loved dave they thought that he was hilarious but were currently i guess u caould say boy-coting grandma was furious she said she wants some one to write him a nasty letter so ill tell her to cool her jets its been takin care of....she'll love it!!!

Thu Jan 5 2006 11:08 PM


Right Wing Ryan,
thats funny...thats just like people saying Gorge W. Bush is a dumb hillbilly...I guess the do not realize that he went to Yale!!! I mean come on thier the dumb ones for making faulse accusations like that!

Thu Jan 5 2006 11:14 PM


Cindy Sheenan is an idiot and if her son was alive he would say so because he VOLUNTERED to JOIN the ARMY for his own beliefs, reasons...She needs to spend more time in church and pray for others still there instead of being EVIL!

Thu Jan 5 2006 11:30 PM

Dave E.:

What a freak show here. Yikes.

Fri Jan 6 2006 12:25 AM


God i hate polotix(misspelled on purpose). I really hate to see this awesome counrty become so divided because of our idiotic opinions that dont matter. I love Letterman, but he was kind of an asshole the other night.

Fri Jan 6 2006 12:58 AM


jtown is my new hero. I love politics (spelled correctly, as far as I know...considering the incredible amount of Jack Daniels that is currently invading my cerebral cortex) and feel the same way. Kinda silly that one of the great comedy writers of all time (Al Franken changed the face of Saturday nights) and my all-time favorite late night talk show host have both decided that their comedy is not enough, but they need to join, in fact become poster children, for ranting political blowhards.
Don't we have enough people screaming divisive rhetoric at unbelievable decibels without good ol' Dave becoming part of the cacophony? (hey, that's twice for "cacophony" in one blog page...go figure). Dave tainted himself by attacking Bull O'reilly when Mr. Factor was just doing his typical schtick (spelled miserably poorly, but hey, I'm Italian). If Dave doesn't like Bull, he shouldn't have put him on...unless Dave felt like he was saving America from O'reilly's ilk. I'd rather Letteran not save me from O'reilly. He's really just better off making us laugh.

Fri Jan 6 2006 3:08 AM


Indeed the old adage is true ,that Americans have a short memory.Does anyone remember the months and years of Crap , leading up to this Iraq conflict? probably not.
Do they remember former pres. Clinton saying on a talk show that he should have invaded Iraq.?I doubt it.
(Research it for yourselves)
Do you remember Bush saying repeatedly that 9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq war.????
Y'all go back and watchin' that wrestlin' match now, or was it nascar???

Fri Jan 6 2006 4:13 AM


It is eye opening to read the diverse range of comments. As a society we often forget words like humility, faith and love. Each person has opinions; opinions that have been developed and learned. How much of what we really think is personally authentic and not a reflection of our parents, friends or manipulative media sources? As I prepare to be a new father, I am concerned by the polarity and stubbornness that is evident in our country and within the world. It is my hope that as a world society we can take strides to make life easier for folks and not harder.

Fri Jan 6 2006 10:13 AM


maphere wrote (in part):

"Mainly that throwing money at problems is not in itself a solution to the problem. If corrupt governments take aid money without distribution to the people, why would we give them more money?

There comes a point when charity is abused that it taints the desire of people to want to give.

There is a point in every country and person's life where they have to use their own desire for survival to survive."

Raskolnikov reply:

Definitely a good point. But look at the fruits. Here in America we have non-profits pretending to meet the needs of the poor. While there is no accountability. Conversely, although governments can and do act corruptly, at least in democractic theory they must answer to the people. To simply say it's up to the individual to survive irregardless of circumstances is no different than advising us all to arm ourselves for guerilla warfare.

Fri Jan 6 2006 1:15 PM


There isn`t one person that I`ve talked to that does`nt think Mr.Letterman totally embarassed himself with his hateful treatment of an invited guest. And in case you did`nt hear him say `I`m not smart enough to debate you`then you were`nt listening. Hate, hate,hate. Thats all that comes from our side anymore. No wonder we can`t even get a dog catcher elected.

Fri Jan 6 2006 1:24 PM



Saying Global Warming is a political issue is like saying the Quantum field theory is a political issue. Or that music theory is a political issue. It is not as much a real political issue as the world being flat is.

“I haven't made one statement that isn't recorded fact including Sheehan's antisemitic remarks.”

“She has made it clear in no uncertain terms that her son died in a senseless war in Iraq when he should have given his life for a noble military action such as eradicating Israel.” Cicero

The above line is a complete fabrication. You are a liar. I call them how a see them and you are a liar. You can either retract the statement, or remain a liar.

“Suppose you find one comment by O'Reilly that substantiates that he was pro Iraq invasion before 2002”

Ok this is just silly. The invasion was on March 20, 2003, the only thing I have to prove is that he was pro war before the invasion. You said he was only pro war after the invasion. So here we go:

"We do have the moral authority to remove him because he violated the Gulf War treaty. Surely you understand that…. We can go in and morally remove him…. Read the treaty, congresswoman.... If he violates his terms, we can then resume hostilities." (9/10/02)

"We basically feel that he is a danger to our oil supply there," (1/14/03)

"Here's the bottom line on this for every American and everybody in the world: Nobody knows for sure, all right? We don't know what he has. We think he has 8,500 liters of anthrax. But let's see." (3/18/03),

"According to the U.N., he's got anthrax, VX gas, ricin, and on and on." (2/17/03)

"This guy we know has anthrax and VX and all this stuff." (2/26/03)

On top of all that, he organized a boycott of France for not supporting the invasion PRIOR TO THE INVASION.

The above quotes full substantiate the claim that O’Reilly was in full support of the invasion of Iraq in the days and moths prior to the invasion. At every opportunity when the subject of invasion came up, he took the role of supporter. Though he did not say (lets invade Iraq now) he did, through his words and actions, present a cacophony of support for the invasion.

Fri Jan 6 2006 1:55 PM


“please give me an example of were our presidant broke the law”

Spying on Americans without a warrant is one, driving drunk in another.

He is entitled to a hearing, and that will probably happen.

Also.. I find it funny that the one thing your God could forgive that would save the most people is the one thing some say he will not do. (forgive those who don’t believe in him)

Right Wing Ryan

“Mr. Erik, you can sit down and shut up, learn what you are talking about, and don't make a general statement about conservatives,”

you have a right to say what you want, but when people like true_conservative say that Letterman had “no right” to talk the way he did then I have a right to point out that he is hardly a conservative.

Anybody who supports bush is hardly a conservative. Bush is for big government, and massive deficits.

Sound like you are the one who needs to sit down and shut up.

Fri Jan 6 2006 2:01 PM


ha ha ha, are you people real? hello!? is this really tom delay?....

reilly is a fraud. he lies about his motivations and attempts to pass himself off as a serious 'journalist', when in fact any reasonable person can see he's not. just like al franken is not. but al doesn't represent himself as one, he doesn't have a show on fox "news" channel, and he doesn't even claim to be "fair" or "balanced". there's the difference. and it's an important difference b/c some people, god help them, actually turn to a show on fox "news" and think that's what their getting, a real news show as opposed to op ed and such. it's aping of a real newsperson and how that can sway a person from the general public who might tune in that offends letterman. that reilly very obviously manipulates the legitimacy of his "arguments" w/facts 'cherry picked' out of context and therefore intended meaning, whereby creating "spin", another word for misleading and dishonest and NOT journalistic, this is what letterman was calling him out for, and this is why his tone may have come off as 'rude' etc, b/c he feels this is not something to be dismissive about. if reilly's show was called 'the o'reilly opinion' and not passed off as a news show, i'm sure dave would have been just as dismissive but in a nicer more relaxed tone. the reilly guy's conversational style generally tends to insight many people, but let's not confuse this style w/say "asking the hard, tough questions" or "calling people out", because his history has been one of obvious bias and leading questions and cherry picking facts and flat out lying about things he's said. no, mr. reilly is passing himself off as a something he's not. he's a fraud, it's just very simple. he created his own labels but his actions and written documented transcripts have "proven" this, and the idea that he will refute facts even on national television, about say how many times he's said "shut up" to an interviewee, well this kinda moots the legitimacy of calling out dave to "give an example". who knows the real #, but it was laughably more than "6" instances, and at that point the guy is just a joke and unreasonable to the extent of making pointless any 'real' debate about a serious topic, which is probably why Dave didn't answer him. i mean, what do you say to the idiot that denies we've been to the moon, that the holocaust was real, or that the earth is round? at that point you just try and expose him as much as possible to reveal to the gen. public just who he is. and to Reuben, what were you expecting? have you ever seen letterman? he's kinda rude to everyone he doesn't respect, very dismissive, antagonistic and kurt. did you think he was gonna have one of the most controversial hacks in television on his show and throw him softballs? or maybe you thought you were on NBC at the time? despite your sensibilities, there IS a time for rudeness, for passionate opinion. is a late night talk show that time? yes, sometimes, of course. oh, and we all know you are no liberal.

Fri Jan 6 2006 2:20 PM


oh , sorry, curt not "kurt"

Fri Jan 6 2006 2:28 PM


true conservative 08

bush went to yale b/c of family influence. bookwise, he wasn't the brightest bulb in the room. had all c's right? well maybe it's not fair to use his grades, it just too easy a thing to do. but come on now, do you honestly think he got into yale b/c of merit? having said that, i'm sure many people get into yale b/c of their socio-economic connections, but you're implying that "duh, of course he's smart, he went to yale right?" which in reality probably doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. let's be honest w/each other here, remember this is the no spin zone my friend, bush isn't that smart. yes, he's charismatic and he is good at working a room and schmoozing, he's got some people skills, but i don't think anyone here thinks he's too bright. i mean, he's a little more 'sly' than i think most people would give him credit for, but being able to manipulate people to get what you want only goes so far on the ole 'intelligence' scale, otherwise any run of the mill con artist would have to be considered bright right?

Fri Jan 6 2006 2:45 PM

Evan Wilson:

Who CARES what Letterman thinks about ANYthing?!?!?!!

Fri Jan 6 2006 2:59 PM


apparently only millions and millions over tens of years Evan. thanks for helping make a great point!

Fri Jan 6 2006 3:26 PM


dear Anonymous,
Probly why you are writing this you are masterbaiting to a picture of either John kerry or big fat Micheal Moore, what you said about true_conservatives_08 was not right. If you are hidding something from the government you should take deffence that george bush is wrong for doing that phone taping thingy so I dont wanna hear u or see what u have to say on here agin...............true conservative 08 ur right he/shes wrong our president never did break the law any one that opposes to this can shut thier traps

Fri Jan 6 2006 3:34 PM


i really dont thnk that you need to go to extreams but that is correct...if you dont have anything to hide whats it matter...and i think if your goin to make a big deal about you are a terrorist that doesnt want him to cath you talkin to abuoo hichow soracowy planing a attack on america!!!

Fri Jan 6 2006 3:40 PM


jaret, are you still on the subway diet? i think it would be wise to mix in a few vitamins besides just b and s

Fri Jan 6 2006 3:44 PM


dear johanna,
I really dont think we need those kinda comments on this website i just really do not think there necessery. how in the heck do you know if jaret is a fat person(or overweight) just lets keep it "G" rated please.......thanks

in him always,warmly,most positive attitude,sincerly,

Fri Jan 6 2006 3:57 PM


true conservative 08

not that i care in the slightes what (specifically) you think, but if you will take the time to scroll upward, you'll see your buddy jaret just ripped michael moore for being fat, and you called 'liberals' "pieces of crap", so don't go all passive/aggressive on me chief. i mean are you or aren't you the neocon that you seem to be as per your opins? if so you know better than i that you're not supposed to get all soft in the face of disagreement, if you're gonna get rude, stay rude! come on, shake your tail, you're better than that

Fri Jan 6 2006 4:06 PM


Did anyone notice that it was Letterman that started this whole nasty thread? I just watched the video again and the guy swirled his pencil in O'Reilly's drink before Bill came out. Bill later drank the water. I think Bill knew what Letterman had done, but that's just ugly.

I didn't see O'Reilly escalating the conversation or using any putdown responses. The whole dialog was steered in the gutter by Letterman. It's sad to see that vitriol then spill over into normal everday conversations like what is going on here and at dinner tables across the country.

Maybe I'm wrong, but more low level attacks and put downs seem to be coming from the left than the right. This brings down the level of our national discourse and results in personal attacks instead of debate on issues. I have to agree with O'Reilly that the debate on issues is what we should be getting back to, not personal attacks such as "You're a right wing freak" and "Left wing pinkos!".

If you don't like how the Iraq conflict is being executed, let's talk about how to fix it together. If you just hate Bush because you're jealous he's President and you're not, take your trash talk somewhere else. If you don't like the direction society is headed, let's hear your brilliant ideas on morality and ethics. If you just want to bash on liberals for having different values than you, keep it to yourself.

Fri Jan 6 2006 4:46 PM


letterman doesn't like nor does he respect reilly. and why should he? but i'm sure the swirl was part of his schtick and yeah i agree i think bill prolly knew about it. that kinda thing has happened on dave before. it's all for comedy, it is mostly an entertainment show right? no dawg, you're not right. the direction and the tone of the national discourse was framed by the far and some moderate rights a few years ago. the division and the nasty rhetoric started then. not to say that NOW libs and everyone else aren't subscribing to it, but it was only after the tone had been set already and the civil approach didn't work. the far right did a really great job of controlling the argument and using divisive tactics to force everyone to "call out" their positions on everything. and now we are at the natural endgame of that. everyone is irrationally buying wholesale their party line, and many fanatically. well, this didn't have to happen. some historians say the climate here is the worst ever. the mean spiritedness seems more ubiquitious now because the far right stirred the hornets nest. so you have your (obviously) own people to thank for that. if you dont' like it, tone your message down to begin with. now about reilly, he calls people pinheads all the time. that's not a "put down" response? so what, letterman has to wait for reilly to call him a name before he does? all reilly does is personal attack, so it's a little hypocritical for you to take up for him, no?? although i have to agree w/you on the ideas thing. i think these forums tend to be mostly for venting when all said and done. i know i feel better now.

Fri Jan 6 2006 5:51 PM

Bills Buddy Brett:

Dear Anonymous,
your just made becuase bush supports higher class which you are obviously not. did you get your facts from deebie the trialor next to you???

Conervitave 08,
I agree with your statments thank you for being intelligent

Fri Jan 6 2006 7:14 PM

NYC conservative:

here is a paper i wrote for a mass comm. class about controversial issues...

do you agree Conservative 08

Fri Jan 6 2006 7:23 PM

NYC conservative:

Think if your son or daughter was killed in Iraq what would you do? Here is a story of radical mother who can’t accept her son’s death. Casey Sheehan a 24 year old solider in Iraq. Son of Cindy Sheehan. He enlisted in the army august 2003. He was eventually deployed to Iraq. He was killed by a suicide bomber. Because of his death Cindy his mother blames President George W. Bush. In war people die, it is in the definition her son choose to be in the army knowing that he could go to war and be killed. If Cindy is so an antiwar why did she let her son join the army. Cindy has gone as far as staying outside the Presidents Ranch and protesting for days. Yes it is a tragedy that he was killed but do you see other mothers taking it this far who lost loved ones. Cindy Sheehan stated and stands by’s her comment quote, “the terrorists are freedom fighters and the American soldiers are terrorists.” She is complaining to the farthest extent that her son was killed though she calls his killers freedom fighters. Do you think this makes since. Cindy Sheehan has aligned herself with peace advocate Michael Moore, they cannot be taken seriously. You might oppose the war in Iraq but you have to stand by your country when there are people risking their lives for your safety. Cindy says that we should pull everyone out of the war. This was would be economic suicide. It was also show the terrorists that we have let them win the war. She claims that she loves her country; a person cannot hate his government hate the president and be antiwar, but still love his country. Since the president is the leader of the country and the government runs the country. You have a right to your own opinion but she took it to far saying that the insurgents are freedom fighters. Why is the mother of a slain soldier held to a higher standard than the president of the United States? In conclusion how would her son feel that he was willing to give his life for are country and his mother is going around putting the country down and what he gave his life for.

Fri Jan 6 2006 7:23 PM


CODEK's comments were outstanding. It's sometimes hard to put the confusing mishmash of the liberal mindset into words that make sense, but CODEK has come about as close as I've ever seen it done. I think I'll frame your comments, sir, and put them on my wall as I believe they will be pertinent for many a decade to come......

Fri Jan 6 2006 7:26 PM


Amen Jaret

Fri Jan 6 2006 7:26 PM

NYC conservative:

who ever thinks anonymous is a lying sac of crap
if so post it.....

Fri Jan 6 2006 7:28 PM

NYC conservative:

thank you very much conservative 08 its good to have some people that share the same poltical views as mine

Fri Jan 6 2006 10:26 PM

NYC conservative:

Dear Conservative 08

if you wouldnt mind me asking how old are you honestly?

What type of music do you like

Fri Jan 6 2006 10:31 PM


look at >>>>
funny songs

Sat Jan 7 2006 2:17 AM

NYC conservative:

your not to young i am 13 haha!!! George W. Bush is a great guy top 5 on my list. do you listen to matt mahuer

Sat Jan 7 2006 9:42 AM

NYC conservative:


Abortion is murder it is killing innocent children!!!

Sat Jan 7 2006 9:48 AM


Take the most obvious type of abortion that can be considered "wrong" or murder. The "partial birth abortion' procedure is taking the life of an infant that would be completely viable if born at that instant. There is absolutely no way to justify that horrific 'procedure' that then cuts the back of the head that was partially delivered and the brains were scrambled using stainless steel instruments, and evacuated with a suction. This is clearly murder. This is clearly unlike the usual practice of medicine. Does the baby have a 'choice'? Even Hillary Clinton talks about 'children's rights'. This fully formed baby needs no respirator and could go home shortly after birth. We have no right to fuss about Milosevic's immorality (as bad as that is) when we allow this to occur in the United States.

What about earlier gestational age fetuses and even embryos? As a pathologist, I have seen many spontaneous abortion, 'products of conception'. At even less than 12 weeks gestation, the fetus is incredibly complex and human. It is nowhere near our 'developed' state but it is clearly different from other types of "tissue". The DNA is clearly, from the moment of conception, completely unique from everyone else on earth. It has taken us thousands of years to obtain the capability of in-vitro fertilization. God performs this miracle thousands of times daily.

What about the mother's 'choice'? The argument that she has the right to choose what happens to her own body is markedly flawed. The same ones who want to give a woman the right for an abortion would condemn women for smoking and fight what was her 'choice', clearly affecting her own body. In abortion, the baby is clearly separate in content and being than the mother. It is only riding with the mother for a few months. As Christians, we should protect the helpless, including the unborn individual as it grows. Why doesn't anyone expose that the reason for an abortion is simply selfishness? The mother's 'choice' is simply what inconvenience she wants to escape.

Sat Jan 7 2006 9:48 AM

NYC conervative:


Sat Jan 7 2006 9:50 AM

NYC conservative:

True conservative 08...
who do you think will win the election in 08

Sat Jan 7 2006 10:01 AM


liberalism-the fear that someone somewhere can help thimselves!

Sat Jan 7 2006 11:08 AM


NYC consevative,
I would really like bill frist to run for president, there have been rumors about it but there also have been rumors about john McKain rinning...hes alright but on some issues like "less government" im not saying thats bad the way he talks is like less than we have now witch im totally satisfied with the a,ount of governement we have now...someone I do not want to see run for president is ol' hillary!...that would be horribe she would be declairing war at a certain time a month...on the abortion issue I agree with you totaly because there have been over 32 million deaths from abortion sense Roe Vs. Wade in 1973 supreme court case ruling that legalized it!!! it is wrong and It Is Killing innocent babies that can not help themselves... in is the Unrecognized war and it needs to be stoped!!!

Sat Jan 7 2006 11:44 AM


sorry about the spelling i type fast then i realize i made a bunch of I am bad at spelling

Sat Jan 7 2006 11:48 AM


Revised version of my last letter (relates to Letterman/O'Reilly as liberal/vs. conservative issue)

To the Editor:

Re; 'City Studies Legality of Stricter Laws on Begging'; Gazette; 11/27/05): In Colorado Springs, considered the evangelical hub of America [see: Focus on the Family], lame beggar Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) would be arrested and thrown in jail for panhandling and sleeping in a [downtown] business doorway.

Granted, it is common knowledge many misuse charitable donations. Either through alcohol/drugs and/or extravagant non-profit CEO salaries. If it appears unwise to give a panhandler or non-profit organization money, don't. But instead of inhibiting human rights, why doesn't Councilman Heimlicher inquire as to why Focus on the Family chooses not to provide their administrative salaries on the Better Business Bureau website

In his letter to the editor, Warren Langley proposes solving poverty by giving poor people "a good swift kick in the butt to get them to make the right decision" (Gazette; 1/6/06). Should one be grateful Mr. Langley did not advise medication? Interesting how even conservatives readily admit capitalism, like any other economic system, is imperfect. Yet somehow it is the poor that should be punished for that imperfection.

Bruce Deile

Sat Jan 7 2006 3:11 PM


liberalism-"the fear that someone somewhere can help themselves"

Sun Jan 8 2006 1:02 AM

Mike of the Great White North:

I am surprised... really. Can none of you see this?

Wrong Wind Dipstick (aka right wing ryan) is only a 13 year old mental midgit who sits in front of his computer for apparently hours on end treating a blog like an instant messanger while masterbating in his own feces. Not only does he create fictitious friends to back up his tantrums, he creats fictitious foes to back up the 'dems'... or did Joe-fake-name not give it away.

Truley sad. Right wing ryan, you really are the poster boy for condoms.

Tue Jan 10 2006 12:06 PM



Cant you get your point across w/out being so vulgar, I mean seriously: “while masterbating in his own feces” come now, I now YOU are better then that!

As mad as I’ve gotten writing on this site I don’t think/believe (to my knowledge anyway) that I have ever degraded someone personally (Although I’ve wanted to – GREATLY at times).

Tue Jan 10 2006 1:36 PM


Same thing goes for you Ryan!

Tue Jan 10 2006 1:47 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

I did not say any of this, Mike must have used my name, I just got back from lunch 15 minuts ago, at was at lunch for an hour. Thank you for pointing this out thought, I agree with you.

Tue Jan 10 2006 2:15 PM


i am a united states marine officer and running across this web-site makes me sick!!! you liberals surley are horrible people that do not respect the people that put their lives on the line for you sorry ass wholes...........maybee some day youll learn that not for me and the other men fighting for you freedom you would probolly not even be able to take a shit without permission!!!

Tue Jan 10 2006 3:21 PM


if u think the immagrants should not be allowed into the U.S. form Mexico....and if we need to tightin boarder control post something...only if u agree not if u disagree cuz i do not want to hear your mouth!!! makes me mad!!!

Tue Jan 10 2006 3:29 PM

Mike of the Great White North:


i agree i lose my cool at times as im sure you know. BUT... im pretty sure you can tell a few things. First, in all our heated debates of the past... (and i find it crazy that i have to actually post this) i NEVER used someone elses name to make forged posts. secondly, i find this blog to be somewhat overrun by one line, one sentence, 5 minute apart blog entries by obviously fictitious people to be ruining this site.

not only do i have to wade through tons of crap to see replies to my entries (which end up getting pushed off the recent comments page because of this crap), it is also written in such an inherintly juvinile form that the disgust just gets hammered out on my keyboard with disregard to typing etiquette or protocol.

IF RWR REALLY didn't post any of that stuff, then i guess id have to apologize... but then i'd have to ask Jim if he has any way of tracking IP's to posts to verify all this drivel isn't the postings of one raving lunatic with just a wee too much time on his hands.

Tue Jan 10 2006 5:48 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

Thank you for your service, and God bless you.
Are you calling me a liar? I am a lot of things, but I am not a liar.
Again you are right in reguard to your post on illegal immigration.

Tue Jan 10 2006 6:55 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

Good to here from you again, I don't think you posted anything yesterday, did you?

Tue Jan 10 2006 6:57 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

Sorry, I will not use my right to free speach anymore. I do not want to put up crap (just because some posts are conservative dose not mean they are crap). One of us in this picture is lying, and it is not me. What you said under my name sounds a lot like what you said under my name. Please do not slander my name, I try to stick to inteligent conservation. I beg all of the people who just are using this site to through mud, and not debate like someone who has a smattering of intelgence. I think you are a man of high intelegence who just got caught up in the moment, and you said some things that you do not mean, it is not the worst thing in the world. I am not looking for you to pubicaly humiliate yourself, just please stop this. I will try my best to not through personal insults, sometimes people get my goat, and I say things that seem childish, but from now on, I as I hope most people will try to stick to real debate, there I agree with your point of some people say crap.
I however think that just because what is said is only a sentenses or a few lines, it is not worth reading or posting, I disagree with you. I think some people such as true conservative 08, NYC conservative, or Bills Buddy Brett say intelegent things in just a short amount of words.

Tue Jan 10 2006 7:13 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

My most sincere appoligy, as I have no way of proving it you who used my name, it could be just about anyone in the world, I am sorry to you if I fallsey accused you, I am very sorry.

Tue Jan 10 2006 7:17 PM

Jim Gilliam:

rwryan posted a zillion of those inane one line posts with forged names talking to each other. whether he did every single one of them is sort of moot since he started the whole thing to begin with. i tried to delete as many of them as possible today.

cut it out ryan. find someplace else to act like an idiot.

Tue Jan 10 2006 7:26 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

Good this blog sucks anyway, check back normal people, I will post a better blog later.

Tue Jan 10 2006 8:08 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The better blog has been found,, they filter obseen and vulgar posts, so you won't need to wade throught the antics of a five year old to post a legitmit oppinion. This will be my last post on this site.

Tue Jan 10 2006 8:14 PM

Leftist Bob:

Are Jim Gilliam and Mike of the Great White North the same people

Tue Jan 10 2006 8:21 PM

Leftist Bob:


Tue Jan 10 2006 8:22 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

You have made an error, dozens of people along with myslef share the same computer, so thats why it appered that I have made the same posts under different alias. Thank you though for being on your toes, I can see how this mistake is made.

Tue Jan 10 2006 8:24 PM


WOW what a BIZARRE turn of events this turned out to be?!?!?!?

Tue Jan 10 2006 10:32 PM

Mike of the Great White North:

Bizarre is not the word. Surreal maybe. Twilight Zone.

Jim, ip tracking is the key. Or ip blocking if need be.

I just dont have words for this.

And a final note for RWR. Forgive me if i feel a modest amount of deception from you given the circumstances. How's about you try this.

Since you have gone from accusing me of posting as you, to saying now that multiple people share your computer (conveniently wiping out the 'all posts from 1 ip address' defence) i would suggest you do this.

1. Set up multiple user accounts on YOUR computer. You can be the admin, everyone else gets to use the guest.

2. For the guest account. Disable their access to this site. Either remove the network connection for that account, put in the blocked list, or get a good firewall like zone alarm and set it to block any connections to this site so YOUR "friends" cant connect to this site.

3. Then you can happily post away while your friends are free to do whatever they like, sans this blog.

4. If all this fails, password protect your PC in the BIOS, the Windows login and your internet connection and tell YOUR 'friends' to (*^% off.

This has been a public service announcement.

Tue Jan 10 2006 11:13 PM

Right Wing Ryan:

If you mean bar some people, I will have done that. Thank you for your sugestion, I suggested this to other people because I wanted inteligent debate, I am sorry to everyone that this has caused problems. When I said I was not going to blog anymore, I thought I was beeing bared from this site, so I was mad. Again, I am sorry.

Wed Jan 11 2006 9:31 AM

Right Wing Ryan:

I agree with you putting friends in quotiation marks, thank you again for your suggestinons, I was letting them use this computer out of the goodness of my heart, I am done with this.

Wed Jan 11 2006 9:33 AM


OK, is this settled now? Can we get on with what we’re supposed to be talking/writing/blogging about already?!?

Wed Jan 11 2006 9:38 AM

Right Wing Ryan:

I hope so.

Wed Jan 11 2006 10:24 AM

Jim Gilliam:

Right Wing Ryan is a liar and completely full of shit. Just ignore everything he says. I've had this blog for 6 years now, and I've never had someone act like such a ridiculous moron before. His "friends" that used his computer all within moments of each other (like 8 friends all using his computer within 15 minutes, huh?) all happened to be using the same fake email address. (only I can see this)

As the regulars here know, I never delete posts. I try to keep the spam at bay, but any opinions (even vulgar ones) are left alone. But I have a zero tolerance policy of impersonating other people posting. ZERO TOLERANCE.

Wed Jan 11 2006 11:33 AM


well i have nothing to say.....stunned how do we know if it is the real jim...if it is your website is cool someday id like to start my own...thank you for everything jim your a good guy and sorry if i ever screwed up on heer

Wed Jan 11 2006 3:56 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack: