Bill O'Reilly lies on Letterman about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is
Bill O'Reilly lied on Letterman the other night as he was protecting Sarah Palin and defending her from the "gotcha" questions by Charlie Gibson. Here's what O'Reilly said.
"The Bush Doctrine? Remember that, when Charlie Gibson went, 'what's the Bush doctrine'? You got the nose with glasses on and all that. I'm sitting at home going 'what Bush Doctrine'? Is that the doctrine where I go to Crawford Texas five times a year? What Bush Doctrine is that? I don't know what that is. That was just ridiculous. It's all gotcha gotcha gotcha."
Now let's get the evidence, Many thanks to the tipsters from the C&L inbox. From his Talking Points segment on Tuesday, March 16, 2004: HAPPY DAYS FOR AL QAEDA
This Spanish election is very bad news for the U.S., which continues to be seen as a villain throughout much of the world. The new Spanish government will not be as supportive as the previous one.
Al Qaeda loves that. Its goal is to isolate America. Many people in Europe are Socialists, as you know. They believe that capitalist America is worse than Al Qaeda. And that crazy view has taken deep root...So the U.S. cannot count on much support from Europe. And that puts President Bush in a difficult position. The Bush Doctrine is to take the fight to the terrorists. Now with the capitulation of Spain, America has one less fighting partner.
O'REILLY: But then he'd still be in power, Saddam.
BLIX: He would still be in power. That's very likely, yes.
O'REILLY: And the world a better place for that?
BLIX: No, but they -- the U.S. argument for going to war was not that Saddam should be taken out. It was that the weapons of mass estruction should be taken out.
O'REILLY: That's true. They didn't sell it the right way...
O'REILLY: ... but I think the Bush doctrine is...
O'REILLY:...remove terror regimes.
BLIX: Well -- but they didn't bring the right justification. I mean was this insincerity if they really felt there was something else than weapons of mass destruction?
And then there's this from The Factor on August 30, 2004 Monday:
In the "Unresolved Problems" segment tonight, there's no question, according to the polls, that President Bush has taken some grief over the Iraq war. With us now is conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, the author of the brand new book, "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neo-Conservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency." How did you fit all that on the book cover? Is this like a giant coffee table book?
PAT BUCHANAN, POLITICAL ANALYST: No, you get the subtitle, you use a little smaller lettering, and the top title is always a good hit.
O'REILLY: Wow. McCain and Giuliani are going to basically refute what you believe tonight. They're going to come out and say the Iraq war was worth it, that the Bush strategy, they call it the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes against threatening people in an age of nuclear terrorism, has to happen. What do you think about that?
BUCHANAN: Well, first, the doctrine of preemptive strike, if Iraq had been developing nuclear weapons and we had hard knowledge of it, I would have said, yes, go in and take out the nuclear weapons. No one said that. Even al-Baradi (ph) said they were clean of those.
Secondly, I said before the war that if we go in here, Mr. President, you're going to wind up with your own Lebanon, your own West Bank, because the Arab and Islamic countries haven't succeeded at much, but they're very good at wars of national liberation. They're very good at guerrilla wars. You're going to have a Battle of Algiers on your hands.
That's what we got, Bill, and I think it was an unnecessary and an unwise war. And the president ought not to have done it. If he had not gone in, this election would be over.
You want more? I got more.
KOCH: And I came to that conclusion about a year or so ago. And it is basically because all of the Democratic contenders seeking to run for president, with the exception of Joe Lieberman (search) who doesn't have a chance in the world of succeeding there, they all have decided that they would play to the left and decry all of our efforts to take on terrorism and Saddam Hussein (search). And I believe that the president when he made that ringing statement which created the Bush Doctrine that he will go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them, that he issued a statement which is as important as the Monroe Doctrine (search), the Truman Doctrine (search) -- the Monroe Doctrine case, keep all foreign countries out of the -- the Western hemisphere, and, in the case of the Truman Doctrine, to contain communism.
O'REILLY: OK. So you were very...
KOCH: The Bush Doctrine is very important.
O'REILLY: You believe in the war on terror the way he's fighting it.
Weapons of mass destruction debacle? That...
KOCH: It's not a debacle at all. I think it's so ridiculous to look at it that way. It happens that Mr. Kay -- Dr. Kay is it?
KOCH: ... in fact, substantiates not that there are necessarily weapons of mass destruction there, but it was appropriate to think that they were there...
O'REILLY: Yes, I agree with that.
KOCH: ... and if they are there or Saddam Hussein conveys that he will use them as he has used them in the past when he killed 5,000 of his own Kurdish Iraqi and thousands more of the Iranian troops...
O'REILLY: But, you know, they had ricin there. I mean it's certainly enough. But, be that as it may, the intelligence was faulty.
Listen, everyone could forget if they've had a conversation on an issue, but it's a topic that Bill repeatedly talked about many times before with many different guests and he lays out exactly what the Bush Doctrine is. O'Reilly willingly lies to David Letterman to protect Sarah Palin from scrutiny. Is there any doubt that no matter how you feel politically, Bill O'Reilly can not be trusted when it comes to Republican politicians or ideals?