Read time: 4 minutes

Bill O'Reilly Says He Debunked The NY Times Benghazi Story In Three Minutes

Bill O'Reilly was in a feverish uproar over the new Benghazi story from the NY Times and devoted most of his show trying to debunk it it..

"There's no evidence, none, to justify that story." Bill O'Reilly.

So says Poppa Bear O'Reilly on Thursday night's Factor Report. He was livid that David Kirkpatrick's conclusions after six months of his investigation proved that the anti-Muslim tape produced by Christian wingnuts did cause the attack and that al-Qaeda was not involved in it. This sent BillO into a tailspin:

They also attacked a CIA compound a half mile away using mortars, and "The New York Times" says the attack was not planned. Are you kidding me? I guess the word "meticulously" is the paper's fallback, but it is pure bull. And the coordinated violence eliminates the videotape as a spontaneous driver of the murders, eliminates that. It's true, the militants knew about the tape from Egyptian TV, but this Ansar group had used violence before. They didn't need a tape to commit murder.

So "Talking Points" believes "The Times" story is deeply flawed and the editors should have known it. Now, over the years, the paper has become deeply invested in changing America into a secular progressive country and while it does do some noble reporting, a primary goal of "The Times" is to help progressive groups and politicians. You may remember "The Times" implied that John McCain had an extramarital affair during his presidential campaign against Barack Obama. "The Times" could produce no evidence, none, to justify that story, and to this day, Senator McCain is bitter about it.

Now we have the lingering Benghazi situation that may hurt Hillary Clinton in her presidential run. "Talking Points" believes that was the motivation for the way this investigation was framed by "The New York Times". I could be wrong, but I'm not wrong about the reporting. It is seriously flawed. And that's "The Memo."

If Bill actually read the huge report, he would know that Kirkpatrick's piece didn't whitewash away any blunders by the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton's State Department so his idea that the NY Times was shilling for Hillary is laughable. In the above video he then has on Howard Kurt and Bernie Goldberg on to analyze his conclusions. Bernie agrees with Bill saying that even a very responsible liberal democrat disagrees with the report and that person is Rep. Adam Schiff from California.

Howie Klein will remind you of the type of Democrat Schiff is and there's one thing you can't call him and that is a liberal.

I was very happy to have helped revenge Bill Clinton, to elect a Democrat to replace an especially bad Republican and to actually know a congressman. It was just a few months before I realized I had made a dreadful mistake. Schiff is a conservative careerist and a corporate whore. He joined the Blue Dogs, started voting with Republicans again-- for example-- the LGBT community-- and then, the final breaking point, came in 2002 when Schiff joined 82 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote for, H.J. Res. 114, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Most Democrats voted NO, as did Ron Paul and 5 other Republicans

Since Schiff got redistricted from his old stomping grounds he dumped the Blue Dogs in favor of joining the New Dems, another NOT liberal faction of the Democratic part. Adam Schiff clearly isn't close to being a liberal, Bernie.

And then Goldberg cited conservative frustration with the Times for going easy on Obama during his elections and they are suspicious that they'll support Hillary too!. NO Bernie, conservatgive hates the NY Times because Fox News tells them to. Then Bill went on to Kurtz and complained to him that The Times has ten editors and an avowed liberal woman, Jill Abramson as their executive editor. How dare they. That's his proof mind you that it's a liberal conspiracy to save Hillary. From what exactly? Only conservative ideologues belive there's a Benghazi conspiracy afoot any how. Kurtz rightly disagreed with Poppa Bear telling him that this was a serious piece of investigative journalism. That left BillO to say:

You're kidding me, right? You're kidding me. You actually believe that this story, alright, is a serious piece of journalism...?

Yes, Poppa Bear, it is actual journalism. After this segment ended, Bill brought on his new favorite liberal, James Carville and it was in that segment that Bill told him he had discredited the NY Times story in three minutes and thirty something seconds. You see he did a Factor investigation on the story that took all of three minutes to complete.

Can you help us out?

For 16 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit. We work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for our labor of love, but with rising hosting and associated costs, we need your help! Could you donate $20 for 2020? Please consider a one time or recurring donation of whatever amount you can spare, or consider subscribing for an ad-free experience. It will be greatly appreciated and help us continue our mission of exposing the real FAKE NEWS!

More C&L Coverage

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.