Bill O'Reilly cuts mic of retired Army Colonel Ann Wright
tags:
Stumble ThisBill O'Reilly really doesn't like it when intelligent people appear on his show. At every moment that Colonel Ann Wright begins to explain details O'Reilly rudely interrupts her and shouts over her until he eventually cuts off her mic. O'Reilly loudly scrambles words and creates assumptions that muddy the whole "conversation".
It's frustrating to watch, at around the 2.50 mark O'Reilly asks "Is this our(America) fault" and Responds "Not at all". However for the rest of the conversation O'Reilly gets all mad because he still thinks that she is saying it's Americas fault "I'm agreeing with you, we're the evil ones" O'Reilly shouts "No" Wright insists, O'Reilly continues "I agree with you, we're the Evil people". The conversation is all down hill from there. Although O'Reilly believes Iran is "humiliating" the British soldiers the colonel is simply trying to bring up important points about the Geneva convention and how American treat their POW.
A related I found recently by Terry Jones in the Guardian UK. and an actual video of the British Soldiers apologizing and explaining their "humiliating" conditions can be found here.
The banner beneath the Colonel at the beginning read "U.S. Army (Ret.) Col. Ann Wright" changed to "Col.Ann Wright retired from State Dept. in opposition to Iraq war" and ended with "Anti-war activist Col. Ann Wright." Newshounds via virtual matter
It's frustrating to watch, at around the 2.50 mark O'Reilly asks "Is this our(America) fault" and Responds "Not at all". However for the rest of the conversation O'Reilly gets all mad because he still thinks that she is saying it's Americas fault "I'm agreeing with you, we're the evil ones" O'Reilly shouts "No" Wright insists, O'Reilly continues "I agree with you, we're the Evil people". The conversation is all down hill from there. Although O'Reilly believes Iran is "humiliating" the British soldiers the colonel is simply trying to bring up important points about the Geneva convention and how American treat their POW.
A related I found recently by Terry Jones in the Guardian UK. and an actual video of the British Soldiers apologizing and explaining their "humiliating" conditions can be found here.
The banner beneath the Colonel at the beginning read "U.S. Army (Ret.) Col. Ann Wright" changed to "Col.Ann Wright retired from State Dept. in opposition to Iraq war" and ended with "Anti-war activist Col. Ann Wright." Newshounds via virtual matter
- 
The States have a lot of power and influence, we need to start seeing smart people in those positions.
I wonder if anyone at all sided with O'Reilly. Even his most adherent supporter must have realized that he was behaving like a 5th grader.
He's mad the person he interviewed didn't answer his question how he wanted. And cut off the mic. He's probably feeling pretty manly right now. Sick.
That's his new thing... yelling match with invited guest, next day: entire show agonizing over the details of the interview to prove himself the superior life-form.
Oh and I heard that next week oreily argues that the world is flat and then clubs a bunch of baby seals because they are supporting the environmentalists' agenda.
Ann Wright - Obviously well versed on the topic and responds amazingly well to the difficult situation. I also agree with her point, "How can America challenge Iran on their actions when many of America's recent actions in Iraq and Guantanamo are clearly breaches of the Geneva Conventions?".
Also I have to add .. the poster of this video said:
"A related I found recently by Terry Jones in the Guardian UK. and an actual video of the British Soldiers apologizing and explaining their "humiliating" conditions can be found here..."
I don't know what you don't understand here. But simply being filmed and broadcast as a prisoner is considered humiliating. And if you think the Iranian government let any video out that does not portray their behavior regarding these prisoners in the most perfect way than you are crazy. You have no idea what gun was held to the heads of these British soldiers to say their "apologies".
Sc
Two words.
-Fox
-News
"Fox News" needs to enter the American vocabulary as an oxymoron like "Miltary Intelligence" and "Microsoft Works." This is the network whose "news" programs (and even THEY admit that O'Reilly isn't honestly news, it's editorial and commentary) have anchors who give their opinion every 5 seconds and sensationalize things to the point where the Enquirer and the Star would blush. They openly mock stories and spoon-feed their viewers exactly what they should be thinking. While I'll be the first to admit that the verbage on most Republican-labelled-liberal media outlets are offensive to the concept of journalism (CNN, his name is PRESIDENT Bush, not Mister Bush), Fox News is more biased (to the right) than most of the "liberal media" that Republicans hate so much. Just this week, the Washington Post, the poster-child for the "liberal media" that the Republicans love to hate, called Pelosi "foolish" for her little trip to Syria. When was the last time Fox News called Dubya "potentially criminal" or even "irresponsible"?
Yeah... thought so.
But yeah... O'Reilly is a moron and a juvenile.
When America gets its hands on prisoners, I see their buttholes on the internet. She was just trying to put Iranian violations of decency into context; contextualizing is itself understanding, it's not "changing the subject".
Two words.
-Fox
-News
No, one word: Ratings
The "premise"? Anyone can ask a question of why, there is no "rule" to say you have to be squeaky clean yourself to ask a pointed question.
>> contextualizing is itself understanding, it's not "changing the subject"
Answer the question(s) properly, then mention any reservations. To avoid the question by completely pointing another way is like excusing islam because christianity also was violent.
Samson
Concur with the assertion that there's no provocation in surrounding Iran with military action and declaring the nation evil? Concur with the assertion that the Geneva Conventions is a moral and legal standard that Iran should be expected to observe, despite UK and US ignoring it? Or concur with the underlying, unstated premise of the question, that Iran is behaving provocatively?
I'm sorry Samson, I think your politics are skewing your perception of the video. It's sort of a bizarre rhetorical turn you've made, in maligning Christianity and Islam in this context, so perhaps that's the agenda you're looking to advance in attempting to justify O'Reilly's smarminess.
Unfortunately for you, Christianity and Islam are quite immaterial here, despite your socially-acquired instincts to the contrary. Fascinating, that you point to Islam and Christianity in the same sentence in which you deride the woman for "avoiding the question by completely pointing another way".
(eg http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/arts/television/11keit.html?ex=1310270400&en=4ccc4d43ec65612e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
Ann Wright: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye (Matthew 7:5)
Bill O'Reilly: You hate America! Death to the infidel.
Bill O'Reilly is the world's biggest hypocrite who claims to be a Christian and never read the sermon on the mount. He refuses to accept any kind of criticism of anything he believes and he doesn't even give people time to explain. He's an irrational man who thinks with his gut and ignores the evidence.
The British prisoners were in Iranian waters by their own confession, were well-treated, and the only way the Geneva convention was violated was by distributing videos. The videos showed them having a good time in Iran in what looked like a nice hotel, not a regular prison. Bill O'Reilly was really scraping the bottom of the barrel for any reason to get people motivated to invade Iran.