C&L Video: "Letterman vs. O’Reilly…Round Two…Fight!"

[Human Torch]

Letterman vs. O’Reilly…Round Two…Fight!



By: SilentPatriot on Friday, October 27th, 2006 at 11:41 PM - PDT

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/27/letterman-vs-oreillyround-twofight/

David Letterman didn't try to hide the fact last night that he just plain doesn't like Bill O'Reilly. He wasted no time bashing FOX News and doing what few people can do — ridiculing O'Reillys ratings (Letterman's audience is more than 2x as large .) While sparring over Iraq, Letterman interrupted the giant talking head saying he "doesn't care" what Bill has to say. When Bill O, in typical FAUX form, tried to suggest that Dave believes "Bush is an evil liar" and that "America is a bad country" Letterman comes back with the line of the month:

"You're trying to put words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head."

Video WMP Video-QT

Letterman: Let me ask you a question — was there more heinous, more dangerous violence taking place before in Iraq, or is there more heinous, dangerous violence taking place now in Iraq?

O'Reilly: Oh, stop it. Saddam Hussein slaughtered 300,000 to 400,000 people, all right, so knock it off… It isn't so black and white, Dave — it isn't, 'We're a bad country. Bush is an evil liar.' That's not true.

Letterman: I didn't say he was an evil liar. You're putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head!

Dave concedes at the end that he has "no idea what he's talking about", but added that neither does Bill. It seems Dave was on to something. A fact check of Bill's assertion that Ansar al-Islam worked with the approval of Saddam Hussein's government is wholly unsupported by the Senate Intelligence Committee report (.pdb) released a few moths ago that is the most definitive work to date on the glaring differences between pre-war rhetoric and post-war reality.

(For a breakdown of O'Reilly's disingenuous claim (i.e. lie), read the rest of this story…)

The Senate Intelligence Committee writes on pages 71-72 that Saddam had virtually no control over the northern Kurdistan region of Iraq, that there were flaws that "undermined confidence in the reporting" of such a relationship and that Ansar al-Islam that was not "a branch of al Qaeda." Furthermore, Saddam's regime had no contact with the group other than to possibly infiltrate it to gather intelligence. The report concludes on page 110: "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."

In other words, not only does Bill grasp at straws to justify the unjustifiable — namely, a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups that legitimized invasion — he mischaracterizes a relationship that is highly dubious at best and completely non-existent at worst to do so. It's amazing that Bush-supporters still try to use these unsubstantiated claims in order to somehow validate the all-out, guns-a-blazing, disastrous war we have waged.

The report also shows that not only did Saddam not have a relationship with al Qaeda, he distrusted them so greatly that he even tried to capture Zarqawi — shattering the Bush administrations most potent conspiracy theory. For anyone who hasn't read the the reports conclusions, they're absolutely shocking in that it conclusively show that all pre-war claims were bogus including Niger yellow-cake, aluminum tubes and Atta-in-Prague the were the "strongest" pieces of evidence indicating a WMD program and Saddam-al-Qaeda link.

Farleft has the full transcript

[BootinUp]

1. For some reason I never really cared for Letterman

I was wrong. This was a masterful interview/slam session.

[Human Torch]

6. His first post-9/11 show was unbelievable.

When he talks about "wanting to do something" in last night's clip, it brings back memories of that earlier show. His opening remarks that night were fierce, honest, and direct.

Dennis Miller likes to wear the "9/11 changed everything" rhetoric on his sleeve, but I think it really did change Letterman. He also seemed to become more of a "Carpe Diem" guy after his multiple-bypass heart surgery in 1999.

:patriot:

[4bucksagallon]

2. Great stuff, need more just like it with the ultimate bonehead Flush

put him on the hot seat. I love watching these chickenhawks squirm. Culture warrior indeed, he certainly was not a defender of this country when Vietnam was white hot. Dave did a heck of a job on him especially the line about when he tunes in to faux it's always the Simpson's.

[eleny]

3. Too bad Dave didn't know about the north being a "no fly zone"

When Bill said that Saddham allowed the terrorists to be active in northern Iraq as a example of his being aligned with Al Qaeda, Dave had nothing to say. He just didn't know.

[LynnTheDem]

5. And who DID control Kurdish Iraq? AMERICA. And WHY is the LEADER

of Ansar al-Islam living a free man in Norway to this day?

Gee, maybe coz his group were enemies of and trying to kill Saddam Hussein.

But don't let irrelevant things like FACTS stand in a rightwingnut's way!

[liberalmike27]

7. He Keeps

O'Reilly keeps asking the question "Do you want America to win the war" which is absurd on the face of it. We all want to win, the problem being that none of us have any idea what winning entails. If winning means staying until every ounce of violence is done, then we'll never leave there. Heck, we don't even have that situation here in the US. Are we winning when we are steadily losing freedoms in our own country because of this rhetorical war on terrorism. They need to start finding ways to deflect this question.

We all want America to do well, but there is certainly a question as to whether we will ever win, per se, in Iraq. Are we better with Saddam out of Power? They should talk about how we supported Saddam before, rather than shy away from the issue. Was Reagan wrong for selling him tons of weapons, for giving him precursors for chemical and biological weapons? We supported him before, and now we attack him. We need to point out it isn't as simple as whether we win or not, but how do we define winning. I think Letterman did a pretty good job though, showing that it isn't a simple win/lose situation, and perhaps if violence will continue whether we are there or not, then winning could easily be defined as bringing home our troops, and stopping their continued slaughter. Civil war is happening, and we might as well allow it to go one way or the other.

[eleny]

10. You said; "none of us have any idea what winning entails"

I was thinking about that aspect of the war today. How BO and the neocons define wining and how I define it is probably worlds apart.

Right now, with all the deaths, I think winning would be for us to save the lives of everyone in Iraq. So, already, we've lost. No way we can accomplish my goals for winning.

Sorry for the delayed response but I just got home. Volunteered for a campaign and was out and about for that and then shopping with hubby!

[seabeyond]

13. i knew he wasnt going to know. i hate when wrong information slides

i hear ya. make me want to shout out, wrong wrong wrong

[LynnTheDem]

4. "Hussein slaughtered 300,000 to 400,000 people"

O'REALLY?

-That "300,000" figure came from HRW and it WAS NOT referring to people killed by Hussein. FACT.

-There is still no proof of genocide by Hussein. FACT.

-But toss on another 100,000 people, bill, coz they're "just numbers".

-And gee bill, if "Hussein slaughtered 300,000 to 400,000 people", then you admit BUSH HAS KILLED TWICE THAT NUMBER of Iraqis.

IN 3 YEARS.

Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for 25 years.

FACT.

By the by, billy-boy, thought you were going to "never trust anything this administration says."

[Guava Jelly]

8. I missed this and wanted to see it

thank you for posting it
David Letterman you fucking rock :)

[genie_weenie]

9. O'Reily is ridiculous.

First it was good to see someone stand up to him and not have to worry about Mighty Culture Warrior Bill turning off their microphone.

The US did not go into Iraq to destroy Ansar al-Islam. Yes we did blow up one of theri main encampments in the Northern Kurdish Lands during the 2003 initial attack but big deal. AI was comprised of maybe 300 guys who had killed far less people than say the FARC or the Tamil Tigers. But, of course as Warrior Bill stated this is about control of the Oil.

The Bill talking point of 300,000 to 400,000 killed by Saddam is a lie. There is no credible evidence to support it.

[dajoki]

11. that was a great line...

Dave concedes at the end that he has "no idea what he's talking about", but added that neither does Bill.

[Karenina]

12. THAT was the BEST!