Pundits In Print -
American Politics JournalJudith Haney responds to Bill "Bull! Oh,
Pundit Pap -- The following is a line-by-line answer to right wingnut Bill O'Reilly's
latest piece of mindlessness foisted upon the public under the guise of respectable
journalism (Judith's comments
in red & parentheses).
How the Clintons Do It (Do
By Bill O' Reilly
February 06, 2001
Do you care about the gifts the Clintons
received while inhabiting the White House? I don't. (I care.)
If people want to give the first couple stuff, that's fine with me (Yes,
it's fine with you because you make your living off the backs of the Clintons -- they are
your shill, and without them you would still be planting tomatoes back on the farm).
But if they then turn around and do the old "quid pro quo routine" and allow
those gifts to influence public policy, that's when I start caring. (Can
you prove it? Huh? Either prove it -- or shut up.)
The Clintons have always been bold in their
dubious dealings because they fully understand the short attention span of the American
public and the reticence of the elite media to investigate the powerful -- especially the
powerful with whom they ideologically agree. (You don't
know what the Clintons think, do, or anything else -- other than what you read in
the newspapers. So where do you get off making these sort of proclamations about what they
think, do or say? You have no idea about what the Clintons do, think or say,
and you don't have an inside track -- so that makes you an irresponsible journalist
or a liar. Take your pick!)
Therefore Mrs. Clinton gladly accepted an $8
million dollar book advance, even though she knew full well that Senate bylaws require
ethics reviews of such business transactions. However, she took the cash a few weeks
before being sworn in. So, technically, she did not break any Senate rules. (So what's your point? She did nothing wrong, and you would have done
the same thing and you know it! The difference between you and Hillary is that she has
something to write about besides degrading someone else in order to make a living; you on
the other hand are a Rupert Murdoch hired hand who prefers to manipulate and
sensationalize gossip and innuendo to line YOUR pockets. You're a two bit punk with no
ethics or training; therefore you have no business being in a position to influence
public thinking about anything other than what you know best: tomato farming.)
What about ethics, you ask? Well you can
keep asking until the earth melts, but you'll never get an answer from Hillary. And if you
ask in public, you'll immediately be labeled a "Clinton hater." (Stop stealing my style, O'Reilly -- it doesn't look good on you!
Asking rhetorical questions of my readers is MY style, not yours! YOUR style is to pretend
to have ALL the answers!)
Everybody knows there is something fishy
about the Marc Rich pardon President Clinton signed at 4 a.m. on his last day in office.
Rich, a fugitive living in Switzerland, spread plenty of cash around to various charities
and political people. It has been well documented that his ex-wife was a big Clinton
donor. (Who is "everybody" Bill? You don't speak
for anybody other than yourself! By the way -- have you ever heard of due process, Little
Yet Clinton will not explain himself, saying
only that the pardon was legal. He also will not explain why he wants to rent an office in
Manhattan that would cost the taxpayer about $700,000 a year. Of course, once there's an
outcry over something the Clintons do -- they reverse strategy. They are now returning the
gifts they took during their last year in office, and Clinton's "library fund"
will pay part of his office rent. (Clinton doesn't HAVE to
explain himself, particularly to a Murdoch sycophant and pretend journalist punk like
This "library fund" is another
very questionable enterprise. The former president spent a considerable amount of time
during his last year in office running around the country raising money for his
presidential library, which is to be built in Little Rock, Ark. Dollar Bill has raised far
more money than he needs to build the library, so now he can pay some rent in Manhattan
with the "surplus." Bill Clinton loves that word "surplus." It has
been very, very good to him. (There you go again, Bill --
pretending to know something "from the inside" when in fact you're nothing but
an "outsider" -- which is where you'll always be!)
The point here is that the Clintons are
ethically challenged, but you already knew that (Oh, really?
You don't know what I know -- and stop speaking for me or anyone else).
The larger question is why they remain so popular. The answer lies in their acceptance by
the elite media. Recently, The New York Times editorialized about Hillary: "We
applaud her decision to forgo the gifts. We accept it as sincere. It gives her a chance to
start in a new direction that will encourage voters to feel that she will put public
service ahead of personal gain." (You're either an anal
retentive or a control freak -- one or the other -- but where do you get off telling
another business enterprise what to write about? Are you paying their bills? you Are
paying for the paper and the ink? Huh? Can't hear ya, O'Reilly!)
Now, why would the Times editorial board feel that Mrs. Clinton would put public service
ahead of personal gain? Is there anything on the record in the past eight years to
demonstrate that? (There you go again -- redefining the issue.
Problem is, that's not what the editorial board said, and you know it! That makes you a liar,
Here's the sad record. The independent counsel said Mrs. Clinton misled the Justice
Department during her testimony on Whitewater and the Travelgate affair. You may remember
the missing Whitewater billing records were found in the White House residence with her
fingerprints on them but she denied knowing how they got there. (I'm
not sure why you have chosen to place these two separate issues in the same paragraph and
attempted to "simplify" them, but you have omitted plenty, and I suppose it's
because you're just too damn lazy to write a decent, well- researched, and thoughtful
piece. Guess you were too busy cranking out something -- anything -- to make money!)
Mrs. Clinton still has not explained how she made nearly $100,000 in the commodities
market and, indeed, one of the last-minute pardons her husband doled out was for a convict
represented by a lawyer who also represents the man who made Mrs. Clinton the 100 grand.
Ah, serendipity. (Ah, how juvenile and sophomoric, Bill -- you
sound more like a high school yearbook editor than a journalist! Jeez -- go back to
school, grow up, and then maybe you can play with the adults!)
Hillary also snookered the system by using taxpayer money to campaign for a New York
Senate seat. As first lady she cited security reasons and flew around the state on
government aircraft. But when the bills rolled in she only reimbursed the taxpayer for a
commercial fare. She gained huge monetary and logistical advantages by using Air Force
jets. (Mrs. Clinton did not snooker anyone -- and you know it.
You are a sleazy, opportunistic wanna-be looking for an entrée to society -- but Mrs.
Clinton isn't going to let you in Bill, no matter how much attention you try to grab!)
Mrs. Clinton's many trips overseas also cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
The expense was staggering -- so much so that when I called the General Accounting Office
for an exact accounting of the junkets, employees there actually laughed. There is no
accurate expense report on Hillary's trips because the money came from many different
government agencies, and there is no central oversight. Once again, Mrs. Clinton and her
various entourages lived large at the expense of the taxpayer. (Bill,
if you couldn't find the real figures, how do you know it was tens of
millions of dollars? This is simply another instance of your lies and "factual"
manipulations . You're a real case for a psychiatrist, O'Reilly -- get help soon!)
So why would The New York Times accept Mrs. Clinton's decision to give back some gifts as
an expression of "sincerity"? The answer is because Hillary and the Times'
editorial people think alike on abortion, taxes and a variety of other subjects. (So what? They can think alike if they want to -- after all, they have
that right under our Constitution -- or do you want to legislate thinking? You're looking
and sounding more like Stalin every day, Bill!)
Ideology trumps honesty. That is the new reality in the new century: "Think like me,
and I'll let you be." Has a nice ring to it, right? Might even be a fine replacement
for the words that adorn the top of The New York Times: "All the News That's Fit to
Print." (Whose ideology? Thanks for giving thinking readers
one last example of your "outside looking in" crap that you're trying to peddle
as sincere journalism. You're just another bottom feeder, Bill. Tell me -- how
does the view from the bottom look and taste?)
By Judith Haney
USNEWSLINK/September 25, 2001
derivation of William) is an apt description of Bill O'Reilly.
Let's face it, HIllbilly O'Reilly is,
well, ... 'different'. Nevertheless, even though he's an oddball, did you ever think of
Billy as a bucolic, bumpkin of a backwoodsman?
Allow me a moment to state my case.
To begin with, he fibs about Americans
he doesn't agree with. This is a low class, trashy, clod-spreading trait of his.
A recent example of Hillbilly spreading
clods can be found in the following excerpt(s) from a column he wrote recently entitled "Family Matters":
"If you don't believe the American
family is under siege by some very powerful forces, please continue reading. The American
Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and some powerful politicians most
notably Hillary Clinton are on a jihad to pass laws allowing underage girls to have
abortions without parental consent," writes Hillbilly. (Source: WorldNetDaily)
"Senator Hillary Clinton is a
strong proponent of kids being able to get secret abortions. Of course, Mrs. Clinton does
not answer questions about her positions so it is impossible to know how she justifies her
stance," Hillbilly writes. (Source: WorldNetDaily)
Notice that Hillbilly employed the word
"jihad". And this was BEFORE September 11, 2001. I'm willing to bet that Billy
did not know the meaning of the word when he stuck it in the middle of his sentence.
Billy uses words found outside of the
mainstream vocabulary for their effect. This is an amateurish, sophomoric,
characteristic of his literary creations. Hillbilly believes if he uses unusual words he
will be perceived as credible. And to make matters worse, Hillbilly never, but NEVER,
backs up a word he writes with independent sources for readers to verify on their own.
Billy acts (writes) on faith, and assumes (hopes) readers will take him at his
To sum it up, Hillbilly's style, for
which he earns millions from Fox, is a lot of flash (clod-spreading) over very little
substance (verifiable facts).
As an example, take notice of
Hillbilly's admission that "Mrs. Clinton does not answer questions about her
positions so it is impossible to know how she justifies her stance". Since
Billy could not speak to Mrs. Clinton about his story BEFORE he published it, he twisted
the facts of the story in an effort to write authoritatively about the Senator and what
she thinks about the subject. This is an example of Billy's thinking disorder, i.e., he
hopes readers won't notice his "zig-zag" style of mixing fact with fiction.
HIllbilly often invents information,
statistics, and other nonsense without regard for the truth. He casts handfuls of lies to
the public like so many seeds in the wind hoping that one of his lies will take root in
right wing, disenfranchised, soil. To more fully appreciate Billy's propensity to lie
about and misquote other Americans, read my last article about him. (Pundits
In Print: "Oh, Really? Judith Haney of usnewslink.com responds to Bill
"Bull! Oh, Really?")
On background, Hillbilly graduated from
Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York with a degree in History. He later obtained a
Master's Degree in Broadcast Journalism from Boston University, and a Master's Degree in
Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. And
from this esteemed academic background Billy laid the foundation upon which he espouses
his bizarre, twisted, alienated, opinions.
The following excerpt provides insight
into Hillbilly's view of the role the United States Supreme Court plays in American
"So now parents have to deal with yet another threat. But this one is much more
powerful than video-games, permissive educators or trashy movies. This threat sits
there in a black robe and tells you what is legal and what is not. And if
things progress much further, this threat will be telling your underage daughter that she
can ignore you and see a doctor who will alter her life forever. The stage has been set
all that's left is for the script to be written. " (Source: WorldNetDaily)
For some unfathomable reason, Fox News
believes Hillbilly O'Reilly is good for it's image. Fox has liberally promoted his
program, "O"Reilly Factor", thereby imbuing his odd, incompetent, peculiar
perspective(s) with legitimacy.
But Billy's fifteen minutes of fame are
up. Billy is currently suffering from overexposure. The fact is, 'some' television
audiences have heard all he has to say, seen all he has to show, and they're tired of him.
Therefore, the logical place for
Hillbilly to end up is back on the same farm he came from to forever clean up all the cow
dung he has spread around.
Quick, somebody please give me a
clothespin for my nose before I faint from Hillbilly's stench.