WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS QUESTION THAT PEOPLE WILL NOT LEAVE AN ANSWER? HAVE i FOUND THE UNANSWERABLE QUESTION?

Question

What do you think of Bill O'Reillys interview of Jeremy Glick, and his follow-up about the interview the next day?

Please look back at the two times I have previously asked this question, lol, why won't anyone answer it?

Please, look the two moments up on youtube. The full interview and follow up are posted for all. I would like you to see how the fair and balanced O'Reilly treated this guy.

Answer 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Glick_(author)

Glick began the interview speaking about his underlying beliefs with regard to the advertisement that he signed. O'Reilly responded stating "I don't think your father would be approving of this" and "I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are". Glick responded "my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate" and that he himself was not stating America was a terrorist nation.

When Glick explained why he felt it was immoral to invade Afghanistan, O'Reilly stated, "I don't want to debate world politics with you".

The following exchange then took place:

GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11...
O'REILLY: Here's why I care
. GLICK: ... to rationalize...
O'REILLY: Here's why I care...
GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide
. O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch...
GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families to rationalize your narrow right wing agenda.
O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission --I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do, so you keep your mouth shut.


O'Reilly told Glick that he had a "warped view of this world and a warped view of this country". O'Reilly noted that Glick "did not support the war in Afghanistan[;] [he] was against it". Glick clarified that he had no desire to "brutalize and further punish" the people of Afghanistan. O'Reilly then stated: "...who killed your father! Who killed your father!" to which Glick answered that the people who hijacked the airplanes killed his father, not the people of Afghanistan. When O'Reilly pointed out that the "al-Qaeda people" were trained in Afghanistan, Glick responded by stating that their training was made possible by then CIA-director George H. W. Bush and that the United States is ultimately reponsible. As Media Matters for America noted, Glick was incorrect in his claim that George H.W. Bush was CIA Director when U.S. support was allegedly given to anti-Soviet Afghan forces. George H.W. Bush was CIA Director under Gerald Ford--such support did not occur until the subsequent Carter administration, under CIA Director Stansfield Turner [1].

O'Reilly then stated, "Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this"; as Glick continued to speak, O'Reilly told him to "[s]hut up. Shut up". Glick responded "Oh, please don't tell me to shut up". To which O'Reilly said that he was ending the discussion "in [sic] respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians ... " Later on, O'Reilly ordered his staff to turn off Glick's microphone, terminating the interview.


[edit] Post-show controversy
According to Rolling Stone, Glick has claimed that during a commercial break he baited O'Reilly by leveling insults about O'Reilly's show [2]. Glick alleges that O’Reilly, during the commercial break, told him to “get out of my studio before I tear you to ******* pieces!” [3]. O’Reilly returned from the commercial break saying “I have to apologize. If I knew that guy Jeremy Glick, was going to be like that, I never would have brought him in here, and I feel bad for his family. I really do.”

O’Reilly has since stated on at least three occasions [4] that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks claiming “Glick was saying without a shred of evidence that President Bush, and Bush the elder, were directly responsible for 9/11” and “He came on this program and accused President Bush of knowing about 9/11 and murdering his own father

I THINK GLICK HIT A NERVE...AND WAS CORRECT IN JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. the previous meddling by the USA in foreign government is obscene and may have caught up with us at last. O'Reilly would do or say anything to shut off that kind of information from being disseminated from his show..the fascist dog

Answer 2

eighty% of humanity, the devout humans, do not have to ask the which means of lifestyles, the church tells them....the supernatural rationalization. But the relaxation folks cannot swallow devout dogma, in view that there is no proof. Nobody can end up that there lifestyles after dying, that persons are tortured or rewarded after lifestyles or that there is invisible spirits jogging round. I've come to 2 conclusions just lately: a million. Life has no which means two. Life has one million meanings. First, there is a sure bet that dying and annihilation awaits now not handiest you, however the Earth commonly. It's an astonomical sure bet that our solar will supernova and depart the earth a burnt crisp, to not point out all of the different extinction stage parties across the nook. Second, the million matters that provide us which means are the enjoyable reports we will be able to conjure up in the course of the quick interval we're right here on this planet, within the sort of the relationships we have now with our children and different persons, and the 'house responsibilities' varieties of functions. What i imply through which might be the curing ailment, finishing starvation, making improvements to literacy, lowering crime, stopping warfare, serving to different forms of matters. So the backside line is, we handiest have a transitority which means to lifestyles, to scale back ache and develop delight, rather then that the whole lot is misplaced to oblivion. To be or to not be? "To be" is transitority and "to not be" is inevitable.....

Answer 3

kent m, one thing you fail to mention is that if bush sr. and jr. were both responsible for 9/11. What about the 8yrs. of clinton in between? or did they just keep that a family secret till another bush could get in office. i get sick of people that think the president has this magic lever he pulls and things just happen. There are plenty of liberals in congress who see the same info. hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it. plus it o'reilly's show let him say what he wants,turn the channel.

Answer 4

Ok, I think it was a Bill O'Relilly interview. That kid obviously has a chip on his shoulder.

Answer 5

I dont think anything of it because I dont know what you are talking about.

Are you sure people arent answering but its just not the answer you want?

Answer 6

Hi joekenore,

I'd have to say noone cares about it!
Do you also listen to Bush's interviews?
Have a good day!

Answer 7

Because I didn't see the interview, so I can't comment or give my opinion. sorry......

Answer 8

Perhaps nobody knows

Answer 9

I didnt watch it. There. Now u have an answer.

Answer 10

Jesus knows the way and the light