Clinton: Republican letter to Iran undermines U.S. leadership

"The letter to Iranian leaders warned that unless Congress approved it, any nuclear deal they cut with President Barack Obama could expire once he leaves office."

Heck, any Congress-approved deal they cut could expire after the next election.

Heck, any Congress-approved deal they cut could expire after the next election.

Which is a waste of everyone's time, it would be as it would have never happened. As to why the Obama still wants to push this bad deal that has nothing in it for the US, Israel and the Sunni nations is just all the more astonishing! Because if it goes through, it will only be valid for 607 days exactly then we are right back at square one.

Clinton said Tuesday the letter was “out of step” with American leadership and was an attempt either to be “helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander in chief” amid the negotiations. “Either answer does discredit the letters’ signatories,” she said.

John Stewart on "The Daily Show" did a piece on this issue. In it he had clips from Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Chris Matthews (MSNBC) and others speaking out against the Republicans and how this is an affront to the President. Then he played clips from back in 2007, when Pelosi went to Syria to meet with Assad and basically do the same thing and try to influence foreign policy that then Pres. Bush was doing, and it showed Clinton praising her efforts, and the very same Chris Matthews praising her and the Dems for doing this against the Republican Bush.

In other words, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss!" This is just petty politicing done in D.C. that has gotten us into many of the situations that we are in now. It seems that politicians on both sides are not really interested in us (general public) but only their own political future and what they can get away with.

I guess this is another one of those "I was for it before I was against it" moments for Hillary and the rest.

"47 traitors" out trending "Clinton email" 10:1.

Republicans are stupid.

Republicans are stupid.

How so? You mean because they asked to see Clinton's PRIVATE servers that she used while working as a government official and could in most likelyhood have some very damaging info on them? Or are you implying, she can just break the law, tell the federal government to go screw itself, ignore a court signed subpoena and just ignore it as if the law just doesn't mean Jack?!

Because Hilary said, she has given all the printed 50,000 mails, it's ok?? Why printed? Why not just give the actual servers up, that way the can scrutinize the servers in more depth and detail, but then that would be admitting to something then.

Dems taste their own doings. acting like crying babies. Dems higher officials have met with Sadam Hussein, Assad and the list goes on. Whatever Obama spins, this high stake deal with Iran needs 2/3 congressional consensus, period. Iran and the world should know how the law works in U.S, and stop horsing around the jungle law as they assume.

Republicans are stupid.

How so?

Because of pick any of an infinite number of reasons.

Republicans are stupid.

How are they stupid? Please explain. Also, we got the same thing a year ago about Lois Lerner from the IRS who supposedly used her position to have the IRS target conservative groups for tax audits. We were told that it wasn't anything but a made up scandal. Then we heard that the emails were lost, never to be able to be found, and only a few emails were able to be found. Now we find out that the back up tapes have been found, and those supposed lost emails are found. And you expect Hillary to give up her emails? Even Bill Clinton who said he has only emailed twice in his life contradicts Hillary's statement in her comments the other day about only emailing to her husband. As they say, where there is smoke, there is fire.

In regards to my previous post, I wonder who gave me the thumbs down? I didn't make any of it up, you can easily go find clips from Stewarts show to verify my points. So if you are a die hard leftist Dem, remember it was Stewart whom I was quoting a man not known to follow the GOP. I guess the truth hurts sometimes.

Because of pick any of an infinite number of reasons.

In other words, you guys have no other excuse to make on her behalf. What's really insulting is, is that Hilary, like Obama think that if she gives the public a BS excuse or if she tells Lanny Davis and James Carville to go out and bark for her, everyone will just roll over and take her word for it. If she's so innocent, why did she give a press conference at the UNITED knowing that the majority of major journalists TV and print CAN'T get in, except for a tiny few and a pool reporter. Why is that? For someone that is alledgily innocent, she acts supeciously guilty...really.

The convincing intelligent answer...."because of pick of any of an infinite number of reasons".

Convinced me! Some people are not carrying a full deck. Much more common sense come from republicans as I hear it.

Then he played clips from back in 2007, when Pelosi went to Syria to meet with Assad

Just more useless bullshit from Republicans. Congressional leaders will sometimes go overseas to meet with foreign leaders. It's not uncommon. What is uncommon is to send communication directly to the Iran telling them that the Office of the President shouldn't be trusted to do deals right in the middle of negotiations. I know you see the difference and you're just wasting everyone's time pretending that you just can't figure it out.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide dozens of articles, all from Republicans, saying how unhelpful this all is.

The far-right has officially gone rogue. They tried to default on America's debt, they tried to close down the DHS, they tried to destroy the court system be refusing to vote on nominations, and now they are telling the world that they should not listen to a US President. What worries me is what stunts they will do next. If it's anything like their previous work, it will threaten millions of Americans or the world economy as a whole and at the end of the day the GOP will have nothing to show for it.

Right, Lib. It's reached the point where Republicans hate Obama more than they love America.

By the way, where are Jeb Bush's emails from his time as Florida governor?

Hehe, I knew I'd push a few buttons with that last comment.

Just more useless bullshit from Republicans.

Ahhhh, So explain to me this, when Hilary was in Libya and was on that AC30 on her phone around the time of the Benghazi attacks, why is there NO official government record? She was on governmental business being funded by the tax payer and yet, all of these documents, nothing, nada, no info during that crucial and critical time can be found, it's just not there. So Hilary has a right to just make stuff disappear?

Please, tell me how you are going to spin it? "Davis and Carville" have been trying that, but it's just not working. Can you come up with a better excuse?

Congressional leaders will sometimes go overseas to meet with foreign leaders. It's not uncommon. What is uncommon is to send communication directly to the Iran telling them that the Office of the President shouldn't be trusted to do deals right in the middle of negotiations.

You are deflecting! Both are wrong and out of their minds. What on Earth is the president doing making a deal, NOT a biding and congressional approved treaty with the largest state sponsor of terrorism?

I know you see the difference and you're just wasting everyone's time pretending that you just can't figure it out.

I figure out that the only thing Obama and Hilary care about is themselves.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to provide dozens of articles, all from Republicans, saying how unhelpful this all is.

No need to, I agree with them on this 110% it's bad for the entire region, let alone for the Israelis and the Sunnis and lastly for us. So now Obama does this phony deal and the Iranians will honor all deals? They haven't in 36 years, but now that his majesty stubbornly pushes for this, they've changed?? You bought that line!

The far-right has officially gone rogue.

As I recall during the Bush admin. Pelosi tried to broker a deal with Assad, that was ok, right? Obama trying to circumvent congress and last week threatened to raise taxes? Obama trying to override congress to legalize 5 million illegals going off the grid so much so that the courts had to put a stop to this tyrant!

They tried to default on America's debt, they tried to close down the DHS, they tried to destroy the court system be refusing to vote on nominations, and now they are telling the world that they should not listen to a US President.

Newsflash, the DEMS did the exact same thing before, nothing new, please don't be shocked!

What worries me is what stunts they will do next. If it's anything like their previous work, it will threaten millions of Americans or the world economy as a whole and at the end of the day the GOP will have nothing to show for it.

What gives me great relief and comfort is that in 607 more days, this clown will be out of office, no more authoritative and tyrannical ruling from this man. The Dems can scream and hurl as much insults as they want, Hilary and Obama and most Dems have sealed their own coffins and fate, the people are absolutely tired of these shenanigans and the down talking as if they are all ignorant lemmings and will believe everything that comes out of these two mouths!

JTDanMan: "47 traitors" out trending "Clinton email" 10:1. Republicans are stupid.

Something Democrats did at least 7 times before Republicans, and in a much worse way (as in much more like collaboration with hostile foreign powers than opposition to foreign powers, see link below).

Trending 10:1 vs. yet another example of The Distransparency of the Most Transparent Presidency in History.

And you're not suspicious?

Hey, guess what the top headline on Google News was just now! DRUNK Secret Service agents crashing into the White House a week ago!

Still not suspicious?

I guess Carville doing the rounds and Clinton doing the limited-edition press op at the UN didn't work out too good. Time for Plan B.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/

Republicans are stupid.

Well, there is this: If Obama chooses to submit an agreement reached with Iran to the Senate, the "treasonous 47" have just made the choice of the remaining 53 to act more independently much easier. If Obama chooses not to submit an agreement, his choice will appear all more rational. And any candidate for Republican nomination to the presidency now owns this: he will either have to act against the majority of his caucus or explain what his alternatives would be.

Sheesh, these guys just can't help themselves, and Cotton has just out-Cruzed Cruz in the paint-yourself-in-a-corner department.

Do you think Republicans have given up on the White House? The House Majority Leader said last week that he wants to eliminate the filibuster, and the GOP has switched from hurting Obama to hurting the President's office. Part of me has to wonder if these reckless moves are designed to cripple a part of government they know they will never have.

Just more useless bullshit from Republicans. Congressional leaders will sometimes go overseas to meet with foreign leaders. It's not uncommon. What is uncommon is to send communication directly to the Iran telling them that the Office of the President shouldn't be trusted to do deals right in the middle of negotiations. I know you see the difference and you're just wasting everyone's time pretending that you just can't figure it out.

@SuperLib: So you say that it is ok to go there and visit a foreign leader as a member of the Senate, and just bypass the State Dept? Ok, then why are the Dems in a fuss over Bibi going to Congress and speaking? If anything, the GOP letter let Iran know that just because Obama may agree to something, it still needs to be passed by the Senate to be ratified.

And it was John Stewart, the far left leaning commentator who brought this up. The best thing for both parties to do, is to learn how to deal with each other and compromise for what's in the best interests for the US and it's allies, and not to try to score political points for the next election.

In regards to Hillary and the emails, Obama says he never knew she was using a personal email. Funny how when you send or receive an email, you can see the email address. Obama has been in the Federal system long enough to understand that if it doesn't have a .gov after it, it's not a Federal system.

Additionally, a lot of people in top level positions send emails that may be confidential in nature, and are not sent via the unclassified networks but over classified networks. I can't mail an email from a google account to myslef on a secret network, nor can one look at an unclassified web page on the secret web pages. So if Hillary is doing offical government work on an unclassified network, that is a serious breach of IT security. I have to go through IT training every year, thanks to people like Snowden, etc. who have compromised government systems for their own ends. And in every training, they tell us about the classification levels, and how one is not to use personal emails for government work. If you are out of the office, you must have permission to be able to log into a secure server to get access to emails.

So I am not buying this from Hillary. She knew the regulations and so did Obama if he is saying that he never knew. If that means that he has no emails from here, then who was running foreign policy if the President and his Sec State are not communicating via the most efficient means. Does that mean that Obama and the rest are putting National security items over unclassified networks?

If she has personal emails, I don't have a problem with that. For my work, I use a government network and try not to use it for personal business. It was only a few years ago that at least in the Dept of Defense that we were allowed to access emails from hotmail, google, etc. since those sites were blocked due to their lack of security.

So if they really want to go after Hillary, then they need to stick to what was the government policy, see how the State Dept has been with their cybersecurity, and then go from there.

AlphaApe, don't listen to me if you don't want to, listen to the many, many outlets across the political spectrum coming out and saying it was a mistake. Even the WSJ is against you.

As for the Clinton emails, I haven't said anything about them on this thread so I don't know why you guys keep bringing it up. There's a different thread about that story; it seems your comments would be more relevant there.

Well, there is this: If Obama chooses to submit an agreement reached with Iran to the Senate, the "treasonous 47" have just made the choice of the remaining 53 to act more independently much easier. If Obama chooses not to submit an agreement, his choice will appear all more rational.

Please, dear lord, how is making a deal with Iran at this point and time reasonalbe? Again, you think after 36 years of having a hostile Iran, they will just be swayed by his majesty's charm and presense? Yes, it's Obama, of course!! How could I not see it. Again, he's the absolute smartest man and we are all stupid, all of the generals and Penatago officials don't know Iran, but Obama does!

And any candidate for Republican nomination to the presidency now owns this: he will either have to act against the majority of his caucus or explain what his alternatives would be.

The GOP congress can wait, which is what they want, Iran can't wait, but they can, whatever it takes to NOT have a nuclear Iran and if that means imposing more crippling sanctions then that is what must be done.

Sheesh, these guys just can't help themselves, and Cotton has just out-Cruzed Cruz in the paint-yourself-in-a-corner department.

I really wouldn't talk? With Obama's record and Hilary's lap dogs and Harfe and Earnest constant lies and excuses is funnier than watching Gilligan island reruns!

Do you think Republicans have given up on the White House?

Nope and nor should they, after this god awful distrous guy and admin. If another Democrat gets elected this cycle that would be more than a miracle, I mean, seriously, just even having the letter D attached to your name is caetrosphohic!

The House Majority Leader said last week that he wants to eliminate the filibuster, and the GOP has switched from hurting Obama to hurting the President's office.

Did you object when Harry Reid got rid of the nuclear option, you should be just as angry, right? As for hurting the presidency, Obama's already done that, so for that he should get another prize from the Norwegians for that.

Part of me has to wonder if these reckless moves are designed to cripple a part of government they know they will never have.

I keep forgetting, if you play or at least try to play by the rules, you can't achieve anything. Obama said, he's transparent or his admin. Yeah, whatever. So why we can't know what's going on with the Iran talks or why won't Hilary won't give up her servers? Because they are just so honest, right? Rofl

Alphaape: Obama has been in the Federal system long enough to understand that if it doesn't have a .gov after it, it's not a Federal system.

Not only that. Wouldn't an email coming from hdr22@clintonemail.com rather than HRH.Hillary.R.Clinton@state.gov require more handshaking and verification between Obama and Clinton than just the President saying to himself "Hmmm. hdr22@clintonemail.com. Looks like Hil's got herself a new email address."? Suppose it was sent from a spoofer?

bass

he's the absolute smartest man and we are all stupid, all of the generals and Penatago officials don't know Iran, but Obama does!

FYI the negotiations are being conducted by the United states, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany. It's not just Obama. And I'm pretty confident that on balance this group is a whole lot smarter than Tom Cotton and the 46 other GOP senators who signed that dumb letter. (Remember that Cotton is the guy who's worried IS is teaming up with Mexican drug cartels to sneak across the border and attack Arkansas.)

Remember, it's not just 'libs' who think the letter was a mistake.

With Obama's record and Hilary's lap dogs and Harfe and Earnest constant lies and excuses is funnier than watching Gilligan island reruns!

That doesn't sound very funny.

FYI the negotiations are being conducted by the United states, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany. It's not just Obama.

But Obama is leading it, everyone is following him (because no one wants to take the blame if the s*** hits the fan.) so he's pushing this because he would be the one to take the credit, NOTvthe other leaders, of course not! Obama is NOT that stupid, at least when it comes to something like that.

And I'm pretty confident that on balance this group is a whole lot smarter than Tom Cotton and the 46 other GOP senators who signed that dumb letter.

So if Obama is so smart,very does he think he can go around congress as a lawyer himself (chuckle) and thinks that he can twist and change the law? Obama knows full well that this deal is written on disappearing ink and as soon as he's out of office, we all go back to sqaure one, for as smart as Dems claim to be, they either haven't factored this in, don't care or are just plain dumb!

(Remember that Cotton is the guy who's worried IS is teaming up with Mexican drug cartels to sneak across the border and attack Arkansas.)

Who was it that loud mouth Florida congressman thatsaid, Republicans want old people to die?? Don't go there.

Remember, it's not just 'libs' who think the letter was a mistake.

I'm talking about the majority and in about 607 days this two will be a gleeful distant memory.

That doesn't sound very funny.

I sure as hell do think so.

The republicans signaled they have no clue or even desire to be proactive about US foreign policy when they asked Bibi to lecture them like schoolboys. Republicans know how to whine and complain and say no to nearly everything but when it comes to leading the USA policies they outsource to the President of Israel.

Regarding the treasonous letter from the 47 ronin giving aid and comfort to the Iran it is disgusting. Many of the Benedict Arnold senators now are admitting the letter was stupid and are trying to walk it back.

This proves one thing, the republicans only have one policy, to oppose Obama even if that means treason. None of them care about the USA's interests, they only care about hating Obama. And what is behind that, well it really a very clear black and white issue.

Zurc, it gives me the willies, actually. There seems a trend towards one-upmanship among GOP hardliners. It's only been three months since the GOP took control of the Senate, and we've already only narrowly averted a shutdown of the DHS and have suffered two unprecedented challenges to presidential prerogative. While it's pretty clear to anyone who pays attention that McConnell's pathetic plea to allow the GOP to show that it was capable of governing was just that, it is more alarming to see the resulting chaos unfold. For example, the US hits its debt ceiling this month, with only special measures enabling it to continue functioning until Congress raises the ceiling again - which must happen by autumn. I don't have a good feeling about this.

The republicans signaled they have no clue or even desire to be proactive about US foreign policy when they asked Bibi to lecture them like schoolboys.

What? So you think the Dems have a clue about foreign policy? Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba??? Give in, No concessions, No enforcement of Red lines, cowering and allowing rogue countries to get their way and in return or assurances get Nothing? I will say this again, this madness can't end soon enough! 607 more days and counting. Give me strength!!

Regarding the treasonous letter from the 47 ronin giving aid and comfort to the Iran it is disgusting.

That the GOP wants to put Iran on notice that his majesty is beholden to certain laws that constrain his power to a certain limit and that he needs to work with congress and that congress CAN indeed disagree with a president as this congress does (and with damned good reason) and has the absolute right to NOT give the president what he wants if there is a disagreement on policy foreign or domestic.

Many of the Benedict Arnold senators now are admitting the letter was stupid and are trying to walk it back.

Oh, yeah. Exactly who?

This proves one thing, the republicans only have one policy, to oppose Obama even if that means treason.

Disagreeing with the president does NOT amount to being treasonous. However wanting to rule ONLY by executive is actually.

None of them care about the USA's interests,

You mean, the president, I agree, because if he did, he wouldn't put Israel's, the Sunnis and the US in danger, but for the Sainted one, the only thing he cares about besides golf is his own legacy.

they only care about hating Obama. And what is behind that, well it really a very clear black and white issue.

Sorry, dude... The race card just won't work as much as you guys try, there is NO way you can make that accusation or that assumption. But please do, so I can prove you wrong. Leave race out of this.

And here's the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States. I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We are not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts.

Another example of whack job anti-democratic unconstitutional tea party politics in the news today. This is from Graham, the South Carolina Tea Party Senator and another potential candidate for President. He would use the military against the Congress. Maybe he could get Putin to help him do this. Or Bibi, he certainly knows a lot about illegal invasions.

As Laguna states above the real republican craziness is coming out full tilt now that they have the senate. It is going to be a rough two years. Thank God we have an excellent President to counteract the insanity that is the republican party. Why anyone who wants good government votes republican is simply amazing. Voting republican is voting for massive government failure. LIke in Kansas right now.

We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts.

that's going to require more taxes

NO MORE TAXES

then we can't restore defense cuts

RESTORE DEFENSE CUTS

then we're going to have to increase taxes

NO MORE TAXES

ad infinitum.

They want their cake, and to eat it too. Acting like children.

The letter to Iranian leaders warned that unless Congress approved it, any nuclear deal they cut with President Barack Obama could expire once he leaves office.

What is wrong with those knobheads? Don't they want things to calm down? Or do they NEED to maintain an air of animosity with everyone in the ME apart from Israel? And what does GOP even mean?

I can't stand Clinton, really can't stand her, but in this case she finally has a point. And it's clear that most of the opposition to Iran has nothing to do with the alleged nukes.

Another example of whack job anti-democratic unconstitutional tea party politics in the news today. This is from Graham, the South Carolina Tea Party Senator and another potential candidate for President.

So you think maybe perhaps, Bernie Saunders would be a better pick?!

As Laguna states above the real republican craziness is coming out full tilt now that they have the senate.

Translation: we are angry because we can't get what we want, so he only thing we can do is cry and whine!

It is going to be a rough two years.

Yes! 607 more days left of this clown!!!!

Thank God we have an excellent President to counteract the insanity that is the republican party.

How? The deal he is trying to make might as well be made with disappearing ink. Once his is gone, that deal is nullified (thankfully) and we are back to square one and then the next president would definetly have to an authorization from congress, there is just no WAY of getting around it, any other way and the way Obama is going is starting to look more and more like an impeachment brewing.

Why anyone who wants good government votes republican is simply amazing.

Because they tried that in 2008, remember? The Dems controlled all 3 branches. They did such an excellent job that the people rewarded them by kicking them out of the House and last Nov. the Senate. So yes, why would they when Dems leave such a lasting impression when governing.

Voting republican is voting for massive government failure. LIke in Kansas right now.

So because they hit a stepping stone you want Kansas to be like my home state California, are you serious??? A navy blue entitlement state, where it not for Hollywood in the South and Silicon Valley in the North, CA. With its out of control entitlement culture would be completely bankrupt. Yes, we all want that for sure, right?

What is wrong with those knobheads? Don't they want things to calm down?

Yeah, tell your president to have some sense and walk away from the talks and tell the Iranians, there will be no deal unless Washington can make sure that Iran cannot engage in proliferation whatsoever.

Or do they NEED to maintain an air of animosity with everyone in the ME apart from Israel?

Bush did that and Obama just compounded to that 10 fold. He is making it worse for everyone in the region and with his so called Harvard smarts, he doesn't know or care about the outcome, just make any deal, get the credit and worry about the fallout later.

Some US guys at my company talk at lunch about when the US is going to split up. I've never believed such conversation, but this kind of news makes me think they may be right. I'll ask about it tomorrow at lunch.

The way the history is gearing up, I'm 100% sure of that as do the historians and so far, it's not looking all that great at all.

Iran's supreme leader said Thursday that a letter from Republican lawmakers warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by the next U.S. president is a sign of "disintegration" in Washington. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the letter a sign of "the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration,"

Thank you to the 47 traitors to their country for giving aid and comfort to the enemy Kahmenei. Next thing the republicans will do is give Iran military arms, oh sorry, Reagan already did that back in the 80s. Nothing changes with the republicans, other than they become more despicable over time. Really, the black President has pushed them over the edge. Too bad they are trying to take the USA over the edge as well.

Thank you to the 47 traitors to their country for giving aid and comfort to the enemy Kahmenei.

Good on them. As long as the Iranians try to continue their proliferation there should be NO deal. The president is nuts if he thinks he's a God and can just override everyone and change laws at will. If the Mullhs don't lke it' they can walk away, they need the deal more than we do, let them come up with an agreeable solution and we should walk away each and every time if they don't want to comply, pure and simple.

Next thing the republicans will do is give Iran military arms, oh sorry, Reagan already did that back in the 80s.

Whatever happened with Obama's and Holder's fast and furious again?

Nothing changes with the republicans, other than they become more despicable over time. Really, the black President has pushed them over the edge. Too bad they are trying to take the USA over the edge as well.

I will submit to you the Republican congress can't stand Obama, he has from the beginning disrespected them, so why do they have to respect him? It goes both ways, you get what you put out. If you want to gain respect, you have to give it and Obama hasn't given them any, neither should they reciprocate it in return? As for the Black comment. Let me know if you want me to run you a list of Black conservatives to shut down your baseless argument about race.

Alphaape:

" John Stewart on "The Daily Show" did a piece on this issue. In it he had clips from Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Chris Matthews (MSNBC) and others speaking out against the Republicans and how this is an affront to the President. Then he played clips from back in 2007, when Pelosi went to Syria to meet with Assad and basically do the same thing and try to influence foreign policy that then Pres. Bush was doing, and it showed Clinton praising her efforts, and the very same Chris Matthews praising her and the Dems for doing this against the Republican Bush. "

Spot on! And plenty more examples. The sudden respectful deference to the presiden´ts office that the American Democrats have suddenly discovered is amazing. Of course, it only applies when it is their guy in office. Wait how quickly that all changes if the roles are reverse.

American party fanaticism is something else.

Dems do have a very short memory, the call the what the Republicans did an act of treason, but what do they call Ted Kennedy when during the talks he told the Russians and Gorbachev not to trust Reagan? I guess that was different or he gets a pass because he's a lib? Hypocrisy is a b****, isn't it?

@gokai_wo_moneku

Some US guys at my company talk at lunch about when the US is going to split up. I've never believed such conversation, but this kind of news makes me think they may be right. I'll ask about it tomorrow at lunch.

They already tried that in 1860 and burning several of their cities to the ground brought them right back into the fold. Also weapons have gotten deadlier since then and are more closely held by the federal government. Keep dreaming the US won't outlast Russia, though.

The far-right has officially gone rogue.

Yeah. Since 1994. Just back then, the Republican party was not just the right wing.

Now it is. And has been since Bush.

The Republican party is broken. It must be destroyed.

AlphaApe: "How are they stupid? Please explain."

You answer your own question right there!

In any case, the blowback from this is building and building and building, and now there is even talk of charging the 47 Senators with treason, which they have indeed committed. The petition has gotten more than 100,000 signatures in less than a day, which requires a government response, and more and more people are calling for prosecution. I hope every single one of them is charged with treason and punished to the full extent of the law, with maximum sentences. All their excuses that they are scrambling to make show that they are CLEARLY not able to lead in the least, and in their petty attempt to overstep the elected president just out of spite they have stepped over a line they cannot go back over.

Treason is treason, and these men are not true Americans and have embarrassed their nation and should be charged as such. Now doubt Faux News will have O'Reilly on claiming that he was there the day of the signing and other lies (and believe them!) and talk about how this is all some Democratic set-up, in league with terrorists, etc. etc.

Treason is treason

Look, as much as I appreciate the desire to hoist the chicken hawk Republican poser bullies on their own petard.

And as much as I appreciate playing hardball.

It wasn't treason.

It was politically inept and diplomatically stupid. But not treason.

Even the Iranians have said that they view the letter as nothing more than a political stunt which has no value.

Yeah. Since 1994. Just back then, the Republican party was not just the right wing.

and the Democratic party has been broken since 2008

Now it is. And has been since Bush.

And Now we have Obama, which is even worse, but the good thing is we have 606 more days left until this madness is behind us.

The Republican party is broken. It must be destroyed.

And the Democratic party as well, so the solution, we need a 3rd viable party!

Treason is treason, and these men are not true Americans and have embarrassed their nation and should be charged as such.

Really, so do you feel the same way when the late Ted Kennedy opposed Reagan and went to Russia and Gorbachev and told them not to trust him, do you call that treasonous as well or do you want to just cherry pick, again? But as you said, if treason is treason and it crosses both party lines and both parties should refrain from doing it.

Now doubt Faux News will have O'Reilly on claiming that he was there the day of the signing and other lies (and believe them!) and talk about how this is all some Democratic set-up, in league with terrorists, etc. etc.

O'Reilly is not Brian Williams, unlike Williams, he doesn't have journalistic envy of wishing he could have been somewhere instead of embellishing a story. Try again, Smith.

March 11, 2015 Dear senators: Thank you for your letter of March 9 explaining your system of government. We were unfamiliar with the complexity of your laws. For three years we have been negotiating a nuclear energy agreement with your president. We now realize our mistake. As your letter makes clear, the authority to establish such agreements on behalf of your country rests with your Congress. We are in your debt for this clarification. Moreover, your letter has prompted us to undertake a broader study of the American political system. What we have learned has opened our eyes. For 35 years, we have treated you as an adversary. Our intelligence agencies told us that your culture and your political system were radically different from ours. We now understand that we were misled. Your country is much like ours. Indeed, your Republican Congress is much like our revolutionary Islamic councils. We are brothers. Sincerely, Council of Guardians The Islamic Republic of Iran

These Republicans don't realize the damage they've done to America's reputation with this letter. They've basically told the world that no deal can ever be counted on with America, because if one party doesn't like it, they'll just scrap it the next time they are in power. Why would anyone want to put an effort into making any deals with the US when they are only on a temporary basis?

They haven't just undermined Obama, they've undermined themselves, and damaged their country. This is why it's treason.

These Republicans don't realize the damage they've done to America's reputation with this letter.

They did? How so?

They've basically told the world that no deal can ever be counted on with America, because if one party doesn't like it, they'll just scrap it the next time they are in power.

Tell that to the Iranians. But if you insist, what assurances can the US get from Iran that they will abide by all laws to prevent them from enriching their plutonium?

Why would anyone want to put an effort into making any deals with the US when they are only on a temporary basis?

Tell that to his majesty! If Obama were really as smart as he claims to be he would tell Iran in very simple terms, they either comply with all rules regarding nuclear facility inspection uncondionally and one they comply and you can verify it, then you proceed to the next step. If not, NO deal.

They haven't just undermined Obama, they've undermined themselves, and damaged their country. This is why it's treason.

Ted Kennedy also did a treasonous act when he tried to tell the Russians and Gorbachev not to trust Reagan. How dare he!

we have 606 more days left until this madness is behind us.

Look bass4funk, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

ODS is a powerful force. For ill.

Damm right the Republicans are worried about Iran not negotiating in good faith. They did what had to do by sending the "revoulutionary Islamic councils" that letter. Remember the ole' saying: Appeasing the aggressor only make him more aggressive. Those Dems are suffering from stockholm syndrome way too early.

O'Reilly lied, that's fact, not speculation.

Prove it.

His lies painted a fantasy in which, as a journalist, he was in situations of danger, saw heavy sh*t go down from the Falklands to Central America to the streets of Belfast, and personally rescued an injured cameraman. None of it true.

He already debunked that story 3 times with "signed documents" and other well known journalists stating the exact opposite. Now, you are free to believe what you want, but he went on his show and now only proved the guy was wrong for lying, but backed everything up, so if you have signed and proven documents that can say otherwise, take your info and challenge him.

That is about as bad a case of journalistic envy as it gets. As to wishing he could have been somewhere, that's certainly how people will see his claim he was "in the Falklands" and in an "active war zone" when he was in Buenos Aires, well over 1000 miles away from any military engagement between the Argentinians and the British.

You have every right to prove your case, so please go and prove that he lied, other than that, you are just trying to grind an axe.

The main thing that sets him apart from Williams is that O'Reilly hasn't accepted the reality that he's been busted, and indeed seems psychologically incapable of doing so.

So then we are all waiting to see what evidence you have to back up and support your claim and I used to work for msnbc, and know a lot of people in the news business, so if you can provide the info, I'll provide the info on who you can contact to bring this news out. Good Luck.

I can see you're really upset about this.

Actually, I am quite ecstatic! :-)

I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

I'm fine, thanks for the concern, but I just worry for my country as long as this....anyway, 605 more days to go.

bass

Prove it.

O'Reilly said, “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.” In FACT, and as he admits, he was not in combat on the Falkland Islands, but covering a violent protest in Buenos Aires. O'Reilly claims a violent protest constitutes an active war zone. By that rationale, any reporter who covered a violent anti-war protest in the US during the Vietnam War was in an "active war zone".

There's your proof. If you don't want to call it lying, you can call it a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

NBC investigated Williams. Fox has not, choosing instead to stand by this charlatan. Because such misrepresentation of reality is the very fabric of Fox News. And you are a sorry victim of this travesty of journalism.

O'Really also said he saw nuns get shot in the back of the head. In fact, he saw a picture of nuns getting shot in the back of the head. Another blatant lie.

O'Reilly said, “I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.” In FACT, and as he admits, he was not in combat on the Falkland Islands, but covering a violent protest in Buenos Aires.

correct.

O'Reilly claims a violent protest constitutes an active war zone.

Uhhh, if you violent protests in a war zone is equally just as bad, because you never know what the outcome will be. There have been dozens of journalists that were killed in violent protests in war zones, nothing new about it. There was no lie as a matter of fact, everything he said, was verifiable and fact checked. That's the reason why the story died so quick the way it did. I know the left and media matters have tried for years and years to find something on him, but I do give them credit for trying and being tenacious.

By that rationale, any reporter who covered a violent anti-war protest in the US during the Vietnam War was in an "active war zone".

Which theoretically is very true.

There's your proof. If you don't want to call it lying, you can call it a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

What proof?

NBC investigated Williams. Fox has not, choosing instead to stand by this charlatan. Because such misrepresentation of reality is the very fabric of Fox News. And you are a sorry victim of this travesty of journalism.

Plastic, I know it pains you, but sorry. You are very, very wrong. Once you get a job and work as a journalist, you will understand, how people can and will and love to distort or will say anything to bring you down or ruin your reputation. Williams was busted, there were enough people that came forward and said that he was over exaggerating the truth. Williams is a Journalist that had a very cushy job and if you know the story how he got there, you would understand why he did what he did and because of his arrogance, he's no longer on the air. Now Bill is not bulletproof, No one can dig anything on him, because there is nothing, it there were, he'd be out of a job. Plastic, with all due respect, I love that you try though.

O'Really also said he saw nuns get shot in the back of the head.

When did he say that? Show me the transcript link.

In fact, he saw a picture of nuns getting shot in the back of the head. Another blatant lie.

How would you know that it is a lie? Were you there? Hmmmm.....

Uhhh, if you violent protests in a war zone is equally just as bad, because you never know what the outcome will be.

Completely irrelevant. He didn't claim he reported in places 'equally just as bad' [sic] as active war zones, he claimed he reported from active war zones.

When did he say that? Show me the transcript link.

How about straight from his mouth: http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/02/25/38781/radiofactor-09272005-nuns

"I've seen men gun down women in El Salvador.

The only problem?

the incident he described, in which Salvadorans raped and shot four U.S. nuns happened in December 1980. O’Reilly did not go to El Salvador until after he was promoted to CBS News correspondent in 1981, according to his own book, The No Spin Zone.

When this contradiction was pointed out, O'Reilly's response was:

"While in El Salvador, reporters were shown horrendous images of violence that were never broadcast, including depictions of nuns who were murdered."

Links:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-apparently-contradicted-himself-on-witnessing-nun-killings-fox-responds/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/25/another-fabrication-oreilly-never-witnessed-the/202667

Bass, no matter how much you want to disbelieve the lies of your profit, I mean prophet, the guy is a liar.

No one can dig anything on him, because there is nothing, it there were, he'd be out of a job.

O'Reilly still has a job because the people who like him don't like real journalists. He is to journalism as pro wrestling is to sport. Or what McDonalds is to cuisine. People like him because they, like him and his news organization, have a disdain for integrity in journalism. They prefer fantasy.

If you think seeing photos of nuns being shot in the back of the head constitutes hard experience in a combat zone, and not exaggeration, then you're an even worse journalist than I thought.

O'Reilly still has a job because the people who like him don't like real journalists.

Yet his network is the most trusted among independents. Yes, the dreaded Fox News is the most trusted news network in America and MSNBC is dead last. Go figure.

Yet his network is the most trusted among independents. Yes, the dreaded Fox News is the most trusted news network in America and MSNBC is dead last. Go figure.

Link(s) please.

Strangerland,

Checking, I found this:

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-voters-select-Fox-News-as-their-most-trusted-6123493.php

Completely irrelevant. He didn't claim he reported in places 'equally just as bad' [sic] as active war zones, he claimed he reported from active war zones.

Which technically and logically not a lie or do you want to split hairs. So when it comes to Bill you want to set the bar high, for Hilary, giver her a complete pass. ROFL!

no matter how much you want to disbelieve the lies of your profit, I mean prophet, the guy is a liar

I've seen it a few times, but again, No alarm bells, NO lies, now I get you and other Libs try, so, so very hard to change the euphanism and now think you are experts on what journalistic standards are. Try again.

you live in a dream world.

Everyday when I see this president making disasters one to the next one, certainly feels like it.

This is the Falklands war, and a demonstration of what "active war zone" and "on the ground" means:

the point is first and foremost is he was there.

That's the image O'Reilly intended to convey. He has been corrected on his whereabouts. He was in Buenos Aires, a comfortable capital city.

Let's say for arguments sake, he embellished his story, most Journalists do it to an extent, not like the way Willias did, but it happens. Not a even close for grounds to terminate someone.

For someone who says he was "on the ground" in the supposed combat zone of a demonstration, he doesn't spend much time on camera. Not exactly Kate Adie, is it?

Jealously never got anyone anywhere now.

O'Reilly still has a job because the people who like him don't like real journalists.

Ok, plastic. ROFLMAO

He is to journalism as pro wrestling is to sport. Or what McDonalds is to cuisine. People like him because they, like him and his news organization, have a disdain for integrity in journalism. They prefer fantasy.

Thank the heavens you are a small minority that think like that.

If you think seeing photos of nuns being shot in the back of the head constitutes hard experience in a combat zone, and not exaggeration, then you're an even worse journalist than I thought.

No one has said that and what you think is journalism, might not be the same for another person. But I will tell you this, there is a reason why FOX is the most trusted news and msnbc is way, way down in a distant 3rd with most of their programs in the toilet. But I know libs long for the day before FOX was born where you old Bob Novak on CNN: Crossfire the sole conservative once a week. Keep them locked up. Those days are long gone and if you think liberalism is the only way to go, sorry, but not everyone believes that liberalism is the best thing for the country. Also,You don't know me or what I know, so please save the insults.

@wipeout

Again, stop talking and contact FOX and prove that Bill lied and I'm sure, you can back it up, please do so, maybe with some luck with this so called revelation you have, you can get him fired. I just you would be that critical with Hilary.

Bass - you skipped over the proof I showed if O'Really's lies. I gave you audio of him lying, with the proof that what he said was a lie. So do you still want to try to claim he isn't as much a liar as the NBC guy?

you skipped over the proof I showed if O'Really's lies. I gave you audio of him lying, with the proof that what he said was a lie. So do you still want to try to claim he isn't as much a liar as the NBC guy?

Yes and the reason is as I told you if you go back and read that it depends on what your interpretation of how you see it. No one else in the media and it is a very big industry has come forward besides that one loon that Bill shut down. Now if NO one else comes forward and decries that what he said was a lie, then basically, you don't have anything. Funny, none of the higher journalists around the country that maybe have an axe to grind with O'Reilly can't find dirt or prove anything, but one or two readers of JT can? You guys are absolutely hilarious, but you make coming on JT worth it and never give a dull moment. Lol

No, let's just say he's a liar.

His words said one thing, and when someone looked for the actions to match them, they weren't there.

That's your interpretation, I understand.

That's why - only after being busted, of course - O'Reilly had to work so hard to try and make the actions fit the words. Which they still don't, of course.

If he were busted, he would have been off the air, pure and simple, I know that for a fact.

Is Williams a liar? Sure. Is Clinton a liar for her crap about sniper fire in Bosnia and helping secure peace in Northern Ireland? Definitely. People in Britain and Ireland know beyond a doubt that she had nothing to do with it. The peace process, which took many years, was thoroughly reported at the time, and Clinton's name was never part of it.

Gosh, I wish you libs have the same tenacity to go after Hilary and her servers.

Should their lies be overlooked? No.

If it's proven that there was an intentional lie and cvover up, NO, it should not be overlooked if that were the case, but it wasn't.

Now: How does this make O'Reilly less of a liar?

Do we have to go around the bush once again? We already talked about it. But I give you guys credit for trying, mich respect.

Yes and the reason is as I told you if you go back and read that it depends on what your interpretation of how you see it.

Interpretation? He said he saw something he didn't see. There is no interpretation about that. He claimed to have seen nuns get shot in the head, in an incident that happened when he wasn't in the country. There is no leeway there, it's as blatant as saying you were in a helicopter that crashed, when you only showed up after and saw the crashed helicopter.

But it's your prophet, your anointed one, so you'll gloss over his lies until the end of time rather than admitting he is a bold-faced liar.

Bass says that claiming to have been in a chopper crash when not having been in a chopper crash is a lie, but claiming to be in a war zone when not having been in a war zone is not a lie, and having claimed to see nuns getting shot in the head when not having seen nuns get shot in the head is not a lie.

Apparently, in Bass' eyes, the difference between being a liar and not being a liar is which news organization you associated with.

bass4funk: "Yes and the reason is as I told you if you go back and read that it depends on what your interpretation of how you see it. No one else in the media and it is a very big industry has come forward besides that one loon that Bill shut down."

Face it, bass, O'Reilly flat out lied, there is PROOF, absolute proof, that he lied, and you simply cannot accept it and take the Faux News line that others are lying. It's especially hypocritical and hilarious that it comes IMMEDIATELY within, in just one example of how much of a blatant liar he is, when O'Reilly was speaking about how he and the Faux News station pride themselves on providing facts that can be checked, then when he gives literally says he was in a war zone and it's proven FACTUALLY he was not, you guys can only say the proof is a lie and that O'Reilly has been 'misinterpreted', etc. Hahaha.

Strangerland: "Apparently, in Bass' eyes, the difference between being a liar and not being a liar is which news organization you associated with."

Exactly! O'Reilly is a serial liar. I honestly believe that he just makes things up whenever he wants and actually BELIEVES the lies he makes up. He may well have a serious mental disease, being an ego-maniac aside, and has no place claiming to present the 'news'.

As for Obama and Iran, the Repubs have handed him whatever he wants on a silver platter with their recent act of treason. What's hilarious is watching the 47 who signed it seriously struggle to contain the blowback on the letter. John 'crashing planes' McCain has changed his stance on the signing three times so far as the blowback gets worse, and is now saying "The letter is Obama's fault" -- only one step behind the inevitable, "Obama's letter" claims that are on the way. It's why they desperately need to bring up Bengazhi again, despite they themselves clearing anyone of wrongdoing in their fourth time bringing it up in 2014.

The GOP is extremely laughable -- more than ever -- and they are really hurting now.

Interpretation? He said he saw something he didn't see. There is no interpretation about that. He claimed to have seen nuns get shot in the head, in an incident that happened when he wasn't in the country.

If you want to believe that, who am I to argue you have that right.

There is no leeway there, it's as blatant as saying you were in a helicopter that crashed, when you only showed up after and saw the crashed helicopter.

Semantics again.

But it's your prophet, your anointed one, so you'll gloss over his lies until the end of time rather than admitting he is a bold-faced liar.

No, he's not my prophet. But as I said, you guys on JT are smarter than all of us Journalists and like the president, you know everything, so again, if you and the other libs here are that outrage, call FOX or the WSJ or the NYT and bring this revelation out as soon as you can, because everyone that knows him from other networks that were there didn't come forward, there are records contradicting the obvious, but you know better, so please take your grievance with FOX and let them know you have some facts that can prove he wasn't honest. Go ahead.

Ha.

There's no reason why Fox would dump him for lying.

Of course they would if there were an integrity issue, trust me when I tell you, I worked in Television, Oh, yes they would, anyone can be replaced, ANYONE. But in order for that to happen, you need facts and a smoking gun.

He's no longer a correspondent, or a journalist, or working for a reputable news organization.

That's YOUR personal opinion, the ratings suggest quite the opposite. Please try again.

O'Reilly's current role is that of a commentator (at best), but above all he's an entertainer, pandering to people who like the kind of thing he does.

He's not an entertainer, but he is funny, I'll give you that. But hey, you are right, that's why he's the most popular, why you be hatin'? ;-)

Truth doesn't play a part in it. What he does works, and it makes money, so for the viewers and for Fox it requires no more justification than that. Fox will keep him, and as far as I'm concerned, he's where he belongs.

Good, Everyone has their own opinion and that's good and healthy, NOT everyone can like everything.

says that claiming to have been in a chopper crash when not having been in a chopper crash is a lie, but claiming to be in a war zone when not having been in a war zone is not a lie, and having claimed to see nuns getting shot in the head when not having seen nuns get shot in the head is not a lie.

Strange, you really like to run with this. LOL

Apparently, in Bass' eyes, the difference between being a liar and not being a liar is which news organization you associated with.

If you feel that strong and passionate about truth and integrity, then you really should be angry at Obama and Hilary. I wish you wouldn't be so partisan, I guy can only hope.

Face it, bass, O'Reilly flat out lied, there is PROOF, absolute proof, that he lied, and you simply cannot accept it and take the Faux News line that others are lying.

Don't try to convince me, you need to try to convince FOX and the viewers. Go on, you have the absolute power to do so, go on, make an appointment and prove it, you have nothing to lose and believe me, they WILL give you the air time.

It's especially hypocritical and hilarious that it comes IMMEDIATELY within, in just one example of how much of a blatant liar he is, when O'Reilly was speaking about how he and the Faux News station pride themselves on providing facts that can be checked, then when he gives literally says he was in a war zone and it's proven FACTUALLY he was not, you guys can only say the proof is a lie and that O'Reilly has been 'misinterpreted', etc. Hahaha.

Well, they do, that's why they are number one, facts are facts, ratings are ratings.

Exactly! O'Reilly is a serial liar. I honestly believe that he just makes things up whenever he wants and actually BELIEVES the lies he makes up. He may well have a serious mental disease, being an ego-maniac aside, and has no place claiming to present the 'news'.

I am happy though that you guys watch, so maybe you guys like FOX more then you are letting on you guys seem to know so much, right one!

As for Obama and Iran, the Repubs have handed him whatever he wants on a silver platter with their recent act of treason.

Really? Uh, sorry...No, they handed Obama nothing but the truth, this deal goes through and he bypasses congress, it's as if this deal were written on disappearing ink, once he's gone, the deal is off and we start over again with the new president, so Obama wants to make a stupid deal for 604 days???? Just more liberal lunacy.

What's hilarious is watching the 47 who signed it seriously struggle to contain the blowback on the letter. John 'crashing planes' McCain has changed his stance on the signing three times so far as the blowback gets worse, and is now saying "The letter is Obama's fault" -- only one step behind the inevitable, "Obama's letter" claims that are on the way. It's why they desperately need to bring up Bengazhi again, despite they themselves clearing anyone of wrongdoing in their fourth time bringing it up in 2014.

Tell you what, you Dems stop talking about the war and WMDs and we stop talking about Benghazi, let's be fair.

The GOP is extremely laughable -- more than ever -- and they are really hurting now.

If only that were remotely true.

There is no leeway there, it's as blatant as saying you were in a helicopter that crashed, when you only showed up after and saw the crashed helicopter.

Semantics again.

No, it's not.

Brian whatshisface - claimed to have experienced something he only saw. You call that a lie.

O'Really - claimed to have experienced something he only saw pictures of. How is that not a lie?

bass4funk: "If you want to believe that, who am I to argue you have that right."

Yeah, we believe in facts, proven and incontrovertible, while you believe in the fairy tales that O'Reilly spouts about how he did not say things that are clearly caught on tape and on video of him saying.

"Don't try to convince me, you need to try to convince FOX and the viewers."

Ah, so you admit it, then. Or, are you just saying you're waiting for Faux News to admit it so that you can be told what to think?

"Tell you what, you Dems stop talking about the war and WMDs and we stop talking about Benghazi, let's be fair."

Classic! Even YOU guys admitted no wrong doing with Benghazi, and have found NOTHING in four investigations that have wasted probably millions of dollars in taxes, and now suddenly you're so desperately you need to look again because you doubt yourselves. No, please, DO keep bringing it up! Every time you guys do we know full well it's just a means of deflection and shows how superficial and poor you guys are at hiding it. Hope you're not suddenly going to be saying "It's different" now that Jeb Bush has been caught as having done the same thing as Clinton is in trouble for.

@Stranger

Link(s) please.

The study was released within the past few weeks. I assume you know how to use Google. But let's face it, very few people of any political stripe really trust any of the major news networks. I suspect that Fox gets the most overall support because they are the only one that does not tilt Left.

The coverage of the Senators letter over the role of Congress in the Obama administrations coming capitulation to the Mullahs is a good example of the state of journalism not only in the US but everywhere. The Left leaning media (ie. the mainstream media) see the Republican letter as a traitorous act. Similar traitorous acts such as Senator Reid's statement on the Senate floor that the US lost the war - while the military was still fighting and winning - and Pelosi's personal meeting with Assad while President Bush was attempting to deal with his cooperation with Iran and their terrorist aims was essentially ignored by the press except for Fox. The Left hates the airing of views that do not comport with their own - which is sad.

No, it's not.

Sure it is.

Brian whatshisface - claimed to have experienced something he only saw. You call that a lie.

Yes, but Williams was caught by the men that were on that chopper and also Williams did have a reputation for lying and over exaggeration as was mentioned by quite a few people at his network.

O'Reilly - claimed to have experienced something he only saw pictures of. How is that not a lie?

Because he was able to back up his statements and NO one came out and said otherwise, except for a few JT readers.

I don't watch Fox. I've seen a bit of O'Reilly from the Inside Edition days in the 90s - I found that programme atrocious, not specifically because of O'Reilly, though he was arse-achingly bad even then, but just on general principles.

If that is true and you haven't watched it since the 90s, then you really don't know what you are talking about, safe to say...

Mostly I'm aware of him through the multitude of You Tube clips entitled "O'Reilly has his ass handed to him again", or variations thereof. There really are a lot of them, and they're not misnamed.

So you do have interests, that's good, because if you didn't, you would never watch it and short clips is very different from watching an entire segment.

It's quite surprising that he is such an inept debater, he is without question the dullest-witted presenter of any current affairs related show I've seen, but then I don't spend much time rolling in the muck of US popular television,

93 million viewers think otherwise.

so no doubt there's worse out there.

Worse than the BBC?? Well, maybe msnbc...

I also accept that fans of people like O'Reilly don't seem to mind watching him intellectually humiliated by his guests/opponents, just as long as he cuts them off, yells at them, waves his finger in their face, and pulls whatever else he has in his limited repertoire of rhetorical tricks.

That's why it's called the NO Spin Zone for a reason. As long as you answer the questions, he doesn't do that but you start dodging and getting shady, then you get interrupted, plain and simple.

93 million viewers that's bigger than the entire population of South Korea, imagine that.

Why wouldn't someone like that be an out-and-out liar? As I already said, he occupies the niche most suited to him. He'll stay, and Fox will be happy to keep him.

Yes, sir!! ;-)

Yeah, we believe in facts, proven and incontrovertible, while you believe in the fairy tales that O'Reilly spouts about how he did not say things that are clearly caught on tape and on video of him saying.

Sorry, I leave that for the Dems to wallow in their make believe world of senseless reality.

Ah, so you admit it, then. Or, are you just saying you're waiting for Faux News to admit it so that you can be told what to think?

No, I never said or thought that. Smith, don't spin.

Classic! Even YOU guys admitted no wrong doing with Benghazi, and have found NOTHING in four investigations that have wasted probably millions of dollars in taxes, and now suddenly you're so desperately you need to look again because you doubt yourselves.

Tell you what, once Hilary turns over her private servers and allows the forensics to search her HD and scan for any possible hints of her destroying or tampering with vital info and if they can get a chronological timeline of that day when she was on her Blackberry and we can see exactly what was said, but you think ANY sane human would believe her??! She said trust me. That's just like asking ISIS to watch and take of my family. If Benghazi is nothing and she is truly innocent of any wrongdoing, it's very easy, turn over the files and servers and let the investigators find that for themselves. Also, you have MORE Dems that ask the same of Hilary, they know she is it and the only candidate and she can't drop out now.

No, please, DO keep bringing it up! Every time you guys do we know full well it's just a means of deflection and shows how superficial and poor you guys are at hiding it.

So stop doing the same by talking about Bush, the race card, WMD etc. fair is fair.

Hope you're not suddenly going to be saying "It's different" now that Jeb Bush has been caught as having done the same thing as Clinton is in trouble for.

It's very different, Clinton was secretary of state with multiple servers in her home, a lot of information is uncounted for and then there is that serious problem of who were her donors and who contributed money and if it was a foreign country that funneled money into her account and what conversations did she have with her husband and what roll he played, if any. Bush wasn't secretary of state, been out of politics for a while and so far hasn't been charged of receiving money from a foreign government and having someone died, 4 people to be exact on her watch. But as I said, she may be innocent, could be, but we will never know if this woman just blurts you can trust me, sorry, but No one does.

So much for the theory that US shouldn't interfere in Israel's elections.

Wasn't that the claim, for why Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu? 'Too close to Israeli elections'?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/15/senate-committee-probes-whether-obama-administration-funded-effort-to-oust/?intcmp=latestnews

Source: Senate panel probing ‎possible Obama administration ties to anti-Netanyahu effort

A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel's activities told FoxNews.com.

The fact that both Democratic and Republican sides of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have signed off on the probe could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama ...

According to the source, the probe is looking into “funding” by OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants, and until last November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administrations.

A subsidiary of OneVoice is the Israel-based Victory 15 campaign, itself guided by top operatives of Obama’s White House runs, which seeks to “replace the government” of Israel. ...

Because he was able to back up his statements and NO one came out and said otherwise, except for a few JT readers.

Please show me where O'Reilly showed he actually saw the nuns get shot in the head.

And there are plenty of people showing his lies all over the internet, not just on JT: https://www.google.com/#q=O%27Reilly+nuns+shot+in+head

93 million viewers think otherwise.

Popularity™ --The true measure of journalistic integrity.

BTW, during the Vietnam War, I personally saw men being killed in combat. On TV.

No lie.

Please show me where O'Reilly showed he actually saw the nuns get shot in the head.

And there are plenty of people showing his lies all over the internet, not just on JT.

So because, it's on the net, it's true??? Like the Free Masans and illuminati and on and on... Like I said, you believe what you want, I know a lot of people in this business working in it and others from various networks from the BBC, WSJ to FOX and I will say this again, the left for years have been trying their hardest, absolute hardest to get Bill and the only way to do that is to come up with something hard-hitting and so far, there has been nothing or should I say a blip, so just give it a rest, he's going nowhere, but again, you can contact the network if you have some proof.

My interest involved little more than accumulating some basic information about who O'Reilly is and what he does so that I could provide myself with some context for references I have seen to him in print. In a simpler, pre-Internet age, I probably wouldn't have bothered.

So just don't let it rile you up, it's all good. No need for hatin'

In the same way, I have been "interested" in Rush Limbaugh, Oprah Winfrey, Peter Hitchens, Russell Brand, and several dozen others who do nothing positive or entertaining for me in any way, and who I find actually nauseating in anything longer than a 12-second burst.

I will agree with you on that part.

Popularity-The true measure of journalistic integrity.

Which is also an important critical atribute if you work in print or TV.

BTW, during the Vietnam War, I personally saw men being killed in combat. On TV.

No lie.

I can't deny or dispute that, if you did, it must've been very traumatic.

Al Gore apparently itching for his chance now that Hillary's tripped ... even NYT's got an article on him, although that one is puffing up his climate change chops, not mentioning presidential run.

Google News hits, "al gore", top of list at the moment:

The New Optimism of Al Gore, New York Times-25 minutes ago

Al Gore: Liberal redeemer, Hot Air-1 hour ago

Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and ..., EcoWatch-3 hours ago

The case against Al Gore in 2016, In-Depth-Salon-1 hour ago

Al Gore should run for president, Highly Cited-Vox-5 hours ago

Al Gore for president. Does he have a chance?, In-Depth-Christian Science Monitor-1 hour ago

Paul Begala Didn't Want Al Gore On The '92 Ticket, Daily Caller-5 hours ago

simply put royals nor family dynasties have place in the American political system. This article is yet another reason as to why the US needs a leader not a puppet owned by corporations and banks. The future candidates i.e. Clntons, Bushes shouldn't even be involved with attempting to run for any more offices in public trust but step down and walk away. The had their chance and blew it. After this last 8yrs or worthless talk and dance, the US went from suburbia to ghetto

an important critical atribute if you work in print or TV.

Popularity is not an attribute.

Popularity is not an attribute.

In Television it is.

The Left leaning media (ie. the mainstream media) see the Republican letter as a traitorous act. Similar traitorous acts...

Good that you admit it was indeed a traitorous act!

such as Senator Reid's statement on the Senate floor that the US lost the war - while the military was still fighting and winning -

Not to mention he was dumb enough to vote for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a war which cost us the lives 4500 american soldiers, billions in treasury... and no WMD.

and Pelosi's personal meeting with Assad while President Bush was attempting to deal with his cooperation with Iran and their terrorist aims was essentially ignored by the press except for Fox.

I assume you know how to use google. A quick google search immediately turns up articles on NBC news and the NYT about Pelosi's visit.

and, The Differences Between The 47 GOP Senators' Iran Letter And Pelosi's 2007 Syria Visit http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/12/the-differences-between-the-47-gop-senators-ira/202872

and

U.S. Republican meets Assad day after contentious Pelosi visit

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-republican-meets-assad-day-after-contentious-pelosi-visit-1.217452

"Bush sharply criticized Pelosi for leading the delegation to meet Assad, a move he said was counterproductive because it eased the country's isolation. The White House, however, stayed relatively quiet about a similar trip just a few days earlier by a delegation of three congressmen from Bush's own party who also met with Syria's leaders."

GOP-Tea Threat Letter:

"Any nuclear deal they (Iran) cut with President Barack Obama could expire once he leaves office."

(The next President may welcome a verifiable cessation of development as the negotiations of the P5+1 have progressed for the past year.)

"The letter was signed by 47 Republican senators, including three potential presidential candidates: Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz." - article

The GOP-Tea is acting as a vigilante body. Charges of Treason can well be invoked from this action of US Senators. Threatening results based on an unknown, who the President will be in 2016, this overt attempt to destabilize the Government of the United States of America, attack the Presidency, its Authority and Purpose is actionable.

Presently, the Sargent at Arms of the US Congress can be authorized to serve notice of Charges of Treason and the signatories would be remanded to US Military custody as they await trial. Their replacements would join Congress as soon States followed local requirements and the whole affair is done in three months, including sentencing.

The GOP-Tea has asked for a Battle Royale; why not start with Treason?

Threatening the progress of a six nation accord because these GOP-Tea people want war with Iran? Another grotesque mask of deceit from the Frankenstein Monster Party. War is their business plan and King BiBi just stopped by to say 'Hi!' and pick up his Three Billion from the US Congress. Can the GOP-Tea be more transparent?

Leadership? What leadership? You mean like the leadership in Syria or Ukraine?

47 traitors out to dismantle the only effort making real progress in ensuring Iran doesn't get nukes

47 traitors out to dismantle the only effort making real progress in ensuring Iran doesn't get nukes

A lot of Americans think Obama's negotiations with a terrorist state is a traitorous. But this is not the first time Obama has made a deal with terrorists.

A lot of Americans think Obama's negotiations with a terrorist state is a traitorous.

Geez, do we really have that many imbeciles in our country? That's a pity.

Geez, do we really have that many imbeciles in our country? That's a pity.

I guess you missed the part about Iran being a terrorist state.

I guess you missed the part about Iran being a terrorist state.

Nope. Just not impressed.

The United States has negotiated with it's enemies since, well the beginning. Characterizing negotiations with a "terrorist" state as traitorous is just juvenile.

Reagan-H.W. Bush sold arms to Iran after the 1983 Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. Bush W. negotiated with North Korea and subsequently removed it from the list state sponsors of terrorism. Bush W. negotiated with Iran. Bush W. talked to Sudan. etc.

Characterizing negotiations with a "terrorist" state as traitorous is just juvenile.

Juvenile? What is juvenile is for the Obama administration to pretend that the Iranians are not what the clearly are - a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. The Republicans signing the letter that Hillary is so upset about understand that and are seeking to do something to pressure Obama from making the bad deal that many, including other ME countries and the French, fear he will make. If a clear pathway to nuclear weapons is provided by this deal then you can bet the house that a bunch of other countries in the region that fear Iran will start their own nuclear weapons programs in response.

Yes, juvenile. The grown-ups know that you talk and negotiate with your adversaries if you want to get anywhere or you will just lock yourself into a single outcome.. military confrontation. It may come to that but you want to exhaust all other avenues first. The last time you guys pushed for a rush to war it didn't end so well.. would've thought you'd learned your lesson by now.

By the way most Americans support direct negotiations with Iran.

And I note that you glossed over the part where previous administrations negotiated and talked with "terrorist" states.

What is juvenile is for the Obama administration to pretend that the Iranians are not what the clearly are - a sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East and beyond.

yawn the Obama administration is pretending no such thing... again, negotiating with an adversary isn't being blind to who they are, nor is it having a simplistic view either. Iran is still on the State Department's list of States that sponsor terrorism along with Cuba, Syria and Sudan.

Republicans signing the letter that Hillary is so upset about understand that and are seeking to do something to pressure Obama from making the bad deal that many, including other ME countries and the French, fear he will make.

I assume you're not so naive as to believe that the letter was motivated by anything other than craven political ambitions.