Friday, September 23, 2005

David Brock's "Orchestration" Crock

On his September 22 posting and email alert, Brock informs us of another one of O'Reilly's misinformation-isms:

O'Reilly again falsely accused former guest of claiming that Bush "orchestrat[ed] 9-11"

This goes back to the infamous O'Reilly take down of punk-boy Jeremy Glick, which I write about in greater detail in my upcoming book, Pants on Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives

Glick is someone who Franken has exploited, though he was a willing strooge, to attack and demonize O'Reilly.

On several occasions, O'Reilly had stated that Glick accused the Bushes, 1 & 2, of “orchestrating” the attacks on 9/11. Now, the truth is, Glick does not use the actual word “orchestrate” rather he blamed the formation of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda on Bush senior , a legacy, inherited by George W., according to Glick, which then led to the terror attacks. So no, Glick did not say "orchestrate" but is that really relevant to the context? Isn't Glicks inference just as condemning?

As you will read below from a portion of the O'Reilly/Glick exchange, you can clearly see Glick indicting the role and responsibility leading up to and including the attacks of 9/11 on the Bushes.

Here is what Brock posted:
GLICK: [S]ix months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahideen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government.
Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others.

Is there any ambiguity there?

The exchange in greater detail:


O'Reilly: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK.

Glick: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan?

O'Reilly: Who killed your father!

Glick: The people in Afghanistan...

O'Reilly: Who killed your father.

Glick: ... didn't kill my father.

O'Reilly: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there.

Glick: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people?

O'Reilly: See, I'm more angry about it than you are!

Glick: So what about George Bush?

O'Reilly: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: The director -- senior as director of the CIA.

O'Reilly: He had nothing to do with it.

Glick: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

Looking at the last few exchanges you clearly see O'Reilly defending George H. and W. against (Glicks) charges that they were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

So no Al and David, the word “orchestrate” is not part of the dialogue but the clear and unambigous implication is there.


Post a Comment

<< Home