"The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old
parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."
-- Bill O'Reilly on the kidnapped child who was in captivity for four years.
parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted."
-- Bill O'Reilly on the kidnapped child who was in captivity for four years.
A couple days ago, I predicted that Bill O'Reilly would, on Tuesday's Countdown With Keith Olbermann, be named (once again) the "Worst Person in the World in the World" for saying that a kidnapped boy actually preferred his four years of captivity. I was wrong. Olbermann didn't mention B.O.'s remarks either Tuesday or Wednesday.
But he did tonight.
As soon as it hits YouTube, I'll post. You're going to want to see this.
And watch the below video before it gets taken down off YouTube. O'Reilly digs his own grave. Embarrassing. Shameful. Outrageous.
You're also going to want to read this blog, the first to report on this mess, about how O'Reilly's comments and beliefs are strangely line with NAMBLA, a group that advocates pedophilia. Incredible.
Here's a sample from the above link: "Because seriously, after blogging about crime for nearly 3 years, I can tell you that in implying Shawn's life with Devlin might somehow have been 'fun' or ideal, Bill O'Reilly truly was talking the pedophile party line. The core delusion in pedophilia -- one core delusion, that is -- is that the kid wanted it. And isn't that truly what Bill-O was saying?"
UPDATE: Here is the Olbermann comment on YouTube.
4 comments:
What he said was stupid and insensitive and he is almost alwyas an egotistical jerk, but it is a bit extreme to suggest he is espousing NAMBLA's beliefs. Instead of watching brief clips, perhaps watching him for a few weeks in the entirety and listen to his efforts on behalf of kids you probably wouldn't have the same opinion. The problem with relying on snippets is your opinions are not always based on the evidence. But I still can't stand him and he and the others who are suggesting Shawn may have wanted to be where he was are idiots. As the officer said so eloquently yesterday, no one was in Shawn's shoes and have no right to question the situation.
Hey, we just asked the question. We didn't answer it.
Answering the question is Bill's job, and maybe he should go on Meet the Press on Sunday to explain.
Yes, it's good that he is supportive of other children whose initials are not S.H.
By the way, Mark Foley was the crusader and protector of children as well, before he resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives and went into rehab.
Ouch. Point taken.
Post a Comment