JUST SAY NIE

by Steve Young

Bill O'Reilly was rightly upset with this week's New York Times headline, "Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al Qaeda in Pakistan." Griped the No-Spinster, "The (Times) makes it seems that we have failed as a nation."

I'd be upset too -- if that's what the Times reported. It was only what Bill told the Folks it "seems" like they reported. That is until you actually read the story. It never says anything about failing as a nation. It says that the Bush administration has failed as an administration in its fight against Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

A natural mistake by anyone interested in confusing the electorate. Commingling Bush, his administration and its policies as a condemnation of the collective we-as-a-nation has long been a killer tactic by those on the Right. You know, like questioning Bush's failed policies is "underming the troops." Crazy, huh, that Independent Bill fell into the moonbat Right-wing trap?

But still, where would the Times get information that Bush aides would see failure in its fight with Al Qaeda in Pakistan? Howz' about from Bush aides? That's right -- they got it from Bush's own National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). In fact, the report from the NIE represents the view of all 16 agencies in the American intelligence community.

Following Bill's reasoning, Bush's own aides themselves have made it seem as if we've failed as a nation.

But if you listened to Bill's radio show and/or watched his TV Factor on Wednesday, you might find something very curious (besides Bill). In condemning the Times, "who everyone knows its goal is to get a Democrat in the White House," Bill forgot(?) to mention that the report the Times was reporting on came from Bush's own NIE. In fact, Bill never mentioned the NIE at all. Not once. Not during a full hour on the Times story (the story about the NIE report) on the Radio Factor, not during his TV Factor Talking Point Memo (on the story about the NIE report), and not even during and entire segment following the TPM (a discussion of the Times story reporting on the NIE report).

How's that for giving the Folks all the facts?

But who else said that the Al Qaeda battle hasn't worked in Pakistan?

"I can't get clear answers," said Bill.

Well, Bill. I know you've overworked your cracked research team ambushing hate-smear site corporate supporters, but how about checking Bush's own head of the White House Homeland Security Council, Frances Townsend, who said, "(The strategy for fighting Al Qaeda) hasn't worked for Pakistan," and "It hasn't worked for the U.S."

Still, Bill said that he didn't know whether to believe the White House -- which Bill said denied the story -- or the Times? I know who it might be wise for Bill not to believe...Bill.

During last night's Factor mail bag, responding to a writer who sent a letter that questioned Bill's veracity, the "Watching Out For You" Guy said that he believed that "some are too stupid to watch this program."

My guess is that they got that way by watching the program -- and believing that it's nonfiction..

LAST MINUTE UPDATE: Bill's NIE oversight in his analysis was only a small step compared to the colossal leap he decided to take in his personal vendetta to annihilate the last vestige of integrity that may have still been hiding in some corner of whatever you call that contaminated piece of media protoplasm that once housed any semblance of a principle.

The murder of Pulitzer possibility occurred in Bill's weekly column, which appears on his website as well as many newspapers around the country, including the Los Angeles Daily News where Bill and I normally share the same page of the Sunday opinion section. Mine is the spoof column, but readers always have a difficult time differentiating.

There, in a followup to his utter disdain for truth, while Bill finally revealed that this was an NIE-initiated report, he decided to break all rules of fourth estate etiquette and edit a NY Times headline to exclude an integral piece of information that would have made much of the point of his column null and void.

Here be the details...

In "Pumping Up Osama," Bill wrote that "A front-page headline in the New York Times this week blares: 'Bush Advisers See a Failed Strategy Against al-Qaeda.'" Problem is, the headline in the Times was a bit more specific than Bill lets on. The actual headline read, "'Bush Advisers See a Failed Strategy Against al-Qaeda IN PAKISTAN." They didn't cap "in Pakistan," but I thought it might be easier for the Folks to see it this way. Of course I may be under some misconception that when you use quotes in a story, that alludes to the fact that what you're quoting is exactly what was said or written.

But Bill then moves on to his favorite predilection of cherry-picking the information that best suits his non-spin.

Bill writes that "The private intelligence outfit, Stratfor, scoffs at the New York Times and says, 'Bin Laden is probably gone for good, and al-Qaeda lacks the ability to strike in any strategically meaningful way.'" The Stratfor analyst did say on the Factor that the Times report was "crap" -- and I am quoting -- but once again, in his 24/7 attempt to nail the Times for their incessant effort to help the terrorists win, Bill and his expert "forgot" to mention on the Factor that the Times story is based on Bush's own intelligence agencies information. Bill also "forgot" to mention that the other expert that appeared on the Factor, former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, said, "We have damaged Al Qaeda in terms of their leadership capabilities on the surface, but they have a tremendously effective program of succession. Al Qaeda is still in operation. I am a lifelong Republican and I am getting awfully sick of being manipulated by the White House." In terms of fair and balancing, no need for that to go into the column.

Which means, basically, that he didn't think the report was "crap."

As Bill continued to rig his column, he puts on his IINO (Independent In Name Only) wolf's clothing to write that "In the end, it is a great disservice to all Americans to politicize the war on terror." This, after his previous sentence read, "I'd very much like to know if Barack Obama and the other Democratic Presidential contenders are in favor of (invading Pakistan) that, since they are big on getting the big O(sama)."

Real non-politicalization, Bill.

Now, before any of the Factor apologists attempt to make this a question of war analysis, don't bother. Take it up with the NIE. It's their information. This is about Bill O'Reilly purposely manipulating reality to con the Folks , plain and simple.

Will Bill apologize to the New York Times for his egregious distortion of their headline? Will he apologize to the 95 percent of the Fourth Estate that he so often attacks for their lack of integrity? Will he apologize to those papers he used as unwitting accesories in his cowardly attacks on the Times? And most of all, will he apologize to the Folks for his shameless lying.

The Folks who tune in to the Factor expecting the truth, shouldn't accept any less.