O'Reilly's assertion in "Killing Reagan" that the president, after being almost fatally shot in 1981 by John Hinckley, spent the rest of his presidency addled with diminished mental acuity and a lack of engagement in running the federal government. ---- true ... Ronald 'I Can't Recall' Reagan should have been removed from office because of mental illness ... and war crimes.
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 8:28:29 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > [[ Will is a Neocon, big gov't, warmonger. ]] > > > > > > *Killing O'Reilly: George Will Should Quit Fox News* > > [image: Description: Image: Killing O'Reilly: George Will Should Quit Fox > News] > > By Christopher Ruddy <http://www.newsmax.com/Insiders/Ruddy/id-31> | > Wednesday, 11 Nov 2015 02:15 PM > > I was shocked by last week's exchange between Fox News host Bill O'Reilly > and esteemed syndicated columnist George Will on "The O'Reilly Factor." > > It was probably one of the most dramatic and angry exchanges ever > witnessed on-air between two members working for the same network. It was > the first time I had ever seen a paid commentator accuse the network’s top > news host of being a liar and purposely misleading people. > > Will is a highly regarded commentator and paid analyst for Fox News. The > world knows O'Reilly as the king of cable news, the man who put Fox on the > map, who has dominated cable news ratings for almost two decades. > > The controversy at hand involves O'Reilly's newest book,* "Killing > Reagan"* > <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1627792414?keywords=o%27reilly%20killing%20reagan&qid=1445392921&ref_=sr_1_1_twi_har_1&s=books&sr=1-1&linkCode=as2&tag=newsmedi9a-20&linkId=JWQX7Q4SOSP2L6BP> > > — one in a slew of runaway bestsellers he has co-authored. > > Will and other historians like Craig Shirley have made legitimate > criticisms of the historicity of O'Reilly's book. Newsmax has published > those criticisms. > > The crux of the controversy is O'Reilly's assertion in "Killing Reagan" > that the president, after being almost fatally shot in 1981 by John > Hinckley, spent the rest of his presidency addled with diminished mental > acuity and a lack of engagement in running the federal government. > > Will vociferously denies this claim. He even cites his wife who worked in > the White House down the hallway from the Oval Office. > > So far, so fair. I am not a historian, and I have not researched the > Reagan years as one, but I have spoken to many, many people close to > President Reagan and who served in his administration. > > Not everyone felt he was engaged as some Reagan loyalists like to think. > My take is that Reagan was 70 to 80 percent engaged. But this does not > diminish the fact Reagan was a lion, a great visionary who created the > greatest economic boom in American history as he brought down the Soviet > Empire. > > Reagan was able to compensate for his shortcomings with a very strong > partner in Nancy. He also surrounded himself with very strong, highly > competent individuals. So strong that the Reagan White House years were > marked with incredible factional infighting, with press leaks practically > an everyday occurrence. We have not seen anything like it since. > > No one knows for sure how much the gunshot affected the president. > > Reagan's Secretary of State Alexander Haig himself told me that the > president was a different man after he was shot and that the near fatal > event negatively impacted his ability to govern. (I recently read Yehuda > Avner’s “The Prime Ministers” wherein he recounts Prime Minister Menachem > Begin’s first visit in 1982 with President Reagan at the White House. Avner > writes that the Israeli team was stunned by the president’s lack of > engagement and knowledge.) > > For sure, liberals have picked up on some such criticisms. And O'Reilly > himself cites a 1987 memo prepared by former White House aide James Cannon > for James Baker claiming that Reagan may not be competent to be president. > The memo suggested that the 25th Amendment potentially could have been > invoked to remove Reagan from office. > > Michael Reagan has pointed out to me this was a narrative promoted by some > "Bush people" during his dad’s White House years. Obviously, Reagan was > competent, though his engagement may have been less than expected. I would > take an 80 percent Reagan over a 100 percent Obama any day. > > So, O'Reilly's assertions are not off the charts. In fact, there is a bit > of old news here. > > It is important to remember that O'Reilly never claims to be a historian. > His genre of books are from a journalist's perspective on past events, > giving his breezy take on what happened when great individuals died, or in > Reagan's case, nearly died. Boris Johnson's recent "The Churchill Factor" > had a similar “I’m-a-journalist-giving-you-my-take-on-history” approach. > > But the real story is not about O'Reilly's book but George Will's > seemingly personal jihad against O'Reilly. > > Will has gone well beyond offering legitimate criticisms of the book. He > has attacked O'Reilly’s integrity as a journalist. O'Reilly stated during > their TV exchange last week that Will had agreed to speak with him by phone > before he completed his article on the book. > > Interestingly, Will accuses O'Reilly of not talking to people involved > before publishing his book. > > While I have disagreed with O'Reilly on numerous issues through the years, > I don't think that there's any evidence he is a person that seeks to > mislead people or is an “expert” in such activity, as Will asserts. > > O’Reilly is probably one of the most highly-scrutinized media figures of > our time. While he sometimes has strong and passionate opinions, he has > always been a straight shooter and fair-minded. > > Will’s very appearance on O’Reilly’s show testifies to that. > > But for Will, a paid Fox commentator, to allege on that same network, and > media outside that network, that the network's lead news show host and > personality is a liar and is purposely misleading people, that is an > allegation hard for me to digest. > > Last Friday Will appeared on Fox's “Special Report with Bret Baier” > declaring O'Reilly the “Loser of the Week” and describing him as > “unhinged.” (Somehow I could never see George Will going on ABC's "This > Week" to criticize their host George Stephanopoulos.) > > This week Will began his most recent column: “Were the lungs the seat of > wisdom, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly would be wise, but they are not and he > is not.” > > Criticism of O'Reilly's book is totally appropriate. But Will’s primary > assertion that O'Reilly is “something of an expert on willfully misleading > people” and guilty of “extreme recklessness” is simply not substantiated by > the contents of O'Reilly's book or his long track record as a media > personality. > > By making such a claim, Will is guilty of the very thing he is accusing > O’Reilly of doing. > > I run my own network. It's called Newsmax TV and we encourage a healthy > dialogue among anchors, commentators and guests. Disagreements make for > great television. But what George Will said crossed the line. > > If George Will was a paid commentator on my network and made such claims > about our lead news host, I would have promptly gotten Will on the phone. > > Here's how the brief conversation would have gone: "George, you are a > respected columnist and I respect your opinions. You have every right to > criticize Bill and his book. He knows you do and he had the *cojones *to > put you on his own show to hear them out. But you did something more than > that. > > "You went after him personally and said he's a liar, and that he's made a > career of misleading the public. You have used other outlets to attack him. > If you feel so strongly about our lead news host, shouldn't you just do the > honorable thing and resign from the network?" > > After that I would expect Will would do the decent thing and resign from a > network where he collects a nice paycheck, in part, thanks to the very host > he is crusading against. If he didn’t quit, I would terminate his contract, > killing George Will. > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcGZmdTI3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NDcyODM1OTU-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlODBzcHE2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ0NzI4MzU5NQ--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
