Thursday, August 18, 2005
The Truth About the Cindy Sheehan Situation
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
Two days ago, reporter Anne Kornblut wrote in The New York Times, "The FOX News television host Bill O'Reilly has called Cindy Sheehan (search) treasonous." Of course, that's false. And Moday, The New York Times issued a correction admitting I did not put that label on Ms. Sheehan. We have posted the correction on www.billoreilly.com.
Now we asked Ms. Kornblut how an error like that could happen. She said it was a simple mistake, we all make them. But she could not pinpoint where she got the erroneous information.
Now I suspect Ms. Kornblut was duped by a far left Web site. These operations have been viciously attacking me in "The Factor" ever since we let you know that Ms. Sheehan had partnered up with the far left, apparently those people did not like that exposition. And remember, most media didn't mention Ms. Sheehan is writing a column for Michael Moore (search). Quite an omission in my view.
As usual, "The Factor's" reporting on the Sheehan situation has been honest and accurate. The question is, why do some media continue to mislead the public? Just tell the truth. It's not that hard. And if you don't tell the truth, you're going to lose.
Example, the pro-abortion group NARAL (search) had to pull its smear ad against John Roberts because it was dishonest. NARAL now has lost all credibility among independent thinking people.
Americans who understand the strength of this country will tolerate opposing points of view, but dishonesty is never acceptable. The ends do not justify the means.
As far as Ms. Sheehan is concerned, she has the perfect right to protest the war and President Bush, but the president would be nuts to meet with her.
Writing in The Seattle Post-Intelligence there, columnist Robert Jamieson, no conservative, put it this way: "Trouble is Sheehan is not sincerely interested in meeting Bush for a private, heartfelt chat about her understandable anguish and lingering questions. She wants to make a public splash by allowing critics of the unjustified war in Iraq to use her as a human bazooka against Bush."
Well, I believe Jamieson's analysis is correct. And I point to this. If Cindy Sheehan is really about getting the troops out of Iraq, why isn't she traveling to Washington to stand outside Hillary Clinton's home? The senator supports the war. Will Ms. Sheehan go to Nantucket and stand outside John Kerry's beach house? He isn't a cut and run club member.
So it's obvious Cindy Sheehan has become a political player, who's primary concern is embarrassing the president. She is no longer just a protestor. I don't think she ever has been, by the way.