Bill O'Reilly Putin Apology Trump Fox News

Bill O'Reilly Responds to Kremlin's Call for Putin Apology: Wait for It…

Bill O’Reilly is willing to apologize for calling Russian president Vladimir Putin “a killer”… just not anytime soon.

The Fox News host responded to calls from the Kremlin for him to apologize on Monday night’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor. With a grin, he told viewers, “I’m working on that apology, but it may take a little time. Might want to check in with me around 2023.” He also recommended the book iWar by Bill Gertz if viewers want to know more about Putin’s “violent history.”

O’Reilly’s reference to Putin as “a killer” came in an interview with President Donald Trump that aired during Fox’s pre-game Super Bowl coverage on Sunday, with O’Reilly asking Trump how he could respect Putin. Trump responded by shrugging off O’Reilly’s use of the word “killer,” saying America’s “got a lot of killers. What do you think, our country’s so innocent?”

“We consider such words from the Fox TV company to be unacceptable and insulting,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a conference call with reporters on Monday morning. “And honestly speaking, we would prefer to get an apology from such a respected TV company.”

Monday night’s O’Reilly Factor also included unseen footage from O’Reilly’s interview with Trump – an interview that the host crowed was “making headlines all over the world.” Well, certainly in Moscow, at least.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Geo says:

    Donald Trump has many horrible things to answer for, but maybe the worst is making me approve of something Bill O’Reilly did.

  2. Coop says:

    Good for O’Reilly.

  3. Robin says:

    Trumps going to be jealous; they are talking about O’Reilly instead of him

    • Surel says:

      just like his tweet about how he’s in control after everyone started talking about Bannon. Trump is so in over his had, manipulated by Putin, by Bannon, probably by anyone around him. 46% of Americans elected a total moron.

  4. c-mo says:

    Hahahaha!!!! I love Bill O’Reilly when he acts like a human, this is one time I love him!

  5. Chris says:

    It is said people have a lot of questions about the Clinton’s and the many people who saw are knew too much ended up dead threw suicide , accidents and unknown deaths. Maybe that is what Trump eluded to .

    • ju4dy says:

      I thought it was pretty clear that Trump was talking about the countless innocent Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians who are dead because of US policy, he referred to Iraq explicitly and i’ve heard him refer to it a number of times since he started campaigning, i’ve heard him say in other contexts that “everywhere the US goes in the Middle East is a disaster.” While i don’t think that is controversial to say, i mean, everyone knows that by destroying the governments of Iraq and Libya, the US created power vacuums that were fertile ground to be rapidly filled by ISIS and other hyper violent people that the US government calls terrorists. But in a way it is controversial to say because i don’t know of any other leader on a national level of any consequence who says that. It’s something to keep quiet about. Trump said in this interview, “We’ve made mistakes,” and O’Reilly said “Yeah, we made *mistakes* but that’s not the same as ordering to have people killed,” or something like that, paraphrasing, and Trump said “A lot of people were killed.” What that means to me is, OK, the US goes into Iraq saying (dishonestly) that Iraq is a threat, an urgent threat that is so urgent, it needs to be invaded before the UN team can complete its inspection, which was almost done, about 2 or 3 weeks left, but the UN team kept saying they weren’t finding anything, so i think Bush was in such a rush to invade to prevent the UN from finishing its inspection because if they did, then the US would lose its justification for invading Iraq and destroying their government. And then Iraq had no government, no policy, no infrastructure, it was bombed, homes were raided, it was the beginning of an unending nightmare, during which an uncountable number of people died, and millions of lives were ruined, and it’s still going on, with a government that is Shi’ite dominated and nonsecular, and discriminating against Sunnis and other minorities, and leaving Iraq open for take over of at least half the country by ISIS (Sunni). Trump has talked about this before, in his typical way, and in all the times i’ve heard him bring it up, he has mentioned the number of people who have died. This really got my attention because it seemed somewhat incongruent with a lot of his other political positions that he voiced. In one interview show that i have bookmarked, on CBS, with 3 of there star interviewers, he said these things, he said Iraq and Libya would be better off if the US, instead of going in there, “had gone to the beach,” and one of the interviewers said, “You mean you think it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power??” incredulous, and he said yes he did. To me, it’s obvious that it was a huge mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but that is something Americans don’t say, especially not politicians and media pundits, it’s not even open for debate or discussion. So it was weird to hear Trump saying the obvious but that which must not be said. Under Saddam, Iraqis were one country, people had jobs, sent their kids to school, were relatively safe, minorities were not threatened, there were a bunch of Christians there. Now half of them are gone. Stuff like that, they did not have any terrorism because the government had zero tolerance for it. That’s how Saddam came to power in the mid 70s, throughout the 60s and early 70s, Iraq had terrorism, they had different factions fighting each other and blowing themselves up in theaters and restaurants, and governments kept changing, and the country was deteriorating economically, until the Baathist party took over in the 70s, and Saddam became the leader, and he used carrots and sticks to build a united country that was focused on economic development, and they were progressing. It was a one party state, it was secular, and the urban culture in particular was modernizing.Anyway, this was Iraq’s political system and like any other country, it should be up to Iraqis to fight it out and work out what they have, foreigners can’t come in and “nation build.” Just for the sake of argument, say that Bush and just about all the Democrats who banded together to convince the public that going to war against Iraq was necessary “to protect our way of life,” and say that they really believed that, though it really takes a very limited brain to believe that and there were lots of intel people who knew Iraq didn’t have WMD but Bush didn’t want to meet with them, he only wanted to meet with the ones that would say there might be WMD, so let’s pretend this was a “mistake,” as in “We made mistakes.” OK, i still would say it’s an atrocity and amounts to a lot more people than Putin is accused of having killed, but let’s say it was a silly mistake, could happen to anyone, to err is human. So, Obama was one of the few critics of the Iraq war before it started, and for the right reasons, that it would cause the disintegration of the country and it would ignite a spread of terrorism that wasn’t there before. Then Obama becomes president. So, knowing what he knew, why did he destroy the Libyan government which was a similar situation? With the same predictable result? More innocent dead people, more destroyed countries, more ruined lives, people having to leave their loved homes of generations, and go to foreign countries like Europe where they were not wanted. Because of US/NATO violent reckless policy. Is this a “mistake?” Fine, call it a mistake, but it was a foreseeable outcome, deliberate negligence, i think it’s naive to say the US did not want to destroy the Libyan government, and i’m not alone. Evidence of the reasons they took out Gaddafi are reported on, Seymour Hersh who broke out the Abu Gharaib prison story, and the MeLai massacre in Vietnam has reported on it. Hillary Clinton’s emails contain at least one from her top aide Sidney Blumenthal who apparently was reporting back on an assignment to find out why Sarkozy wanted a war with Gaddafi to take him out, an email to Hillary, in which he listed the reasons, what Sarkozy wanted from this war and removal of Gaddafi. It included 5 things, one was that Gaddafi was working on getting former French colonies in Africa to switch from the French franc to the Libyan gold dinar for their currency, which would increase their purchasing power and improve their economies and was on the verge of happening, another was that Sarkozy thought such a war would boost up his declining domestic popularity, another was that a war could unite the French people, and another was that Sarkozy wanted more of Libyan oil for France. These were the reasons learned by Blumenthal and emailed to Hillary. She wrote a book about how she took on this project of going to meet with Sarkozy and then going to Obama and persuading him to do authorize it. He was reluctant. I was glad to hear that, after he knew what was going to happen in Iraq. Unfortunately it meant that destroying the country of those innocent people, an atrocity, was pre-meditated. Ever since Gaddafi was killed, Libya has been in chaos, violence, ruled by violent groups of radical Islamic militants, thousands of refugees, many dead, wounded, and ruined lives. Hillary wrote a book about it, she was so proud of it, i don’t really understand why, and i saw her interviewed last year, early in the year, by Chris Wallace and he asked her if she had any regrets about Libya, and she said no, none at all. I think this is the kind of thing Trump was talking about when he said to O’Reilly, “What? Do you think we’re innocent?” what i don’t understand is, why do Americans not want to talk about this? Why do they want to think this kind of thing is the right thing to do? And why call it a “mistake?” i don’t get this.

      I thought about some examples of people the US government is suspected of having killed, but those will never be proved or even investigated in most cases, so they are just speculation. The one you might be talking about is Vincent Foster. i don’t know anything about that, it was on the news briefly, but i don’t know what the facts are, i just figured it was a Republican propaganda thing.

      • Steeler says:

        and you think Trump knows about even half of that? he just didn’t want to say anything bad about Putin because he’s Vladimir’s b+tch. that’s all. you’re giving him way to much credit, idiot Donny couldn’t even read through your whole comment.

    • Steeler says:

      it is said? you need to get your head out of Trumps +ss. stopy buying into these moronic conspiracy theories.

    • Mary says:

      Oh the conspiracy theories Trump and his followers keep spewing out with no facts to back it up. You know like the birther movement, and now the attacks that the media aren’t reporting. Must be hard to live a paranoid life.

  6. ju4dy says:

    I looked into this. I can’t find any solid evidence that Putin ordered the killing of anyone. The victims of these alleged orders also had other enemies and were controversial people and/or died under circumstances that could not be ruled homocide. I’m not saying i know if Putin did or didn’t order it. I’m saying there isn’t adequate evidence to know that, i couldn’t find any facts. O’Reilly says to check Bill Gertz’s book, iWars to learn about Putin’s violent history. So i checked it but despite googling the search terms Putin with Gertz’s name, nothing about killing or murder came up. Journalists and other critics or people believed to ‘know too much’ who die in ways that don’t make sense also exist in the US, plenty of them. Relatively recently, Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone contributing editor who was working on an expose article about the CIA. He’s the guy that wrote the RS article about 4 star general and leader of US forces in Afghanistan, Stanley McKrystol, revealing disrespectful things said and tolerated about the US administration and Obama in particular. Hastings once said that when he was sitting in on conversations among officers on a train, one of them said to him, “You’re not going to f__k us are you? Because if you do, we’ll track you down and kill you.” Hastings was reported to be increasingly agitated before his death in a fiery high speed single car collision, and told associates that he believed he was his car had been tampered with, and he said he believed he was being followed. Only a few days before his death, he called wikileaks and spoke to their lawyer. Then, one night he’s driving in LA and his car was observed going at full speed down a main street, and it ran into a tree and exploded and burned. He was burned beyond recognition. I think it sounds like people in the US government could have killed him, given these circumstances, but i don’t know it, if i was a journalist, i wouldn’t claim to know it, i wouldn’t say “Obama’s a killer,” even tough Hastings humiliated him badly with the McKrystol story and affected Obama’s relationship with the military he was the leader of. I wouldn’t say anyone from the army did it, or anyone from the CIA that he was writing a story on and who everyone knows are pros at making people disappear or die, that’s what they do for a living, among other things, they do it on behalf of the US administration who is their boss. But obviously this is speculation and for a journalist to report it as researched fact with out including some of the facts, not speculation based on coincidence, but fact, then i consider that irresponsible and tacky, or put more to the point, it’s propaganda, not journalism. Another journalist i will mention is Danny Casolaro, not because i know he was killed by the government but because because i know he might have been, and for that reason, i will mention his name in order to say he’s not forgotten. He was working on a large project tying a lot of different serious government crimes together, including the October Surprise, the Inslau matter, and the PROMIS software. Casolaro called it ‘the Octopus.’ Some of his family members felt certain that he did not slit his wrists in a motel bathtub on a night he had told people he was going to meet a source with important information. His brother said he was so phobic of blood, he never would have cut his wrists. But there is nothing here except grounds for speculation. In both of these cases, as i’m sure is true of the Russian cases, police found no sign of foul play. Just saying, if you have real evidence, and you report it, that is journalism, but if you are shooting your mouth off saying things you ‘feel’ are true and have heard rumors of and circumstantial coincidences, you are not being a journalist because you are not informing the public. You are using your powerful influential position to shape public opinion about things the public clearly doesn’t know about, and they will believe what they’re told because they trust media people when those media people demonize countries and leaders they want the public to see as their enemy.

    • Tom says:

      It’s ok everyone. Random Judy from the internet has looked into it and Putin is really just misunderstood. We can put that to rest now and focus on other things . . . Like whatever news source 45 is declaring fake today.

      • ju4dy says:

        Tom — i didn’t say Putin was misunderstood. How come you think i was saying that? I mean, he probably is misunderstood, it’s not like Americans know much about him except what they hear in the media and from their leaders, but i don’t know. That’s the problem, for me, that i was mentioning, there’s no real investigative journalism that is balanced and fair, not going in with an agenda to prove but trying to learn about something that is unknown, and then as a result of researching it, reporting what was found and what different interpretations might be drawn from the information. That’s real journalism. I feel so frustrated to have propaganda telling me what to think on every channel. The best thing i can do is listen to a lot of different stuff that differs from each other, to hear different sides of things. But as for me, because O’Reilly brought this up, that Putin “is a killer,” unlike what you said, i don’t want to rest now and focus on other things. I want to know what the evidence is. I want people who say that to say why they are saying it. i don’t want to just be told what to think and “trust me, i wouldn’t steer you wrong.”

    • Steeler says:

      oh please, stop kissing Drumps +ss. Putin is a killer, you would have to be extremly naive to think otherwise. like our moronic president apparently.

  7. Dee says:

    Finally someone at fox news brave enough to ask trump the right questions and not scared of him.. Hannity is ridiculously naive about trump. Turns me off fox news big time!! O’Reilly is a cool cat and fair and balanced …that’s journalistic as it should be.

    • Steeler says:

      moron. Fox was never fair and balanced. yeah, Hannity is the worst of the worst, but O’Reilly is far from objective.

      • TV Gord says:

        I agree that he’s far from objective, but he doesn’t always drink the Kool Aid. I rarely agree with his views, but I’ll listen to what he has to say more than I would Hannity or Keith Olbermann.

        • Kaleras says:

          even mentioning Olberman in the same category is absurd. he actually speaks truth to power, Hannity is just an a$$-kisser and O’Reilly goes along with Republicans 90% of the time.

          • TV Gord says:

            Olbermann is as nutty on the left as Hannity is on the right.

          • Surel says:

            @TV Gord: no, most certainly not. no one of the left is as nutty as the right wing extremists like Hannity, Trump, Bannon, Alex Jones and so on. typical false equivilancy. Olbermann is smart, Hannity is a nitwit.

  8. Steeler says:

    not a fan of O’Reilly or Fox, but he’s obviously right not to apologize. for one and most importantly, he’s completely right about Putin. he has people murdered and that’s a fact. only Trump loving idiots would deny that. and secondly, we can never have the goverment, much less a foreign goverment, make demands, what is said or not said on TV.

    • KCC says:

      Trump did not deny that Putin is a killer. He shrugged it off like it’s no big deal. More or less saying everyone does it, even Americans. While it’s true that throughout world history people in power have killed to remain in power, to accept it as business as usual is scary, especially by our President.

      • Kaleras says:

        well, it’s not normal to kill journalists and opposition politicians. we’re not talking about drone strikes in the middle east here, but 100% stone cold murder. America does not do that. well, maybe under Trump we will. his love for Putin is so digusting to anyone who values democracy.

  9. Fane says:

    Putin is a killer, what’s to apologize for? like Putin even really cares what people think about him.

  10. Ron says:

    Dang Trump! Just when I thought he couldn’t make me more disgusted with him, he goes and makes me side with Bill O’Reilly. But seriously, I’m not sure how Trump’s statements isn’t being considered borderline (at best) treason. If this were Obama, the right would want his head for saying something like that. But I guess this isn’t new for trump. I mean, it was somewhat treasonous of him to also encourage Russia to hack an American presidential candidate and former Secretary of State. We all know his loyalties lie with Russia, so…

  11. james says:

    o’reily – trash journalism, that gets a pass in the usa – land of exceptionalism..