The interests of full disclosure require me to acknowledge that I have never liked Bill O’Reilly (BOR).
This said, I will nevertheless comment, not on his interview of Barack Obama Sunday night, but rather on a critique of his work offered by a Marc Ambinder, who was sent careening off the walls by BOR’s “ridiculous” interview of Obama. Fair enough; let’s take a look at what Ambinder had to say.
After the obligatory liberal attack on Fox News and a completely incongruent, but equally obligatory swipe at Sean Hannity, Ambinder attempted to establish that he was disappointed because BOR’s questions were not sufficiently tough. He smugly babbles about “the real world,” betraying the liberals’ insistence that the world is actually liberal and conservatism is an aberration.
When BOR asked Obama when he knew the Obamacare website would fail–something that public record shows he knew months before and was increasingly warned of as the opening date grew closer–Ambinder recoiled in righteous indignation. In doing so, he either feigns ignorance of the possibility that Obama wanted Obamacare to fail so that he could stampede Americans into a single payer system, or shows that he has not actually given the question much thought. Either way, that alone disqualified him as an honest judge of BOR’s work. Coming to the prevaricating Obama’s defense over his inability to coherently answer the question, he pats Barack on the head and asserts that the question was so ridiculous as to be unanswerable. Clearly, he believes everything his president says.
Having exhausted the small bit of grownup criticism he could muster, Ambinder then fell back on the liberals’ favorite defense of “Nuts and sluts.” If their conservative target is a woman, she is called a “slut” (Sarah Palin); if a male conservative is the target, he is called a “nut.” Ambinder’s showed us this with this line: “But instead, O’Reilly entered the imaginary world of conspiracies and cover-ups and let the president off easy.”
He then addressed BOR’s questioning of Obama over the Benghazi murders. Apparently satisfied that Obama’s Administration had told the truth about how he let four Americans die to prove there was no al Qaeda, Ambinder insists “investigation after investigation” has apparently cleared Obama of guilt in the matter, and Americans have no interest in getting to the truth behind Obama’ and Hillary Clinton’s lies about Benghazi.
Ambinder offers a “better” question, one he thinks is on the mind and lips of all Americans: “Did arms provided to Libyans end up in Syria?” (and you thought you were “on top” of the news.)
Not content to have quit while he could be seen at least as just a wrongheaded liberal cheerleader, Ambinder plunges into a pit that even willfully blind liberals should know enough to tiptoe around.
He insists there is no scandal in Obama’s “Nixonian” use of the IRS to punish conservatives for attempting to exercise our rights to assemble and peacefully demand Constitutional government. This liberal sycophant actually addressed the matter by putting the word “scandal” in quotes. Don’t you love it when liberals try to talk like big boys and girls?
Ambinder suggested that instead of an honest question designed to elicit an honest answer from a dishonest president, BOR should have thrown him a softball set-up like this: “… ask him whether he endorsed the tougher enforcement because of imbalances created by the Citizens United campaign finance decision.”
Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder, and this guy proves it.