Bill O'Reilly Defends Himself After 'View' Clash (VIDEO)

The night after his comments about Muslims made Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walk off the set of "The View," Bill O'Reilly used his Thursday "Talking Points Memo" to defend himself.

O'Reilly replayed the full, explosive confrontation, including the comments which set Behar and Goldberg off -- when, during a heated exchange about the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero, he said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11!" Goldberg and Behar objected vehmently, saying that "extremists" carried out the 9/11 attacks, and then walked off the set. (Both returned after O'Reilly apologized.)

On his show, O'Reilly did not back down from his words. "How did we get here?" he asked rhetorically. "Were we attacked by Japanese extremists [at Pearl Harbor]?"

WATCH:

He said that he did not want to insult Muslims, but was "tired of the political correctness surrounding the 9/11 attack. The truth is that if moderate Muslims around the world stood with Americans against radical Islam, the terrorists couldn't exist...I'm not in the business of sugarcoating harsh realities."

Still, O'Reilly appeared far from ruffled by the flap he caused. In fact, he said he loved the entire conversation.

He was not the only participant to use their own show to expand on the morning's clash. On her nightly HLN show, Behar discussed the confrontation as well, saying she could not take O'Reilly's "hate speech" and so had to leave the set.

Comments

[nothingchanges]

10:41 AM on 10/19/2010

I would love to see a demographic of Fox's audience profile.

Must be city folk.

Here in rural Colorado people advertise wanting to give away horse and cow manure for free on a nearly daily basis.

Fox and company make a fortune (O'Reilly is paid over 10 million a year) to essentially spoon feed the same product to his audience.

Go figure.

[Cthulhu On Call]

03:16 AM on 10/19/2010

>>Still, O'Reilly appeared far from ruffled by the flap he caused. In fact, he said he loved the entire conversation.

Are you kidding? He lives for that kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a look at who his audience is, it's not women. It's white middle-aged men from the midwest and the south. I'm willing to bet money on that.

[indamiddle]

01:10 AM on 10/19/2010

As long as moderate Muslims don't take a strong and public stance against the extremist sect of their religion.....Bill is correct...maybe not "politically" but morally.

[jeremyfive]

04:56 PM on 10/18/2010

Bill O'Reilly is the one who came off looking pathetic. He is fully comfortable to wallow in hate speech--they are used to it at Fox Propaganda.

[Studebaker Hawke]

03:50 PM on 10/18/2010

O'Reilly is such a d*ck he should be wearing a condom for a hat

[jefdongar]

11:18 AM on 10/18/2010

Well of course O'Reilly is going to defend himself. Self-serving, narcissistic, megalomaniacs like Bill O'Reilly are never wrong. The truth is underneath all that wealth, and fame, and popularity O'Reilly is just an ignorant bully. Wouldn't want to be him and thank God I am not one of the fools who listen to him.

[Leto II]

10:36 AM on 10/18/2010

This whole event was staged. All the people fell for it too and they are milking this for all they can with the ratings and the news headlines.

[Francois Bergeron]

07:18 AM on 10/18/2010

Might lose a few fans here, but this is the first time I have to agree with this bttwad.

[Evol Syawla]

06:40 AM on 10/18/2010

This is the first time ever since I have know of and listened to this old fart! I really detest this man. But I happen to agree with him to a certain degree. Behar and Whooptido are saying we were attacked by extremists. Ok? Extremist Teabaggers? Republicans- they have advocated for us to be attacked so, it would not be far-fetched? Christians? Hindus? Oh I get it, the Jews, right? Or atheists? They were Islamic, extremist Muslims. Not all muslims attacked us or even support the attacks, but those who attacked us had one thing in common. Islam and Muslim. Well that is two thing Math wiz! Otherwise how would you distinguish the source of attacks and hence be able to direct your resources to the major threat to our peace and security? There are many more non-muslim extremist in the world eg. Tamil Tigers, so why the fear of using the correct association muslims? Do you fear that they will retaliate? Do you? Because if that is the case then you have just justified Bill's comment. Only when they react they become extremists?

[mechanical soft]

11:10 AM on 10/18/2010

Of course it's a "correct association". Another correct association is that religious people attacked us on 9/11, or that men attacked us, or bearded people. No more beards in lower Manhattan!!!

People are outraged at his generalized association because it's bigoted at heart. So, I don't think people are criticizing him out of fear of retaliation. I think we should criticize bigotry simply for being bigotry.

[toocoolfoschool1234]

04:32 AM on 10/18/2010

He is right to criticism Muslims. But, he is an absolute hypocrite not to criticize christianity for being the other main religion of violence. This man is not going to give you an unbiased opinion ever. He is going to give you the opinion that he gets paid to give.

[AmericaninIndia]

07:32 AM on 10/18/2010

Well said.

Blame is to be laid all around when it comes to religions (except for the Buddhists, who don't seem to bother anyone).

If you stand back from history, and divorce yourself from the emotional associations we all may have with religions, I believe you'll find several common threads with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious group (after all, the three of them are quite similar):

* They arose from nomadic and proto-agricultural societies which had just begun to write, and thus, preserve their knowledge

* They are inherently violent in their writings, and have a perception of their god which reflects their primitive view of the world and of human psychology (a petulant, jealous god who demands ritual to satisfy his ego)

* They all preach love, which is admirable, but their followers throughout history have have blood on their hands from a history of killing people who disagree, or who happen to worship a different way

I hope not to offend. I'm just saying that O'Reilly is correct to a point, and that he should apply his reasoning to the entire lot, not just Islam.

[TheGreyDuck]

03:41 AM on 10/18/2010

While I disagree with his gross oversimplification of "Muslims attacked us on 9/11" I do agree with him that moderate Muslims should do a better job standing up to extremists.

[Francois Bergeron]

07:16 AM on 10/18/2010

Me too.

[slocomgp]

09:33 AM on 10/18/2010

Yea, kind of like the moderate conservatives should speak up when the wackjobs spew their h8. But they never do.

[mechanical soft]

02:03 AM on 10/18/2010

No, Japanese "extremists" didn't attack "us"; the imperial Japanese Navy attacked a US naval base. Saying Muslims attacked us on 9/11 is like saying the holocaust was committed by white people. Both statements are technically true, but to generalize to that absurd a degree requires some underlying bigotry.

[feed the enemy]

01:51 AM on 10/18/2010

O'Reilly should "Depend" himself, the old pisser.

[dzent1]

01:33 AM on 10/18/2010

I would have asked him about the Loofah Terrorists, of which he is a known member.

[Justjack1]

01:04 AM on 10/18/2010

He is a racist biggot, no one should be forced to listen to him.

[slocomgp]

09:34 AM on 10/18/2010

Thank goodness we are not forced.

[Evol Syawla]

05:00 AM on 10/24/2010

The definition of a bigot: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. "
Do you still consider him a bigot? Go back and listen to the full discussion and then se if you still have the same opinion.