French blogger under attack

by Chris Bertram on June 21, 2005

According to “a report in Libération”: , French blogger Christophe Grébert ( “”: )is being pursued through the courts for defamation by his local authority. His crime? To have set up a blog which centred around the domination of local government in Puteaux (at the edge of Paris) by a single family and their hangers-on and which documented anomalies such as the approval of the budget for a small garden at a cost of 600,000 euros. Grébert seems to have withstood a campaign of personal harrassment, but legal action seems to be the latest means of silencing him. It will be interesting to see how this goes. Grébert appears to have decided (almost certainly correctly) that blogging is a more effective method of pursuing political change than attending section meetings of local Socialist Party. His opponents seem to think he has been all too effective. An interesting case, and one that may set precedents for political blogging in France at least.



Billings 06.21.05 at 8:53 am

What would one expect from a country where the elites must not be challenged?


Ray 06.21.05 at 8:59 am

The principles involved are no different from any other libel trial, I suppose, or have either plaintiffs or defendant made a point of the fact that the allegations are being made electronically?


Ray 06.21.05 at 9:11 am

Ah, my rolling eyes were stripped from my comment…


Matt 06.21.05 at 9:19 am

At least he’s not in Russia, where a newspaper reporter was recently sentenced to 5 years in prison for supposedly libeling a local politician.


Maria 06.21.05 at 9:31 am

I’ve yet to encounter a country where elites enjoy being challenged…

Though I do have the impression (primarily from the Yahoo nazi memorabilia case) that freedom of expression is more circumscribed in France than, for example, in the US.


Ray 06.21.05 at 9:33 am

Now if only that reporter could have looked into the politician’s heart, I’m sure all that unpleasantness would have been avoided.


Billings 06.21.05 at 10:04 am

True, elites don’t like being challenged. But it’s more possible in some countries than others.


abb1 06.21.05 at 10:17 am

In some countries journalists are a part of the elite, so there’s no reason to challenge and everyone is happy.


Ray 06.21.05 at 10:19 am

In some countries the ‘journalists’ are hand-picked by the administration, and get to ask some very challenging questions indeed.


Kevin Donoghue 06.21.05 at 10:20 am

Look at the rankings for press freedom before jumping to conclusions about which countries best protect their elites. (Admittedly these are for 2002, maybe France has slipped since then?)


abb1 06.21.05 at 10:27 am

Yeah, although unfortunately the RSF doesn’t have a very good reputation, being, apparently, little more than anti-Castro propaganda organization.


Billings 06.21.05 at 10:39 am

The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.”

Which journalists have been arrested and imprisoned? I’d like more detail on that from Reporters Without Borders, whatever that may be. And why should carrying a press card exempt you from observing security protocols?


james 06.21.05 at 10:47 am

Do you have access to the questionnaire? In previous rankings, the US received a lower score due to reporter deaths in Iraq. Is it realistic to expect perfect safety in a war zone?


jet 06.21.05 at 10:53 am

Heh, and I see Germany ranked hire than the US (by 10 places). A country where saying something positive about the Nazi’s, or saying the holocaust was “overblown” will get you a jail sentence. Just another laughabley quaint NGO, with their sheep-like anomosity of the US on public display.


engels 06.21.05 at 11:02 am

A country where saying something positive about the Nazi’s, or saying the holocaust was “overblown” will get you a jail sentence.

So are you calling for free speech for the German neo-Nazis’? Just wondering…


Matt 06.21.05 at 11:10 am

abb1- I don’t know much about RSF or their backing. But, I know they’ve done enough good work in Russia to earn some respect from me.
Billings- Judith Miller from the NY times spent some time in jail recently for refusing to name a source. I’m sure there are others. I must admit that I can’t cry many tears for her, though, after her criminally incompetent reporting leading up the Iraq war.


abb1 06.21.05 at 11:25 am

Matt, I’m not sure placing Russia under Uzbekistan and Pakistan is warranted. And should China really be next to N.Korea?


abb1 06.21.05 at 11:28 am


Matt 06.21.05 at 11:55 am

abb1- thanks for the link. I don’t endorse all of their work or their methods or rankings. I’m not in a position to judge such work, and I’m hesitant to guess how the ranking should be based on my impression of countries that I have little experience with. I’m far from a supporter of the US’s Cuba policy and don’t much like most anti-castro groups, since so many seem to be right-wing fronts. But, I do have significant experience with Russia and know something about the media there, and that the situation for reporters and press freedom is very bad there, and that RSF has done some good work there drawing attention to this. I hope you’d not dispute these claims.


abb1 06.21.05 at 12:24 pm

Matt, I vaguely remember that we already discussed this once.


jet 06.21.05 at 12:27 pm

Helping the neo-nazi’s claim they are an oppressed minority is probably one of the reasons they seem to be on the rise in Germany. US neo-nazis enjoy the same level of free speech as any other group to spread their retarded message, which is probably why they remain irrelevant and mostly a group angst filled teenagers.

The only argument the Germans have for banning free speech is WWII and the holocaust. But is banning neo-nazi speech really worth setting a precedent for the government to limit what a person can say/think? Hardly. Samuel Adams summed up what I think of those who trade their liberty for safety.

The fact that we all have to die someday is often lost on those who want the government to protect them from everything.

But I don’t think the US all that different than Germany, and in one way much worse. We just introduced campaign finance “reforms” that limit free speech that only in some lengthy contrived arguement cause harm to society. We don’t even have the excuse of WWII to limit what a person can say.


Rvman 06.21.05 at 12:28 pm

>So are you calling for free speech for the German
>neo-Nazis’? Just wondering…

If he isn’t, I am. Who you are, and what you have to say, isn’t relevant. Political speech is political speech, and shouldn’t be a matter for law enforcement. The proper response to neo-Nazis is to point out that they are morons, not to suppress them, and by so doing, make them seem romantic and rebellious, rather than brutal and stupid.


Rvman 06.21.05 at 12:29 pm

And indeed, jet is. Crossed-posts.


bi 06.21.05 at 12:59 pm

jet, Rvman: Strange, I’m getting exactly the opposite observation in my country. Racist speech is completely banned, which brings the number of cases of racist violence to something like nil.

And besides, jet, since everyone has to die some day, so please go and die now. Thank you.

I support the freedom to blow whistles on corruption and nepotism, but I simply won’t support the freedom to spread murderous philosophies.


des von bladet 06.21.05 at 1:03 pm

We interrupt your regularly scheduled trollfest to complain that this post is insufficiently about Belgium; please have it adjusted at your earliest convenience.


engels 06.21.05 at 1:36 pm

Well, I’d rather thought the situation in Germany had something to do with the facts of its C20th history rather than being entirely the fault of hate crime laws making neo-Nazis look “romantic and rebellious”, like teenage smokers, but I will defer to jet’s and rvman’s sociological expertise.

I also think you can draw the line between legitimate political speech and denying an established historical fact for the purposes of stoking racial hatred.


bi 06.21.05 at 1:54 pm

engels: This is depressing. Can we go back to exposing corruption and nepotism, instead of worrying about the right of a few teenage goons to spew crap?

But wait, there are so many bad things going on at Uzbekistan. You should worry about those first.

Let’s also brandish the magic names “FDR” and “Clinton” at some point, shall we? Stamping out corruption and nepotism, oh _that_ can wait. A small garden at 600,000 euros is nothing. Belgium is more important.


Uncle Kvetch 06.21.05 at 2:11 pm

I see the CT posting containing the word “French” in the title.

I immediately wonder how many comments it will take before somebody seizes the opportunity to take one more pointless, gratuitous swipe at “the French” and their evil, treacherous ways.

I silently chastise myself for being so cynical–you might expect that level of silliness from ButtPlug & RamRod (or whatever the hell they’re called) over at PowerLine, but this is Crooked Timber, f’cryin’ out loud.

Even cynical old me is surprised at the results: Got it in one!

Bonus for Des von Bladet: Moules frites. Waffles. Plastic Bertrand. Jacques Brel singing “Le plat pays.” Satisfied?


bi 06.21.05 at 2:22 pm

Now I’m _really_ depressed.


engels 06.21.05 at 2:30 pm

But you see, Uncle Kvetch, the French are not like us… A certain je ne sais quois… the French élites… the 4 hour lunch break… if it wasn’t for us you’d all be speaking German…


Uncle Kvetch 06.21.05 at 2:39 pm

I hear they smell bad, too. Jonah Goldberg says so.

And those silly hats? Please.


jet 06.21.05 at 2:51 pm

des von bladet, bi, engles.
Typical European-style comical snobbish responses. Socialism and groupthink, like peanut butter and jelly, hamburgers and cheese, flies and shit. Bi, you are particularly foolish. I have no idea where you live, but I’d say places like Denmark and France were experiencing a sharp rise in racist violence (although your EU minders probably sanitize the numbers to appear as normal crimes).

US: I may disagree with every word you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it.

Europe: He shouldn’t have a right to say those nasty things that are so obviously wrong, I’m telling my mommy.

Yout can’t get more anti-thetical to American ideals than state sponsored censorship. Bi, perhaps I will die today, and it is telling that simpley because I disagree with you, you hope it is today. What does it say about your beliefs (or you in particular) that you wish death upon those who disagree?


abb1 06.21.05 at 3:15 pm

7-course dinner… Snail-eating freaks.


yabonn 06.21.05 at 3:55 pm

Fetchez la vache!



jet 06.21.05 at 4:34 pm



engels 06.21.05 at 4:51 pm

Thanks for putting Voltaire in Team America versus the French commies. That’s just perfect.


jet 06.21.05 at 4:58 pm

Not to quibble, but that’s “Friends of Voltaire”, Voltaire never wrote that particular quote. And I’m glad the irony was not lost on you, even though much of Voltaire obviously was.


engels 06.21.05 at 5:01 pm



Barry Freed 06.21.05 at 5:43 pm

And those silly hats? Please.

Silly hats? Oh, those are English hats you must be talking about.


des von bladet 06.21.05 at 5:43 pm

Jet: Your relentless arseholeisme notwithstanding, Belgium will always be funny, and has certainly been prominently featured on this blog lately.

(I freely concede that outside of my ineradicable narcissism I no longer bother to read much of your bizarre dribbling; if I neglected an actual point that you somehow managed to have, that was probably why.)


jet 06.21.05 at 6:20 pm

Des von bladet,
Perhaps that’s why you wonder off topic so often (as do I). I seldom pay too much attention to your arseclownery, so if I took some psudo-thought of yours out of context; well you obviously understand.


des von bladet 06.21.05 at 6:22 pm

Jet: Can I pretend that I wish I did? Thanks very.


fifi 06.21.05 at 7:28 pm

I don’t care if French women are prevented by law from expressing in public their inner Nazi. In France they are free to express their boobies, which strikes me as the better bargain. There are some beaches in France where the sight of freedom takes your breath away.


engels 06.21.05 at 8:53 pm

Assuming that your invocation of Voltaire (1) was indeed an intentional attempt at irony you might have noticed that American law does not actually reflect this principle. The government does not defend unto the death anyone’s right to say anything: it merely refrains from using its own coercive power to prevent her from saying it. So you can have a situation in which powerful non-state actors stifle speech with impunity and the state does nothing to stop this. And yes, in France and other social democracies the state probably does do more to actively defend free speech by means of providing subsidies for public broadcasting, film, etc which act as a counterbalance to the corporate media. On the other hand, Nazi hate speech is circumscribed by law in France and Germany. I think when you weigh up economic as well as purely legal factors it’s pretty clear who comes closer to Voltaire’s (1) maxim and it’s not the US.

(1) quotation commonly attributed to blah blah blah


engels 06.21.05 at 9:13 pm

BTW I know this post was ‘French Blogger under Attack’ and not ‘France under Attack’… so sorry for following billings et al on their inevitable spiral off topic.


Doug 06.22.05 at 8:09 am

So does anyone here know the first thing about libel law in France? If this were a US case, truth would be an absolute defense. If what he’s written about public officials is true, case closed, open and shut. UK law is more plaintiff-friendly, as I understand it. Anyone here interested in facts?

Speaking of reasonably interesting facts, if any of the commenters above attended a US graduate school, did they realize that it was almost certainly based on the German universities of the late 19th century, by way of Johns Hopkins?


bi 06.22.05 at 8:29 am

jet, so are you going to defend to your death my right to call you an constipated piece of idiotarian crap that enjoys swimming in sewage? Or my right to call you a lowly pile of pond scum floating in a polluted filthy pool of dead fish? Or my right to call you a neo-Nazi thug who was so open-minded that his brain melted away under the heat of the sun and turned into a huge dinosaur turd? Talk the talk, walk the walk. Now will you defend to your death my right to say these things?

And no, I don’t disagree with you. I agree with you that one shouldn’t sacrifice liberty for safety. So, go and sacrifice all your safety for your oh-so-great liberty. Go ahead and die now.

=sigh= Back to the 600,000 euro garden already…


engels 06.22.05 at 8:33 am

Truth is also a defence in English law. The difference is that in the US the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to show that the statement is false whereas in England the defendant must show that it is true. In English law, like American law, there is also a defence of fair comment but in the English courts this can be defeated by malice.


jet 06.22.05 at 9:08 am

Engles ironically says “And yes, in France and other social democracies the state probably does do more to actively defend free speech…” and yet forgets which article he’s posting a comment to. Trust me, I’m overwhelmed by your sharpness.

“…you might have noticed that American law does not actually reflect this principle.” Lucky we don’t have much of an audience left, or you’d look even sillier. Because when the KKK or neo-nazi’s go on parade, there are usually cops lining the streets ready to stop anyone who would interfer with those assholes’ attempts at free speech. In France and Germany the cops would be there to arrest the assholes for their attempts at free speech. Your reference to “non-state actors” is just blather meant to provide flak for your thought-police.


jet 06.22.05 at 9:30 am

Let’s not forget the PM murdered in the streets who “had it coming” since he argued against immigration. The guy could have been more pilloried in the European media as some sort of hard right hate monger. Yet besides Pim Fortuyn’s immigration stance he was about as left as they come. Looks like ideas that the majority don’t agree are “correct” certainly can get you killed and the media will even say how your ideas were to blaim, in grand ol Europe, since the guy was about as conservative as Marx.


Chris Bertram 06.22.05 at 9:37 am

Depressing to revisit this thread and find the usual suspects engaged in a “bash France” excercise. FYI, if you had followed the links, you’d have found that the blogger under attack is a French leftist (albeit of a moderate sort) and those he’s attacking are right-wing dynasts who would be happy pork-barrel Republicans if relocated to north America.


engels 06.22.05 at 9:47 am

Jet. There’s no irony. I didn’t forget what the topic was: I was responding to your (and billings’) mindless rants about European socialism. I now regret this.

On this large topic the point stands: free speech does not equal the US First Amendment.

From the point of view of libel law, the First Amendment is important, but you seem unable to discuss this.

“Non-state actors” meant private corporations and individuals.

I’ll leave aside your latest gedankenexperiment about “KKK assholes on parade” and your last post which I frankly don’t understand.


engels 06.22.05 at 11:08 am

Also, might I suggest that you visit France one day? You might find that it is not the Nazi/communist hellhole you appear to think it is. You could even pay your respects to Voltaire


Ray 06.22.05 at 11:14 am

Jet, Fortuyn wasn’t PM, and show me the European media reports that said he had it coming. Or just keep making stuff up, if you like. No pressure.


Uncle Kvetch 06.22.05 at 12:33 pm

Yout can’t get more anti-thetical to American ideals than state sponsored censorship.

The Associated Press:
Flag-burning amendment advances in House
WASHINGTON – The House moved Wednesday toward approval of a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.


jet 06.22.05 at 2:17 pm

I have visited France. And while it was mostly pleasant, I lost many days spending hours on the highway while my bus driver tried to talk the striking truck drivers into letting us pass. I spent roughly as much time sitting at some highway intersection in the middle of nowhere or taking some backroad that took twice as long as I did in the cities. I understand it was just poor timing on my part (I should have realized that the truck drivers were about to strike). If you have ever been to the US, you can understand my awe that the police let this happen.


jet 06.22.05 at 2:24 pm

I overstated what the media said about Fortuyn. The media insisted on labeling him a far-rightest and the articles always failed to mention his more libertarian leanings, as if he was a near neo-nazi. When in fact he was merely standing up against radical Muslim immigrants who had no intention of integrating into Dutch society. I didn’t know jack about politics at the time but was probably nearly as pissed off as he was at the media’s attempt to belittle and marginalize him with a labels usually reserved for ultra-nationalist conservatives.
So while the media didn’t come out right and say he had it comnig, they did their best to paint him as an unsympathetic figure.


jet 06.22.05 at 2:31 pm

Uncle Kvetch,
I don’t think you want to play this game, cause I think you just fired your last round, where I’m just getting started:

The French had been debating this issue for two decades…Few things declare religious identity so emphatically…many French people regard the headscarf as a symbol of oppression of women…

Nothing like a little persecution of religious minorities to make you feel smugly superior to those dirty Americans.


jet 06.22.05 at 2:38 pm

Ray, Here’s a big example of the media’s treatment of Pim.


engels 06.22.05 at 2:45 pm

So. Jet. Christophe Grébert, French libel law and the pork-barrel righties. Qu’est-ce que vous pensez?


Ray 06.22.05 at 2:51 pm

Let me get this straight – you agree that Fortuyn took, let us say, a ‘strong stand’ on immigration, but you’re annoyed because Time magazine (that quintessentially European publication) grouped him with five other figures with similar views on immigration*. Or is it the fact that in that paragraph-long description of Fortuyn, where Time managed to point out that he didn’t want to be associated with Le Pen, they failed to detail his liberal policies on other issues?

*Want to guess how Fortuyn would have felt about a headscarf ban?


Uncle Kvetch 06.22.05 at 3:03 pm

I have no interest in playing games with you, Jet. You said that censorship was “antithetical to American ideals.” I brought up the flag-burning amendment that is currently being pushed in Washington, because I find that it contradicts your assertion. I sincerely wondered what your response to it might be.

Turns out you don’t have one, beyond “Yeah, well the French are worse.”

Which really doesn’t surprise me in the least.


engels 06.22.05 at 3:14 pm

Jet – I’m just trying to follow your recent exchange with Ray. You claimed that the European media said that Pim Fortuyn “had it coming”. Ray pointed out that you made this up. You then described your previous lamentable BS as “an overstatement” and changed to the completely different claim that ‘the European media were unfair to Fortuyn’. You supported your new position by referring us to an article in an American magazine which doesn’t actually appear to misrepresent Fortuyn’s views. I can’t imagine what your next move is going to be…


Uncle Kvetch 06.22.05 at 3:46 pm

Want to guess how Fortuyn would have felt about a headscarf ban?

Excellent question, Ray. I can’t find a direct quote from PF on the subject, but the position of the party he founded is pretty clear:

Although a large majority of the Dutch parliament rejected the call by the right wing LPF party (established by the economist Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered in 2002) for a general French-style ban of the hijab, individual court cases dealing with instances of discrimination of Muslim women wearing the headscarf are frequent.


fifi 06.22.05 at 4:43 pm

How come in those countries where speech is de jure freer, opinion is de facto less diverse?


Chris Waigl 06.22.05 at 5:59 pm

fifi: Opinion over here is only less diverse seen from far away, and your impression is skewed by the fact that, yes, on some stances endorsed by significant portions of US (e.g. … or Chinese, or Russian, or Japanese) public opinion there tends to be a more stable consensus here (death penalty, to name one thing).

jet: Your trucker strike experience has led you to conclude that the right of the French to protest against their elites is hampered?

FYI: The trial had to be adjourned and will take place in 2006. Reason: the city of Puteaux lawyer is busy defending another member of said elites in a major corruption trial. In the same département. And linked to the same poisonous cabal.


François 06.23.05 at 4:41 am

— ray, comment 2: “have either plaintiffs or defendant made a point of the fact that the allegations are being made electronically?”

It doesn’t seem so, it’s a very classical libel case.

— maria, comment 5 : “Though I do have the impression (primarily from the Yahoo nazi memorabilia case) that freedom of expression is more circumscribed in France than, for example, in the US.”

You may be right, but the Yahoo! example is an epiphenomenon (would be like evaluating freedom of circulation in US territories by focusing on Guantanamo Bay).

— kevin and abb1, comments 10+11, about RSF:

Look at the methodology used in the survey quoted in comment 10, and you’ll understand why RSF’s reputation is as bad as comment 11 states.

From there on discussion has shifted to trolling. Just to let you know, the Grébert case is making a lot of noise here, it’s not just ‘one more case of French media dictature.’


abb1 06.23.05 at 5:42 am

I love France, but an anectode I’ve read somewhere about the French government routinely suppressing information about their own nuclear powerstations accidents and about dangerous levels of radiation in the days and weeks after the Chernobyl disaster makes me deeply skeptical about freedom of the press there.


jet 06.23.05 at 7:23 am

Ray, Engles,
Okay, I double overstated my case. The most the media was guilty of was bringing up the fact that he was anti-immigrant and seldom stating any of his other stances. And given the facts surrounding his murder, his anti-immigrant stance is probably the most important political fact when reporting his death.

Uncle kvetch,
You got me there, 2 wrongs certainly don’t make a right. But an amendment, not yet passed, certainly is not on par with other, worse, restrictions, and just shows that the US isn’t perfect (duh), yet if that is all you can find, it does show that the US is much more permissive than most. And flag burning (for those who oppose it), is for the apolitical reason (mostly) that many people died for that flag and should not be dishonored by burning it. While the end effect is still a disgusting restriction of speech, the results won’t do much to deter anti-US speech (you could still burn those posters of Bush and Chneney), and certainly isn’t targetting any particular group or minority.


Matt McGrattan 06.23.05 at 9:17 am

Jet, in what sense is the burning of Bush and Cheney posters ‘anti-US’ speech?

Or is Bush the personal embodiment of the US now? I seem to recall some European nations adopting that view in the 1930s with less than desirable consequences.

Burning Bush and Cheney posters is anti-Bush/Cheney speech, or anti-Republican speech, or anti-conservative speech — but what it certainly is *not* is anti-US speech.

Further, the view that burning the flag dishonours those who died for it is itself a political view. Taking a particular stance _vis a vis_ the status of a symbol as embodiment of some national or political ideal is not an _apolitical_ act.


jet 06.23.05 at 10:08 am

Matt “Further, the view that burning the flag dishonours those who died for it is itself a political view.” No it is common sense. Ask anyone in the military how they feel about it and you’ll get a pretty similiar answer every time. Kind of like spitting in a person’s face or calling them a name, since that flag represents the people of the US and their government. It’s burning an effigy that represents all US citizens; only political if your politics are about being anti-US. The same goes for burning effigies of the US Presient and Vice-President (regardless of who’s holding office, as you didn’t see hords of Republicans throwing tamberine parties and burning pictures of Gore and Clinton).


Matt McGrattan 06.23.05 at 10:36 am

You might call it ‘common sense’ but that doesn’t make it any less political. The view that the national flag has some kind of semi-sacred status as a national symbol and that attacking that flag is a deep insult to a nation is not a universal one.

I can understand that many Americans feel that way, and I can also understand partially _why_ they feel that way, but that doesn’t mean that flag-worship or flag-veneration is an apolitical position to take or one that’s widely held elsewhere.

And the same very much does _not_ go for Bush and Cheney. If directly insulting the President and Vice-President of a nation — by burning their effigies, for example — is somehow seen as an insult _to the nation_ rather than just to the individuals or political parties concerned then, frankly, you are already a very long way down the road to fascism.

And I am not using the word in some lazy sense here. Leader-veneration or the view that presidents and vice-presidents somehow stand for a nation or are embodiments of a nation’s character and that insults to them are instults to the nation precisely are features _of_ fascism.


Uncle Kvetch 06.23.05 at 12:16 pm

If directly insulting the President and Vice-President of a nation—by burning their effigies, for example—is somehow seen as an insult to the nation rather than just to the individuals or political parties concerned then, frankly, you are already a very long way down the road to fascism.

Sadly, Matt, it’s a view that some very prominent Americans now feel comfortable voicing in the most unmistakeable terms:

And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That’s what his intent was. His intent wasn’t to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you’re a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they’re undermining everything and they don’t care, couldn’t care less.

–Bill O’Reilly, June 20, 2005


jet 06.23.05 at 3:17 pm

It’s sad when Scrappleface has to put the screws to Durbin

Durbin: “I’m sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust…”
First Draft: “I compared our personnel to the savages who ran death camps in Nazi Germany and Pol Pot’s Cambodia as well as Stalin’s gulags. I was wrong. My irrational statements tore open wounds and cheapened the legacy of millions of innocent victims of tyranny.”

Bill O’Reilly is a shock jock ratings whore.

Comments on this entry are closed.