Following Bill O’Reilly’s interview with President Obama, liberal columnist for the Washington Post wrote a scathing critique on Monday about O’Reilly and how he conducted himself.
In his article Milbank accused O’Reilly of interrupting Obama 42 times, then said that with the amount of time that O’Reilly talked that it was more like the President interrupting him. He also complained about how much time was devoted to Benghazi, Obamacare, and the IRS targeting of conservative groups, saying their conservative “catnip issues”
Well his article and comments caused O’Reilly to speak out in anger. On Tuesday he phoned into a radio show with Hugh Hewitt and discussed the matter with him.
Hewitt directly asked O’Reilly if he would allow Milbank on his show ever, O’Reilly, obviously upset over what was said earlier said “probably not,” and explained that he thinks Milbank is a “weasel.” “He’s a weasel in my opinion. Beneath contempt,” he said, then added I probably would not invite him on the program. Number one, the audience despises him. And number two, I don’t really care what he says. I care that The Washington Post employs him. That’s what I care about.”
He then went on to explain how he doesn’t care what Milbank has to say because he knows where it’s coming from and why he does it. He added that he’s upset that the Washington post would even employ him, saying “it’s really disturbing.”
He said the if given the opportunity he would discuss Milbank with the new owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, and went on to explain how he’s not on a “jihad against Milbank.”
“I’m on a jihad- a holy war- against declining journalism,” he explained. . The Washington Post editors if they watched the interview — which God knows if they did or not — had to know that Milbank was lying. And they had to know he was lying for a reason: that he is a far-left zealot. So it’s OK to be a liberal columnist, but once you cross the line into lying to promote what you want than the paper’s got to take action.”