Bzzzzzzt!

From Howard Kurtz's sycophantic profile of Bill O'Reilly, which somehow manages to omit O'Reilly's on-air meltdown last week against an antiwar protester, as well as his on-air use of a racial slur:

And O'Reilly doesn't pussyfoot around with conspiracy theorists.

Bong! That would, once again, make you wrong, Howie! What do we have for a booby prize, Johnny?

For the sake of the audience, let's roll the tape, courtesy of the fine folks at WorldNetDaily, which is where O'Reilly's online column originally appeared, and with whom O'Reilly has had a long association. WND, you may recall, displayed their own credibility back in 1999 by running numerous articles -- such as this one by the editor -- suggesting that the impending Y2K "apocalypse" was going to be the Clinton administration's pretext for declaring martial law. WND has long been a clearinghouse for a number of other "New World Order" style conspiracy theories.

This is from a piece dated March 21, 2001: Oklahoma City blast linked to bin Laden

A former investigative reporter for the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City last night told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly she has gathered massive evidence of a foreign conspiracy involving Saudi terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in the 1995 bombing of the federal building that killed 168 people.

This wasn't the only time O'Reilly touted this theory. From a story by Newsmax (another conspiracism-rich publication) later that year:

McVeigh's Trial Attorney Alleges FBI Blocked Conspiracy Probe

During an interview Monday night on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly asked Jones whether he believed McVeigh had acted alone.

It is worth noting, however, that this time O'Reilly at least interviews the source of all these theories -- McVeigh's attorney, Stephen Jones.

It has remained an O'Reilly favorite. From a Fox transcript of May 8, 2002:

Are the OKC Bombing & 9/11 Linked?

I've discussed this theory previously, and explained why it holds no more water than any of the theories promoted by a variety of conspiracists about Oklahoma City. Simply put, the evidence is not there.

Then again, viewed through the cockamie lenses of HowieVision, it all starts to make sense: If Rush Limbaugh is "mainstream," then surely Jayna Davis is not a "conspiracy theorist".

So why doesn't the Washington Post report, or give any credibility to, her claims?

[A side note: You'll note that for the 2002 piece, O'Reilly interviews, and gives great credence to, the views of one Larry C. Johnson, who is the former deputy director of the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. Under Bush fils, of course.

Well, here is Larry C. Johnson, holding forth on the subject of the threat of terrorism:

Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

None of these beliefs are based in fact. ...

It is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.

... Terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Title of the article: "The Declining Terrorist Threat."

Date of publication: July 10, 2001.

Yep, a real font of credible and insightful analysis, that one.]