The U.S., Iraq and the Media

To watch "The Memo" click here.

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

We are here at our 9/11 studios at the World Financial Center in lower Manhattan. The view behind me, of course, Ground Zero.

Now, we realize many Americans are a little on edge tonight because of all the terror warnings earlier today. Of course, we will be on it immediately if anything happens.

The big story this evening, however, is Iraq and the media. That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.

I know some of you think I am a know-it-all, but I am truly confused about why some in the media are so opposed to removing Saddam Hussein. I just can't figure it out.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs in D.C. did a study of the establishment media and its reporting on Iraq. Listen to this. According to the study, 72 percent of all media assessments on President Bush's Iraq policy were negative. In The New York Times, 71 percent of the coverage criticized Bush. On ABC News, 80 percent of the nightly news coverage was negative, on NBC 76 percent, and CBS was the most fair and balanced at 56 percent negative.

We'll talk with the director of that study in just a few moments.

But again, why do these guys want Saddam to stay? It makes no sense at all. Number one, he has violated the Gulf War surrender terms. Just that alone means the USA has a right to oust him. Number two, the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London confirms he's working hard on nuclear weapons and has deadly chemicals and germs already in his arsenal.

Number three, Senate Resolution 71 signed in January of '98 urged then-President Clinton to take, quote, "all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

That resolution was co-sponsors by Senators Tom Daschle, Bob Graham, John Kerry, and other prominent Democrats, most of whom are now criticizing Mr. Bush's saber-rattling.

The truth is that Saddam Hussein is a criminal who's violated international law and could cause grave harm at any time. There is no good reason not to remove him.

Now, I understand why France and Germany and Canada will not support America without U.N. approval. Those countries are uneasy the USA is so powerful. It is a case of envy and resentment against the big rich kid on the block.

I also understand the Vatican wants peace. That's what the pope stands for. But with all due respect to the pontiff, he's not in charge of protecting people against murderers like bin Laden and Hussein.

What I don't understand is the elite media's embrace of nonaction against Iraq. The weapons inspections are a game, a charade of hide and seek. Saddam has had enough time to obey international law. His tenure is up, and all clear-thinking Americans should ask, Why doesn't the elite American media know that?

And that's The Memo.

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Time now for "The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day."

Beverly Hills police are investigating former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who, apparently, punched an obnoxious reporter. It wasn't me.

A guy named Bart Sibrel, a freelance guy, apparently asked Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon, then called the astronaut a liar. That didn't go down too well with Buzz, felt his space was being invaded, and launched a rocket himself. If I'm on the jury, I say not guilty. Ridiculous? Yes, it is.

— You can watch Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 & 11p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel. Send your comments to: