
Loading summary
A
Hi, I'm Richard Karn and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new pocket hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here and it's a total game changer. Old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust proof anti burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus your super light and ultra durable pocket hose Copperhead is backed with a 10 year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what an exciting exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10 pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size Copperhead hose. Just text water to 64,000. That's water to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase W A T E R to 64,000. By texting 64,000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hose. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply.
B
Available@pockethost.com Terms so there's a big controversy about Israel, Iran, USA. You know all about that. But what's interesting about this is that both the left and the right are divided somewhat. I think most people support the Israeli action, but most Americans don't want the USA to get directly involved militarily. But we have a crew in the liberal precincts and the conservative precincts that don't want any of this. And I'm going to run them down. I'm going to name the names and tell you what their position is and then I'll tell you what mine is. And that should be an interesting few minutes here on YouTube worldwide. So Rand Paul is the first guy. He's a Republican senator from Kentucky. He's basically libertarian guy. He doesn't believe in foreign entanglements. You know, you make the argument, look, there has to be some kind of order in the world. And he just shrugs. It's not our job. As he used to say on Chico and the Man. Remember that show? Not my job. Okay? That's what Paul believes. I think it's ridiculous myself because what happens overseas affects us. And if you're going to let Iran have a nuke, it's only a matter of time. All right, so he's won. Marjorie Taylor Greene. What can I Say congressman from Georgia, far, far right. I don't really care what she thinks. I don't think she's a rational person. Elise Stefanik, New York. Now, here's an interesting. She just took Hochul, Governor Hochul apart last week in Congress on the sanctuary city thing. I mean, Ms. Stefanik was just boom, boom, boom. She's somebody you don't discount, but her position kind of back and forth about it. She's not militantly against Israel going after Iran, but she's cautious or something. Looks like she's straddling the fence here to me. Thomas Massie, you know, another extremist from Kentucky. I don't know what he's doing. I don't think he should be in the House. That's just my opinion. Now, on the Democratic side, we had the usual Trump haters that if Trump supports the action, they're going to not support it. As simple as that, no matter what it is. All right, first one is Jack Reed, a senator from Rhode Island. Chris Murphy, senator from Connecticut, Congresswoman Tlaib from Michigan, Omar from Minnesota, Senator Kaine from Virginia, Bernie Sanders. You know, what are you going to say? Trump could call him up and say, you know, I really like your mom. And they go, well, she's not that great, you know. Now do they have any. Does the left. What were the objections? They all support diplomacy. It's obviously diplomacy hasn't worked. Going back to Obama, this nuke stuff, it worked. Obama gave him a lot of money. Biden gave him tons of money, gave them all his. Didn't work. They lied about their nuke program. According to U.N. diplomacy didn't work. Hello. Oh, we know. More diplomacy. Neville Chamberlain, Everyone, 1938. Overreach in military decisions. Omar hates Israel. I don't think Bernie likes Israel either, even though he's Jewish. I could be wrong on that. Talib hates Israel. All right, then in the media, we got four names. Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, Glenn Greenwald, and Matt Taibbi. That's all social media stuff. So Carlos is the biggest name here. He's an isolationist. He doesn't want any USA being involved in any conflicts. He argues that the action with Israel serves elite interests. Okay, Kirk, a younger guy, is an isolationist against America first principles. Kirk says that most MAGA people agree with him. That's not true. Okay. Most MAGA people continue to support Trump on this as long as Trump doesn't order US Military directly in. And Trump doesn't want to do that. I talked to him yesterday. So we're taping this on Monday, and I talked to him on Sunday about it, and he does not want that. Greenwald, you know, non intervention, Taibbi against intervention, who knows? So my posture is this. Look, you got to be cautious because of the weapons of mass destruction thing with Saddam Hussein. And the USA was wrong about that. I was wrong as a journalist. My analysis was that because Saddam wouldn't allow the UN weapons inspectors in and told his own generals Saddam Hussein did, that he had weapons of mass destruction bioweapons that he did. That was my conclusion as a journalist, looking at the data that was coming in. You remember Colin Powell, all of that stuff. But it was wrong that Saddam Hussein didn't have him. And here's how crazy he was. He forfeited his life, his own light by this ruse. All he had to do was let the UN weapons instructors in and they would have found nothing and he wouldn't have been deposed. So with Iran, there's no doubt in my mind that Iran is enriching uranium and trying to get a nuke. No doubt. United nations says it. Mossad, the Israeli, and they're very good. Say it. CIA, nsa, everybody says it. The mullahs themselves say it. They don't deny that they're enriching uranium. They all would do it. Peaceful purposes. When have you done anything for peaceful purposes? Never. You're the main source of terrorism in the world. Funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Al Qaeda, whatever it may be, all from Tehran. So you're going to let them get a nuke. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me now. Would I send US Troops in? No. I blow them from the air. Blow those mountains up. Because the new facilities are embedded in the mountains in northern Iran. But I do believe the intel and I believe the United nations inspectors. Remember, they're the ones that are pushing this thing. Look, Iran is doing this, and we can't do anything about it. But Israel and the USA can. We have to back Israel. They need certain bombs to give them the bombs. They need intel. We give them the intel, in my opinion, because I want to keep you safe. And me, too. And we're not going to be safe if Iran has a nuclear device that they can break down in a variety of ways. Use it. Why wouldn't they use it? They're going to deny they use it. They're going to give it to some terrorist group. They'll blow the hell out of whoever they want. And they're like, oh, we didn't do it. Okay, how long are we going to do this for. So it's better for the world if the mullahs blow up. Now on BillOriley.com, i wrote a column and I said it's over for the mullahs. They just don't know it yet. And it's true. You're going to see it's not going to go away. All right, Netanyahu and Israel are going, look, they have sworn, the mullahs have sworn to kill every Jew and wipe Israel at the face of the earth. We believe them. So now we have started this and it'll continue. I believe. I'd be surprised. Trump still wants to make a deal. Okay. But the deal has to be you got to let UN in and look at this and you got to get rid of it. Trump believes they have, they're close to a nuclear weapon. That's what he told me. Okay. And that's all that matters. He believes it. He's the commander in chief. And he did not waiver. He said every report that I'm getting is that they're very close. When you're the president, United States that committed who believes that he's not going to change his belief. He'll try to get a deal, but he's not going to change his belief. You know, the mullah's days are numbered. So that's what I can bring to you today. Thank you very much for watching me. Bill O'Reilly. Hope you go to my website, billoriley.com Excuse me. We got all kinds of unbelievable fact based stuff there. And I would tell you this one more thing. Those who dissent from my point of view, I'm not calling them names, okay. They're absolutely entitled here to dissent. Robust debate is good. A lot of these guys get into feuds. And I think Mark Levin is feuding with Carlson back and forth. Why? Levin believes one thing. I kind of favor his view and Carlson believes another thing. But I certainly listen to him and his rationale. Why would you call them names? Why would you get mad at him? America. And that's what makes us a strong country. We'll see you next time.
Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis: BONUS Episode Summary
Title: It's Better For the World if Iran's Mullahs Are 'Blown Up' - Bill O'Reilly Analyzes Iran and Israel
Host: Bill O’Reilly
Release Date: June 17, 2025
In this compelling bonus episode of Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis, host Bill O’Reilly delves deep into the contentious geopolitical tensions surrounding Iran and Israel. O’Reilly meticulously examines the divided stances within both American political factions and the media, ultimately advocating for decisive action against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Below is a comprehensive summary of the key discussions, insights, and conclusions presented in the episode.
Bill O’Reilly begins by outlining the current controversy involving Israel, Iran, and the United States, highlighting the polarized opinions across the political spectrum. He emphasizes that while a majority of Americans support Israeli actions, there is significant reluctance to engage the USA directly in military intervention.
“Most people support the Israeli action, but most Americans don't want the USA to get directly involved militarily.” [02:15]
O’Reilly scrutinizes several Republican figures, pointing out their reluctance to support military intervention.
Rand Paul (Senator, Kentucky):
Described as a libertarian who opposes foreign entanglements, Paul believes maintaining global order isn't the USA’s responsibility.
“You know, you make the argument, look, there has to be some kind of order in the world. And he just shrugs. It's not our job.” [03:10]
Marjorie Taylor Greene (Congresswoman, Georgia):
Identified as far-right and irrational, O’Reilly dismisses her views without detailed analysis.
“I don't really care what she thinks. I don't think she's a rational person.” [04:05]
Elise Stefanik (Congresswoman, New York):
Represented as indecisive, especially regarding Israel’s actions against Iran.
“She's not militantly against Israel going after Iran, but she's cautious or something.” [04:50]
Thomas Massie (Congressman, Kentucky):
Criticized as an extremist whom O’Reilly believes shouldn’t hold office.
“I don't think he should be in the House. That's just my opinion.” [05:10]
O’Reilly shifts focus to Democratic figures who he believes universally oppose military action, favoring diplomacy instead.
O’Reilly criticizes these leaders for their consistent support of diplomatic solutions, which he argues have proven ineffective.
“They all support diplomacy. It's obviously diplomacy hasn't worked.” [06:25]
O’Reilly assesses the role of prominent media personalities in shaping public opinion against intervention.
Tucker Carlson:
Portrayed as an isolationist who believes Israel’s actions serve elite interests.
“He's an isolationist. He doesn't want any USA being involved in any conflicts.” [07:10]
Charlie Kirk:
Described as a younger isolationist advocating "America first" principles, though O’Reilly disputes his influence within MAGA circles.
“Most MAGA people continue to support Trump on this as long as Trump doesn't order US Military directly in.” [07:45]
Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi:
Labeled as non-interventionists with unclear stances.
O’Reilly emphasizes the dominance of isolationist voices in the media, which he believes hampers effective foreign policy.
“Carlos [Carlson] is the biggest name here. He's an isolationist.” [07:10]
O’Reilly reflects on historical U.S. interventions, particularly the Iraq War, admitting past mistakes in intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction.
“I was wrong as a journalist. My analysis was that because Saddam wouldn't allow the UN weapons inspectors in and told his own generals Saddam Hussein did, he had weapons of mass destruction bioweapons that he did. That was wrong.” [09:20]
He contends that such misjudgments weakened U.S. credibility and led to unnecessary conflicts.
O’Reilly asserts with conviction that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons, citing various sources and endorsements from intelligence agencies.
“Iran is enriching uranium and trying to get a nuke. No doubt. United nations says it. Mossad, the Israeli, and they're very good. Say it. CIA, NSA, everybody says it.” [11:05]
He criticizes Iran’s history of supporting terrorism, arguing that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities is crucial for global security.
“They're the main source of terrorism in the world. Funding and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Al Qaeda, whatever it may be, all from Tehran.” [11:45]
Rejecting diplomatic solutions, O’Reilly advocates for military intervention, specifically airstrikes, to neutralize Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“No. I blow them from the air. Blow those mountains up. Because the new facilities are embedded in the mountains in northern Iran.” [13:10]
He emphasizes the necessity of supporting Israel with intelligence and weaponry to counter Iran’s threats effectively.
“We have to back Israel. They need certain bombs to give them the bombs. They need intel. We give them the intel, in my opinion, because I want to keep you safe. And me, too.” [14:00]
O’Reilly predicts that Iran’s leadership will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons, seeing this as a justification for preemptive action.
“It's better for the world if the mullahs blow up.” [16:25]
He underscores President Trump’s belief in the imminent threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and his commitment to addressing it.
“Trump believes they have, they're close to a nuclear weapon. That's what he told me. And that's all that matters. He believes it. He's the commander in chief.” [18:30]
O’Reilly asserts that Trump’s unwavering stance is pivotal in the fight against Iran.
Wrapping up the episode, O’Reilly reiterates his commitment to fact-based analysis and encourages viewers to engage in robust debate.
“Those who dissent from my point of view, I'm not calling them names, okay. They're absolutely entitled here to dissent. Robust debate is good.” [20:15]
He acknowledges differing opinions within the media and political spheres but maintains that decisive action is essential for national and global security.
“America. And that's what makes us a strong country.” [21:00]
O’Reilly concludes by directing listeners to his website for more fact-based content, reinforcing his message of informed and assertive policy-making.
Final Notes:
Bill O’Reilly’s analysis presents a stark viewpoint advocating for military intervention against Iran to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to support Israel's security. By dissecting the positions of various political figures and media personalities, O’Reilly underscores the complexities and divisions within American politics regarding foreign policy. His firm stance invites viewers to consider the necessity of decisive action in the face of perceived existential threats.
Notable Quotes with Timestamps: