Bill O'Reilly calls President Obama "weak", Putin "Stalin-lite" during interview with Glenn

September 24, 2014

Writer

The King of Cable News, Bill O'Reilly, joined Glenn on radio this morning to discuss his new book Killing Patton: The Strange Death of World War II's Most Audacious General, as well as the President's stance on the Islamic State. Unsurprisingly, O'Reilly did not mince words when it came to the President's record, calling him "weak" and saying that in the dangerous world we currently live in, weakness could be truly disastrous to America.

It's a fascinating interview, watch the full video below or scroll down for the transcripts.

GLENN: Good friend of the program and really famous guy, Bill O'Reilly is joining us now. He had a new book called Killing Patton. I don't know what his obsession with death is, but we were talking about his book last hour. And Bill, I don't know what your obsession with -- can I spoil the ending? Patton dies.

BILL: Did you read the book?

GLENN: I got to Page 143.

BILL: Good. For you, that's phenomenal. You must really like it.

GLENN: Do you normally get to Page 143, if you don't like it?

BILL: Yeah, Page 22 or 23.

GLENN: So Bill, lay out the premise here.

BILL: Look, last six months of World War II brutal beyond belief. Americans really don't know what happened in World War II. I didn't until I started researching the book. It's been romanticized for us, because it was the last great American world victory, but what was happening was really down and dirty. The problem was the Russians were allied with the United States, but the Russians were doing terrible things. And General Patton knew it. He wanted to fight the Russians after they defeated Hitler.

Eisenhower, FDR, Truman, none of them were on board with that. They kept trying to tell the American people that Stalin and Russians were good guys, our allies. That sets up the tension. Patton is adamantly opposed to the Russians. He rightfully predicted they would not leave the countries that they occupied, and he was setting up his third army to, after Hitler fell, go after the Russians and push them back, all right.

There's your tension.

So he lost the political game. He was about to come back to the United States to do a speaking tour, Patton was, saying what I just told you, that the Russians were bad guys. The day before he's supposed to come back to the United States, he gets into a hellacious automobile accident that is beyond belief, and I'll let you read the book to see, we lay out the facts.

GLENN: Because back then, if I'm not mistaken, cars just didn't get into accidents.

BILL: It was insane. He was in the hospital, partially paralyzed from the accident. He was joking with the nursing, drinking cognac conversing with his wife. He goes to sleep. The next morning the doctors come in to check on him. He's dead. Nobody knows why he's dead. No autopsy. He's right away put in a coffin and buried in Luxembourg. All the investigator documents disappear. All the witnesses to the accident on the other side, not the guys that were in

his car, but the other side that crashed into him, disappeared.

So it is a thriller about World War II, the end of the war, then a murder mystery about what happened.

GLENN: So Bill, if you would have reached out to me, I mean this sincerely, I have a document, a letter from Patton -- I will show it to you tonight on TV -- from Patton, to the guy he put in the rear command. He writes it at the Pentagon and he said these guys are going to screw this up. This is -- they are not going to do it and I am going in. And I'm not coming back. He knew he was on a suicide mission. He knew that the Pentagon was not with him, and he predicted his own death.

BILL: Yes, he did. Is that an original letter --

GLENN: Original letter.

BILL: That's amazing. I'm looking forward to seeing that. He did predict his death to his own daughters. The last time he saw them, he said I don't believe I'm going to survive, because he knew that there were two assassination attempts on him already. You expect that in war, but they were very, very nefarious.

Another thing was, there was a guy heading up the OSS, which today is the CIA, named Wild Bill Donovan. He hated Patton. He was adamantly against Patton, because he was Stalin's pal. All this is laid out in a thriller form. This is not a boring history book.

GLENN: Who are you alleging did it?

BILL: Stalin.

PAT: Stalin ordered a hit on him?

BILL: Yes. His Secret Service, who were assassinating people all over Europe.

PAT: Are you alleging Bill, in conjunction with the U.S.?

BILL: No, but I'm saying the OSS helped Stalin and his secret police and it wouldn't have been hard to get agents around Patton.

PAT: One of the other fascinating things in the book -- I never heard of this -- the British actually shot down Patton's personal plane.

BILL: RAF fighter attacked Patton. He survived because of the skill of his pilot, but it was a marked plane. Nobody knows who was piloting the plane, because there were a bunch of people, even Russian pilots that had access to those spit-fires, but there's a lot of stuff many this book that people are just going to keep you up at night.

GLENN: Bill, I so appreciate especially this particular book, because once we got into bed with the communists, we changed fundamentally as a nation. When the Progressives saw fascism and communism and they at first thought this was the way to go, and I think they still do, some people think communism is the way to go. That's what the global warming thing is about. We lost our way. And really bad nefarious things happened, because we were starting to look tell collective.

BILL: The communist influence, after World War II in the United States --

GLENN: Wait. Before World War II, during World War I, that's where the birth of the Progressive movement came from. One of my favorite dark quotes from any President was FDR saying I've got a lot of friends that are communists. Doesn't mean you are un-American.

BILL: True. That just heightened when we allied with the Soviet Union to fight Hitler. And all of that was in play. There was a tremendous amount of ideological stuff in play. Patton wasn't an ideological guy, but he was thinking of running for president, that's another reason people didn't like Patton. But he was a warrior and he saw the Russians as villains and he was right. I mean, there's no doubt that George Patton's vision of Stalin and the Russians was 100% correct, and if we had followed his vision, this world would be a totally different place now.

GLENN: Let me switch to current events. How are you, first of all?

BILL: Good. Overly busy, but good.

GLENN: Overly busy?

BILL: Yes. I work --

GLENN: You have a whole hour. Uh to work every day. The working man right now. Listening to you, like --

BILL: I should be a man of leisure, but I am compelled, as you are to bring the truth of the American people.

GLENN: Let's switch gears here and bring the truth to the American people. ISIS, we have anyone about this for a long time.

BILL: One year.

GLENN: This is the caliphate that some were warning.

BILL: You?

GLENN: And these guys are here. They are coming back over. Do you have a sense -- first of all, have you ever seen any time, even in World War II, you know, FDR says we aren't going to get involved, and then he switches gears, about '39, and says okay, I was wrong, puts new people around him. This president is not putting new people around him, not cleaning out Clapper or anyone else that said this is nothing to worry. Do you have any faith that we know what we are doing or on the right side?

BILL: I'm looking at Obama speaking now at the United Nations and his top priority is global warming, not fighting terrorism. He's a weak President. Any fair minded American would agree that he is weak. Weakness in a dangerous world is a threat to the country because the bad guys are emboldened by weakness. The best example is Putin. He's Stalin-lite.

So the president is a weak leader. His priorities lie in social justice, and in liberal causes like global warming. He has no stomach for the fight. I mean, can you imagine George Patton's opinion of Barak Obama? Could you just imagine? I mean Patton looked down on Eisenhower and FDR to some extent, but I don't believe we have a concerted plan to fight word-wide terrorism. A big mercenary army, under the supervision of Congress and trained by the United States, and financed by the coalition that the Obama administration is supposedly putting together but no, we don't have a uniform strategy. The president had to bomb ISIS because of the beheadings. He had to. He didn't want to, because like the "New York Times", which printed today on its editorial page, ISIS is not a threat, in the opinion of the "New York Times", to the United States. What are you going to do?

GLENN: You think that's sane at all, to say they are not a threat in the United States?

BILL: I can't see any way that you couldn't project in the future that a group like ISIS that's now controlling thousands of square miles would dispatch people to try to kill infidels in a number of countries. Why can't the "New York Times" project that out? It happened before on 9/11 and it was an organization that didn't have nearly the power of ISIS, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They hatched the plot. If they could do it, why couldn't ISIS do it and ISIS is up front saying we want to do it and we're going to do it, but still the "New York Times" doesn't see them as a threat. Doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: We are talking to Bill O'Reilly, author of the new book "Killing Patton", and he also does some TV show; but as you were researching the Nazis and looking at this, I can't help, because I'm a student of second Word War myself, I can't help but think we are repeating all of the mistakes, the same things are going on, the same denials are going on, making the same friendships, instead of making them with communists, we are making them with Islamic extremists. And ISIS is in my opinion, worse than the Nazis, because the Nazis at least had to hide everything.

BILL: Well, Nazis also had a structure whereby the Third Reich had ambassadors and this is before the war started in different countries and actually had elections -- they were rigged, all that. These ISIS people are just barbarians, and they made a terrible mistake in the beheadings of the two Americans and the Britain. If they had not done that, Beck, Obama would not be engaged right now.

So ISIS could have flown under the radar and expanded their power and influence and money, and they would not have been confronted by President Obama, but they made that big mistake, and now the United States is going to punish them. They will. We will. But that doesn't mean the jihadists are going to be defeated. They will pop up someplace else. You have to have a concerted plan to defeat this.

GLENN: If you were President of the United States today -- and I'm not -- I know that you would not salute the marines with a coffee cup in your hand -- if you were the President of the United States today what would you -- what would we be doing today?

BILL: Good question, and I will give you a precise answer. You could go on to O'Reilly.com for all the details --

GLENN: Don't do that.

BILL: The first thing you have to do is declare war on terrorism. Congress has to declare who are on the Jihadists. So the United States declares war on Islamic terrorism. That's the bill. Congress passes it, I sign it, as president. So now we have the power to go anywhere in the world to get these guys. But why should the United States taxpayers foot the bill for this, when it's a worldwide problem?

So we get our 50 nations -- that's what Obama says we have in our coalition -- and they pay for a 25,000-man force, mercenary force, that is under control of Congress, trained by NATO and American

officers on American soil. This is a rapid deployment force that goes everywhere in the world to confront these people when we need people on the ground to fight them. It doesn't diminish the United States armed forces. We still have our military intact. This doesn't have anything to do with them. These are private citizens that apply for the job, well-paid, and we choose the best all over the world, and we craft this force. This is going to happen, by the way. And that

force goes and fights on the ground against ISIS, al-Qaeda, whomever, Boko Haram, whatever it is. Now, this instills --

This instills fear into the jihadists, because they know there's nowhere to hide it's a declaration of war and they have elite fighters coming after them, who are going to kill them. So that's what I would develop on the military front. If you had a guy like Patton, who you could put in charge overall command, you do it. But we don't have anybody like Patton now. And that is a big deficit for the United States.

GLENN: Do you know why we don't?

BILL: Because of politics.

GLENN: They killed him.

BILL: Any real aggressive officers, they don't get promoted.

GLENN: I will tell you, that I love our military and I love our -- I just love our military and I respect they will, but I will tell you that I am gravely disappointed in some of the leadership in our military, because they have been, you know strung up --

BILL: Politicized.

GLENN: Yeah. Somebody needs to put their stars down on the table and say Mr. President, no thank you, and I'm turning it around, walking out of your office, going to the press.

BILL: Well you see it now with Gates and Panetta, two former Secretary of Defense, both have books ripping up Obama. Well, why didn't you do it when these mistakes were made.

GLENN: Thank you. It's one thing to read "Killing Patton". That's your theory, and this is your work and your job. It's not like why didn't you say something, Bill, on "The O'Reilly Factor".

You are in office, seeing these things, you don't wait for the book. You go out and you say it.

BILL: Right. I am resigning because this. This is happening. We are in danger. So I mean that's what we don't have. That's what Patton did. Patton told the press, he was very straightforward saying these guys, these Russians, they are dangerous. They are not our friends. And that got him killed.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly, the man along with Roger Ailes, who built FOX News channel, talking to the guy who almost single-handedly destroyed FOX News channel. That wasn't my intent. I walk out going wow, crap that didn't work --

BILL: Well you destroyed CNN, so you got at least one of them.

GLENN: Thank you so much.

BILL: See you on TV tonight.

The Woodrow Wilson Mother's Day loophole

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep