O'Reilly and Fox... THE most shameless move to date

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Simply inexcuseable. Watch and pay close attention as O'Reilly insults and shames American troops who fought WWII, then makes the SAME mistaken comment again at a later date. Then, to top it off, FOX has the audacity to CHANGE THE TRANSCRIPT of the show to cover it up.

Link to video

Just when I thought I couldn't respect O'Reilly less... he goes and does something like this.

Another, different link with info:

Quote:

Bill O'Reilly defames our WWII troops

In his debate last night with Wesley Clark, Bill said this to prove his point:

Clark: And let me explain something. You go all the way up the chain of command --

O'Reilly: General! You need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne who did it!

That is a flat out lie. (thanks to (Mccarthy.vg ) It was the Nazi soldiers that committed the massacre on US troops and not the 82nd Airborn on the Germans. Bill you just used false information to defame our own troops. How could you sink to a low like that just to try and prove a point in a debate...

Link to source

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,356 • Replies: 40

No top replies

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8778.shtml

0 Replies

Thanks for the link, Merry.

From your article:

Quote:

In one of his typical shoutfests with retired general (and former Presidential candidate) Wesley J. Clark, O'Reilly, who lies just about every time he opens his mouth, repeated an incredible falsehood he uttered last year when he claimed American soldiers massacred members of the SS Panzer division at Malmedy Belgium in World War II during the Battle of the Bulge.

In fact, it was the Nazis who wantonly killed 84 American prisoners of war at Malmedy, an outrage that still stands today as a major atrocity of the war. O'Reilly, by rewriting history to fit his own warped point of view, tries to place the blame on Americans as part of an incredibly lame defense of killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines.

Like most of the verbal diarrhea that spills out of O'Reilly's mouth, his claim insults the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above that of the average plant but a demographic survey of O'Reilly's constantly shrinking cable TV audience would no doubt show that a vegetable intellect is normal for his viewers.

Even worse, Fox News - a joke if there ever was one in the annals of journalism - compounded the lie by rewriting the transcript of O'Reilly's show to make it look like he said "Normandy," not "Malmedy."

0 Replies

I'm speechless. Thank God Olbermann at least took him to task.

0 Replies

The 82nd Airborne Division did not take part in the Battle of the Bulge. The 101st Airborne Division was sent to Bastogne to attempt to hold back the German advance, and ended up surrounded, and refusing to surrender.

Not only is O'Really a putz, he's an incredibly ignorant putz on top of it.

0 Replies

Olbermann is one of the very few TV commentators I have respect for. He speaks with his own voice, which is why he's on cable (and lucky to be there) and not on some major network. As for O'Reilly, I'll only paraphrase what Mary McCarthy once said about a fellow writer: "Every word he says is a lie, including and and the".

0 Replies

Update:

Apparently, the word has gotten around enough for someone to make FOX fix the transcript of the conversation. I checked, and they made the transcript read properly again.

It's a damn shame that they had to be forced to do this.

A few months ago, they did the same thing. They changed the transcript of a Hillary Clinton speech, where they replaced her use of "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber." I contacted them directly to complain, and after that, they fixed the transcript to use her actual words.

And they have the nerve to use the phrase "fair and balanced."

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Wow! You'd think that after all that you guys would stop watching!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Wow! You'd think that after all that you guys would stop watching!

Who said anything about watching him? :wink: In case you missed it the clip was from MSNBC

I am dumbfounded. Not just that Bill O'Reilly was wrong, but how wrong he was twice.

The Malmady Massacre is the single most famous troop on troop massacre, at least in term of the what is famous within the United States (It wasnt the worst, though. Soviet Union troops executed over 4,000 Polish soldiers in Katyn Forest in 1939). How someone in the media, especially someone who is using it as an example to further whatever his argument is, can get it so botched up is incredulous.

0 Replies

Looks like O'Reilly made a mistake ... not his first. I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but he did get his facts straight in a column he wrote about a year ago, concerning Malmedy, and it jibes with his later attempted correction of his Clarke interview.

Quote:

After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on December 17th, 1944, some units like the US 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers. In the Pacific, relatively few Japanese prisoners were taken in the brutal island fights. But the folks back home never heard about those things or what techniques were used to interrogate prisoners who might know where the next ambush would be. The American military did what they had to do in order to win. As General Patton once said to his army: "I do not advocate standing Germans up against the wall and shooting them ... so shoot the sons of bitches before you get them to the wall."

LINK

Mistake, yes ... but probably not a lie.

Olbermann seems very obsessed with O'Reilly, though.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Wow! You'd think that after all that you guys would stop watching!

I don't. However, I do try to pay attention when someone calls him on his B.S.

Particularly when he works for a major news network that a huge amount of Americans base their opinions on.

Soooooooo... When Bill lies, and people notice and document it, I like to know about it, and share it with other people who, in turn, will hopefully share it with others. To encourage people to know the truth and not further spread these lies.

It's the same thing with false propaganda that people try to use to mislead others (a perfect example is the whole "D.C. is more dangerous than Iraq" tripe). So if I'm having a conversation with someone and they try to use that crap on me, I can call them on it.

McG, I noticed that you didn't say anything about what Bill did. It's pretty clear that it was an outright falsehood he was propogating. Would it be safe to assume that you are against it?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Mistake, yes ... but probably not a lie.

He's made this exact "mistake" before, and was corrected on it. Now it's a lie.

Ticomaya wrote:

Olbermann seems very obsessed with O'Reilly, though.

He's not obsessed. It's just that Bill gives him SO much great material to work with, he takes it and runs. If Bill would stop misleading and lying, Olberman would have nothing to use on him. Plus Bill makes such a huge deal about being the "no spin zone," it's almost like he's asking for someone to call him on his sh*t.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Mistake, yes ... but probably not a lie.

He's made this exact "mistake" before, and was corrected on it. Now it's a lie.

Were you one of those who posted a creative definition of "lie" on the "Bush lied" thead?

JO wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Olbermann seems very obsessed with O'Reilly, though.

He's not obsessed. It's just that Bill gives him SO much great material to work with, he takes it and runs. If Bill would stop misleading and lying, Olberman would have nothing to use on him. Plus Bill makes such a huge deal about being the "no spin zone," it's almost like he's asking for someone to call him on his sh*t.

He's obsessed. Ratings envy, I suppose.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Wow! You'd think that after all that you guys would stop watching!

I don't. However, I do try to pay attention when someone calls him on his B.S.

Particularly when he works for a major news network that a huge amount of Americans base their opinions on.

Soooooooo... When Bill lies, and people notice and document it, I like to know about it, and share it with other people who, in turn, will hopefully share it with others. To encourage people to know the truth and not further spread these lies.

It's the same thing with false propaganda that people try to use to mislead others (a perfect example is the whole "D.C. is more dangerous than Iraq" tripe). So if I'm having a conversation with someone and they try to use that crap on me, I can call them on it.

McG, I noticed that you didn't say anything about what Bill did. It's pretty clear that it was an outright falsehood he was propogating. Would it be safe to assume that you are against it?

I find your stance funny.

You attack O'Reilly for what you perceive a lie,but you DEFENDED the lie when the FORGED documents were used in an attack on Bush.

You said that even if the documents were FORGED,they still were based on truth.

How can you,with a straight face,defend one known lie and then attack another possible lie?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Were you one of those who posted a creative definition of "lie" on the "Bush lied" thead?

I don't think so. And please, lets not get started with that sh*t again.

Ticomaya wrote:

He's obsessed. Ratings envy, I suppose.

Maybe there is ratings envy. It still doesn't change the fact that O'Reilly consistently misleads and lies to his viewers, which provides perfect material for Olberman to call him out on.

mysteryman wrote:

1. You attack O'Reilly for what you perceive a lie,but you DEFENDED the lie when the FORGED documents were used in an attack on Bush.

2.You said that even if the documents were FORGED,they still were based on truth.

3.How can you,with a straight face,defend one known lie and then attack another possible lie?

No surprise that your confused.
Anyway, I don't know what, if anything I said about the Dan Rather documents (I started to look in my former statements, but didn't find anything), but I know the argument over them. I'll hold your hand and walk you through on this one. I put numbers next to each of your points so you can follow easier. Ready? Your first two questions are related, so I put them together. Try not to lose me.

1&2. "You attack O'Reilly for what you perceive a lie,but you DEFENDED the lie when the FORGED documents were used in an attack on Bush...You said that even if the documents were FORGED,they still were based on truth."

There is no "perception" that O'Reilly lied. He clearly did. As I said previously, he made that same exact statement before, he was called on it and he was corrected. Then he made the same exact statement again just the other day. The 82nd airborn never did what O'Reillly said they did.

The Dan Rather documents about bush turned out to be forged. This, of course, makes them untrue and they should never have been made. However, the content of the documents spoke of Bush's questionable service during the Vietnam War, of which there was a legitimate issue. Thus, while the documents themselves were forged, they spoke about something which was based on truth.

2."How can you,with a straight face,defend one known lie and then attack another possible lie?"

I'm not defending lies. Your trying to compare apples and oranges.

O'Reilly said something that was patently false. There is NO QUESTION that the American soldiers of the 82nd airborn DID NOT massacre German troops. It was exactly the other way around. There was never a question over the actions of the 82nd during WWII. They never massacred the unarmed German troops, and there never was a question of their behavior during WWII.

However...

There were legitimate questions about Bush's service during 'nam. The documents were false, but the underlying questions about Bush remained. Thus the argument about the documents was in essence "Ok, these particular documents were false, but that doesn't erase the questions people still have about Bush' service."

I know, I know, it's tough for you to wrap your head around it. Tell you what, I'll give you an analogy:

Quote:

Lets say that some lunatic is an insane, rabid supporter of a person named....I don't know... lets say "Beorge Wush." Now, there seems to be strong information going around that supports this notion, or at least raises a serious question to this persons sanity in that regard.
Then, another person comes along, waiving some documents that they say definitely prove that this person is nuts and rabidly supported "Beorge Wush." "I've got proof!" She says. "See? These documents show that this guy is a rabid Beorge Wush lover!" From looking at the documents, it certainly seems to be the case.

But then, upon closer inspection, they are NOT true documents. They are forgeries. Would you automatically and completely dismiss the (otherwise strong) notion that this person is an insane, rabid Beorge Wush supporter, JUST because THOSE PARTICULAR documents were not legitimate?
Of course not.

Disclaimer:
MM, I know what your thinking now. Your rubbing your hands together, excited at the prospect of redirecting this conversation from the lies of Bill O'Reilly to the issue of the forged Bush documents. The possibility of derailing yet another thread has got you all giddy inside.
Well please, if you want to start talking about that, make your own thread and you can piss in it all you want. I'd like this one to at least stay somewhat on point. If you don't understand my explination, PM me and I'll be happy to walk you through it further.

0 Replies

just,

Your attempt at "humor" by trying to talk down to me is pathetic.
I have noticed however that you tend to do that to anyone that disagrees with you.
You assume that we are all children.

Well,let me point out another known lie you have defended and excused...

John Kerry claimed to be in Cambodia...FALSE!!!
You defended that lie.

Now,since you think lies are ok,depending on who they come from,then how do you expect to be taken seriously now.

And yes,I am very familiar with the events at Malmedy.
Are you now saying that US troops NEVER killed unarmed prisoners?

But,if it helps your ego to talk down to those that disagree with you,you go right ahead and do that.

0 Replies

Editorial: Kerry takes up the Swift Boat charges
He deserves this opportunity to set the public record straight.
Published: June 03, 2006

Most of the controversies from the wild 2004 presidential campaign have long been forgotten. But one is coming back, the New York Times reported this week, and we're glad it is: Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president, is joining an effort to debunk the many attacks on his service in Vietnam more than two decades earlier.

Kerry is a holder of three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star, all awarded in a four-month stint aboard Navy swift boats in Vietnam's Mekong delta.

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/470443.html

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Editorial: Kerry takes up the Swift Boat charges
He deserves this opportunity to set the public record straight.
Published: June 03, 2006

Most of the controversies from the wild 2004 presidential campaign have long been forgotten. But one is coming back, the New York Times reported this week, and we're glad it is: Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president, is joining an effort to debunk the many attacks on his service in Vietnam more than two decades earlier.

Kerry is a holder of three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star, all awarded in a four-month stint aboard Navy swift boats in Vietnam's Mekong delta.

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/470443.html

A little bit late,dont you think.

Unless he is planning another run at the White House.

0 Replies

JO, (and Id think abit about your handle)

What Tico says is that OReilly commited a gaff. Theres nothing in it for him to lie because this was just a "mind fart" on his behalf. I love to loisten to him and Hannity when they both get going on things that they should have on cue cards but dont.

We just honored one of the very few survivors of Malmady in our town on Memorial Day. He was an exceptionally frail old man who still walked as tall as he could and gave a short speech that was quite stirring for someone who was a farmer who went to war.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

just,

Your attempt at "humor" by trying to talk down to me is pathetic.
I have noticed however that you tend to do that to anyone that disagrees with you.
You assume that we are all children.

I only talk down to people when they've clearly demonstrated they don't deserve to be taken seriously, of which you (and maybe one or two others here) certainly fall into that category.
If you notice, I don't agree with McGentrix, but I don't speak down to him. Mainly because he usually makes his points without overly broad, idiotic, inflammatory comments, and he doesn't try to derail threads by using strawman arguments (of which you use relentlessly). I give people the amount of respect they deserve. If you feel like I'm talking to you like a child, it's because you make childish arguments.

mysteryman wrote:

Well,let me point out another known lie you have defended and excused...
John Kerry claimed to be in Cambodia...FALSE!!!
You defended that lie.

See, this is exctly what I'm talking about. I never said anything about Kerry and Cambodia. Not a thing. Yet you claim I "defended and excused" it. Also, Kerry has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Yet again, your taking us off track. Anyway, Here's a way you could have phrased that question without sounding like a total douchebag:

"Why is it that so many who are against Bill O'Reilly find his lies inexcuseable, yet find a way to defend or excuse the lies from people like John Kerry, like when he claimed to be in Cambodia?

That wasn't so tough now, was it?

mysteryman wrote:

Now,since you think lies are ok,depending on who they come from,then how do you expect to be taken seriously now.
And yes,I am very familiar with the events at Malmedy.
Are you now saying that US troops NEVER killed unarmed prisoners?

Ah... the PERFECT example of why so many people here treat you like the joke that you are, and why I almost feel when I or someone else smacks down your completely moronic arguments.

First, you accuse me of thinking that lies are ok, "depending on who they come from." If you had any reading comprehension, you would realize that I said no such thing. More than a few times I've tried to explain something to you, but it seems that your just not capable of the critical thinking needed to actually comprehend the message.

Next, you jump to the idiotic comment that I may be asserting that "US troops NEVER killed unarmed prisoners." Come on man. Are you really that dumb? You're either purposefully trying to get me pissed, or you truly are as foolish as your letting on to be. I'm thinking the latter.
Of course I know that US soldiers did some bad things during WWII. Which is why (as you were incapable of comprehending) I made sure that I only spoke about the soldiers of the 82nd airborne when I was making my comments!

mysteryman wrote:

But,if it helps your ego to talk down to those that disagree with you,you go right ahead and do that.

There are very few people who I have absolutely no respect for, and those are the ones I talk down to. Congratulations, your one of them. You contribute absolutely nothing of substance to A2K. In fact, you do little more than obfuscate, distract and annoy. As such, I'll happily speak down to you, because you don't deserve respect. Try addressing a real issue without sounding like a total sh*tstain, and you'll notice that I'll change my tone.

0 Replies

O'Reilly and Fox... THE most shameless move to date

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know