Bill O’Reilly Is A Lying Liar, But Fox Is Not About To Care

[The Guesser]

Bill O’Reilly Is A Lying Liar, But Fox Is Not About To Care

By: Robyn Pennacchia / February 20, 2015 Follow: @robynelyse

When the news broke about Brian Williams having lied about his helicopter having been nearly shot down while he was covering the Iraq war, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly was there to tear him to shreds with a searing monologue about how important it is for the fourth estate to, you know, not lie about important stuff like that.
Which, hey! I totally agree with. What’s not to agree with there? What Williams did was clearly, clearly, 100 percent wrong.
And yet, it turns out that we’ve got a bit of a “pot calling the kettle a lying liar” situation here. After O’Reilly laid into Williams, David Corn and Daniel Schulmann of Mother Jones came out with an investigative piece determining that O’Reilly lied extensively about his own time as a war correspondent.
Among the myriad accusations in the Mother Jones piece is that O’Reilly claimed he was “on the ground” in a war zone in the Falklands, which he was not, because no one was. He was in Buenos Aires with everyone else. O’Reilly is now claiming that he never said that, even though there is recorded evidence of him saying that, and that he was in a “war zone” because he covered a protest where Argentinian police shot at protesters.
As Wonkette’s Kalli Joy Gray puts it, “This means that anyone who covered Kent State can say they were a Vietnam War correspondent.”
People are now wondering if O’Lielly’s lies will cause Fox to fire him the way Brian Williams was fired for his.
I am not a gambling woman. I bought one lottery ticket on my 18th birthday for festiveness purposes, and have only played slot machines three times in my entire life. I am still mad about having lost $12 Canadian one of those times.
However, I would be willing to bet the farm I don’t have on the fact that Bill O’Reilly will not be kicked off of Fox News for lying about his war correspondent days.
I have a few reasons for this. I mean, he wasn’t fired for trying to sex up his producer with a falafel and calling her in the middle of the night to tell her stories about “tiny Balinese women” who were impressed by the size of his dick, his fondness for Thai sex shows and penchant for threesomes with “Scandinavian Stewardesses.” He wasn’t fired for lying and saying he had Peabody awards when he did not, in fact, have Peabody awards. I am going to say that as long as Bill O’Lielly’s ratings hold, he is not getting fired.
To be fair, unlike Brian Williams, his job is not actually to deliver facts. If it were, he would probably be in serious trouble every few weeks. Bill O’Reilly is not around for truth-telling purposes. He, like most people on Fox News, is there to provide comfort for scared, old, angry white people, and he does that job very well. These people are not going to be all that phased by this. Sometimes–quite often in fact–that comfort comes in the form of lies and lots and lots of bullshit.
Williams’ lies are a betrayal, because people actually thought he was trustworthy. Bill O’Reilly’s lies are the equivalent of your grandpa telling you he walked ten miles to school everyday, uphill both ways and in four feet of snow.
I’m not going to say it’s not wrong for Bill O’Reilly to lie. Of course it is. We expect Bill O’Reilly to lie about things, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong for him to do so. Still, I don’t think it’s going to matter to his employers or his audience, who are clearly unphased by all the other horrible things he’s said and done. We’re gonna want this to be a scandal, and it’s not going to be a scandal for anyone but the left. We can joke about it forever, of course, but I am willing to bet that it’s literally not a thing that is going to be a thing for those who support him.

 

[SheriffJoe]

*yawn*

Ex-NBC Bureau Chief Backs Up O’Reilly’s Account of Falklands War Riot

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-nbc-bureau-chief-backs-up-oreillys-account-of-falklands-war-riot/

O'Reilly's real sin is being a mouthpiece for the biggest fraud in history by not exposing "born in Kenya" Barrack. :>(

 

[JDeuce]

So you view what BO said as the same as what BW said?

This is just dimocraps upset that the social media is having fun with one of their beloved network's top guys.

At best, you have O'Reilly using a little hyperbole...but the example you cited isn't even that. The Falklands war was covered by reporters based in Buenos Aires. They covered the Falklands War FROM there. None were allowed on the island during the war. I bet none of them would tell you "I covered the Buenos Aires War." They would all describe it as I covered the Falklands War. Anyone not knowing what was going on back then...and this reporter probably was a toddler, would take it as being on the island while BO wouldn't probably even consider that some young dumb ass out to get him would consider it literally.

Do you have an example of BO making stuff up and reporting it as news? Dead bodies floating in water that weren't there? In a helicopter that was hit by a shoulder fired grenade? Then lying about the lie? Taking the ring from Frodo? Standing on the Berlin Wall helping to knock it down? At the signing of the Declaration of Independence and holding the bottle of ink used? In other words, any examples of BO flat out making shit up wholesale with the full knowledge of the producers of the show?

I know you're dying for this to be the same, but it isn't.

 

[The Guesser]

So you view what BO said as the same as what BW said?

This is just dimocraps upset that the social media is having fun with one of their beloved network's top guys.

At best, you have O'Reilly using a little hyperbole...but the example you cited isn't even that. The Falklands war was covered by reporters based in Buenos Aires. They covered the Falklands War FROM there. None were allowed on the island during the war. I bet none of them would tell you "I covered the Buenos Aires War." They would all describe it as I covered the Falklands War. Anyone not knowing what was going on back then...and this reporter probably was a toddler, would take it as being on the island while BO wouldn't probably even consider that some young dumb ass out to get him would consider it literally.

Do you have an example of BO making stuff up and reporting it as news? Dead bodies floating in water that weren't there? In a helicopter that was hit by a shoulder fired grenade? Then lying about the lie? Taking the ring from Frodo? Standing on the Berlin Wall helping to knock it down? At the signing of the Declaration of Independence and holding the bottle of ink used? In other words, any examples of BO flat out making shit up wholesale with the full knowledge of the producers of the show?

I know you're dying for this to be the same, but it isn't.

Nope. Brian Williams was a news reader with cred. He blew that. Everyone sane knows O'Reilly is alrerady a liar, a vile human being, and an exaggerator, so it's no surprise when he does it, and/or gets caught. It's telling that NBC fired Williams(not officially, but they did), they actually care about Cred. Fox News could care less, so O'Reilly can keep doing what he does, as long as it draws. And it always will draw with the wingnuts who constantly need affirmation of their views, because they can't get that in the real world.
I do find it funny, and telling how Williams was crucified. No one came to his defense. He lied, he's made fun of, he's fired. Gone. But the wingnuts have rallied to O'Reilley's defense, simply because he's one of them, and they don't care about truth, they care about whether someone is on their side or not. Fuck Truth.

 

[SheriffJoe]

‘THIS IS CRAP!’ – DAVID CORN WITHERS UNDER HUGH HEWITT’S EXCELLENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Posted by soopermexican on Feb 23, 2015 at 8:30 PM in Politics | 26 Comments
By soopermexican

Conservative Hugh Hewitt is one of the best interviewers out there, and his radio fight with liberal David Corn is another great feather in his cap.
It’s a long one at 47 mins, but it’s worthwhile, listen below:

This is a great study in how to interview someone in order to build an argument. It’s amazing how angry and bitter David Corn gets under very simple questioning by Hewitt.

Before getting to the main argument, Hugh Hewitt establishes how Corn is either historically ignorant, or sympathetic to communists because Alger Hiss was established to be a Soviet spy and Corn is unable to respond whether he was or not. Amazingly, many of Hewitt’s liberal guests fail this test, and Corn’s refusal to answer and his weird anger at being asked is just another example.

Hewitt simply tries to establish details of Corn’s own resume from 30 years ago that he might not have remembered to compare to Bill O’Reilly’s admissions. He gets pretty angry about that.

He tries to account for why Corn might be motivated to strike against Fox News and have some bias attached to his actions smearing O’Reilly.

Hewitt also tries to establish how David Corn defines the words “combat,” “protest,” and “riot,” in order to show how one might be confused with another, or there might be a spectrum of hostilities.

David Corn childishly refuses to answer very simple questions and calls Hewitt’s questioning “word games,” showing just how weak his reporting must be.

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/this-is-cr...-excellent-interview-questions/#ixzz3SdQFSZ2y

 

[The Guesser]

Wow, thanks for that Casper. Corn was tremendous there. Called out this blowhard Hewitt for every low, underhanded trick he attempted, right from O'Reilley's handbook. I get why the Wingnuts hate Corn. He's the guy who exposed the absolute truth about Romney and the 47%. Wingbuts don't much like truth. They care about their Point of view above all else. Here's a transcript for anyone who doesn't want to listen to Hewitt's nonsense. http://www.hughhewitt.com/mother-jones-david-corn-on-his-bill-oreilly-reporting-and-himself/?pr=y

I'm shocked Corn gave this idiot 47 minutes, 17 more than he agreed to. Corn has alot of patience.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Disgruntled employee David Corn, with world going to hell in a hand basket, has nothing better to do than to go after his former employer for something that happened 30 years ago.

Imagine if this libtard blowhard put this much effort digging into the Kenyan's dubious background...

 

[superbeets]

Fox gets my vote. Plenty of leggy women.

 

[superbeets]

 

[superbeets]

 

[The Guesser]

Fox gets my vote. Plenty of leggy women.

Yep, if you watch it with the sound muted, and don't have to hear the continuous lies and distortions, Fox News Is Great.

 

[akphidelt]

What would be a headline story is if Bill O'reilly was caught telling the truth!

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Another Ex-CBS Colleague Calls O’Reilly’s ‘War Zone’ Claims ‘Absurd’[/h] by Matt Wilstein | 2:30 pm, February 23rd, 2015 355

Following a scathing Facebook post and series of interviews from Eric Engberg, another of Bill O’Reilly‘s CBS News colleagues, Charles Krause, has come out of the woodwork to question the Fox News host’s stories about being in a “war zone” in Argentina during the Falkland Islands conflict.
In an interview with liberal watchdog website Media Matters, which won’t exactly engender credibility in the eyes of O’Reilly, Krause calls the Fox host’s claims “absurd” and generally diminishes the role he played in the network’s coverage more than 30 years ago.
“I don’t recall him doing any major story that anybody remembers and he was there a very short time, then he was recalled, I don’t know why,” Krause told Media Matters. “He wasn’t a team player and people thought he was grandstanding, basically.”
In his Facebook post, Engberg wrote that O’Reilly confronted his CBS bosses when they decided to give reporting he did to Bob Schieffer. “This confrontation led the next day to O’Reilly being ordered out of Argentina by the CBS bosses,” he recalled. In his interview with Fox’s Howard Kurtz on Sunday, O’Reilly called Schieffer’s use of his reporting “plagiarism.”
Calling O’Reilly description of Buenos Aires as a “war zone” “absurd,” Krause, who lived in the city for three years prior to the Falklands war said, “It was just like it always was, there was very little evidence of the war in Buenos Aires. The war was being fought thousands of miles away.”
“We were in no danger whatsoever,” he added, disputing claims made by O’Reilly. “Except for people who had never been there before and didn’t speak Spanish and might have felt a little bit odd.”
O’Reilly, who plans to devote a large portion of his Fox News show tonight to this controversy, said he invited Engberg on to debate the issue with him, but the former CBS reporter declined, telling CNN’s Brian Stelter he did not want to have the debate on O’Reilly’s “turf.”

 

[The Guesser]

Bill O’Reilly Scandal Grows As 8th Former Colleague Calls His War Coverage Claims Absurd

By: Sarah Jones more from Sarah Jones
Monday, February, 23rd, 2015, 11:11 am

Joe Strupp at Media Matters got yet another of Bill O’Reilly’s former colleagues from CBS News to talk about the Fox News host’s alleged “combat situation” coverage in Buenos Aires during the Falklands War, calling his description of his reporting “absurd.”



Even back then, O’Reilly’s colleagues thought he was “grandstanding”. From Media Matters:

Charles Krause, a CBS News correspondent from 1980 to 1983 who reported from Buenos Aires during the same period as O’Reilly, is the latest to contradict the Fox News host. In an interview with Media Matters, Krause called O’Reilly’s descriptions of his reporting “absurd.”
He also recalls O’Reilly being there for a short period of time and not having “any significant role in our coverage of the war.”
“I don’t recall him doing any major story that anybody remembers and he was there a very short time, then he was recalled, I don’t know why,” Krause said. “He wasn’t a team player and people thought he was grandstanding, basically.”
​

Yes, that sounds like our Bill O’Reilly. He has never been known as a team player by people inside the industry.
Krause joins the half a dozen journalists and personnel from CBS who were working with O’Reilly in Buenos Aires and who dispute his claims. O’Reilly has countered reality with two Fox personalities vouching for him and calling David Corn names, which says more about how Fox conducts itself and its standards than it does about reality.
This morning, Fox News issued a statement standing behind the embattled host.
O’Reilly wasn’t anywhere near the actual war, but he has tried to turn a protest a thousand plus miles away into a “combat situation” in order to justify repeatedly claiming to have reported from “on the ground” in a war zone. His colleagues who were there dispute this description.
Kraue told Media Matters that the reporters were not in any danger, “The only danger that we were in was we were staying at the Sheraton Hotel, which was this massive, modern tower overlooking the city. We were in no danger whatsoever.”
Also, in spite of O’Reilly’s bombastic descriptions of an injured cameraman — “I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important” — Media Matters reports, “Krause also said he does not recall any CBS cameraman being injured and bleeding.”
Krause isn’t alone in this. Former CBS correspondent Eric Engberg, who was in Buenos Aires with O’Reilly, told CNN host Brian Stelter on Sunday, “It wasn’t a combat situation by any sense of the word that I know. There were no people killed. He said that he saw troops fire into the crowd. I never saw that, and I don’t know anybody who did, and I was there on the scene. What’s interesting is not only did I not hear any shots, I didn’t see any ambulances. I didn’t see any tanks. I didn’t see any armored cars. All of the things that you would have expected to see had people been shot.”
So no one else who was there covering the conflict from Buenos Aires can corroborate O’Reilly’s claims. In fact, they do the opposite.
Even if he had been involved in a violent protest, a protest is not “an active war zone.” A protest is not “on the ground” in an “active war zone.” This statement alone is evidence of O’Reilly’s mischaracterization of himself as a war correspondent who covered the Falklands War “on the ground” from “combat” situation and war zone.
Update 12:52 PM: Bill O’Reilly’s only defense just fell apart. Bill Meislin is now disputing Bill O’Reilly’s version of his report from The Times that he read on the air on Sunday, writing on Facebook, “Bill O’Reilly cut out an important phrase when he read excerpts of my report from The Times on air Sunday to back up his claim that Buenos Aires was a “war zone” the night after Argentina surrendered to Britain in the Falklands war.” So dies the “report” conservatives have been desperately hawking as proof that O’Reilly wasn’t lying.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Bill O'Reilly tapes fail to back up claims of 'combat zone' reporting[/h] CBS footage from 1982 contains nothing to support Fox presenter’s description of protesters in Buenos Aires being shot and killed





Bill O’Reilly has insisted he witnessed shootings in Buenos Aires while covering the Falklands war. Photograph: Paul Morigi/Paul Morigi/Invision/AP Jon Swaine in New York


Bill O’Reilly has declared himself vindicated by newly unearthed footage of a 1982 riot in Argentina, despite the archive tapes failing to support his central claims in a dispute over his subsequent recounting of events.

The Fox News anchor showed excerpts of clips that had been released by CBS earlier on Monday at his request and claimed they backed up his descriptions of the peril he faced when reporting from the country at the end of the Falklands war.
“As I reported accurately, the violence was horrific,” O’Reilly told viewers of the O’Reilly Factor on Monday night. “In my reporting I told it exactly the way it was”.
O’Reilly has been accused by Mother Jones magazine of inflating his role in covering the Falklands war as a correspondent for CBS News. While O’Reilly has frequently claimed that he reported on the war from a “combat zone”, he in fact remained in Buenos Aires, the Argentinian capital, which was 1,200 miles away from the conflict.
O’Reilly risked intensifying the controversy on Monday by threatening a female reporter who interviewed him about the dispute. According to the New York Times, he told its reporter Emily Steel that if he did not approve of her resulting article “I’m coming after you with everything I have,” adding: “You can take it as a threat.”

The 65-year-old anchor – who earlier dismissed the Mother Jones article as “total bullshit”, “disgusting”, “defamation” and “a piece of garbage” – had promised that the archive tapes would comprehensively disprove the charges against him.

Yet the four clips released by CBS did not back up O’Reilly’s repeated claims in recent years that Argentinian forces had mown down protesters with live ammunition, and that O’Reilly himself had seen several demonstrators being shot and killed.

The narrator of a CBS special report broadcast on the night of 15 June 1982, correspondent Eric Engberg, said police at the protests had used guns “that shot teargas and plastic bullets” and that witnesses had reported “some serious injuries”.
The following morning, Charles Gomez told CBS Morning News viewers that Argentinian forces had used “teargas guns and shotguns firing plastic bullets” in response to demonstrators “pelting officers with coins and garbage”. Gomez noted that “an unknown number of demonstrators were injured”.
CBS clips on the Falklands war (video might not play in some regions). In a discussion following the excerpts on Monday night, O’Reilly suggested that his claims of fatalities had been based on “local reportage” from the time, and that he continued to “believe” that people had been killed.
However during a televised 2008 interview he described witnessing killings. “The Argentine troops shoot the people down in the street. They’re shooting them down. It’s not like rubber bullets or gas, people are dying alright,” O’Reilly told interviewer Marvin Kalb. Claiming that his crew had actually filmed the fatal shootings, he added: “It’s unbelievable, I mean people are just falling, ‘bing, bing, bing, bing’.”
The footage released on Monday also did not confirm an alleged incident that O’Reilly has recounted several times in recent years involving him and a CBS cameraman, Roberto Moreno. O’Reilly has said that after Moreno was left bleeding from an ear when trampled by protesters, O’Reilly dragged him to safety in a doorway.
Dan Rather, the CBS anchor, told viewers of the evening news bulletin on 15 June 1982 that “some television crew members were knocked to the ground” without elaborating. Rather’s correspondent, Bob Schieffer, said in his subsequent package that a Canadian TV crew had its car kicked and rocked, and an ABC camera team’s car was smashed with stones. Yet no mention was made of an incident involving a CBS crew.
Several of O’Reilly’s colleagues from the time have said they recall no such injury to one of the team. “He has displayed a willingness to twist the truth in a way that seeks to invent a battlefield that did not exist,” Engberg said of O’Reilly in a Facebook post. “He also ought to be ashamed of himself.”
The Guardian reported earlier on Monday that O’Reilly has told different versions of an encounter at gunpoint that he claims to have experienced after the injured cameraman incident – one involving a single armed soldier and the other several Argentinian troops.
O’Reilly also said on his syndicated radio show at least a decade ago that “people were shooting at me” while he reported in the field from south and central America – a claim that he appears not to have repeated in recent years.

 

[The Guesser]

[h=1]Bill O'Reilly told different accounts of encounter at gunpoint in Argentina[/h] The Fox News anchor has told numerous media outlets of the experience at the end of the Falklands war – sometimes facing one soldier, other times several

A Fox News spokeswoman did not respond to requests seeking comment on the newsman’s discrepancies in his various accounts of the 1982 incident. Photograph: Marc Asnin/Corbis Saba Jon Swaine in New York

@jonswaine

Monday 23 February 2015 15.30 EST Last modified on Monday 23 February 2015 16.58 EST



Bill O’Reilly has told different versions of an encounter at gunpoint that he claims to have experienced while reporting in Argentina – one involving a single armed soldier and the other detailing several troops.

The Fox News anchor, who has been accused of exaggerating his accounts of wartime coverage, also once said that he was shot at while reporting in the field – a statement he appears not to have repeated in recent years.
Footage emerged on Sunday of the Fox News anchor talking in 2008 about having an M16 rifle pointed at him by a teenage Argentinian soldier, who was 10ft away, while O’Reilly reported on a riot in Buenos Aires at the end of the Falklands war in 1982.
“The guy was about 18, 19 years old,” O’Reilly told interviewer Marvin Kalb in front of an audience. Explaining that he had told the soldier “journalist, don’t shoot” in Spanish, O’Reilly said: “He didn’t shoot me.”
Two years earlier, however, O’Reilly told an interviewer that he had actually faced more than one Argentinian soldier who had guns trained on him. O’Reilly estimated that the soldiers had been standing twice as far away as he would state later.
“Argentine soldiers were pointing guns at me … from 20ft away,” he told an online interviewer. Claiming to have “showed no fear”, O’Reilly said: “They didn’t shoot.”
In the 2008 interview, O’Reilly also claimed to have grabbed a colleague and his camera as the cameraman was trampled by protesters. Yet when telling the story on television the following year in another interview, O’Reilly said that a third member of their team had, in fact, tried to save the equipment.
[h=2]Fudging the numbers?[/h] In a memoir, O’Reilly described the experience in Buenos Aires as “nearly getting my head blown off”. And in an exchange from his syndicated radio show a decade ago, O’Reilly went further. “People were shooting at me,” he said, while recalling “firefights” he encountered in his work in South and Central America.
A spokeswoman for Fox News did not respond to an email seeking comment.
O’Reilly was accused last week by Mother Jones magazine of exaggerating his role in covering the Falklands war as a young correspondent for CBS News. While O’Reilly claims to have reported on the war from a “combat zone”, he remained in Buenos Aires, the Argentinian capital, which was 1,200 miles away from the conflict.

[h=1]Bill O'Reilly twisted truth on 'war zone' account, says former CBS colleague[/h]


Read more



Former CBS colleagues, talking to CNN, disputed O’Reilly’s claim that he dragged a bleeding cameraman to safety during clashes between protesters and government forces following Argentina’s surrender to the UK. Several have said they recall no such incident.
“He has displayed a willingness to twist the truth in a way that seeks to invent a battlefield that did not exist,” Eric Engberg, a CBS colleague in Buenos Aires at the time, wrote in a Facebook post. “He also ought to be ashamed of himself.”
On Sunday, CNN showed archive footage of O’Reilly in 2008 describing an encounter at gunpoint with a single Argentinian soldier during his Buenos Aires assignment. He said this took place immediately after he intervened to rescue the cameraman, Roberto Moreno, who O’Reilly has said was bleeding from an ear.
“The soldier runs down the street,” O’Reilly told Kalb. “I’m there, photographer gets trampled, all right, so he’s on the ground. I grab him and the camera, and drag him into a doorway. The soldier comes up, and he’s standing maybe 10ft away. He’s got the M16 pointed at my head.
“I thought it was over,” O’Reilly continued. “I said ‘periodista, no dispare’ – it means ‘journalist, don’t shoot’ – ‘por favor’. The guy was about 18, 19 years old. He didn’t shoot me.”
However, in 2006, O’Reilly was reported to have told journalist Mark “Scoop” Malinowski, of TheBioFile.com, that he faced a threat from multiple soldiers. Asked for a “funny career memory”, O’Reilly was quoted as saying: “In Argentina, covering the Falklands War in 1981 [sic] for CBS News.
“Argentine soldiers were pointing guns at me … from 20 ft away. In Buenos Aires. I just said, ‘Perio dista no despare. [sic]’ Journalist, don’t shoot. Showed no fear. They didn’t shoot.”
[h=2]‘Sergeant Bill O’Reilly’s Tales of Combat’[/h] During the 2008 interview with Kalb, O’Reilly recalled that during the incident with Moreno, “photographer gets trampled, all right, so he’s on the ground. I grab him and the camera, and drag him into a doorway.” However, during a discussion with Hamptons TV in 2009, he said that an unnamed soundman had tried to grab the camera after O’Reilly had removed the tape from the device and escaped with the footage and the cameraman.
The spokeswoman for Fox News did not respond to an email asking for an explanation of the discrepancies. She also did not respond to a query over a little-noticed exchange during a broadcast on O’Reilly’s program the Radio Factor, which was first reported in January 2005 by Al Franken, the future US senator for Minnesota, on Franken’s own Air America radio show.

A caller to O’Reilly’s show had questioned the host’s claim of having combat experience. When O’Reilly said that he had been “in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America”, the caller – named only as Roger, of Portland, Oregon – pointed out that O’Reilly had been only “a media guy”. O’Reilly replied: “Yeah, a media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.”
The excerpt prompted Franken to create a satirical item on his show titled “Sergeant Bill O’Reilly’s Tales of Combat”. An original recording of the program could not be located. The archive for radio programs from January 2005 on O’Reilly’s official website for paying subscribers is empty.
The Guardian could find no other examples of O’Reilly claiming that he himself came under fire in the several other written and spoken accounts he has given of his war-reporting experiences. The Fox News spokeswoman did not respond to a request for other such instances.
In his 2008 memoir, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity, O’Reilly said he had been changed for the better by his experience in Argentina. “After nearly getting my head blown off in Buenos Aires during a riot in front of the presidential palace, I gained a new appreciation for life and an even greater hatred for corruption,” he wrote.

 

[Acebb]

You have to love that the idiot who started this thread thinks Bill O'Reilly is comparable to Brian Williams.

Even funnier, the idiot who started this thread is a documented liar. Tells numerous, easily debunked lies on this Web site all the time.

The idiot who started this thread has zero self-awareness. None.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]VA secretary apologizes for misstating military record[/h]




PUBLISHED: 04:58, 24 February 2015 | UPDATED: 04:58, 24 February 20






WASHINGTON (AP) — Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald apologized Monday for misstating that he served in the military's special forces.
McDonald made the erroneous claim while speaking to a homeless veteran during a segment that aired last month on "CBS Evening News."
In a statement released Monday by the VA, McDonald said: "While I was in Los Angeles, engaging a homeless individual to determine his veteran status, I asked the man where he had served in the military. He responded that he had served in special forces. I incorrectly stated that I had been in special forces. That was inaccurate and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my misstatement."

+1

FILE - In this Feb. 11, 2015, file photo, Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before the House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on the Department of Veterans Affairs budget. McDonald
apologized Monday, Feb. 23, 2015, for misstating that he served in the military's special forces. McDonald made the erroneous claim while speaking to a homeless veteran during a segment that aired last month on "CBS Evening News." (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)





The VA website says McDonald is an Army veteran who served with the 82nd Airborne Division. The Huffington Post website, which first reported on McDonald's mistake, noted Monday that the 82nd is not considered part of special forces.
McDonald said he remains committed "to the ongoing effort to reform VA."



The White House issued a statement Monday saying, "We take him at his word and expect that this will not impact the important work he's doing to promote the health and well-being of our nation's veterans."



President Barack Obama chose the former Procter & Gamble CEO to take over the scandal-plagued VA last year, and McDonald took office last July.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

And the choice is...

 

[vitterd]

And the choice is...

You should pick Maddow....out of those pics you posted....she's the only one that would let a guy like you within a hundred yards of her.