Bill O’Reilly’s “War Record”…

Politico’s Dylan Byers has Bill O’Reilly pushing back hard on a David Corn and Daniel Schulman report questioning some of O’Reilly’s accounts of his activities covering certain conflict zones…

Bill O’Reilly says a new Mother Jones report alleging that the Fox News host made false claims about his Falklands War experience is “a piece of garbage” and that its principal author, David Corn, is “a liar.”

In a telephone interview with the On Media blog, O’Reilly called Corn a “despicable guttersnipe” who has been trying to take him down “for years.”

“It’s a hit piece,” O’Reilly said. “Everything I said about what I reported in South and Central America is true. Everything.”

The report, published late Thursday, alleges that O’Reilly repeatedly misled viewers by claiming to have been in a war zone during the conflict between England and Argentina in 1982. In his book, in public appearances and on his television program, O’Reilly has claimed to have been “in an active war zone” in the Falklands, despite the fact that no American correspondents are believed to have reached the combat zones on the islands.

In the interview, O’Reilly said that he never claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands.

“I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was. I was in Buenos Aires… In Buenos Aires we were in a combat situation after the Argentines surrendered.”

O’Reilly is going to have to do better than that. The Mother Jones article has quotes from O’Reilly that…while not explicitly stating he was “on the ground” do paint a picture of one a lot closer to the action than he apparently really was.

“It was clear that I did not say I was in the Falkland Islands. I’ve done myriad interviews over the years and I never said that,” O’Reilly told On Media.

Not good enough. That borders on a straw man argument. Certainly a Clintonian way of parsing things. Having watched O’Reilly over the years, I don’t get a sense from those quotes that he was being deliberately misleading…more like he just wasn’t being as accurate as he should have been.


8 Responses to “Bill O’Reilly’s “War Record”…”

  1. This should be fun to watch in addition to the silly screaming, fear mongering and lies from Fox ‘News’.

  2. Nothing excites Liberals more than the idea they might… finally… take down O’Reilly.

    But as always, they’ll spend their time believing what anyone tells them, getting over excited, and then walking away in a huff when they overplay their hand and nothing happens.

    Same old song and dance.

  3. I don’t think Corn and Schulman are trying to take down O’Reilly; more like they’re poking him with a verbal stick to get a reaction. And of course Billo never disappoints. No one does outrage like Bill. Time to break out the popcorn and get set to watch the show.

  4. I would advise liberals not to get too excited just yet. But, I’d wager my house they won’t take my advise.

  5. “O’Reilly is going to have to do better than that.”

    Well, don’t hold your breath. I read through the supposed damaging quotes and there’s just not much there. I read over and over where he mentioned Argentina as the site of the combat portion of the Falklands war that he experienced.

    This just isn’t going to be what the left has been desperately hoping for for the last 15 years.

  6. Since Britian and Argentina were at War the Zone of Combat included both Argentina and the Falkland Islands.

  7. “Zone of Combat”

    ^^Semantic gibberish.

    A War Zone is the general area where a war is taking place; including areas of combat and possible combat; as well as staging areas and non combat zones.

    A Combat Zone is an area where actual combat takes place.

    In this case parts the Falkland Islands and the sea around those islands was the Combat Zone. Parts of Argentina, parts of the South Atlantic Ocean and (to a much lesser extent) parts of Great Briton were War Zones.

  8. Oy, O’Reilly is really stretching it to claim that being in Buenos Aires was being in a “combat zone.”

    To microwave an instant analogy: Were people in San Francisco during the Pearl Harbor attack in a “combat zone”? Were people in London in a “combat zone” because the UK and Argentina were at war?

    If he wasn’t so paranoid about criticism – everything is a conspiracy to get him – he’d just correct what he said. But every criticism against him means, well, war.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: