Bill O'Reilly caught in another lie

[Darkwind]

Here it is..

David Corn Hangs Up On Hugh Hewitt After 45-Minute Grilling on Bill O Reilly Video RealClearPolitics

 

[PredFan]

Except that I didn't care, moron.

You don't care? Now you are being honest. Bill lies. you a and all of the other FOX sheep DO NOT CARE. You have gotten used to FOX falsehoods and fabrications. I guess you figure that even though you know it is a lie, if FOX says it is true.....well, it should be. You are like the guy who continues to cheat on his wife and justifies it by saying....."she does not understand me..." Yup, you are addicted to Lies.

Oh, fer Crissakes, give it a rest already.

I bet you weren't saying that when Faux News and conservatives were having a time critizing Brian Williams for his lies. At least Brian Williams admitted and apologized, but Bill O'Reilly doubled down and threatened those that exposed his lies. Quite a difference in ethics.....

Frankly, I really didn't give a frog's fat ass about Brian Williams, either...

But, now that the Left has lost one of it's mouthpieces (Williams, on NBC)...

The copy-cat attacks - a glaringly-obvious and lame-ass attempt to take-out one of the Right's mouthpieces (O'Reilly, on Fox) - are downright comical...

Never mind that the Lefties have to dig much deeper and to stretch much further and to fluff-up and inflate the nature of O'Reilly's own supposed bullsitting, in order to manufacture an artificial equivalency... one that really doesn't hold-up under a closer scrutiny, with respect to severity or impact, by the way...

This latest happy horseshit about being on-the-premises at the time of a suicide, nearly 40 years ago, is the stuff of high-comedy... I sense an HBO stand-up comedy skit in there someplace, poking fun at the idjit Lefties whose hopes to 'assassinate' O'Reilly now hinge upon such idiocy...

But let's get back to the real gist of the matter... Brian Williams war-claims versus Bill O'Reilly's war-claims, and what this all means, and how this all plays out in the grander scheme of things...

If-and-when O'Reilly engaged in bullshitting about his coverage of the Falklands War, at least he was not engaging in Stolen Valor hyperbole, in connection with our own boys and girls in our own armed forces...

If-and-when O'Reilly engaged in bullshitting about his coverage of the Falklands War, at least he was doing no more than falsely claiming that he was present in a combat zone, and falsely claiming that he was present at a riot or mob-scene in Buenos Aires in which the Argentine Army fired into a crowd, right?

Hell, I haven't even examined the veracity of the Mother Jones claims, and, again, I really don't give a rat's ass if they're true or not...

But even if they ARE true...

The attack on O'Reilly is tainted forevermore by its suspect timing... if this was not merely a partisan copycat drive-by attempt at character assassination, why were these claims not brought to light long before the Williams' disgrace unfolded? Even if it's all true, the timing largely cancels-out their veracity. Anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that it's merely a case of sour grapes and a lame-assed attempt at counter-punching to offset this loss by the Left.

Lefties aren't fooling anybody, in this regard.

And, even if those claims about O'Reilly ARE true...

Claims about being in a combat zone, and claims about being in a crowd during a riot, are one goddamned hell of a long ways from claiming that he was embedded with American troops in a helicopter that was shot down, or that he was in a chopper that was right behind a helicopter that was shot down, and that he spent a long time behind enemy lines, pinned down by enemy fire, right alongside our own troops...

THAT is the stuff of Stolen Valor...

A FAR more heinous and despicable offense, in the eyes of most American military personnel and American veterans of the armed forces, and, thus, by extension, in the eyes of the American People at-large...

Got it, now?

In the grand scheme of things... assuming that both Williams and O'Reilly were bullshitting... on a scale of 1 to 10... with 10 being the ultimate in despicable lying...

Williams' offense registers as a solid 8 or 9...

O'Relly's offense registers as a wishy-washy 1 or 2...

If O'Reilly had engaged in Stolen Valor hyperbole - in connection with American troops and American military operations - I would have been on his ass like white on rice...

But that t'aint the case here, is it?

The Mother Jones attack is soooooo embarrassingly and obviously a copycat drive-by shooting and a case of sour grapes... a weak and lame-ass attempt to carve a pound of flesh out of the Right's collection of mouthpieces, to offset the pound of flesh that they've just lost...

Causing the Lefties to come off looking like a bunch of ankle-biting yip-yip poodles in all of this rather than like dangerous attack-dogs...

Yip-Yip poodles and ankle-biters...

As to apologizing...

One only apologizes when one is in-the-wrong...

Has O'Reilly admitted yet that he is in-the-wrong?

I haven't heard of such an admission, but, maybe I missed it...

Absent such an admission, an apology would be premature, yes?

This just isn't the same kind of Big Deal that the Williams case of Stolen Valor generated, no matter how hard ya'll try, and even if O'Reilly is totally in-the-wrong...

MEH...

Clown-faces, indeed...

Yip-yip poodles and ankle-biters...

You realize no one reads your crap....

Wrong again nit wit, I read it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Commies have taken a beating on this. They expected to smear O'Reilly and ended up exposing themselves as petty liars and scumbags.

 

[Mertex]

I'm not as stupid as you are......not by a long shot. Nobody is that stupid.

Playtex, you have to grasp that reciting memes from ThinkProgress, KOS, and the other hate sites is not a sign of intelligence - quite the opposite. Even with an IQ of DD you should be able to grasp that...

Uninformed2008.....quit showing your massive butt hurt. Billo is a lying POS....and I know it must really pain your butt to have it broadcast and not be able to refute any of the stories.....keep whining.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uninformed2008.....quit showing your massive butt hurt. Billo is a lying POS....and I know it must really pain your butt to have it broadcast and not be able to refute any of the stories.....keep whining.....

Yes Playtex, i'm really butt hurt that you brain dead leftist got the floor mopped with you in your demagoguery against O'Reilly...

ROFL

You're stupid as a post, but laughing at you is very entertaining..

 

[Mertex]

It does not strike anyone as suspicous that only a few weeks after Brian Williams admitted to lying (no, he did not make a mistake nor did he admit to making a mistake, he lied) that suddenly......just suddenly, there are a bunch of people who can swear that they remember something different than a moderately right opinion writer said was a lie.......decades after the incident?

Just lucky I guess, huh libs?

This biggest problem the leftists have is that David Corn and Mother Jones flat out lied. They wanted to "get" O'Reilly and ran a fabricated piece to do it - which blew up in their face.

Demagogue George Soros mobilized his termites to chitter memes of Texas Suicide and other idiocy. The left failed with the first slander, so time to move the goal posts - as many times as needed to find something that will stick.

It's so transparent that the country yawned.

Now the brainless little fools are coming unglued.

Well, I hear that Corn was on an talk radio show and was getting cross examined hard enough that he not only could not answer the questions, but flat out hung up in mid question.....I don't recall where I read that...I'd have to look but I'm sure google will have it.

Bwhahaha....did you even listen to the interview? The dude was asking question that had nothing to do with O'Reilly.........he was using what "conservatives" call and accuse the Liberal media of using, "gotcha questions"......only Corn is too smart to fall for that crap.........asking him how much he earned at Faux....asking him if he was fired....what a crock of poop.....now you're trying to imply that Corn hung up because he was outsmarted.......you're doing the same thing that O'Reilly tries to do, to imply something that is not there.

Nice try.

 

[Mertex]

Uninformed2008.....quit showing your massive butt hurt. Billo is a lying POS....and I know it must really pain your butt to have it broadcast and not be able to refute any of the stories.....keep whining.....

Yes Playtex, i'm really butt hurt that you brain dead leftist got the floor mopped with you in your demagoguery against O'Reilly...

ROFL

You're stupid as a post, but laughing at you is very entertaining..

Yes, Uninformed2008.....you are butt hurt, and the only one being used to mop the floor is O'Reilly.......he can't sue for libel because the POS knows he lied....the only thing going for him is you and a bunch of other retards who don't know the difference between truth and lies, and worship his ass because you believe his heroic tales....the wimp hasn't even ever served in the military.

And, like I acknowledged already....retards like you laugh at everything, so keep on laughing while you play with your own poop....I hope you don't eat it, too, moron.

 

[Mertex]

Here, O'Reilly apologizes for being wrong (imagine that)........but, his promise to dis the Bush Administration......well, you can't fix stupid. He's blaming the left for Bush's major flop. And dullards like Uneducated2008 believe everything this liar tells them.....



Viewers of ABC's Good Morning America saw something very unusual earlier this month: Fox News Channel's star host Bill O'Reilly admitted he was wrong about something. Sort of.

Right before U.S. forces invaded Iraq, O'Reilly made a bold promise on ABC about Iraq's WMDs: "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"

Last week, thanks to persistent needling from ABC host Charlie Gibson, O'Reilly mustered a half-hearted apology: "Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry.. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all." As to the promise to "never trust the Bush administration again," he was considerably less forceful: "I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time," he explained, before blaming CIA chief George Tenet for Bush's troubles.

But the day after his climbdown, O'Reilly was back on more familiar turf, telling his Fox audience that the controversy was cooked up by the "left-wing press" who "used my words to hammer the president." The liberal media, he reminded his audience, "has made dozens of mistakes itself and continues to deny that the world is a better place because Saddam is gone." This from a guy who promises his show is a "no spin zone."


The Bill O Reilly Iraq WMD Apology Countdown Clock for your Personal Budget

 

[jillian]

[
pure stupidity.

but thanks for the giggle.

Hey Jillian, your fellow leftist dims have a great JOOOOOOOOO hating thread going, want me to link it for you? You can help Shitting Bull and PaintMyBalls spew hatred at JOOOOOOZZZ - like good democrats do!

poor should be censored.

you have so much hatred in you. but then again, that would explain why you're a rightwingnut.

yes, there are jew-hating lefties. (you are aware it's spelled "jew" right?) but i'm pretty sure that rightwingnut white supremacist don't like jews either.

*shrug*

 

[JimH52]

Here it is..

David Corn Hangs Up On Hugh Hewitt After 45-Minute Grilling on Bill O Reilly Video RealClearPolitics

Yes, I read the entire transcript and nothing in it showed O'Reilly told anything but a lie. He has told multiple lies. But you RW nuts will defend him along with FOX. :I am trying to keep track of your heros....

Putin
Cosby
now Bill O'Reilly

It is building into an impressive list!

 

[Kondor3]

I'm gonna have to watch a broadcast or two by this O'Reilly critter, sometime soon...

Given the length that the Lefties are going to, to try and 'assassinate' him in retaliation for the Brian Williams butt-whupping...

The guy must be doing something right...

If he's got 'em worked up into this kind of uncontrolled orgasmic spraying over nickel-and-dime penny-ante shit like this...

The guy can't be all bad...

Clowns, yip-yip poodles and ankle-biters...

Get a frigging grip, people...

 

[Darkwind]

Here it is..

David Corn Hangs Up On Hugh Hewitt After 45-Minute Grilling on Bill O Reilly Video RealClearPolitics

Yes, I read the entire transcript and nothing in it showed O'Reilly told anything but a lie. He has told multiple lies. But you RW nuts will defend him along with FOX. :I am trying to keep track of your heros....

Putin
Cosby
now Bill O'Reilly

It is building into an impressive list!

This is how stupid you are. The interview was not about O'Reilly. I twas about Corns credibility. You sure don't comprehend much of the world around you, do you?

 

[Darkwind]

It does not strike anyone as suspicous that only a few weeks after Brian Williams admitted to lying (no, he did not make a mistake nor did he admit to making a mistake, he lied) that suddenly......just suddenly, there are a bunch of people who can swear that they remember something different than a moderately right opinion writer said was a lie.......decades after the incident?

Just lucky I guess, huh libs?

This biggest problem the leftists have is that David Corn and Mother Jones flat out lied. They wanted to "get" O'Reilly and ran a fabricated piece to do it - which blew up in their face.

Demagogue George Soros mobilized his termites to chitter memes of Texas Suicide and other idiocy. The left failed with the first slander, so time to move the goal posts - as many times as needed to find something that will stick.

It's so transparent that the country yawned.

Now the brainless little fools are coming unglued.

Well, I hear that Corn was on an talk radio show and was getting cross examined hard enough that he not only could not answer the questions, but flat out hung up in mid question.....I don't recall where I read that...I'd have to look but I'm sure google will have it.

Bwhahaha....did you even listen to the interview? The dude was asking question that had nothing to do with O'Reilly.........he was using what "conservatives" call and accuse the Liberal media of using, "gotcha questions"......only Corn is too smart to fall for that crap.........asking him how much he earned at Faux....asking him if he was fired....what a crock of poop.....now you're trying to imply that Corn hung up because he was outsmarted.......you're doing the same thing that O'Reilly tries to do, to imply something that is not there.

Nice try.

Not to quick on the uptake, are you? The interview goes directly to Corn's credibility.

In other words, the entire O'Reilly smear campaign is based upon the untrustworthy word of a leftist who needs to cover up foro Brian "I signed the SALTII treaty" Williams.

 

[theHawk]

Bill O'Reilly may have been able to convince Fox News viewers that he didn't really lie when he made his listeners think he was actually in combat in the Falklands.....but this new lie may be more difficult to explain. Let's see if Fox News is going to hold O'Reilly accountable.

(there's a video of him repeating the story, too)
Bill O’Reilly’s Latest Whopper Lie is Also His Most Bizarre Lie So Far

It should come as no surprise, but it’s worth noting that O’Reilly has a massive ego. And like all truly egomaniac blowhards, O’Reilly needs a steady fuel of tall-tales and trumped up stories to feed and placate that inflated sense of importance. To that end, O’Reilly has continually used his platform as a right-wing celebrity to interject himself into stories that he was, at most, on the sidelines for.

And here it is. Bill O’Reilly has repeatedly said he was outside the house when de Mohrenschildt committed suicide, going so far as to say he heard the gunshot.

Yes, The Bill O’Reilly while he was a 20-something reporter for Dallas TV station WFAA was within earshot of de Morhenschildt’s suicide. However, and predictably enough, Media Matters noted that on at least three occasions O’Reilly has repeated this story — a story that turns out to be totally untrue.






–Former editor for The Washington Post and noteworthy JFK assassination writer Jefferson Morley said O’Reilly’s story is “not true” and, “It is what these guys all do, they inject themselves into a dramatic situation. O’Reilly was chasing this story, but he wasn’t there, he made it sound like he was more on the scene than he was, it was show business.”

–The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s report on de Mohrenschildt’s death doesn’t mention O’Reilly at all, even though it probably would have since he was presumably the only witness to hear the shot. The report also noted that the only people at the house were two maids and neither heard any gunshot at all.



Bill O Reilly s Latest Whopper Lie is Also His Most Bizarre Lie So Far - The Daily Banter

Meanwhile it was A-OK for Hilary to lie about being under Serbian sniper fire, right?

 

[Camp]

The lie for the day is already out. This one is about how the Inside Edition crew are saying he lied about what happened to him at the LA riots. I thought the lie he told about the Canadian and French boycott by US and quoting the non existent Paris business publication would be in the paper today. Guess the media liked this one about another "Attack" during a "Riot" is more attention getting.

 

[Esmeralda]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

 

[Esmeralda]

Maybe you'll get lucky this time. Maybe this won't be a complete lie like the Mother Jones story was.

Maybe.

Prove that MJ was found lying. Go ahead. We'll wait right here for you. If they are lying then there should be refutations and laws suits for libel all fucking over the place. Please make sure you provide links.

No shit for brains, it is MJ that has something to prove, they have failed to do that, therefor, it's a lie.

This lie isn't about Mother Jones and O'Reilly's elaboration on his stint in Argentina........it's about his lie about being in Florida and hearing a shot that even the maids inside the house didn't hear........try to stay on topic.

You cannot understand what you read and you cannot follow a logical line of discussion. This explains why you are a Progressive. You are borderline retarded.

You're the one that can't understand......

I'm telling you, idiot, that this thread isn't about the MJ story.....it's about another lie that O'Reilly told. Stay on topic.

All they have are deflections. They are unable to respond directly to the accusations regarding O'Reilly's lies.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yo, you idiots tried Russ Limbaugh, now O`Reilly? Forget about it!!!

"GTP"

Russ ?

Seriously. Who are the idiots? Those who live by their idols.' Rush and O'Reilly, outrageous fabrications, and can't even spell, or those who are grounded in facts and reality?

 

[WelfareQueen]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

Okay honey....how is he different than anyone on MSNBC???


Thanks for playing.

 

[Esmeralda]

None of the O' Reilly crap is sticking per the mainstream media. Just another sad attempt at deflection. Sad.


Why the Bill O'Reilly charges aren't sticking
politico

By DYLAN BYERS |
2/23/15 12:42 PM EST
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly almost certainly exaggerated his experiences during the Falklands War and its aftermath in 1982, as several CBS News staffers who were with him at the time attest. He wasn't actually in a "war zone" or "combat situation," as he has often said, but instead at a violent protest. No one appears to have been killed during the riot, despite his claim that "many people died." He was certainly not on the Falkland Islands.

So: Why isn't O'Reilly, the highest-rated host on cable news, being subjected to an internal investigation or an unpaid six-month suspension? Some of it is due to his immediate -- and passionate -- dismissal of the charges (a case study in PR). Some of it is due to the fact that, as a partisan pundit rather than a nightly news anchor, the expectations are lower. But most of the blame lays at the feet of Mother Jones.

The journalists who raised the red flags on O'Reilly's statements -- David Corn and Daniel Schulman, of Mother Jones -- started at a disadvantage. These weren't war veterans who felt wronged by O'Reilly's portrayal of events. They were liberal reporters at an admittedly liberal magazine going after the paragon of right-wing punditry. No matter what goods they had on O'Reilly, it would be easy for him to dismiss these detractors as left-wing zealots bent on his destruction (which he did.)

But Corn and Schulman made O'Reilly's job even easier. Their report, titled "Bill O'Reilly Has His Own Brian Williams Problem," promised to deliver conclusive evidence of Choppergate-level sins. Surely, O'Reilly had committed some indesputable fabrication. The promised whopper was in the subhead: "The Fox News host has said he was in a 'war zone' that apparently no American correspondent reached."

Had O'Reilly falsely claimed to have been on the Falkland Islands when he wasn't, the Fox News host might be in serious trouble. But he never really said that. He has said that he was "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands," which can reasonably be defended as short-hand for "in the Falklands War" -- especially because O'Reilly has oft described his experiences there as taking place in Buenos Aires. "I was not on the Falkland Islands and I never said I was," O'Reilly told the On Media blog last week. That hasn't really been disputed since.

Instead, the debate has shifted to whether or not O'Reilly was actually in "a war zone" or a "combat situation," as he has repeatedly claimed. Well, no, he wasn't. He was present at a violent protest -- or "a riot," or "a demonstration" -- that took place immediately after the conclusion of the war. This is a major embellishment, defensible only under the most forgiving parameters of what constitutes wartime activity. Whatever the case, an embellishment is not going to lead Roger Ailes to fire his most valuable personnel asset. (The network has said that "Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O'Reilly.")

There is one detail in Mother Jones' account that is rather damning: In his book, O'Reilly writes that "many were killed" during the riot. The CBS News report from the riot does not mention any deaths. The former CBS News staffers who spoke with CNN over the weekend likewise claimed that no one died during the riots. "There were certainly no dead people," Jim Forrest, a sound engineer for CBS in Buenos Aires, told CNN's Brian Stelter. "Had there been dead people, they would have sent more camera crews." Manny Alvarez, a cameraman called the claims of deaths "outrageous," and added: "People being mowed down? Where was that? That would have been great footage. That would have turned into the story."

The trouble is, it's probably too late for that to matter. Corn and Schulman picked the wrong battle. They chose to highlight claims that could be argued away on semantics, instead of focusing on matters that could be fact-checked by the absence of reported fatalities. In short, they buried the lead. And because O'Reilly punched holes in the other parts of their argument, it has become all the harder to make the legitimate charges stick.

Nothing 'sad' about it except the RW's desire to pretend this guy is a viable newsman. He's a scumbag, yellow journalist, and liar: is now and always has been. Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool.

Okay honey....how is he different than anyone on MSNBC???

Thanks for playing.

Okay, HONEY (you're a bag full of shit too): First of all, that's not a response, that's a deflection. And I can't answer regarding MSNBC, I don't get it. I live overseas. But I do get Fox and, as well, I know O'Reilly from back in the days when he was anchor of Inside Edition. I know what a bag full of BS he is.

Thanks for playing, asshole.