I know we’re all used to the slime that pours out of this vacuous scumfuck’s mouth, but it seems to me that his recent bout of lying and slandering American troops is, quite simply, beyond the pale. For a paper tiger like O’Liely, who pretends to wave the flag with great passion, to lie about American soldiers like that is simply mind blowing. This is the piece of filth who was among those ‘questioning’ the patriotism of people who didn’t follow Bush in lock step.
For those of you who aren’t aware of what went down, O’Liely has decided that he is going to excuse the events at Haditha. Well and good, this is to be expected from someone like him.
What’s beyond the pale, and what’s beyond even his normal level of scumfuckery, is his current claim that at Malmedy it was American soldiers who massacred Nazis that had surrendered. When it was exactly the other way around.
I’d hope that people on both sides of the political spectrum can come together to condemn this waste of space troll of the airwaves. To take one of the Nazi warcrimes against our soldiers, and lie through his teeth claiming that the war crime was really committed by Americans is in-fucking-sane. If he had any honor he’d apologize rather than tap dance his way to obfuscation and evasion.
Not only is Bill a lying sack of waste , but with Faux News’ standard commitment to dishonesty, they actually scrubbed the transcript and changed it to erase O’Liely’s slander. Only after other media sources caught them on this did they decide to play straight.
Or, as Olbermann points out, perhaps the best question is “why do you hate the troops, Mr. O’Liely?” Hopefully this is not going to be another case of IOKIARDI, and this piece of filth will, finally, find his rating shriveled if not his spot on the air gone.
So his defense is “we murdered Nazi prisoners in WWII, ergo this is no big deal?” You’d think that, for a person with decency, having to pretend American soldiers were Nazis just to make an argument that’s really stupid in the first place would make you pause and call it quits. But this is Bill O’Reilly.
Hmm. Wikipedia notes that O’Reilly has made this error before, and that he was probably referring to an alleged massacre of Nazi POWs by Americans that took place in reaction to Malmedy.
Or he was thinking of the scene in Episode 2 of the Band of Brothers miniseries where Capt. Spiers apparently offs a bunch of German POWs off-camera. History is so confusing! :rolleyes:
It’s just like the “werewolf” talking point that Condoleeza Rice was pushing a few years ago. Rewrite the history of World War II to make it seem like the current sad state of affairs is perfectly normal and natural.
American soldiers have always massacred non-combatants, doncha know? Only a soft-hearted liberal hand-wringer would think otherwise. Why back in the Big One our boys used to line up German POWs and gun 'em down every day. That what it took to beat the Nazis and that’s what it will take to beat the Islamofascists … .
I’m afraid I don’t remember that; would you run that one by me again? Was she saying that the notes from Cheney’s energy policy meetings couldn’t be released because they showed that Cheney turned into a werewolf during the session?
You haven’t heard that before? It’s been making the rounds for a couple of years. Anything that makes Dick and Dub’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq sound more like World War II is a good thing.
At the end of World War II the Nazis tried to put together a group of resistance fighters to “carry on the struggle” after the Allied occupation. They were called the “werewolves” and were organized largely out of the surviving Hitler youth brigades. They probably were responsible for a few bombings and assassinations, but they quickly withered away and were never more than a nuisance.
Back in 2003 they were dredged up and dusted off by Condoleeza Rice in an effort to portray the growing Iraqi insurgency as the normal “messiness” that follows after any war and occupation. The meme was picked up in right-wing circles and was a regular talking point for a while. For example, here’s **Mr. Moto ** using the argument on this message board back in 2004.
Of course, as the insurgency has deepened and worsened the “what about the werewolves” defense has largely been abandoned.
It’s an interesting commentary on the progress of the war that back in 2004 the war’s defenders were treating the situation in Iraq as analogous to the post-war occupation of Germany. Now Bill O’Reilly is defending the Marines’ actions at Haditha by comparing them to atrocities (allegedly) committed by front-line troops in the very thick of retaking of Europe … .
It’s a particular favorite of Andrew Sullivan, who may actually have coined the term. He still uses it all the time.
It’s a profoundly misleading term, usefully primarily as a means of sprinking a little World War II pixie dust on our current struggle with radical Islam.
This was the tactic of Serdar Argic back in the wild and wooly early days of Usenet. He used to post lengthy screeds to every newsgroup under the sun about the Armenian Genocide … of the Turks! :rolleyes:
The part that really pisses me off about this is that he’s right, atrocities are going to occur in any war, and that’s why you don’t go to war unless it’s absolutely necessary. The supposed “grown-ups” who thought that this was going to be a cakewalk with kittens and flowers are the deluded ones, and the “fuzzy-headed” liberals are the ones who accurately predicted what what would happen.
Here a transcript. Or should that be "transcript, eh?
And he launches into his lies and slander about American soldiers in order to prove his point that Haditha is nothing out of the ordinary. He’s a two faced troll, who claims at once that the matter should be swiftly dealt with, and that it’s just part of war, these things happen, and US soldiers have had a habit of murdering prisoners for some time now.
Will you condemn his actions and lies even if they weren’t directly attempting to excuse Haditha? Even though it’s rather obvious in context that O’Liely was attemting to minimize the events and suggest that it’s standard operating procedure, even if we ignore that, isn’t his slander of soldiers who were massacred by the Nazis vile enough?
I don’t find that quote to be an attempt to “excuse” it. It’s absolutely correct. Shit like this happens in every war of this magintude. That’s an explanation, not an excuse. Is he saying there should be no investigation?
I’m trying to determine the truth of your OP first. I’ll deal with O’Reilly later once I establish what the facts are. In that piece, Clark is trying to argue that the Haditha incident is a per se indication that Bush’s overall Iraq strategy is flawed. Now, I agree that there are lots of flaws in the strategy, but I don’t see this incident as proof of that.
If he got his facts wrong about other similar incidents, that doesn’t seem to be too much of a problem, since I think we can agree that incidents like this did happen in the WWII, The Korean War, Vietnam, etc.
O’Reilly clearly states that he thinks the marines, if guilty, should be punished. So I’m puzzled by the nature of this Pitting. Is it because he got a few facts wrong in support of his argument?
