Here’s what he’s talking about . . . I guess . . . – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy:
The latter (Allied) action sounds less like an atrocity than a SNAFU.
The Oct 05 “clarification”?
John Mace, if I got some fact so terribly wrong, “WW2 started in 1975 when the Nazi’s bombed NY harbor”, and you corrected me and I acknowledged that I got it wrong,
what would you think of my credibility if I made the same claim 6 months later?
CMC fnord!
The Nazis bombed WHAT???!!!???
Those BASTARDS!
Why, he’d think that it was more important to point out that you really made the same claim 5 months and 29 days later and that the only objective stance would be to agree with his interpretation.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Depends. If I saw exactly how you were corrected the first time (which I haven’t in this case) and you wrote a long expository essay which required careful proofreading, I’d wonder WTF was going on.
If I had no idea in what way shape or form you were corrected the first time, and you made the mistake in a heated, verbal debate with someone, and you issued a correction afterwards? I’d never give it a second thought.
Which does raise another question of mine. I keep hearing that he was “corrected” back when he made the mistake the first time. I’ve poked around on the web a bit, and can’t find any details about this “correction”. Did he acknowledge the correction and admit that he had made an error? If not, what difference does it make, especially to someone like O’Reilly who tends not to listen to other people in the first place?
Finn Oct - Jun is 7-8 months, depending on the exact date. Just in case you were wondering. 
Nazis bombed a lot of stuff in WW2. If we forgive them for firebombing Dresden we should forgive them for bombing malmedy.
BTW, is it your proposition that saying “Malemdy” instead o “the reaction to Malmedy” is somehow analogous to getting the starting date of WWII for the US off by > 30 years, and getting the wrong country and wrong coast for the bombing that set it off? Where’s the guy earlier who was claiming bad anaolgy for O’Reilly?
Finn: Do you also consider the issue of whether or not O’Reilly “lied through his teeth” to be a minor nitpick of your OP?
I think Olbermann gets a real kick out of tweaking O’Reilly, because the latter is so fucking thin-skinned. I love how he keeps making fun of him, knowing Bill O’Reilly’s probably flipping his lid over the whole thing.
(That and I find Keith Olbermann sexy.)
And if it was such a simple mistake, why did Fox try to cover it up in the transcript, by putting Normandy instead of Malmedy?
It galls me that if it were anyone else, O’Reilly would probably be defending My Lai.
Asshole.
I’m guessing the irony is lost on you.
Nope, as his slander of the troops was the main thrust of my OP. Unintentional slander is a ‘lesser charge’ as far as I see it. I don’t agree with your interpretation and I think it’s silly to claim that it’s the only objective interpretation, but malicious lying is still worse than brainstem level stupid mistakes.
Still, even if he’s just dumber than dirt, his lack of a real apology makes him a scumfuck. When you (pl) call the victims of a Nazi atrocity war criminals, you have a moral obligation to apologize. 'least, anybody who was being objective would say so.
I’m guessing that you’re using your own special definition of irony.
And, by the way, seeing as how you’ve gone on record calling anybody who read Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International etc… and believed their findings a traitor, it’s funny that you can’t seem to find the space to comment on O’Liely calling murdered American soldiers war criminals.
If you think it’s ‘vacuous’ to call someone who slanders our soldiers like that a motherfucker, but think that anybody who reads reports on torture is a traitor… well, obviously your standards are highly mutable and you’re just posting to stir up shit.
Who would’ve thunk it?
It’s not much of an issue. From mediamatters.org, quoting Keith Olbermann:
*
"It was assumed last year he had simply made a foolish error, and though he got beaten up appropriately in some places, it was all largely dismissed as merely that – a mistake. (bolding added).
Then came this Tuesday night. Again, O’Reilly’s guest was General Wes Clark. This time, the topic was the apparent murder of Iraqi civilians at Haditha. That O’Reilly was dismissive of that event should be no surprise, that he should have described as the real crime of Iraq the events of Abu Ghraib should be no surprise to those who know of his willingness to jettison his most important beliefs of yesterday for the expediencies and the ratings of today. But that he should have brought up Malmédy again – that was a surprise…
O’REILLY [video clip]: In Malmédy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed, and they shot them down. You know that. That’s on the record. Been documented.
OLBERMANN: Thus was the full depth of Bill O’Reilly’s insult to the American dead of World War II made clear. The mistake of last October was not some innocent slip nor misremembered history. This was the way O’Reilly understood it, and thus, this way it had to be. No errors corrected, no apologies offered, no stopping the relentless tide of bull, even briefly enough to check one fact."*
So in John’s world, we have to assume that O’Reilly’s gross mischaracterization of the Malmedy massacre last year drew no heat - at least nothing that poor Bill would ever have heard about, and that he innocently made the same error this time out, which he of course immediately corrected in full and apologized graciously for…oops, scratch that last part. In John’s world, we also must assume that O’Reilly would never ever intentionally spread a falsehood, because he’d get caught and it would be silly for him to try to get away with it.
Um…see a little bit of contradiction in these assumptions, John?
Seeing as how O’Reilly has habitually played fast and loose with the facts, his making a gross, insulting and vile misstatement of history and then repeating himself without indication of regret should make the “issue” of whether he’s intentionally lying rather moot, even to a parse-and-nitpick prince of Junior Moddery like yourself.
Ronald Reagan used to be famous for repeatedly bullshitting at press conferences, creating stories to support his policies based on urban legend and flat-out nonsense. He’d get lambasted in the press about it later, but go on doing the same thing over and over again. Was it documented that Ronnie was intentionally lying on each occasion that he spread falsehoods? Did it really matter in the end?
You know, John, rigorously insisting that posters document every inch and step of their posts can occasionally be useful. In your case, more often then not it just shows you to be a pissant with an agenda.
Yep. The agenda is called “trying to understand all the facts before reaching a conclusion.” I can see from the rest of that diatribe that you have a different agenda.
Finn: We’re just going to have to agree to disagree, as I have nothing more to add and I doubt you do either. But I think you’re confusing outrage with accuracy. You might find that striving for more of the latter makes for a better justification for the former.
No… I’m outraged over the lack of accuracy that led to the slandering of murdered American soldiers and which had no apology to follow it up.
I’ve also been pointing out that one should have enough accuracy not to call murdered American heroes, war criminals. I think that’s a level of accuracy that most can agree upon as a baseline.
This is what he said,
October 04, 2005
O’REILLY: General, you need to look at the Malmady (ph) massacre in World War II and the 82nd Airborne.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171190,00.html
June 02, 2006
O’REILLY: And in Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured S.S. forces, who had their hands in the air. And they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That’s on the record. Been documented…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html
Hard to read “the reaction to Malmedy” into that. YMOV
No, bad analogy,
confusing the the 82nd Airborne with the SS is a thousand times worse,
but I guess that’s just me.
I’d love to see the inbox for this E-Mail account “The O’Reilly Factor - <email removed>”, I’m betting it was so heated the server melted down!
The problem is he didn’t make the same error he went from “you need to look” to “You know that. That’s on the record. Been documented”.
CMC fnord!
Your agenda in this thread is best characterized as misstating arguments of opposing posters and contorting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain away damning facts - that is, when you can be bothered to make any explanations at all.
Yes, that’s truly a definitive rebuttal. :rolleyes:
But do keep on “trying to understand all the facts”.
We’ll be pulling for you.
Haven’t been paying attention to John for the last year or so, have you?
My own opinion is that he’s just having fun with everyone - certainly he’s not actually believing the shit (or non-shit, really, since there’s never ANY substance anymore) he spews anymore.
-Joe
So you’re saying John Mace is indistingushable from the right-wing insta-pundits he defends?
Wouldn’t be the only odd thing in this thread rjung.
After all, we’ve got Schilla, one of the brave warriors of the 152[sup]nd[/sup] Keyboard Brigade, who’d rather whine about how calling out someone who slanders our troops is ‘vacuous’, but can’t be bothered to spend a single word on that actual slander of our murdered heroes. Why, it’s almost like he has no real convictions and only posts to try to piss people off and make himself feel big and tough, fightin’ all those commie pinko traitors who, ya know, read. The next time he trollishly lays into someone about ‘supporting the troops’, I hope someone cites this thread for him.
![152[sup]nd[/sup] Keyboard Brigade](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/finnagain/InternetCommando.jpg){kind=link}