So let’s recap:
According to Tucker Carlson, O’Reilly said, “I’ve covered wars, okay? I’ve been there. The Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Middle East. I’ve almost been killed three times, okay.”
We now know that he was never in the Falklands, his El Salvador and N Ireland “combat” experience consisted of looking at photos, and the riot he survived in LA consisted of an argument with one guy. I haven’t heard anything about the Middle East yet.
So exactly where was he almost killed three times, and what’s his Middle East experience? Did he slip on some falafel in the shower?
It was a million to one shot, Doc, million to one!
who’s wrong?
Bill O’Reilly Rescue Story Refuted by Cameraman; O’Reilly Denies Working With Him
Ah, good to see this bumped, just for posterity’s sake, this thread needed a note on how O’Reilly did a “Brave” Sir Robin in El Salvador:
Given the performance of almost the entire US media during the 2003 Iraq invasion and its leadup, they should be very careful casting any stones about “stenography.”
That said, this whole O’Reilly thing is just bizarre. The guy has been caught red-handed in multiple lies, and he has the balls to go on Letterman (whom I am very disappointed with for his softball questions, especially when he’s on the brink of retiring) and say he’s vindicated. I wouldn’t have the nerve to be seen in public if I had been exposed the way O’Reilly has, but I guess he literally has no shame.
He saw pictures of dead nuns, what more do you people want???
Original reporting by David Corn and Daniel Schulman at Mother Jones. O’Reilly doubles down, saying he never worked with the cameraman. This is bizarre: [INDENT]In response, Medrano-Carbo tells Mother Jones, “I don’t know what to say… Ninety-nine percent of that footage in his report was mine. How’d he get that footage, if I’m not his cameraman?..I have the footage to show.” Medrano-Carbo shared with Mother Jones the raw footage he shot that night, and it does match the video in the report O’Reilly filed. He adds, “You can see me in the BBC report. Why would I lie? You used 99 percent of my stuff, and I’m not your cameraman? I certainly did not get beat up. You did not help me.” [/INDENT] I predict that O’Reilly will continue to be wildly popular among those lacking sufficient critical facilities. O’Reilly’s howlers are regularly documented at Media Matters. Those who get their information from him are necessarily swimming in the very deep end. So this shouldn’t hurt him.
None of this says much about O’Reilly the well known lying scumbag. It says a lot about his Fox employer, that he’s not put out on the street after so much proof of his lying has surfaced recently.
While I agree that O’Reilly has been exposed in these instances, I would suggest that liberals may want to calibrate their outrage in case Hillary “named for Sir Edmund” “landed under sniper fire” Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
Gotta think ahead.
As usual the sources you used did not tell you the whole bit (From 8 years ago):
Wake me if she starts using that anecdote again and after ignoring what her spokesman said, of course it has to be mentioned also that Clinton is not a reporter and O’Reilly **continues **to this day to deny that he has done anything wrong and his network only goes lower with its credibility levels (as if that was possible) by keeping him.
As for the Sir Edmund story, it’s *her mother *you’re calling a liar. :dubious:
What I find interesting about this is that you disparage “the sources * used” without knowing what they are, while trotting out, as the credible source which refutes my supposed sources: Hillary’s spokesman.
As it happens, it was Hillary’s spokesman who misspoke on that occasion, and actually Hillary repeated that embellished story until it was refuted by video evidence. But I actually find the thought process more interesting.
Very helpful of you to link to Snopes. But odd, because Snopes addressed the very claim you’re making and said they found it “extremely unlikely” for reasons provided.
Here too, what’s more interesting is why you would put out a link that ostensibly supports your claim when it actually does the exact ooposite. Question is whether you didn’t read your cite before posting it, or just assumed no one else would read it afterwards.
Read it a little closer and you have a chance of grasping the point that it’s* her mother* you’re calling a liar.
So I guess it’s the second.
For those who can’t be bothered to read the link, Snopes said the notion that Hillary was just repeating what mother had told her about being named for Sir Edmud was “extremely unlikely”
Yes, see? It’s her mother you’re calling a liar. Unless you can link to HRC saying something other than “My mother once told me …”
Maybe you need to read more than a little closer, hmm?
By this point I assume that everyone else besides you realizes how silly you’re being, and I don’t need to argue this point further.
I know how badly you want to believe what your sources have been telling you for years, but this board is about fighting ignorance.
Elvis, snopes doesn’t say Hillary’s mom was lying. Their conclusion is that probably Hillary knew it wasn’t true.
Her telling Sir Edmund Hilary she was named for him when she wasn’t doesn’t get me too excited, though.
The Bosnia bit does a little bit, although I’m willing to grant both O’Reilly and Clinton a little leeway for faulty memory. Memories do tend to get more exciting with time.
O’Reilly’s lied about other things, though, that you just can’t get wrong - saying Inside Edition (Inside Edition!)won two Peabodys during his tenure, for instance.
Which is why she began every such statement with “My mother told me …” or something like that. That’s called making small talk with someone you wish to be pleasant with. A pol needs to know how to do that well, even more so than most people, wouldn’t you say? Or is it that you’re claiming you know her mother didn’t tell her that story?
That’s not quite what she said, now is it?
If you’re accusing someone of lying, you do have to be sure you know what the lie is, and who actually told it. Some posters here would rather leave a bag of dog shit on the porch and scamper away giggling, however.