Here's what O'Reilly presumably meant to say: http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_060206_unbecoming.html
Again nobody is claiming that the U.S. side in WWII never committed an atrocity. Since you still haven't watched the video, you have no idea about what O'Reilly meant. He didn't just make a mistake once. He did it twice over the course of a year. O'Reilly doesn't know what he's talking about. He called the U.S. troops who died at Malmedy war criminals, and you are defending him.
If this is the clip with Wesley Clark, then I saw it live. He misspoke on the particulars, but he was right generally. Olberman's making a moutain out of a mole hill because his ratings are a mole hill compared to O'Reilly's mountain.
It wasn't just once that O'Reilly did this. It isn't about him just making a mistake as far as particulars. It is about him calling U.S. troops war criminals and defaming their character when they weren't. Again Bill made the mistake more than just one time. Because Bill is Bill he won't admit that he's wrong and apologize, and instead he tries to cover it up. It is a disservice to the veterans who served our nation in WWII, and he dishonors a group of soldiers that were killed.
so if i called your mom a rapist on two seperate occassions after she was the one who had been raped, you'd be cool with it? as long as i was trying to make some obscure point? cool.
The bottom line is this: Did American troops, after learning about the German atrocities at Malmedy, retaliate by shooting German prisoners of war? The answer to that question is - Yes! O'Reilly did not explain himself very well, but his main point was that in WWII even the "Greatest Generation" was not above acts that could be theoretically defined as war crimes. Hell, in the Pacific, some divisions would give out rewards to get Japanese prisoners because the US was taking so few of them.
The point O'Reilly was making wasn't in contention. Nobody is arguing against his point. Keith wasn't arguing against the point O'Reilly made. I don't know how much it is worth discussing since you haven't watched the Olberman clip, and don't know what we are talking about. The point was that Bill attributed crimes to innocent victims who were soldiers during WWII. That is wrong, and defames the character of those men, who don't deserve that. Rather than admit he was wrong, Bill's company doctors up the transcript, and Bill never apologizes, and has to pretend like he was correct. It is shameful, and there is no excuse for that. Defending those actions can, in no way that I could imagine, be construed as supportive of the U.S. military.
The real reason Olberman is doing this is so he can try to elevate himself to O'Reilly popularity level. At the end of the day, it's really just ankle-biting. O'Reilly made a misstatement in the heat of a debate. He should have corrected himself more forcefully, but if was quite clear what he was talking about to anyone with a passing interest in WWII. And who are the innocent victims? He should have provided the context for what happened that led American troops to shoot German prisoners, but American soldiers did shoot German POWs - that's not slander, it's a fact. Here's his original quote: "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." His error was in saying "In Malmedy" when he should have said "After Malmedy".
For some reason you are refusing to ackowledge that Bill made the mistake not once but on two seperate occasions. They were about a year apart. I will tell exactly who Bill slandered. He slandered the U.S. POW's who had surrendered and then killed by the SS. He slandered them by accusing those particular men of committing war crimes against the Nazis. Those men did not. Because some other troops did commit war crimes, doesn't make those men guilty. They weren't. They were innocent yet Bill made the accusation that they were guilty of slaughtering POW's. They weren't. You didn't watch Keith's clip, so you have no idea why Olberman did what he did, nor does it even matter. He wrote and delivered a piece that rightfully shames Bill O'Reilly for slandering U.S. soldiers who had done nothing wrong, and were brutally killed after they had surrendered. That fact that later some DIFFERENT people committed war crimes doesn't excuse slandering the VICTIMS of the war crimes at Malmedy.
I don't recall OReilly mentioning any unit in particular. Once again, he was prepositionally sloppy, but he was generally correct. By the way, has Olberman said anything about this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2205982,00.html
Bill did in fact mention the soldiers AT Malmedy. So he did mention particular soldiers. A wrong picture is different than claiming soldiers who were killed by atrocious war crimes actuall committed the war crimes. In Haditha we apparently have U.S. troops who killed civilians. The troops aren't innocent victims even if the wrong picture was shown. It is poor reporting, but it isn't the same situation at all. If you want to defend Bill's slander of innocent slaughtered WWII veterans you are free to do so. I like Kieth Olberman am disgusted by it.
Since you mention motives, what's O'Reilly's motive for not recusing his mistake (twice) and Fox News's alteration of the transcript to cover up the mistake?
The situations are very similar. We know Americans killed German POWs, too. Once again, O'Reilly made a preposition error. To call it slander is simply absurd, especially when it comes from a deranged ankle-biter like Ohio Recount Boy.
Not at all. For O'Reilly to claim that people who committed no war crime but were victims of a war crime were guilty of the very atrocities they suffered is indeed slander. Again it wasn't just an error about preposition. It happened twice over the space of about a year. He never apologized, and never admitted making an error. You are making excuses for someone who slandered American POW's who suffered at the hands of Nazis.
It was a slip of the tongue. Guess who wrote this: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly062705.asp
