He made it twice. Tongues don't keep on slipping. People apologize for a slip of the tongue, he never apologized. I don't care what facts he got right in that piece. He didn't get them right twice in the period of one year, and never apologized for it. He slandered WWII soldiers who were killed by Nazis after they surrendered. You can make whatever excuse or rationale for Bill that you want. It doesn't change what he said TWICE, and the fact that he never apologized.
Nope, he misspoke. Nothing more to it than that. Olbermann's effort to smear him are what's revealing here. Surely Olbermann knew about the previous article, or he should have known. There was no slander, only an overactive imagination on the part of Ohio Recount Boy.
Time - 1 year ago - "American troops who surrendered and were unarmed then killed in cold blood by Nazis are guilty of murdering Nazi prisoners at Malmedy." Explanation(made by defenders of Bill O'Reilly and never made by Bill himself.) - "Oops his tongue slipped" Time - present - "American troops who surrendered and were unarmed then killed in cold blood by Nazis are guilty of murdering Nazi prisoners at Malmedy." Explanation(made by defenders of Bill O'Reilly and never made by Bill himself.) - "Oops his tongue slipped" You are the only person saying his tongue slipped. Bill O'Reilly isn't even saying it himself. You are just making excuses for a guy who accused victims who were killed by Nazis in cold blood, of being guilty of war crimes.
It's quite obvious his tongue slipped in the heat of a debate. He wrote an article in which he got the info right. I don't know why he hasn't clarified it, but it's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that he misspoke. Nothing to see here, move along.
Here is the timeline: June 27, 2005 Jewish World Review article in which he wrote: After German SS troops massacred 86 American soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium on Dec. 17, 1944, some units like the U.S. 11th Armored Division took revenge on captured German soldiers. In the Pacific, relatively few Japanese prisoners were taken in the brutal island fights. But the folks back home never heard about those things or what techniques were used to interrogate prisoners who might know where the next ambush would be. The American military did what they had to do in order to win. As General Patton once said to his army: "I do not advocate standing Germans up against the wall and shooting them — so shoot the sons of b——— before you get them to the wall." October 3, 2005 First slip of tongue May 30, 2006 Second slip of tongue May 31, 2006 O'Reilly's responds to an email "O'REILLY: Don Caldwell, Fort Worth, Texas: "Bill, you mentioned that Malmédy as the site of an American massacre during World War II. It was the other way around, the SS shot down U.S. prisoners." In the heat of the debate with General Clark, my statement wasn't clear enough, Mr. Caldwell. After Malmédy, some were executed by American troops." Twos slips of the tongue 8 months apart hardly equal a slander when they are directly contradicted by a previously written article and a subsequent on-air clarification. I wish he had been more detailed in his clarification, but he wasn't. What's really going on here is Olbermann just can't stand the competition and he wants O'Reilly to go away. That's understandable given how he's getting killed by O'Reilly in the ratings.
this timeline and Bill's attempted cover-up/clarification doesn't help his case it hurts it. Maybe for the written article Bill had a good researcher, editor or fact checker. In fact the e-mail and Bill's attempt to pretend like he meant after was even used in Keith's piece on the subject, because it shows O'Reilly would rather pretend like he wasn't wrong, than to apologize about it. I guess we will just never agree that is what happened. You don't have to agree, but it does weaken your attacks on others for not supporting our military when you defend this kind of thing.
Your last statement is ridiculous. It was simply two misstatements made in the middle of debates. To pretend otherwise is to be so divorced from reality as to be pyschotic.
you're right... gwayneco and francis are arguing different points but, even if bill slipped twice, he should make some sort of apology. the 82 americans who died deserve much better than than that.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this week some, and this sort of talk has really gotten hip. "Divorced from reality" is a real punchy phrase these days. Of course gwayneco and o reilly and whoever else are demonstrably wrong on the point - Fox News altered the transcript to eliminate the reference to Malmedy, which ends the discussion - there were not two slips (the "misstatement" followed by a "typo" in the transcript), there was a coverup because o reilly made a MAJOR mistake. He would have called someone else stupid and traitorous for making the mistake, and he - and his network - BS'ed the mistake with two different strategies - erasing it (fox) or claiming that all of us misunderstood him (o Reilly). The man is very dumb, and that is his big secret. Its actually the key to his success. And the fact that he is a moron is not news. But you know, these types of debates are not about facts, they are debates about keeping facts in 'debate' mode, thereby making facts themselves subjective rather than objective. It's like Intelligent Design, Global Warning, the economy, Iraq, whatever. You just counter inconvenient facts with a contrary view, and then call it a "debate." And when you are demonstrably wrong, you just attack the character of those with whom you disagree. "They are divorced from reality." Oh - well, okay, I guess everything they say, even when it is backed by science or fact or whatever, that is also divorced from reality. So much easier than countering the facts. So on Rush, there was this lady kissing Rush's crack about "Thank god you tell the truth, all these liberals, these democrats - i know they are lying when they breathe, when they talk, when they move - lies lies lies. They should be jailed for treason." Sort of amazing, 49% or 48% or 53% or whatever - we should all be jailed for treason. Really? Lying when we breathe? Like, all of us who are social workers, or military vets, or family men and women, or musicians, or whoever - we want to harm america that bad? That many of us are stupid, evil, etc just by disagreeing? We are so focused on undoing america, freedom, family and values that we would sink our own country, our own homes and communities? 47% or 55% or whatever - your beloved country has that many devils? Well how come you love it so much? Sounds like a really bad place with that big a percentage of lying cheating amoral morons. It's worse than Kinkaid High School. The point is, this is not really a republican or democrat thing. I feel that most of the really nefarious fact-changers have hosted themselves in the republican party, but that because they are in power and the party is vulnerable to true belivers - it is truly not "republicans" or "conservatives" that are the problem. The views of people like O Reilly, Hannity, Tom Delay, BigTexx - whoever - they are "Republican" in name only, more because that party was a more susceptible host organism for the vantage point - facts are not facts, people who disagree are fundamentally weak or evil or stupid, and everything is absolute. (democrat demons are different - ours are smugness, laziness, gluttonous, that sort of thing) But I wonder if it feels nice being someone like Tom Delay or one of our own true believers - maybe it is nice to be freed from the burden of rational thought or grey areas and complexities or nuance or understanding or whatever. I do wonder what it feels like to live in one of those minds, like gwayneco or ann coulter or Trader of whoever. God save them and god bless them, they are beyond my understanding. I hope it is fun, but it is rough to watch from the outside. But like I said, its not about republicans, i know plenty of fine republicans, they've taught me a lot, and I agree on a lot of issues - $, labor unions, etc. I get conservatized a little as I work in a VA, have a kid, money and so forth. But it is amazing to think back on someone like Newt Gingrich and long for the days of rational debate and opposition. I honestly miss him. In other news I have ghost written two things for Bob Dole this year, that is neither here no there, but I am in the mood to brag about it. SO. The point is, I think the thing for republicans and democrats and conservatives and liberals to do is to quit entertaining the debates. Somehow we have to have faith that there are enough good smart people who have not been infected with this "ignore facts, attack enemies" disease that we can overcome the illness. But we are not going to do it by debating known facts on those terms, it is just death. The debate is not the means to an end, it IS the end - once these things are a debate, it is over because we have burned another valuable moment of time talking to a wall. Somehow, we have to have a higher voice, not a vindicitve, mean spirited, joyless, loveless ignorant voice, but a hopeful sympathetic, smart, vigiliant and strong one. But we are not going to find it inside concentric debates with the already infected. I dont know, anyone have thoughts on this?
Great post. I don't like Gingrich, but I understand what you mean. He was an opponent that dealt in ideas first and indulged in the dirty side second(though he did his share of spinning. Dems did and do as well) But now it is kind of a formula, that is nicely spoofed by Colbert. The Rush's Oreilly's etc. all talk in very broad terms, and often with incorrect facts. They first seek to generalize and dehumanize their opponents. They will take one incident that the most extreme out of the mainstream liberal did(or make up the facts to make it appear they did something) and then portray it as if this is what liberals think and believe. They will then expand on that. If liberals behave this way, then they surely must also believe x. That means they hate America. They will take the fact most people are tired of strife and conflict that doesn't go anywhere and portray legitimate complaints as whining, playing the race card/class warfare/hatred of the rich/hatred of God. They will then tell some embellished, feel good, patriotic story to pump up the blood of their listeners. Most of their audience is elderly and often times suspicious of the way things are going now days anyway, so it makes them feel good to hear it. They have done all of this and have only mentioned a few of their own ideas without going into real detail, and haven't addressed the substance of their opponents ideas in the least. They call the liberals 'elites' in an effort to make it appear that anyone who is a fan of theirs is a real salt of the earth type of person. The kind of people who made this country what it is. The audience who can see the disconnect between their own lives, hardwork, and ethics and the glamorous lifestyles of celebrities, and their perceptions about the what the 'elites' are doing. They feel stepped on, and this tactic by these so-called conservatives feeds that. It is kind of like the James Gang robbing banks, and trains. Many of the average folk in the territories had bad experience with big banks, and railroad tycoons, so they felt the James Gang was striking a blow for them. It is the same kind of appeal that these commentators and spin meisterss have. There was some spin, and slanting in the past, but ideas used to come first with people like Gingrich, Dole, and Buchannon. I disagreed with their ideas, but they were still put first. Then the spinmeisters will claim that both sides do it equally, and find examples to help support this, or spin things so they seem equally as bad. Now you have folks so brainwashed that will accuse others of not supporting the troops while defending one of their own, who spoke of U.S. soldiers who were victims as war criminals. They will make up excuses that the Bill O'Reilly himself never even offered. Then claim people who have a policy disagreement are un-American and want our troops to fail. I think the danger in all of this isn't really that Rush and Bill, and Coulter reach an audience. The effect is that by making it seem like everyone involved is into this kind of spinning, trashing, and mudslinging, it scares off many would-be participants in the system. Many people see the behavior that goes on, and figures all politicians are the same, and its a dirty business. They figure their votes don't matter because they are all corrupt blowhards. They just tune out. Even on this board we have seen this kind of generalization of politicians. The truth is that if anyone has worked in almost any level of civil service and politics the people who go into it, are normally sincere earnest people who want to make a difference.
Read the thread. Kudos to gwayneco for standing up for the truth against an onslaught of liberals employing schoolyard tactics to enforce their opinions as fact. Are all of the "raping your mom" comments necessary? It's a shame that a great man like Bill O'Reilly is maligned by so many because he goes against the grain. It's refreshing to see a network like Fox that has comitted to this country when most other media is focused on undermining the government. Keith Olberman is a joke. He's a sports anchor who is capitalizing on the idiocy of the public and basing a career out of attacking people with enemies.
