I'm not even talking about O'Reilly, even while it's clear that if the thing had been reversed you'd have started twenty new threads about it, foaming at the mouth about how Olbermann hated America. I don't care that much about the O'Reilly thing except that it's one more in a series of illustrations of your and his hypocrisy. The only person that has ever "posited the liberal infallibility argument" is Ann Coulter. It is a made up thing, invented to get dim goofballs like yourself all riled up. But there is a difference between substantive criticism of a political opponent and vicious character assassination of him and his family, in response only to political affairs. And when your side marries Max Cleland -- a freaking paraplegic from the Vietnam War -- to Bin Laden, when they accuse Kerry of cowardice and war crimes, when they say thank God Murtha wasn't at Normandy and call him a coward too, when they bash the families of brave soldiers that have fallen during this war for no other reason, real or implied, than that they have criticized Bush, and when each of those brave vets and their families are accused of anti-Americanism, being pro-terror or anti-troops, it is painfully clear that you guys don't care about the troops at all. You don't. You just want to win elections. It is crap and it is offensive. You should be ashamed of yourself.
How much time does it take you to type cutesy names and slogans? I actually think about what I write here, but I'll do my best not to make that mistake with you again.
Impossible he misspoke. Its like defending your child when they are wrong. You get to a point where you get so blinded by your own covering that you start to seethe and adamantly believe in your own cover. Veterans everywhere should be outraged at Bill's bashing of troops. I am, and couldn't possibly be swayed to believe he simply misspoke. For ANYONE to cover for this atrocity is lower then low, and to put it in a way Republicans have done so well over the last few years, means you hate soldiers too. What a douche bag.
You are the only person I know who could turn someone defending the reputations of innocent U.S. soldiers as having low regard for soldiers. You aren't making any sense.
Haha. Got to get that last word in, don't we? You are the one who has low regard for the soldiers. Your exploiting their deaths 60+ years ago to beat up on O'Reilly. If that gets you off, so be it, but don't claim the moral high when all you're doing is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Defending them from being accused of war crimes is hardly exploiting them. If you would like I can post the definition of exploit. I think your views and what is important to you or not important to you regarding the troops has been made clear.
And yet you have no answer for it, continuing the same baseless claims over and over again. It was a mistake! (made twice over the course of a year and never apologized for) He corrected himself! (after Faux rewrote the transcript twice and he was called on it by a reporter with a much higher regard for the troops and the truth) You are using the troops to further your liberal garbage! (pot, meet kettle)
Actually the facts, including the ones you laid out makes it plain that O'Reilly and anyone who defends him cares more about their side being right than they do about real support of the troops. You'll support the troops when it is convenient to bash others with your supposed support, but won't stick up for them when somebody on your side says such vile things about them and then attempts to weasel out of it.
No, FB laid out the "exculpatory" facts. You laid out a disgusting partisan defense of a person who isn't even man enough to apologize for his mistake.
Gwayneco's beliefs come from the blog world, where you need no evidence, while O'Reilly's "experience" as a journalist comes from being on Inside Edition, where you need no skills as a journalist. What do you expect?
LastwordBlade, O'Reilly was broadly correct. Some German prisoners were shot. He erred in appropriately developing the timeline because he used the wrong preposition.
And I've already showed that using the wrong preposition drastically changes the meaning of something even to the point where it ends up accusing people of horrible crimes they didn't commit. To not apologize for that and admit that he was wrong is insulting. Nobody is arguing against Bill's broader point. They arguing over the fact that he made a mistake that resulted in slander of WWII vets who didn't shoot any prisoners, but were in fact slaughtered by Nazis after they had surrendered.
