Did O'Reilly lie about his war reporting?

[GFB]

O'Reilly is digging himself even deeper with his cover up attempts, while the list of lies he has told is growing.

He can, and should, end it now by saying something like this:
'Yes, I lied about my experiences. I did it because I am a pathological liar.'

If he does this, what else can be thrown at him? Nothing.
He'll keep his job at FOX and in a couple of months it will be forgotten about.

You really think anyone cares?

It'll become a big deal if he admits to lying.

[planosteve]

So, Bill-O is human. Big Surprise!
He too is prone to exagerate aspects of his experience that he thinks will enhance his image. Let's face it, we all do it!
Brian Williams did it. Ronald Reagan did it!
Even I've done it!

[GFB]

So, Bill-O is human. Big Surprise!
He too is prone to exagerate aspects of his experience that he thinks will enhance his image. Let's face it, we all do it!
Brian Williams did it. Ronald Reagan did it!
Even I've done it!

That's what the MSM is going for..if "they all do it"..Brian Williams will be back in no time.

[planosteve]

So, Bill-O is human. Big Surprise!
He too is prone to exagerate aspects of his experience that he thinks will enhance his image. Let's face it, we all do it!
Brian Williams did it. Ronald Reagan did it!
Even I've done it!

That's what the MSM is going for..if "they all do it"..Brian Williams will be back in no time.

Don't kid yourself. They all do it. Let they who are without sin cast the first stone.

[ralph]

in orealy defense and I don't like the guy . His story / explanation sounded pretty convincing to me .

[BigTex]

Let the feeding frenzy begin.

[jellowrestling]

Oh, please. When O'Reilly said, "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands...", he is obviously saying that he was in Argentina DURING THE FALKLANDS WAR. If he doesn't mention the Falklands, then "Argentina" has no context. If he had said, "I was in the Falklands in a war zone", then he would have been lying.

People who are buying this are either biased, stupid, or easily misled. O'Reilly annoys the hell out of me because he constantly cuts people off instead of letting them finish their thoughts, but this is B.S., pure and simple.

[jellowrestling]

I also want to point out an obvious difference between O'Reilly's comment and Williams fib: Williams changed his story over time, and repeatedly lied in great detail. All we're getting on the O'Reilly deal is one quick sound bite. It's not like O'Reilly said it in all 57 states.

[BillB]

Oh, please. When O'Reilly said, "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands...", he is obviously saying that he was in Argentina DURING THE FALKLANDS WAR. If he doesn't mention the Falklands, then "Argentina" has no context. If he had said, "I was in the Falklands in a war zone", then he would have been lying.

People who are buying this are either biased, stupid, or easily misled. O'Reilly annoys the hell out of me because he constantly cuts people off instead of letting them finish their thoughts, but this is B.S., pure and simple.

"in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands".
That is a lie, pure and simple.
1. He was not in a war zone and he was not in the Falklands.
That would be like someone stating "I was in a war zone in the US, at Pearl Harbor", when in fact they were in Dallas.

O'Reilly stated in his book "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands".
That is a lie.

He has lied about his experiences in Buenos Aires and El Salvadore, as well.
http://fair.org/blog/2015/02/21/bill-or ... an-others/

I won't say people who claim O'Reilly was telling the truth are stupid, or whatever. I will say they speak a different version of English than I do.

[GFB]

Oh, please. When O'Reilly said, "in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands...", he is obviously saying that he was in Argentina DURING THE FALKLANDS WAR. If he doesn't mention the Falklands, then "Argentina" has no context. If he had said, "I was in the Falklands in a war zone", then he would have been lying.

People who are buying this are either biased, stupid, or easily misled. O'Reilly annoys the hell out of me because he constantly cuts people off instead of letting them finish their thoughts, but this is B.S., pure and simple.

"in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands".
That is a lie, pure and simple.
1. He was not in a war zone and he was not in the Falklands.
That would be like someone stating "I was in a war zone in the US, at Pearl Harbor", when in fact they were in Dallas.

O'Reilly stated in his book "I've reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands".
That is a lie.

He has lied about his experiences in Buenos Aires and El Salvadore, as well.
http://fair.org/blog/2015/02/21/bill-or ... an-others/

I won't say people who claim O'Reilly was telling the truth are stupid, or whatever. I will say they speak a different version of English than I do.

Jello's right..he would not have said he was in Argentina. The Falklands were not Argentina..they were British..which is why Argentina tried to make a move to take them..and got their butts kicked.

[BillB]

Argentina claimed the Falklands. That was the basis of the war.

Actually, O'Reilly didn't even report on the Falkland War. He arrived in Buenos Aires immediately before the war ended.
He reported on the Argentine demonstrations that followed the war.
He now grossly distorts what went on.
He claims the government fired into the crowd, mowing people down. They didn't. There were no deaths and only a few injuries.
He claims he was the only reporter on the streets because the others were hiding. That is a lie.

[BillB]

I think O'Reilly lied about as much as Brian Williams did and for the same reason.
He wanted to make himself out to be braver and more experienced that he was.
I'm sure we'll see more of his lies in the coming days.

I don't think O'Reilly being a liar is as important as Williams being a liar.
O'Reilly is a blowhard commentator- a pundit. He is more of an entertainer than a news man. His truthfulness, or lack of it, doesn't make a lot of difference.
Williams had a job, where he was expected to tell us the truth.

[Kiamichi]

It is looking more and more like O'Reilly will have to go the way of Williams. I can't see how he can have any credibility left if the below is true, and it seems to be well documented. Supposedly in his book "Killing Kennedy" he claimed to have been outside the door of a subject in Florida with links to Lee Harvey Oswald and heard the gunshot as he committed suicide, when he (O'Reilly) in fact was in Dallas at that moment and had to call around to get confirmation of the death. If this is true I simply can't understand how such a high profile subject would dare put such a lie down in print.

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/ ... s-jfk-fib/

[ralph]

well good , I don't care , I don't like 'orealy' and if true , well axe him . Give RUSH that time slot . Still have to check out the link but I trust your take on the article Kiamachi as I make my comment .

[BillB]

I'm not at all surprised. I expect more of the same in the coming days.

I still say that O'Reilly will be better off admitting he is a habitual liar 'but an entertaining liar'- or something close to that.
If he does that, the search for his lies will stop. He'll keep his job at FOX, and in a few months it will be forgotten about.

Who remember's the sexual harassment lawsuit brought against O'Reilly that he settled for reportedly millions of dollars?
It was brought by his former producer in 2004.
No one remembers it.

[Kiamichi]

Ouch. O'Reilly claimed he heard the fatal shotgun blast as he knocked on the door. The sheriff's investigator says that none of the several people in the house heard the shot and the body went undiscovered for eighteen minutes until the deceased's daughter went into his room (time of death was established by the sound of the shot on a recording of a TV program). Investigators said the witnesses all said there had been no strangers around the house at the time of death.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

[jellowrestling]

Argentina claimed the Falklands. That was the basis of the war.

Actually, O'Reilly didn't even report on the Falkland War. He arrived in Buenos Aires immediately before the war ended.
He reported on the Argentine demonstrations that followed the war.
He now grossly distorts what went on.
He claims the government fired into the crowd, mowing people down. They didn't. There were no deaths and only a few injuries.
He claims he was the only reporter on the streets because the others were hiding. That is a lie.

O'Reilly says that he (i.e., he and his crew) shot video from the plaza, and he will air that tomorrow, if I heard him right. Should be interesting.

[Kiamichi]

I remember the video at the time of the riots in Buenos Aires. It showed police firing tear gas. There were no reports at the time of gunfire or deaths and I never heard any afterward until now.

[BillB]

Bill O'Reilly's CBS Colleague Says Buenos Aires Was Not A 'Combat Situation' After Falklands War

Buenos Aires was neither a “war zone” nor a “combat situation” after Argentina surrendered to Britain in the Falklands War, says one of Bill O’Reilly’s former colleagues at CBS who was with him in the capital at the time.

“It was an ‘expense account zone,’” writes Eric Jon Engberg, a retired CBS correspondent, in a Facebook post. “We -- meaning the American networks -- were all in the same, modern hotel and we never saw any troops, casualties or weapons.”...
MORE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/2 ... 1717657470

[planosteve]

Maybe someday, someone will write a book,"Killing Bill-0, a suicide".