O'Reilly responded tonight. He provided documents to show he didn't lie.

David Corn, a far left kook, looks like a little sh-t. Nothing new. This is what the left does.

It smelled of 'you take one of ours we take one yours.'

(02-20-2015 08:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It smelled of 'you take one of ours we take one yours.'

Yeah, but there is one major difference. Williams has gone down in flames because he was called out by the actual soldiers that were there. O'Rielly is being questioned by a liberal rag writer. It appears as though O'Rielly has some back-up to his claims, Williams just had egg on his face - but yeah, it seems like this Corn dude was trying the tit for tat play.

Oh yeah, as has already been mentioned, the respective roles both play for their network are very different.

Corn is the one who outed Plame by name. He and her husband.

(02-20-2015 08:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It smelled of 'you take one of ours we take one yours.'

Yes.

O'Reilly said he never claimed he was "in" the war; he said he "covered" the war. He was a CBS correspondent in 1982 and he covered the war in Buenos Aires. He and his crew were at a rally of some kind and there was shooting, with bullets going over their heads, etc.

I guess Corn accused O'Reilly of claiming he was actually on the Falkland Islands, between the two forces (I didn't read the article). O'Reilly didn't say that.

Corn's story will have no traction.

(02-20-2015 03:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 12:09 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  O'Reilly is a windbag.

Yes but I must admit that I like to watch him lose his temper.

You know, I get the feeling you get off on people losing their temper.

As expected, corn is another lying by cover POS from the leftist smear machine. Funded by that thief Soros and read and gobbled up by the zombies in search of today's blood to fuel their adolescent angst.

Egg on the face? No worries, there's always tomorrow and a little more poo to be thrown, facts be damned.

Let's see how this all plays out... How's that working out for ya?!?

(02-20-2015 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But I'm betting he spent more time consuming great steaks and Italian food than he did witnessing anything that could be construed as armed conflict between belligerent nations.

+3 for reminding me of the best steak and the best white sauce on capallini's I have ever had

-3 for reminding me of the best steak and the best white sauce on capallini's I have ever had. And will probably never have again

(02-20-2015 04:21 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 10:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 10:39 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-20-2015 12:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is the difference between conservatives and liberals. You guys circle the wagons like no other and our side doesn't have the trumpets and sirens that keep it going. The left doesn't have a Drudge Report with flashing blue lights.

Bless your heart.

Remember the circling around the sexual predator-in-chief?

No...not really. That was what, almost 17 years ago?

Yet you guys are knob slobbering each other over something that is at least arguable that occurred TWICE as long ago. 33+ years ago.

At least ya'll are consistently inconsistent. I was my own daughters age when this was going on...

That aside, you keep asking people if they are going to actually read the article. Have you? Past the initial 3-4 "juicy" bullet points?

They actually answer their own questions in large part. Whether this was a "hot" zone or not, as in physically ON the Falklands, I don't see where he claimed that. It was part of the entire dispute and was very much an extremely hostile exchange. 900+ died in this conflict, more people by multiples than coalition forces died in Desert Storm.

I DO recall in some small way the coverage of the protests and riots in the streets of BA, and does anyone dispute his account of the M-16 being pointed at his head? That his camera guy was wounded and in bad enough shape that he needed saving? I don't see that counter claim anywhere.

Could this be a stretch by claiming he was in a "War Zone" and allowing people to assume he was talking about being in the Falklands by not expressly saying otherwise? Perhaps, maybe even likely. Commission by omission and he should issue a clarification and apology.

But be honest- this ain't the Brian Williams thing. I mean, for f#$%'s sake, we've all SEEN the picture of him claiming to be at the field office of President Lincoln.

Fair post. But whose story, if exaggerated, is making himself try to look the hero? Brian who said he was simply in a plane that got shot? Or Bill who supposedly dragged a wounded friend to safety while at gunpoint?

An MSNBC guy coming after the highest rated guy on Fox News? Yea, that's a shocker.

(02-21-2015 04:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair post. But whose story, if exaggerated, is making himself try to look the hero? Brian who said he was simply in a plane that got shot? Or Bill who supposedly dragged a wounded friend to safety while at gunpoint?

Has there been any refutation of O'Reilly's story?

(02-21-2015 04:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair post. But whose story, if exaggerated, is making himself try to look the hero? Brian who said he was simply in a plane that got shot? Or Bill who supposedly dragged a wounded friend to safety while at gunpoint?

Simply? There's nothing about what he said that implies it's "no big deal". And it wasn't a plane, teacher. Get your facts right.

(02-20-2015 05:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Stay classy billow...stay classy. Sounds like a tad too much protesting, huh? Often implies some guilt.

Quote:"I’ve talked to about eight or nine reporters, and when they verify what I’m saying, because it’s easily verifiable, then I expect David Corn to be in the kill zone. Where he deserves to be,"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bi...-kill-zone

What's worse? Saying he needs to be placed in the kill zone, or calling a woman a c*nt? Man up and answer that.


By the way, here's Bill's talking points from last night. Kind of what I thought. He'll have a field day and ratings bonanza over the liberal screwup.




http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/20/bil...ght-8pm-et

(02-21-2015 06:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 04:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair post. But whose story, if exaggerated, is making himself try to look the hero? Brian who said he was simply in a plane that got shot? Or Bill who supposedly dragged a wounded friend to safety while at gunpoint?

Has there been any refutation of O'Reilly's story?

The liberal media is trying to fact check and dig up any dirt they can find this weekend. If there's no mention of O'Reilly on MSNBC on Monday, the whole story is probably dead.

From someone who was there with O Reilly.

https://www.facebook.com/eric.j.engberg/...3374051471

(02-21-2015 09:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 06:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 04:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair post. But whose story, if exaggerated, is making himself try to look the hero? Brian who said he was simply in a plane that got shot? Or Bill who supposedly dragged a wounded friend to safety while at gunpoint?

Has there been any refutation of O'Reilly's story?

The liberal media is trying to fact check and dig up any dirt they can find this weekend. If there's no mention of O'Reilly on MSNBC on Monday, the whole story is probably dead.

who'd a thunk the left/right media would resort to those tactics.......

(02-21-2015 10:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  From someone who was there with O Reilly.

https://www.facebook.com/eric.j.engberg/...3374051471

OReilly has provided letters from CBS and himself during the time to back up what he has said. What did Engberg provide?

1. An intro on his initial meeting with OReilly, in which Engbert seems butthurt.

2. at least 3 or four paragraphs about OReilly shooting camera shots with the lights on, against orders. None of this disproves anything OReilley has said.

3. The part about the cameraman being injured is laughable. He states it can not be true WITHOUT FURTHER CONFIRMATION. Not that it wasnt true. He just needs to see more proof. In other words, he's not denying it happened, he just doesnt know about it, didnt hear about it, and without further proof, will not believe it. So, pretty much worthless.


4. The part about the army firing into the crowd is laughable. He contradicts himself. In the end he concludes "O'Reilly's claim that the army fired weapons into the crowd is not supported by anyone's recollection. Had that happened, I believe, the riot would have escalated into an uncontrollable attack on government buildings all over the capital." But just a few sentences before that he states
"One of our camera crews reported that they believed the Argentine police or army had fired a few rubber bullets at the crowd." So he basically says the army didnt fire into the crowd after he said his own cameraman said they fired into the crowd. He simply believes the army didnt fire real bullets into the crowd because he thinks that would have caused the crowd to escalate the attack. It is inconcievable that he believes the crowd would charge into the army firing real bullets, but stay at bay if they simply fired rubber bullets. That is dumb. That is "tweeting a picture of earplugs asking for confirmation that they are rubber bullets" dumb.

5. He seems very focused on the fact that OReilly was mad that Seiffer wasnt going to use his piece, yet failed to mention that two CBS stations ran his entire piece. Maybe because he posted his facebook page prior to OReilley's talking points, where OREilley delivered memos from CBS and himself at the time. You know, actual evidence and facts, not some butthurt correspondent's "opinion".

Is this the same Engberg who was blasted in the insider book about the bias of CBS News a while back?

Quote:Update: Fox News has released a statement: “The O’Reilly Factor invited Eric Engberg to appear on the program this Monday and he refused. The O’Reilly Factor has also contacted CBS news and asked them to release the footage in question. Bill O’Reilly wll address Engberg’s claims on Mediabuzz with Howard Kurtz tomorrow at 11:00 am ET.”

Engberg doesn't want to say what he has to say to oreilleys face...go figure. I also can't wait to see the video, which I believe CBS now has an obligation to release and which Oreilley doesn't seem to fear in the slightest. I think a new person will have egg on their face pretty soon.

(02-21-2015 06:36 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-21-2015 04:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Fair post. But whose story, if exaggerated, is making himself try to look the hero? Brian who said he was simply in a plane that got shot? Or Bill who supposedly dragged a wounded friend to safety while at gunpoint?

Simply? There's nothing about what he said that implies it's "no big deal". And it wasn't a plane, teacher. Get your facts right.

Facts? I thought it was a lie?