Bill O’Reilly’s 1982 Falklands War stories called into question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomdstone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like O’Reilly and watch him most nights he is on. I think he is the fairest of them all really, He did answer these accusations and has the letters, etc to prove it.

HIs book, “Killing Jesus” was made into a movie and is going to be shown on the National Geographic channel soon. Also, he is about the only one who took a stand on the war on Christmas. I think he did make a lot of businesses back down on not allowing their employees to say, “Merry Christmas” to customers. He also gives a lot to veterans from selling his gear on his web site and does a lot of good with his charities.
 
graciew said:
I went through all the links in the thread.
The closest detail as to date and event.according to O Reilly would be post 42.
He was definitely not in a war zone .
Army or police.chasing people during "manifestaciones "were not uncommon ,but that was not combat.

I.d say there is nothing else for.me ,to.add out of respect for those who died on Malvinas.
Click to expand...
So we move the goalpost. We went from O’Reilly fabricated the story to a semantics argument about the definition of a “war zone”
 
Tomdstone said:
From what you say here, it sounds like there is a problem with Mr. O’Reilly’s story.
Click to expand...
Only by those who didn’t like O’Reilly in the first place. The story has pretty much disappeared after O’Reilly produced evidence backing up his story and his primary accuser refused to confront the accused…

It will , of course, live on in the minds of those who don’t like O’Reilly anyway. And it will continue to be embellished to the point that a few years from now you will see posters claiming O’Reilly swore he personally stormed the beaches of the Falkland Islands
 
graciew said:
I went through all the links in the thread.
The closest detail as to date and event.according to O Reilly would be post 42.
He was definitely not in a war zone .
Army or police.chasing people during "manifestaciones "were not uncommon ,but that was not combat.

I.d say there is nothing else for.me ,to.add out of respect for those who died on Malvinas.
Click to expand...
Argentina lost.

Nobody died on the Malvinas. They are the Falklands.
 
Tomdstone said:
After cutting off the two pacifists who were on his program and not allowing them to finish their answer, Mr. O’Reilly himself said that he was obnoxious. Why would Mr. Endberg want to go on a program with an obnoxious interviewer who would cut you off and make faces as you tried to explain your position?
Click to expand...
O’Reilly treats all his guests the same. He cuts off people who are on “his side” too. There are a lot of people who aren’t afraid of Mr. O’Reilly and appear on his show.

Endberg knows he’s wrong and doesn’t want to be exposed. O’Reilly produced the documents that prove Endberg is not telling the truth.
 
Darryl1958 said:
If a person is mot man enough to confront the person he is accusing face to face, there is no reason to take him all that seriously.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a fair judgment at all given the situation. Standing face to face with someone is completely different than going on their program where they control all aspects of the production and have a vested interest in making your look bad. I don’t know anything about Endberg so I can’t comment on his claims or character, but even if everything he was saying were 100% true and he had no external motivations besides simply telling that truth he would still have plenty of reason to avoid the program.
 
PatrickSebast said:
This isn’t a fair judgment at all given the situation. Standing face to face with someone is completely different than going on their program where they control all aspects of the production and have a vested interest in making your look bad. I don’t know anything about Endberg so I can’t comment on his claims or character, but even if everything he was saying were 100% true and he had no external motivations besides simply telling that truth he would still have plenty of reason to avoid the program.
Click to expand...
Speaking behind someone’s back but unwilling to go face to face with him shows a lack of character., imho.
 
O’REILLY FACTOR

TALKING POINTS MEMO
2-20-15

nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/20…tonight-8pm-et

< My video of the combat … led the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather that evening.

and later on … I filed a report … that ran nationwide.

That’s what happened.

I never said I was on the Falkland Islands … as Corn purports … I said I covered the Falklands War … which I did.

Now … in what I consider to be a miracle … I found this CBS internal memo from 33 years ago … praising my coverage that day.

The cable was sent to the CBS bureau chief in Buenos Aires … by the news desk here in New York City:

"Doyle, O’Reilly didn’t have the time last night but would like to say many thanks for the riot piece last night. WCBS-TV and WCAU-TV both took the entire piece, instead of stripping it for pix. They called to say thanks for a fine piece.”

“Thanks again. Your piece made the late feed, a winner last night.”

Want more? … here it is:

Shortly after my crew and I … escaped grave danger on the streets of Buenos Aires … I wrote to CBS News boss Ed Joyce … praising the crew’s bravery.

I have the letter:

“The crews were great … the riot had been very bad, we were gassed, shot at, and I had the best vantage point in which to report the story.”

So we have rock solid proof … that David Corn … smeared me … and some websites that picked up his defamation … did as well.

Now … I had to spend hours last night … on the phone with various reporters … and crawling around my basement covered with dust to find documents from 33 years ago. Again, it was a miracle I found them.

all because an irresponsible … guttersnipe … a far left zealot … who has attacked Fox News many times before … spit this stuff out on the net.

and you know what? … nothing is gonning to happen to David Corn.

Mother Jones and the far left websites …couldn’t care less about the truth.

They are in business to injure. This is a political hit job.

At this point … TV coverage has been scant, but CNN tried to exploit the situation because a guy over there named Brian Stelter … is another far left zealot … masquerading as a journalist. CNN can do a lot better than this guy.

Real journalists … knew this story was B-S from the jump.

They knew Corn was trying to take the Brian Williams situation … and wrap it around my neck … for ideological reasons … because he has a history of attacking Fox News. >
 
Orogeny said:
It seems that the left is looking for a journalist on the right to balance out the loss of Brian Williams.
Click to expand...
…which is why I do not buy this accusation for a minute. As nothing was said before the Brian Williams fiasco, this is a childish retaliation stunt. The motivation here is laughably transparent.
 
Lormar said:
We could say the same about Brian Williams.

The bottom line is people are people. Neither “side” is angelic. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
There is a difference however, Brian Williams is/was a news anchor, he reports news and is held to a higher standard. Bill O’Riely is a commentator, he gives his opinion of the news. This is why most of his fans and his haters are not affected in this either way. It makes no difference to the lover or the hater of BO whether this was true or not.

End of story.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
This story is actually several years old. The only reason it’s come to light now is Fox "news’s " hypocritical attack on Brian Williams, when they had their own liar in their own ranks.
Click to expand...
BS. The only reason this is a story is because of the “news organization” Mother Jones, brought it up and BO took time out of his schedule to address it. By his response he validated a nobody.

Fox did not attack BW, they reported on his lying about NEWS! BO is not a network anchor, he is a cable news network commentator. Big difference.
 
AyJSimon said:
O’Reilly got sued for sexual harassment back in 2004, and settled the suit about two weeks later for millions of dollars. His accuser had lurid audio tapes of him. Did his ratings suffer? Did Fox take him off the air, for even a little while? Nope and nope.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge nothing was ever proven about any of these accusations. Do you have proof to back up your words?

Getting sued is much different than being guilty of the harassment. A person I know personally was sued for sexual assault, served papers days before he was killed. The accuser had absolutely no proof, yet the widow, my friend, settled to end the court case. Did my friend’s settling of the case make the man guilty? Nope…and nope. Simply smart.

The accuser had no evidence that she ever had dealings with him, let alone proof there was an assault. But he was a high profile person in our community so the accuser knew they would settle. it happens every day with normal people, happens even more with celebrities like BO.
 
Darryl1958 said:
Speaking behind someone’s back but unwilling to go face to face with him shows a lack of character., imho.
Click to expand...
You are trying to equate two entirely separate things. Unwilling to go on national television and be placed in a position where the individual you are accusing has the majority of the power is completely different from being unwilling to sit face to face with that person.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
This story is actually several years old. The only reason it’s come to light now is Fox "news’s " hypocritical attack on Brian Williams, when they had their own liar in their own ranks.
Click to expand...
Where did Bill O’Reilly attack Brian Williams? O’Reilly reported the news and then he actually said the media ought to back off Williams bashing.
 
Lapey said:
To my knowledge nothing was ever proven about any of these accusations. Do you have proof to back up your words?

Getting sued is much different than being guilty of the harassment. A person I know personally was sued for sexual assault, served papers days before he was killed. The accuser had absolutely no proof, yet the widow, my friend, settled to end the court case. Did my friend’s settling of the case make the man guilty? Nope…and nope. Simply smart.

The accuser had no evidence that she ever had dealings with him, let alone proof there was an assault. But he was a high profile person in our community so the accuser knew they would settle. it happens every day with normal people, happens even more with celebrities like BO.
Click to expand...
She accused him of making sexist comments and the standby “creating a hostile work environment”. It was settled out of court
 
estesbob said:
She accused him of making sexist comments and the standby “creating a hostile work environment”. It was settled out of court
Click to expand...
Of course, he said “But enough is enough … The threats stop now. I will not give in to extortion.” and then, according to him, he did give into extortion. Or maybe he did the things she accused him of. But there was a lot of bravado that he was going to fight until he didn’t fight. Maybe it had something to do with the tapes…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top