It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: thesaneone
Did you listen to the video of the radio show?
"I was in combat" is WAY WAY different than "I was in a combat zone.'
To discerning people, at least.
All I have to say is: if you're confused or unsure about whether you were in combat, you weren't
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: IAMTAT
Breakiing 'Brina? LOL just wow.
a reply to: diggindirt
The crux of the problem is that people believe what they hear from these people. Doesn't matter how you spin it. Sorry.
The point of contention seems to be whether the riots that O'Reilly witnessed in Buenos Aires after Argentina's forces in the Falklands surrendered to Britain constituted a "combat situation" and an "active war zone."
News reports from the time depict rioters breaking windows, throwing stones and sticks, and police responding by throwing tear gas, firing on demonstrators with rubber bullets, and clubbing them. But Corn and Schulman noted that "media accounts did not report, as O'Reilly claims, that there were fatalities." [HuffPo]
Corn said that O'Reilly's refusal to comment ahead of publication demonstrated that he would rather hide behind name calling than address the allegations in his report.
"Rather than calling anyone a liar or a guttersnipe, he had ample opportunity to deal with the facts of this case. He elected not to, and instead engaged in name calling," Corn said. "He chose not to address the issue, he chose to throw mud. And I would say that his right to impugn others ought to be diminished until he answers the basic questions about his statements." [Politico]
Mother Jones spends a good chunk of text establishing that there’s no way that O’Reilly could have witnessed any actual hostilities in the Falklands war, because precisely zero U.S. correspondents were able to establish a beachhead on these remote lands. “For us, you were a thousand miles from where the fighting was. So we had some great meals,” CBS News’s Bob Schieffer tells Mother Jones.
To which, O’Reilly says, “That’s correct. I never said I was in the Falklands.”
originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
As a Vet, you're giving him that pass?
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
He was in El Salvador and WITNESSED combat.
So I suppose you COULD say he was "IN"it.
On his television show in 1999, O’Reilly responded to a letter from a retired Air Force colonel, who said he had flown 123 missions over Vietnam and who criticized O’Reilly for supporting military action in Kosovo, by citing his Falklands war days: “Hey, Colonel, did you ever have a hostile point an M-16 at your head from 10 yards away? That happened to me while I was covering the Falklands war.” In his 2013 book Keep It Pithy, he writes, “I’ve seen soldiers gun down unarmed civilians in Latin America.”
he only war more fake than O’Reilly’s ‘War on Christmas’ turns out to be the one he imagines covering from Buenos Aires in 1982, where he actually attended a protest that was two thousand miles from the war zone.
In fact, the references to Argentina show that O’Reilly knew he could never get away with claiming to have witnessed actual combat in the actual war zone because no American journalists were ever allowed to see it. Instead, O’Reilly just makes up his “combat experience” by describing a protest as if it was combat, then shoves this “experience” in the face of anyone who questions his authority as an expert on armed conflict. When did Brian Williams ever tell Vietnam veterans ‘I know better than you do because I’ve been in combat’ and then cite a protest he covered as if it was combat?
But MJ won’t even let O’Reilly claim that magical moment of “major violence up close.”
“O'Reilly's account of the protest in Buenos Aires is at odds with news reports from the time—including the report from his own bureau,” MJ wrote. “The CBS Evening News that night aired about a minute of video of the protest, apparently including some of the footage that O'Reilly and his camera team had obtained….The only act of violence in the spot was a man throwing a punch against the car of a Canadian news crew.”
MJ pulls no punches in its effort to expose O’Reilly’s claims of ‘combat reporting’ as fraudulent.