...what he says to be the truth like you would with a news anchor like Brian Williams.

Sometimes O'Reilly slips and calls himself a "reporter" but then realizes the only thing he reports on is what he had for dinner last night and goes back to calling himself a "pundint" (that's how he pronounces it).

People don't expect the truth from O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity - they are giving their opinions;  Brian Williams has to tell the truth when he's on the air to have credibility.

According to OReilly:

schtick about the Holy War against Islam!  

Catch CNN last night? Frank Cesno took O'Reilly's back, saying this was NOTHING like Brian Williams and CNN showed footage of O'Reilly on NUMEROUS occasions over the years saying he was covering the Falkland Islands FROM Buenos Aires.  

It is beyond obvious that the reason the fringe kooks went back 33 years to find something they could accuse O'Reilly of making up is to water down the well-known lies of the once central Left wing propagandist, Brian Williams. It's chump bait and you're the chump.

You also skip over that he expressly said he was “in a war zone.”  The war was OVER when the incident happened. Even Frank Sesno, who was present in Buenos Aires at the same time, said that calling Buenos Aires a “war zone” was misleading.

I will agree to a certain point that O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity, and their left wing counterparts are held to a lower standard than actual new reporters like that POS Williams who rivaled Al Gore for self serving exaggerations and outright lies.

That said, there still need to be at least some standards, and even the likes of political "pundints" should have some accountability to the truth. I have no idea about O'Reilly's guilt or innocence on this, and I have learned enough over the years NOT to simply take Mari's word for it, so "IF" he is proved to be a liar, IMO there should be some consequences, but I have to agree with BPS, it's not like he is a "real" reporter any more than I now believe that Mari is a "real" lawyer. lol

Seeing you all worked up over a far left hit piece from an author who was fired from FOX News is quite amusing.  

“no war zone.” LO

He does not report news, his show is a talk show.

I never said he did or didn't say it.

Why are you even surprised their golden boy is a liar?

1) OReilly won’t defame David Corn on his show tonight like has in the interviews or mention “kill zone” again

Mari will take Hills side during the 2016 election run up and say she misspoke about coming under fire in Bosnia as she deplaned.  

puts girlie-boy corn in his place.

Address the media immediatley, do 5 or 6 interviews, answer the questions, address it on your show, produce the documents.

Hook, line and sinker.

So do you ever stop lying in your comments or to yourself?

If it wasn't clear to some as to who NOT to trust when it comes to terrible and biased reporting from the left, you now can clearly identify the list. Simply look at those that ran with this garbage, Huffpo, Slate, Salon, Mediamatters. Then look at who haven't touched it or waited until O’Reilly replied and then covered both.

Reminds me of you!

What constitutes a war zone? O'Reilly is straining at gnats, and only some on the far right are buying. David Corn raised a series of question for O'Reilly, because of what he and others have said about his remarks and experiences regarding war zones seemed inconsistent. That's called investigative reporting. Part of the investigative reporting involved Corn giving O'Reilly the opportunity to address those inconsistencies, and even offered to postpone his story if O'Reilly needed more time before filing his report. O'Reilly did not respond, nor did anyone else, who David Corn address at FOX News. Of course he's under no compunction to do so, however if he really was interested in avoiding any misconceptions, regarding any issues the questions might bring up, he would have. And, he still hasn't address some of the other questions Corn posed to him, like other areas of combat such as El Salvador and Northern Ireland. No, he's quite satisfied with behaving like a thin-skinned narcissist, whaling about how he's being smeared, and a target of the far left media, and name calling.  Why, because it makes for good theater, and good theater makes for higher ratings!  However, pursuing ratings can get in the way of the truth. Just ask the staffers at the Tea Party News Network. I sincerely salute them, and hope they find new and rewarding jobs very soon.

The Left saw Williams go down so they tried to get their scalp. No sense of fairness or balance by the HuffyPoo or any of the other ones you name. Waiting for all the facts just isnt their thing. LOL

O’Reilly’s “various phony claims of valor?” I’m so glad to see you agree with me

meaning of his use of the acronym ISIS, I find it comical that you apparently are willing to apply a different standard to Oreilly whose only defense to his literal words is that "war zone" is "shorthand" for phoning in his reports from the Buenos Aires Hilton.

“In addition, Engberg calls into question O’Reilly’s claim that he was "was out there pretty much by myself because the other CBS News correspondents were hiding in the hotel."
“If he said such thing it is an absolute lie,” Engberg writes.”

I know you'll never learn this, but some of us have no need or desire to make up news and stories. The truth is just too powerful. It is so liberating not to have to push a narrative with truth being the obstacle. Sadly, you'll never understand, anyway, so wallow in your latest fail. Inevitably you'll dredge up your most recent victory to cheer you up: the ill-gotten re-election of your beloved Messiah.

'got nothin!'

I suggested he quit calling them ISIL if he thinks they don't fit the definition. Seems that some libs on MSNBC now agree  with me.

but so far at least, OReilly seems to be the more credible of the parties.

“If he think[sic] they are in no way Islamic (AS HE HAS STATED) then he should quit calling them ISIL.”  

to your high school or junior high English teacher and sincerely apologize to them for your not paying attention.

I bet you will be watching O'Reilly Factor tomorrow night.
Quote :
Officials gave no arrest figures, but they appeared to number in the dozens. Several demonstrators were reported to have been injured, along with at least two reporters.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/16/world/thousands-in-buenos-aires-assail-junta-for-surrendering-to-britain.html

That's nuts. The much more logical take is that he was injured and he is a liberal (as an overwhelming percentage are) and THATS why he shut his mouth, so no to bail out OReilly from a phony, left wing manufactured POS story. lol

Not even getting air time on the major networks. I didn't see it on any of the Sunday morning news programs on the Big 3 either.

For you would have seen the then NBC bureau chief who was pesent take OReillys back in full. Says there were tanks in  Buenos Aires, and there was a "war in the streets" with numerous injuries. Local reporting claimed there were fatalities but it was a military dictatorship and a press blackout.

I quoted precisely what OReilly said on the air on April 17, 2013 and listed four statements that were untrue. OReilly has  effectively ADMITTED  that these statements were untrue- he ADMITTED he was not and never was in the Falklands, he has admitted that he was not in the Falklands “war zone,” he has effectively admitted that the Falklands War was over when he made his statements, and he has effectively admitted that the army was not “chasing” him and his cameraman.

so, out of your post, which I quote here "I was in a situation one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us. I had to make a decision. And I dragged him off, you know, but at the same time, I’m looking around and trying to do my job, but I figure I had to get this guy out of there because that was more important."

His take after looking at the facts and the players; Political hit job by Corn, et al.

It is NO more valid of an argument today than when Corn published it.

If nothing else, it seems he never learned to play well with others!