Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Was o'reilly fired too?
Too often people try to attribute lying to statements that are not lies but just hypotheticals and common language use. Take this example from a blog post at DailyKos on Saturday about O'Reilly:
Quote:
O'Reilly told his radio listeners about how he would have coaxed information out of an enemy soldier based on his personal experiences in combat (video below):
"I tell you what, I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if my unit is in danger and I got a captured guy and the guy knows where the enemy is and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. If it's life or death, he's going first."
As noted above, and contrary to his statement, O'Reilly has never been in combat. Consequently, he has never commanded a unit or had to contemplate how he would deal with an enemy prisoner. His pretend bluster and machismo is all just a bunch of fantasizing of himself as a hero. So how is that any different than the offenses for which Williams is being pilloried?
Any non military person who is present in a combat fight is going to believe that they were in combat, even though they mean that they were in combat just as an observer and not a participant. The rest of his quote is a hypothetical.
The problem is the DailyKos writer wants to catch him in a lie, so he bends the clear meaning of these words and goes so far as to leadingly suggest you can't contemplate how to deal with an enemy prisoner unless you have commanded a unit in real life
We're too smart for that BS.
If Brian Williams statements were hypotheticals or fuzzy language, he would get a pass. The key is to read his actual words and ask yourself if he is making a false statement or talking in hypotheticals. Williams fails the test.