O'Reilly's lie about Malmedy while Wesley Clark was on his show

This was great the way Keith Olbermann went off on O'Reilly while first pointing out Wes Clark's qualifications:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/01.html#a8537


Keith stopped the video before I could hear what Clark said. So I watched the O'Reilly/Clark debate

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/31.html#a8518

and I don't understand why Clark let him get away with that lie about Malmedy. (I am NOT trying to start trouble-Wesley Clark is and was my candidate which is why I was disappointed by his letting this go. I DID like how he strongly disagreed with O'Reilly on his main points, though).

by getting into an argument with O'Reilly on a historical point. He was focusing instead on the specific issue, which was the Haditha incident, and wasn't about to get sidetracked. I thought he handled it very well.

sorry that is baldly false. Clark assumes it is true at one point and states (correctly) that such conduct would have been less egregious than what the Marines did in Iraq.

I saw the video. I didn't take it that way.

but he literally does assume it to be true. It doesn't make him evil but he was unprepared.

That's my point-he didn't point out that it ISN'T true, like Olbermann did.

when he said what happened in WW2 is different than Hadifah.

He said Bill would have to prove to him soldiers shot down unarmed civilians and then brought the discussion back to Iraq.

He can't respond to every stupid thing Bill says, his job is to get the truth out about Iraq not to teach Bill about WW2.

I thought Keith did a great job, it was a tag team effort. Clark kept the focus on Iraq and Murtha, Keith slapped Bill silly for his ignorance.

At around 5:30 he says in reference to the examples O'Reiley gave "That is different" He goes on to specificly describe what our soldiers were accused of doing in Belgium and again says it is different. I don't know what other interpretation one can give to that.

http://securingamerica.com/node/1047




Then he says this:




What is he responding to in the "that's a lot different than this"?

Bill threw in Malmedy, Iwo Jima and Japan all in the mix. What I thought Clark was trying to say is this involved civilians not POWS. He can't stop everything and lecture Bill on WW2. He has to keep his eye on the ball which was explaining the horror of today!


If he let Bill distract him then he would have lost the opportunity to discuss what is going wrong in Iraq and defending Murtha. He would have gotten in to a debate over WW2 and that wasn't his mission.

from an off site location is the same thing as

1) being in the studio or
2) listening to a video.

it's not, sorry.... try it sometime....

Having done a bit of this professionally, I'm surprised anybody ever hears anything (it's also on a delay) on those things.

What Clark heard O'Reilly say is a matter of conjecture, it surely didn't sound from his answer as though he heard Malmady.

As first in his class at West Point (that includes a history class or two) I suspect Clark could teach a class about Malmady, including the names of officers on both sides, names of survivors (and knowing Clark) the names of the survivor's children.

he was probably so exasperated and disgusted, and let OReilly keep blathering on so people can see what an idiot he is.
And if he did try to correct him, it may have started an tangential discussion, and Clark, as you said, wanted to stay on topic. But given all the fallout, he's probably wishing he did correct the Falafel.

Before becoming a Fox analyst, Clark would not go on OReilly's show. Now he has to, and I'm guessing he'd rather have a root canal.


CLARK 2008!!!

But I still think he made a good move by becoming a Faux analyst. That gives him exposure to people who'd never see him otherwise. That's why I wish he would've corrected O'Reilly right then and there when O'Reilly said, "You know this is true" or however he put it. He should've said, "No, you're 100% wrong. The Americans were the VICTIMS-not the killers!"

snatch up the story.

Revenge is a dish best served cold...by a good waiter of your choosing!

That would've been brilliant. But then again, those who watch O'Reilly most likely didn't SEE Olbermann ripping him apart.

"I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo Jima who murdered civilians"?

Clark was NOT playing O'Reilly's moral equivalence game.

O'Reiley claimed they had murdered soldiers. Clark's point being that murdering civilians is worse than doing so to soldiers.

at haditha. O'Reilly was trying to change the subject; Clark didn't let him.

Happily, the experts here on DU are like KO's characterization of O'Reilly last night: "Last October Bill O‘Reilly railed against a ruling that more photos from the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq might be released. His guest on his program was Wesley Clark. Clark is a retired four-star general, was for four years supreme allied commander of NATO in Europe. First in his class at West Point, wounded in Vietnam, earned the Bronze star, the Silver Star and has streets named for him in Alabama and in Kosovo. Therefore, naturally O‘Reilly knows much more about the military than General Clark does. "

1) Clark was not in the studio. From Clark's response it's obvious he was "guessing" BO said "Malmady", but over an earpiece... it may have also sounded like "Normandy". Even then he demanded O'Reilly produce facts, not bloviating.

2) Clark doesn't need to get 'strawmanned' into an argument over WWII history when he's making a point about what's happening today. BO makes so many mistakes that if Clark stopped to correct them all, the issue being discussed would never GET discussed.

3) It's not the first time BO has said the same thing about "Malmady" but the Clark netroots beat him up about it in October of 05 when he did it last time. Keith apparently knew about it, since KO "forgave" the earlier (possible) mistake.... The opportunity to smack BO around about obvious errors of fact is almost overwhelming. Clark knows we have his back.

4) For BO to look like a fool to vets (particularly Fox-watching vets) is always an upside.... why correct someone who's making an ass of themselves and everybody but the ass knows it.

this was the 2nd time BO said that about Malmedy to Clark. I would think if Clark DID correct him the vets watching BO would've cheered him on. However, I'm sure the vets were cheering him on anyway for all the points he DID make.

Are you?
I believe that Wes thought that O'lielly had said "Normandy".

Evidenced by Clark's response to O'lielly:...
""I say that, first of all, you'll have to show me and prove to me that
there were ever any American soldiers in Belgium and Normandy or in Iwo
Jima who murdered civilians."

Beyond that Clark rarely allows for the real issues to be diverted to some other topic by the likes of someone like O'lielly....which is probably why he didn't spend but a sentence or two on it. I believe that he heard "Normandy".....he therefore chose not to argue for the rest of his segment dealing witih lowlife's O'lielly's accusations.

Watch the tape again, and you'll see what I mean.

If he DID answer "Normandy," then that explains it. What's makes it so wrong, though, is that Faux changed the transcript to show O'REILLY said "Normandy" instead of "Malmedy."

That may be why Clark consistently posts independently produced transcripts at his website.

I'm glad there's video and I'm glad Clark posts his transcripts.

what they want and worry about it later.....

I'm sure they hope that no one notices. :eyes:

It seems their audience isn't bright enough to notice and so they go on believing whatever fathead SAYS. If his audience wasn't so large it wouldn't matter. But lots of people trust what he says because he's "looking out for you." :eyes:

Fox is well known for inaccurate transcripts but the tape is what the tape is.

I thought a while back that some DUers sent him a tie. What made me wonder about this is that the street-naming ceremony in Kosovo only happened about a week ago. It was talked about here at DU and accompanied by photos; and the only other place I saw the photos was at the Clark Website. Since Keith mentioned the street in Kosovo in his profile of Clark, I thought that Keith or possibly one of his assistants at MSNBC must come here.

(By the way, I read in my local paper that Harry Reid has one of his Senatorial aids visit various blogs to see what is being said about him). :-)

And I always thought he or his staff read Raw Story. He often tells of articles that came right off their site.