Oops, he did it again: Bill O'Reilly defames the victims of the Malmedy massacre

Respectful Insolence ^ | 6/2/2006 | Orac

[Born Conservative]

Back in October, Jamie McCarthy and I castigated Bill O'Reilly for implying that at Malmedy in December 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge U.S. Airborne troops had massacred Nazis soldiers who had surrendered when in fact the Malmedy massacre was perpetrated by SS troops to whom U.S. soldiers had surrendered. Naturally, after ragging on him a bit, we wrote it off as yet another example of Bill O'Reilly's self-confident ignorance. I figured O'Reilly had simply mixed up historical facts in his eagerness to defend the abuses at Abu Ghraib by pointing to supposed atrocities committed by U.S. forces during World War II and that, once burned, he would be unlikely to make that same mistake again.

How incorrect I was!

Tuesday night, O'Reilly topped even himself for sheer historical ignorance and idiocy. While discussing the killings by U.S. troops at Haditha, Bill O'Reilly invoked Malmedy again. Only this time he did not imply anything. He explicitly stated it:

In Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces, who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. And been documented.

You won't be able to find this exact quote on the Fox news website, because it's been scrubbed from the official transcript, with the word "Malmedy" replaced by "Normandy." Fortunately, you can find the original video documenting what O'Reilly actually said here, with Keith Olbermann's blistering takedown of O'Reilly's despicable idiocy. There is no doubt at all that O'Reilly said "Malmedy," not "Normandy." Particularly disgusting is O'Reilly's lame explanation when reader mail pointed out to him that he had gotten his facts wrong. I can't imagine why O'Reilly would keep making such a historically erroneous statement, given that his remarks are likely to tick off a large part of his core audience (at least the ones with some knowledge of World War II history). The only explanation I can think of is that O'Reilly seems to think that if members of the "Greatest Generation" committed atrocities during what we consider to be a just war, then he can argue that the abuses at Abu Ghraib (warning: graphic images) and the massacre at Haditha are no big deal. It's the "shit happens during war" defense at the expense of sliming the American soldiers murdered at Malmedy.

Of course, in this whole incident, it's not just Bill O'Reilly that infuriates me. I now consider General Wesley Clark to be just as big of an idiot as he. Clark had not one, but two chances to counter O'Reilly's ignorant bloviations but chose to remain silent. I could forgive him the first time (perhaps he was simply so taken aback that he didn't know how to react), but not this second time. It's not clear to me whether Clark remained silent because he simply doesn't know the facts about Malmedy or because he was just too timid to give O'Reilly the bitch-slapping on the air that he so richly deserved. As a retired four star general who served his nation so honorably and bravely for so many years, Clark should know a little military history--they do still teach that stuff in West Point, don't they?--particularly of his own military. He should know that it was the SS who murdered U.S. troops at Malmedy, not the other way around. Yet he said nothing when O'Reilly implied in October that it was U.S. troops who murdered Nazis at Malmedy and he again said nothing on Tuesday when O'Reilly explicitly stated that U.S. troops murdered SS troops at Malmedy! Any self-respecting veteran or soldier with a little knowledge of World War II history would have publicly ripped O'Reilly a new orifice for his slurs upon the U.S. Army or, at the very least, would have ripped off his microphone in disgust and left the studio, preferably with the fluorish of a colorful stream of profanity.

Yet Clark said nothing and did not even disagree with O'Reilly.

I think Keith Olberman put it best:

When you're that wrong -- when you're defending Nazi War Criminals and pinning their crimes on Americans, and you get caught doing so--twice--you're supposed to say 'I'm sorry, I was wrong'... and then you should shut up for a long time. Instead, Fox washed its transcript of O'Reilly's remarks Tuesday -- its website claims O'Reilly said "In Normandy..." when in fact he said, "In Malmedy..."

The rewriting of past reporting -- worthy of Orwell -- has now carried over into such on-line transcription services as Burrell's and Factiva. Whatever did or did not happen later, in supposed or actual retribution... the victims at Malmedy, were Americans, gunned down while surrendering -- by Nazis in 1944 -- and again, Tuesday Night and Wednesday Night -- by a false patriot who would rather be loud than right.

"In Malmedy, as you know," Bill O'Reilly said Tuesday night, in some indecipherable attempt to defend the events of Haditha, "U.S. forces captured S.S. forces who had their hands in the air and were unarmed and they shot them dead, you know that. That's on the record. And documented."

The victims at Malmedy in December, 1944... were Americans. Americans with their hands in the air. Americans who were unarmed. That's on the record. And documented.

And their memory deserves better than Bill O'Reilly.

We all do.

 

Their memory also deserves beter than weasely Wesley Clark.

[Born Conservative]

This is pure journalistic malpractice on BOR's part.

[Jeff Head]

Halditha: What it should mean

[nralife]

bump!

[Born Conservative]

I do disagree with Orac on several points in his post, the number one disagreement being the inference that American troops are guilty of massacring innocent civilians (I'm really sick and tired of presumed guilt). I posted it mainly because it contains evidence that BOR blatantly DID defame the victims of Malmedy.

[Dog Gone]

Bill O'Reilly does not make mistakes because Bill O'Reilly is God.

At least in his mind.

[demlosers]

BOR should fess up to this one.

[highlander_UW]

I heard O'Reilley make this error as well. Is it spin if he's just flamingly wrong and ignorant of the fact that he's wrong? I guess not, but he's massively ignorant of the actual historical events.

[Born Conservative]

Ping

[sgtyork]

I have to say I'm disappointed. Both for his original ignorance, and for not doing the research and making his correction.

I stopped watching him several months ago, but I didn't think he was this big an idiot.

[Born Conservative]

I heard O'Reilley make this error as well. Is it spin if he's just flamingly wrong and ignorant of the fact that he's wrong? I guess not, but he's massively ignorant of the actual historical events.

It's spin when he says "Malmedy", and later tries to slither out of it by saying that he said "Normandy"; it's all on the Olbermann video linked in the body of the thread.

[SunkenCiv]

I guess the MSM are going to ignore this, the same way they ignored Dan Rather's blatant fraud and partisan shilling in 2004.

First such topic that I noticed:

O'Reilly The Historian??
Vanity | 5/30/06 | Blau993
Posted on 05/30/2006 10:39:49 PM EDT by blau993
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1640952/posts

[Petronski]

In Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces, who had their hands in the air and they were unarmed. And they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record. And been documented.

Good God, what an idiot!

[Petronski]

I can't believe I'm left rooting for *gulp* Olbermann!

In a battle between Olbermann and O'Reilly, couldn't they both lose?

[detroitdarien]

As a retired four star general who served his nation so honorably and bravely for so many years, Clark should know a little military history

I wish he had spoken specifically to Malmedy also. Though I don't excuse that lapse, there was an important point he WAS making... it is, in fact, true that on occasion American forces may have killed surrending troops (on Normandy, for instance) but only after fierce battle - where, after they have put you through SHEER HELL, one isn't inclined to just say "OK" simply because your mortal enemies just (maybe temporarily) throw down their weapons. That's light years away from shooting innocent civilians, which I've never (before BOR) heard anyone accusing WWII American GIs ever doing..

[demlosers]

Olbermann throws rocks from a glass house.

[Born Conservative]

I can't believe I'm left rooting for *gulp* Olbermann! In a battle between Olbermann and O'Reilly, couldn't they both lose?

My sentiments (and dilemna) as well.

[Leatherneck_MT]

O'really is really off in la la land on this one.

Must get his history from watching ABC and CBS.

Good lord this is idiocy.

[Leatherneck_MT]

If memory recalls, after Malmedy I don't think American Troops ever again accepted an SS Surrender. Normal Wehrmacht were for the most part treated humanely when they surrendered, but the Nazi Crack troops from that day forward were shot, surrendering or not.

[RDTF]

what a maroon!

[blau993]

Oh yes. He said "Malemdy" not "Normandy." I heard it loud and clear, and the link to my posting last week on this subject appears above. O'Reilly is a pompous ass. Anyone can make a mistake. Only a true jerk can never admit he has done so.

General Clark should have corrected him. I am frankly surprised he didn't. I don't much like General Clark's politics, but I respect his service and his intellect. Both let him down on this occasion.