Over at Politico, Dylan Byers has been reporting, in voluminous detail, on the war of words between lefty pub Mother Jones and Fox talking head Bill O’Reilly, regarding whether Bill’s frequent past claims to have been in a “war zone” during the Falklands War constitutes a reasonable mot juste, since Bill was in fact in Buenos Aires at the time. I won’t give you the back and forth, because I haven’t been following it, but Dylan ends his latest post with the following:
The veracity of Mother Jones’ allegations has been a subject of debate among media reporters. O'Reilly has said throughout his career, in varying ways, that he was in a war zone in the Falklands. In fact, O'Reilly was present at a protest against the military junta in Buenos Aires during the Falklands War.
Excuse me, Dylan, but what is there to debate regarding the “veracity” of Mother Jone’s “allegations”? Saying you were in a war zone during the Falklands War because you were in Buenos Aires is like saying you were in a war zone during the Falklands War because you were in London. Or are you just terrified of pissing off Bill O’Reilly?
Afterwords
In fairness to Dylan, I concede that Bill does have an awfully big penis. I know that because Bill said so himself.
