Bill, Bill, Bill, are you just too lazy to even phone it in? Crooks and Liars has the video, but it's just so . . .weak. I mean, blaming the victim. That's for 2nd tier wingnuts like Nancy Grace, not a Peabody Award winning journalist like yourself:
O'Reilly is a lunatic, plain and simple and yes Bill, this is a personal attack. He has the nerve to attack one of the kidnapped victims (Shawn Hornbeck) because he didn't try to get away. Something along the lines of 'he didn't like school so he stayed with his assailant.'Bastard.the Stockholm Syndrome…..What a surprise….No thought that this very young boy of eleven could have been manipulated at all. There is a reason why we have laws on the books involving minors. You'd think O'Reilly could grasp that simple fact especially since he too was…cough, cough—a teacher.
Bill: The question is why didn't he escape when he could have? There are all kinds of theories about that…
Conservatives usually attack the media as being liberal for obvious reasons, but Bill attacks victims of child abuse—because? Please, tell me. It's unbelievable. And we're learning that the nut, Michael Devlin, probably has harmed other children as well. That's why we call them child predators…
Even the birdcage liner Free Republic has this news-worthy tidbit that seems to counter O'Reilly's ass-ertion:
The captor who held Shawn Hornbeck for more than four years kept him from fleeing by threatening to kill the boy and his entire family, investigators said Monday.
That helps explain why Shawn, 15, freed Friday when police tracked a second kidnapped boy to an apartment in Kirkwood, did not seize ample opportunities to run or summon help, according to the investigators.
Bill, can I call you Bill? Whatever. Bill, had you even looked into your Inbox (not that box, you idiot! The one for email!) you would have seen the Free Republic update you get everyday. It might have saved you some embarrassment.
On second thought, would have made no difference.