O'Neill interview
John O’Neill (the Swift Boats for ‘Truth’ leader) appeared on the most recent Bill Maher HBO show. Some very interesting, though not surprising, things were said. Such as this exchange:
MAHER: You don't like this guy, (Kerry) do you?
O'NEILL: Actually, I feel sorry for him. But I dislike intensely—
MAHER: Oh…
O'NEILL: --his claim that our guys were guilty of war crimes. I won't forget that.
Very interesting. If anyone (read: Hannity, Wiemer, Limbaugh, et al) ever questions why so many Swift Boat veterans would lie about Kerry, there’s your motive. Of course, I said this awhile back, but here it is from the horse’s mouth.
Now take a look at the exchange that immediately followed:
MAHER: All right, we're going to get to that, but let me ask you…let me turn this around a little bit. Say everything you guys are saying about John Kerry is true. Let's just say that, hypothetically. What is the motivation of the guys on John Kerry's side? I mean, there are dozens and dozens of guys on John Kerry's side, most of whom served closer to him than your guys. What is their motivation? Why are they lying for John Kerry?
O'NEILL: They – Bill, the truth is, that there aren't dozens and dozens. He has a picnic table and we have a campground. He has, at most, 20, and we have 260. And those guys—
MAHER: Yeah, but his were closer to the action, weren't they?
So there you have it. You have a group of people with a clear motive to smear Kerry making allegations that directly contradict all of the previously documented testimony. Using O’Neill’s own analogy, if everyone at your picnic table says you are eating a pbj sandwich, and you say you are eating a pbj sandwich, why would you believe someone 3 picnic tables over who says it’s tuna salad?
(The full transcript from the program can be found
here.)
3 Comments:
B/c the guys at your picnic table are your buddies, your brothers who trained with you and in a platoon setting will kill/die for you. The guys 3 picnic tables over may be of the same regiment, or acquaintance, however do not care. Could both sides be stretching the truth? Yes. Do Veterans have a right to be angry with a co-Vet who came home and disgraced them on the steps of the Capitol? I think so. But again as one jaggov said a few days ago...who cares what happened 20-30yrs ago? oh sure, you can say it's a sign of character...but look in the mirror - are you the same man of character and morals that you were 10yrs ago? I sure am not...and am hopefully better.
What a person did 20-30 years ago is always of interest in an election. It's not as important as what you did yesterday, but it matters. I'd love to talk about Bush's record as a governor and president. That's much more relevant. But I can't ignore these attacks.
Veterans have a right to be angry at Kerry. But they don't have a right to make baseless and slanderous accusations for political spite out of their anger. Actually, maybe they do have a right, but they should be called out when they do. Clearly, these accusations are getting tons of play in the news as if they are credible...one more nail in the 'liberal media' coffin.
Bryan...i highly agree w/your comment about the voting public...that's what makes them the voting public...aka the great unwashed as Mark Madden puts it. They are swayed (unlike you and I) by headlines in the news and do not form opinions for themselves rather go by popular opinion - Which is what the candidates want. they want that uninformed biased opinion from joe 12-pack.
BKopec, I know what you are saying about "it does matter what someone did 20-30yrs ago" - it does a little...it shows character of a man. But to say that they are the same person as they were (Kerry or Bush) back then, is rediculous. Kerry touted his war record, Bush (more like Ed Gillespie, RNC chair) counterattacked. Sure, the Dems are saying the same thing about Bush as the Reps. said about Clinton when he was running but that's politics in general.
If anyone wants to read a good unbiased article about Kerry, there was a presidential profile done about the time of the DNC in July out of Time magazine. It criticizes and touts Kerry, letting the reader form their own opinion. This is a surprise for Time magazine - who is usually leaning very left. USNews is typically the only unbiased newsmag out there but its refreshing to read something like that. I can't stand newspapers or mags that are clearly biased one way or the other.
Keep up the good blogging...
Post a Comment
<< Home