Chris Matthews Destroys Swiftboat Liar John O'Neil

you know quite well who the lying liars are...

It's funny how many times you hear that phrase "it has never been proven" when it comes to Bush. It's never, "that is untrue" or "that's not what happened", or "that's false". It's always "it has never been proven". I don't know...doesn't sound very convincing to me. Sounds kind of desperate to me.

Bush refuses to answer any questions about his "alleged" drug use.

so do I.

Does any one want to answer that type of question? I know I wouldn't want to answer such a question.

You aren't fit to be CIC either. If you never took illegal drugs, it is a very easy question, if you have something to hide, it's not.

Back to Harper's original opinion that O'Neil was taken apart by Mathews and Hurley. I think it takes quite an estabished position to see things that way. Same thing with the old David Frost debate between O'neil and Kerry. Having seen that debate recently, I don't see how anyone could think that Kerry smoked O'Neil. Indeed, Kerry was forced to backtrack consistently from his war crimes allegations, and seemed to me to have little of his original position left by the end of the debate.

I would be nice if one's hate for Bush doesn't override an accurate perception of Kerry, the ineffective ultraliberal selfserving duplicitous poster boy for a Democratic party that matches the Republicans for shooting one's own foot shot for shot, year after year.

Welcome to A2k.



Hmm. On one hand, we have an admonition not to let one's hate for Bush override one's common sense.

On the other, Kerry is obviously a 'ineffective ultraliberal selfserving duplicitous poster boy for [the] Democratic party.'

Might want to take a dose of your own advice there.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks for the welcome Cycloptichorn. I will try to unnuance my responses, clean off some of the sarcasm, and simplify them in the future.

All of those things I said about Kerry are demonstrably true, from his lack of Senate accomplishments, his ratings by groups that keep track of the political bent of our congress, his marriage to a fortune and falsifying of reports to earn medals, and continuous waffling over issues. I would vote for a Democrat, Lieberman, Gephardt, or even Hillary in particular, but to reward Kerry for a lifetime of egregious selfishness would make me barf.

Really?



George Bush loves to attack John Kerry's legislative record. But the fact is that 57 bills and resolutions Kerry sponsored passed the Senate and countless others have been improved because of his work, including the Clean Air Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program and the COPS program. In addition, Kerry has taken on the special interests and won. He fought against Newt Gingrich's anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform, he has fought to raise the minimum wage, and he has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies. Link

Sounds as if he has gotten SEVERAL accomplishments done. As a comparison, Dick Cheney had 2 resolutions sponsored and passed.



It is true, he does have a very consistent voting record as a liberal. But, why is this a bad thing? Isn't it important that he has voted consistently?

How can he be the most liberal senator AND a flip-flopper? Obviously he votes pretty consistently.



I'm sure his marriage has nothing to do with his presidential bid. Let me ask you, if you met an attractive divorced billionaire, who was interested in you, how would you act any differently than Kerry did?

Do you really believe that Kerry's wife reflects badly upon him?



Bullsh*t. This is a political gambit by the GOP and nothing more. The fact that they even have the gall to attack Kerry's service record given the rather pathetic record of Bush is amazing.

The fact is, I wasn't there, you weren't there, and almost everyone who is claiming to have an opinion on this issue wasn't there. Kerry didn't award the medals to himself; the military has ways of ensuring veracity when it comes to awarding medals. So, in the absence of proof, please don't present this issue as a given when it most certainly is not a given.



That doesn't really match up with his voting record, now does it?

Don't buy into the GOP propaganda machine. Do your own research.

Cycloptichorn

Speaking of this absurd issue, I saw Michele Malkin, who apparently aspires to be the Ann Coulter of color, on Matthews' show last night. She referred to those who claim Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted. When Matthews asked if she believed that, she kept repeated that "some have written this" or some such BS.

Really, all this is about is a bunch of guys (who have hated Kerry from Day 1) receiving money from wealthy Texans in order to smear Kerry. It's vile, but the Rove team knows how to play it down and dirty...

ok...let's post this here too

You beat me by a coupla minutes in posting that the first time, Blatham -- happy to see it all over the place.

Great chart, Blatham!

Cycloptichorn

(It's from the New York Times btw.)

Yes, excellent research. I await posts from Kerry bashers who will point out that it's from the NY Times, as if that negates the info presented...

I'm waiting for the chart the shows the connection between SBVfT and the Kennedy assassination and Osama Bin Laden. It's there if you look hard enough.

What real difference does it matter who financed the ads? All I think anyone should care about is whether or not their claims have any validity. I don't care if Bush financed the ads himself, just as I would not care if Kerry financed ads about Bush's service record. All I care about is the validity, and as much as I disagree with Kerry's platform, I still have not seen enough real evidence to give carte blanche acceptance to the group's claims. Although it does not look all that good for Kerry that he has been forced to change his story somewhat about his Cambodian episode. It still does not make all their claims true.

IF (I said if) the ads are substantially true, then does it matter who financed them as long as it was financed legally? Not to me.

Did either of you look at the chart long enough to notice that some of these guys are now contradicting what they said earlier, or that the doctor never treated Kerry?

There's more to the phoniness of this story than the issue of financing...

Anyone else feeling deja vue remembering hillarys "giant right wing conspiracy" chuckles?

The left can cry conspiracy all the want, and continue the personal attacks, but it won't hide the truth from those that actually want truth.

Kerry the liar is done with. He can't answer the hard questions if asked them, and that means he has to avoid any talking heads that will ask them.

I guess that leaves larry king.