1
   

Chris Matthews Destroys Swiftboat Liar John O'Neil

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 01:38 pm
Its hardly run out of steam and begun to go away, and there has been little if any substantive "debunking" of the Swiftboat Vet's allegations despite claims to the contrary, while The Kerry Version suffers repeated damage. The issue "has legs", and is going to continue to develop, mostly thanks to Kerry's choice to make his service in Vietnam the centerpoint of his campaign. As this develops Kerry's difficulties will increase accordingly. He has no one to blame but himself.

Quote:
All Signs to 180
Only John Kerry can stop the Vietnam questions.



Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards leapt into the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy Monday with a slick bit of demagoguery. As Edwards told voters in Racine, Wisconsin: "The truth is, he [President Bush] is the one man who can put an end to these ads. And this is a moment of truth for the president. It is time for him to step forward and say three words: Stop these ads."


Edwards should know that, even if he wanted them discontinued, President Bush cannot order the Swiftees to stop their ads anymore than John Kerry can tell MoveOn.org what or when to advertise.

Edwards, who presumably studied the Constitution in law school, surely knows that the First Amendment allows the Swiftees, MoveOn.org, and other independent "527" groups to offer their opinions on Bush, Kerry, gymnast Paul Hamm's Olympic gold medal, or whatever else floats their boats. This is not Communist Vietnam where politicians can tell people to shut up, then reeducate them until they think approved thoughts.

Meanwhile, key aspects of Kerry's Vietnam biography appear to be taking on water.

Echoing the findings of Internet journalists such as WorldNetDaily's Art Moore, Fox News Channel's Major Garrett reported Monday on Special Report with Brit Hume that Kerry's own contemporaneous journal seems to confirm his critics' claims that he did not deserve his first Purple Heart.

As historian Douglas Brinkley explains on pages 188 and 189 of Kerry's authorized HarperCollins biography, Tour of Duty], Kerry and his crew set out from Cat Lo, South Vietnam in Swift Boat PCF-44 in high spirits in mid-December, 1968. As Brinkley writes, Kerry "who had just turned twenty-five, on December 11, 1968 ?- was a fine leader of his men." At about that time, Kerry himself wrote this in his notebook: "A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky."

Hadn't been shot at yet?

Just days earlier, Kerry experienced what he called a "minor skirmish" with the Vietcong on December 2, 1968. The next day, Dr. Louis Letson removed a small sliver of shrapnel from above Kerry's left elbow and covered it with a Band-Aid. On December 4, Kerry applied to Commander Grant Hibbard for a Purple Heart. Hibbard spurned Kerry's request. Hibbard was unimpressed with Kerry's minor wound ("I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn," he says on page 38 of John O'Neill's and Jerome Corsi's bestseller, Unfit for Command) and persuaded that Kerry injured himself with shrapnel from a grenade he hurled improperly. Somehow, Kerry secured a Purple Heart even though his commander threw him out of his office.

Purple Hearts are usually granted for injuries involving hostile fire. Kerry applied on that basis. Nonetheless, about two weeks later, he tells his own journal that "we hadn't been shot at yet."

Did Kerry forget within a fortnight that he had faced enemy bullets and ordnance, as is customary for Purple Hearts, or was there really no such fire, as his own words quoted in his approved biography seemingly reveal?

"Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentional, self-inflicted wound," Fox's Major Garrett concluded.

The documents that could clear this up remain at least partially concealed. In his excellent article on Kerry's controversial Bronze Star, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs wrote Sunday of his difficulties in obtaining all the relevant papers from Kerry's military years. As Dobbs put it: "Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages."

Six pages down, 94 to go.

John Kerry's signature on a National Archives Standard Form 180 would release these and possibly other Navy documents that could answer many of the questions buzzing around Kerry like wasps. To paraphrase President Reagan: Senator Kerry, if you seek the American people's mandate, open this file. Senator Kerry, sign that form!

Meanwhile, the Kerry camp apparently has abandoned the notion that he ever saw Cambodia in uniform. Most disturbing about this is that Kerry did not simply claim that he may have drifted into Cambodia or that he once thought he was there while actually in South Vietnam. Kerry's memories ?- "seared ?- seared" into his mind, as he said on the Senate floor on March 27, 1986 ?- included being shot at by the South Vietnamese, the Cambodians, and the Khmer Rouge while supporting clandestine CIA agents, all inside Cambodia.

Kerry even showed what he calls "my good luck hat" to the Washington Post's Laura Blumenfeld for a June 1, 2003, article. Kerry keeps the green, mildewed headgear in a secret compartment in his briefcase. He said it was "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

So far, the Kerry campaign cannot produce documents, veterans, or any other witnesses to confirm his Cambodian field trip. As commentator Tom Lipscomb amusingly explains in an online American Spectator essay called "Swimming from Cambodia," Kerry's narrative has more contours than the Mekong River.

As Kerry's conflicting accounts collide head-on into each other, it's easy to see why he once told the Washington Post: "I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis."

Furthermore, as the New York Post's John Podhoretz explained Tuesday, Kerry's silence on Cambodia years ago belies his subsequent statements about being there.

"If Kerry is to be believed," Podhoretz wrote, "then this leader of the anti-war movement remained silent in 1973 when he could have spoken out about how he was ordered to violate Cambodian neutrality as early as 1968. Which is why Kerry is not to be believed on this matter."
Perhaps Kerry really was in Cambodia, deploying Green Berets in conjunction with the CIA. If so, the Kerry campaign should prove it, pronto. If Kerry, in fact, never went into Cambodia while a G.I., he either was spectacularly flummoxed about his whereabouts, deliberately lied about being there to advance his political needs, or truly believes he accompanied an elusive spy who gave him a special hat he carries as a souvenir of his illegal invasion of a neutral country.

Scatterbrain? Liar? Fantasist? Which of these would you like to see in the Oval Office?

Things have gone so sour for John Kerry that he actually called Bob Dole Monday to complain about the former Kansas Republican senator's statement on CNN Sunday that Kerry should apologize to Vietnam veterans for his anti-war activities and comments he made after returning from Indochina.

"He said he was very disappointed, we'd been friends," Dole recalled on Sean Hannity's radio program. "I said John, we're still friends, but [the Swiftvets] have First Amendment rights, just as your people have First Amendment rights."

Dole, who grows wiser with age, says he gave Kerry a piece of advice which, had he followed it in the first place, might have steered him clear of the rice paddy in which his campaign is now mired.

"Everybody likes quiet heroes," Dole told Kerry. He added: "John, everybody knows you were in Vietnam and the less you say about it, the better."



Apart from the inconvenience inflicted upon Kerry by the Swiftboat Vets, there is his Matter-of-Record Legislative history, and his '70s anti-war activities, things barely poked at as yet. When The Campaign begins rolling in earnest following the Republican Convention, Kerry's own documented words and deeds will be used against him to telling effect. Kerry, and The Democrats, will see to their own defeat.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 02:11 pm
Let me ask you, Timber: the fact that many of the SBVfT had great things to say about Kerry a few years ago, and now directly contradict those statements, means nothing to you?

As for the second part of your question, you act as if the fact that Kerry was against the war when he came back, and very vocally against the war, is at all inconsistent with his statements or position against the war now. Is the fact that he told the truth about what went on in that stupid war to the Senate committee going to be held up as a mark against him?

You seem like you are trying to convince yourself of his defeat here, when it isn't even close to the sure thing you hoped it would be...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 02:18 pm
nimh wrote:

Have I told ya yet how glad I am you showed up here? You've posted some great stuff.

Meanwhile, I'm a little pessimistic about yer prediction here ... The next SVFT ad, after all, is about Kerry's anti-war actions from after he'd gotten home. And thats a time about which even the most avid Democratic Convention watcher will not yet have heard much at all about ...


a very nice compliment. "dank du well". arghh. phonetics.

and you, along with some others have put up some great stuff as well.

i don't know if the kerry anti-war stuff is gonna have legs the way one would expect, even in these uber-patriotic times.

the vietnam conflict came to be vastly unpopular. maybe for different reasons for different folks. a lot of the older guys in our neighborhood left for boot either cautiously optimistic or fully gung ho. a lot of them came back really pissed off and bitter. some would never admit it, but a slip here or there can tell alot about what someone is thinking.

although eisenhower was the first one to put u.s. personel in vietnam, it was really ramping up just as i started school. it was about finished when i graduated. i still had to register for the draft, though. still have the card in fact.

i grew up JUST KNOWING that i was gonna get drafted and sent to vietnam. the army even sent a team to our school when i was in the 8th or 9th grade ( well which one was it, you liar!? lol ) to give a "mandatory" test called "the armed forces placement battery". my test, for instance, concluded that i was mechanically inclined. boy, talk about a wrong number...

if watching the evening body count didn't make me anti-war, the fact that they classified a guy that could barely indentify the contents of a tool chest as mechanically apt certainly cast doubt on their judgement. must be that reasonable doubt thing...

nimh, some would claim that all of the anti-war people were in s.f., l.a. and nyc etc. i assure you that this was not the case. and not all anti-war folks looked or acted like abby hoffman. thank god. "levitate the pentagon", indeed! i, for one, was anti-war, but pissed at the people walking around with the north vietnamese flag in equal measure with the "love it or leave it" brigade.

vietnam was such a stinker that a whole slew of people were pretty unhappy.

imho, that this vietnam debate is going on probably will, as you point out, help kerry in the long run.

the bush brigade have complained, " people keep wanting to say this (iraq) is vietnam. it's not!" if they thought it was, would they admit it?

but in many ways, for those of us that lived during that era, it is very much like vietnam;

large troop deployment in country based on ideology.

the country is divided and at war with itself. i'm tempted to quote "divide and conquer", but that would leave the question of who be doin' the dividin' 'round here.

anyone who questions the presidents actions is labeled "unpatriotic".

the fbi is investigating people before they have done anything. "well , ya know these anarchists, they tore up seattle, humph!" true and false. while people did act anarchistically in seattle,not a good thing, if the fbi knew who did what, they would probably be breaking rocks.

there are other similarities as well. but for now, let's say that a lot of people are looking around and going " what the hell is going on here?". which is why i believe it is important to get bush out and abort this climate before it can spin out of control again.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 02:23 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Its hardly run out of steam and begun to go away, and there has been little if any substantive "debunking" of the Swiftboat Vet's allegations despite claims to the contrary, ..... He has no one to blame but himself.


uh, oh. another "true believer"...
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 03:24 pm
Not tryin' to convince myself of a thing, Cyc ... Kerry and The Dems have done all the convincin' its taken to set my attitude. Personally, I happen to think its sorta cute in a wishfully pathetic way that your side imagines the contest is going to be anywhere near as close as the polls and the Mainstream Media Pundits portray. Now, I could be wrong, and if so, I'll admit I miscalculated, but I doubt that will prove to be the case come the morning of November 3rd. I'm under no delusion, however, that supporters of The Opposition might be so magnanimously inclined; I fully expect the coming Republican Sweep to occasion from them nothing other than the ratchetting-up of juvenile vitriol, baseless innuendo, and impotent whining.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 03:45 pm
Don't think it will be close ?

Well, let's see.

If everyone who voted for Gore in 2000 votes for Kerry (and I think it's safe to assume they will), and if SOME of those who voted for Bush in 2000 decide to vote against him in 2004 (myself, for example, and others who feel Bush misrepresented himself as a moderate and has goverened as an extremist vis a vis arrogant, unproductive foreign policy and divisive fundamentalist-pandering domestic policy), then it appears that it will be very close, though not, perhaps, as close as 2000, when, BTW, Bush did lose the popular vote.

To put it another way, do you think there is anyone out there who voted Democratic last time but will be voting Reublican this time? Whereas, as I said, the reverse is definitely true.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 04:13 pm
We shall see, angie, we shall see. I expect things will go rather less well for The Opposition than for The Current Administration between now and the election.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 04:43 pm
intrestin DTOM.

Also what you say about, you know, how the Bush admin wants us all to absolutely not think Iraq is anything like Vietnam, for obvious reasons (and truth be told, I dont think its anything like Vietnam). But that might just actually be another way in which this might backfire for the Reps, even if there is little evidence of it doing so as of yet.

After all, here they are waging a headline-comsuming war in Iraq, which they do NOT want people to associate with Vietnam. So what happens the one month news is not so much of Iraq? It is all spent on reminding everyone about Vietnam.

When next month news of Iraq starts coming in again, wont people now make the thought-jump to Vietnam even faster than they were already doing?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 04:46 pm
No similarities at all...

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db040825.gif
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 06:21 pm
Timber wrote: "I expect things will go rather less well for The Opposition than for The Current Administration between now and the election."

Sounds like wishful thinking.

In any case, it won't matter. People have already made up their minds. Nothing can happen, nothing, to change that.

To illustrate, is there anything I or anyone else could say here, or, in fact, is there anything that could happen here at home or abroad, that would make you change your mind about voting for ..... the person you are CURRENTLY supporting ? Thought so.

I rest my case.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 06:29 pm
You rest your case on an invalid assumption, angie.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 06:36 pm
McCain weighs in again: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0825mccain25-ON.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 06:49 pm
Go John!

Well, all three of 'em.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:03 pm
Joe Nation wrote:


damn i wish he would have run with kerry. he's one of the reps i like. yeah, there are a few... Embarrassed

jack mac better watch it though. some more patriotic soul is gonna start lookin' through his stuff again...

swift pows for truth?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:08 pm
And the hits just keep comin'

Quote:
For Immediate Release
Aug 25, 2004 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

Secret FBI Documents Reveal Kerry Accepted Laundered Contributions

Senator Also May Have Set Up Meetings Between Chinese Firms, U.S. Officials





(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released recently declassified documents showing that Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry accepted laundered contributions for his 1996 re-election campaign from the Communist Chinese government and that, in exchange, he may have arranged meetings between Chinese aerospace executives and U.S. government officials.



Obtained from the FBI through Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act requests, the documents are related to the FBI's "Chinagate" investigation into the Clinton campaign's acceptance of contributions from Communist Chinese government sources. Among the documents released is an investigative outline dated March 27, 1998, that details the FBI's "proposed areas of inquiry" into the actions of Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung, including questioning him about meetings Sen. Kerry set up with China Aerospace executives and about a fund-raising event for the senator in Los Angeles. The other document, dated Aug. 24, 1998, requests a polygraph of Chung, mentioning that he laundered contributions for the Clinton/Gore '96 election campaign and for Sen. Kerry. The documents are heavily redacted, and Judicial Watch is appealing the FBI's decision to keep secret portions of the documents.



Chung pled guilty in March 1998 to election law violations and, in a plea bargain, began cooperating with the FBI. Judicial Watch represents Chung in a lawsuit against Justice Department officials who, during the Clinton administration, leaked information about Chung's cooperation with the department's Campaign Finance Task Force. The unauthorized and illegal release from a sealed plea agreement of information, including the fact that he and his family were in protective custody in California, put the lives of Chung and his family in jeopardy.



"These disturbing FBI documents raise further questions about Sen. Kerry's involvement in what looks like a quid pro quo (cash for meetings) with the Communist Chinese," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.



To view the documents see the links below (Adobe Acrobat Reader Required):



Document One

Document Two
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:10 pm
if they were really "Secret" FBI documents they would have only been released Robert Novak, this story is a hoax!
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:11 pm
angie wrote:
is there anything that could happen here at home or abroad, that would make you change your mind about voting for ..... the person you are CURRENTLY supporting ?


I think, contrary to conventional opinion, a calamitous terrorist event somewhere in the US (or involving a large number of US citizens elsewhere in the world) works against Bush's feeble (and getting feebler) prospects.

"George Bush says he's keeping us safe? Nuts. He ducked service in Viet Nam, lied about John Kerry's record , goes on vacation every month and now more Americans are dead. No, he doesn't deserve another term..."

So the thinking might go...
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:26 pm
timberlandko wrote:
And the hits just keep comin'



you for got the "s" and only typed "hits"... Laughing

i really can't figure out if the "report" means kerry actually met with any of the "communist" chinese himself.

i looked over the judicial watch site...

my monitor started tilting to the right.

sorry, i'll need more than this to form an opinion.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:34 pm
Don't worry, DontTread ... there's likely to be plenty more than has been released on this so far; further Freedom Of Infornmation Act suits have been filed.

Just one more hole in Kerry's hull ... and the cruise hasn't even really started yet.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 07:39 pm
Still kinda in re: to DTOM's more optimistic prediction, I'm afraid this guy - just some guy posting a response to Daly's blog - might be spot-on (apart from overplaying Kerry's supposed pre-SVFT weakness in the third paragraph):

Quote:
Prediction time: The Cambodia story is going to wind down this week, and as soon as the Repub convention gets underway, it's gone.

Net electoral result is that those who hate Bush will hate him more and be more likely to vote, and some of the veteran vote has been siphoned off from Kerry. IMHO, no one in the "swayable camp" is going to hear the attacks on O'Neil's credibility because I'm not sure they know or care who O'Neil is.

The ads and book have had the effect of getting Kerry on the defensive for a week plus. This followed the prior couple of weeks where Kerry was on the defense for his Iraq position, his "sensitive war" gaffe, and his poor attendance at intelligence committee meetings. The Kerry camp is aggressively trying to take the ball back and his call for Rumsfeld's resignation shows it.

At best, he can wrest the ball back until next week's convention when it's Bush's showcase.

After the convention, it's possible the Swift Boat Vet group might get back in the public eye by focusing on Kerry's statements and work with the VVAW. While I'm not sure there will be any more people whose vote can be swayed by their attacks, it could have the effect of keeping Kerry off message.

Comment by ER ?- 8/25/2004 @ 11:39 am

Then again, I've never been known for reckless optimism myself ... perhaps I'm being too dark.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 08:11:00