2
   

Connections: Bush & Swiftboater smearer John O'Neill & Nixon

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 11:45 am
He should either put up or shut up.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 11:46 am
Put up what? He doesn't have to prove anything.

The SBVfT have already been exposed as a sham, what more does he need to do?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 11:53 am
They have?! you're not confusing the spurrious allegations from the die-hard Kerry defenders as being an expose, are you? The only thing that's been proven is that some of their money has come from GOP sources. I thought that was a big "duh" when this started, so not really a revelation.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 11:54 am
It's been proven that several years ago, many of the SBVfT had some great things to say about Kerry. Now they say bad things about him, just in time for the election. Can you explain that?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 11:57 am
He wasn't running for Commander-in0Chief then either. Maybe they lied back then hoping that having close ties to a senator could be benficial for them. Or maybe, like Kerry, they are a bunch of flip-floppers. Who knows.

The fact remains that they have brought forth valid questions about Kerry's integrity, honesty, and war record that he stands behind like a shield.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 12:02 pm
Quote:
The fact remains that they have brought forth valid questions about Kerry's integrity, honesty, and war record that he stands behind like a shield.


No, they haven't.

I can tell a lie about something that happened to you 20 years ago McG. (Or I could if I knew you.) Does the burden of proof shift to you to prove that I am telling a lie automatically?

What do you do when it is difficult to prove one way or another, like, say, what happened in the middle of a War Zone 30 years ago?

NONE of the questions they have brought forth are valid; there is no integrity behind their charges, only a desire to make a famous man who once said some bad things about them look bad himself. The fact that a bunch of Republicans rounded them up to do it, right before the election, seems not to make a difference at all to some people.

Quote:
Maybe they lied back then hoping that having close ties to a senator could be benficial for them. Or maybe, like Kerry, they are a bunch of flip-floppers. Who knows.


Shouldn't they be held to the same standards they are attempting to hold Kerry to? They pick apart every scrap of note, or thing Kerry said, to look for inconsistencies, and when they are shown to be highly inconsistent in their statements, they are without blame and should be believed? Please.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 12:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The fact remains that they have brought forth valid questions about Kerry's integrity, honesty, and war record that he stands behind like a shield.


No, they haven't.

I can tell a lie about something that happened to you 20 years ago McG. (Or I could if I knew you.) Does the burden of proof shift to you to prove that I am telling a lie automatically?

What do you do when it is difficult to prove one way or another, like, say, what happened in the middle of a War Zone 30 years ago?

NONE of the questions they have brought forth are valid; there is no integrity behind their charges, only a desire to make a famous man who once said some bad things about them look bad himself. The fact that a bunch of Republicans rounded them up to do it, right before the election, seems not to make a difference at all to some people.


You seem to be in the minority in this belief.

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe they lied back then hoping that having close ties to a senator could be benficial for them. Or maybe, like Kerry, they are a bunch of flip-floppers. Who knows.


Shouldn't they be held to the same standards they are attempting to hold Kerry to? They pick apart every scrap of note, or thing Kerry said, to look for inconsistencies, and when they are shown to be highly inconsistent in their statements, they are without blame and should be believed? Please.

Cycloptichorn


They are not running for President, so, no, I don't feel they should be held up to the same standards.

Maybe you should hold organizations like MoveOn.org to the same standards that you hold SBVT to. They slander the sitting President like it's a game, yet only when the liberal candidate is given the treatment do the liberals cry fowl.

This whole situation is the height of hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 12:08 pm
From blatham, on another thread:

Quote:
Quote:
Navy Report Backs Kerry Role in Incident

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Kerry-Vietnam-Records.html


So, either the Navy and John Kerry are telling the truth, or the SBVfT are. Are you calling the Navy a liar?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 01:47 pm
McGentrix wrote:
<snip> Maybe you should hold organizations like MoveOn.org to the same standards that you hold SBVT to. They slander the sitting President <snip>


Slander? Shouldn't someone take legal action if that's the case?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 02:08 pm
I think you'd be hard pressed to prove anything Moveon has said is slander...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 10:54 am
Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace
Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace

The group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace is reported to have been formed by John E. O'Neill in 1971. Bruce N. Kesler however stated on August 2004:

"Thirty-three years ago, I organized the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace in reaction to [John] Kerry's organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War. John O'Neill and others joined me, and with the support of tens of thousands of Vietnam veterans, we rebutted Kerry's charges that we were all war criminals." [1]
According to History "4" "2" Day, on June 1, 1971,


"In support of the Nixon administration's conduct of the war, a group named the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace declares that it represents the majority of the US veterans that had served in Southeast Asia, and calls the protests and congressional testimony of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War 'irresponsible.' On 19 April, as a prelude to a massive antiwar protest, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War began a five-day demonstration in Washington DC. The generally peaceful protest, called Dewey Canyon III in honor of the February and March operation in Laos, ended on 23 April with some 1000 veterans throwing their combat ribbons, helmets, and uniforms along with toy weapons on the Capitol steps. Earlier they had lobbied with their congressmen, laid wreaths in Arlington National Cemetery, and staged mock 'search and destroy' missions."

"Nixon's chief counsel, Charles Colson, didn't just tap John E. O'Neill to attack Kerry, he also formed an entire group around him called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace: [2]

John Kerry "was an immediate celebrity. He was also an immediate target of the Nixon Administration. Years later, Chuck Colson--who was Nixon's political enforcer--told me, 'He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group."

On March 28, 2004, "Bill", a poster at the Middle East Information Center blog site, posted a "letter" ("Greeting from Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace--your one time opponents") found via a Google search which is attributed to "Daniel E. Teodoru" (possibly a posting at 'yam.ro'). In the letter, Teodoru writes: "Bruce Kessler [and I] began VIETNAM VETERANS FOR A JUST PEACE."

Brian Williams, "Nixon Targeted Kerry for Anti-War Views," NBC News, March 15, 2004: "White House tapes reveal then-president's attempt to discredit Kerry during 1971 war protests, Senate testimony."

"Colson was Nixon's point man against Kerry, and he found a weapon in another veteran: John O'Neill. He was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace, which backed Nixon administration policy in Vietnam, and in turn was supported by the White House."

"Remarks by John Kerry, Member, Vietnam Veterans Against the War & John O'Neill, Member, Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace," posted on web page for J. Thomas Cochran, Executive Director, The United States Conference of Mayors, April 14, 2004.

Nixon Presidential Materials Staff, White House Communications Agency Videotape Collection, 1971 Titles National Archives and Records Administration:

File/ID# WHCA VTR# 4421 Format: 2"
Title/Event: "Face The Nation" with O'Neill for a "Just Peace"; "Meet The Press" with Wilbur Mills AND "Issues And Answers" with Finch and
Names/Participants: "FTN": John O'Neill, [Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace], Anthony McDowell (Veterans of Foreign Wars); "MTP": U.S. Representati. Wilbur Mills; "I&A" with Secretary of HEW Robert Finch
Date: 6/6/1971 Time of Day: 1230,1300,1330
Source: WTOP,WRC,WMAL
Producer: CBS,NBC,ABC
Restriction(s): COPYRIGHT
Program Time: 1:30
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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2019 at 07:52:58