Swifty O'Neill Busted

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

it was just reported on cnn that john ellis o'neill has apparently contradicted himself.

in a taped interview provided by his publicist, o'neill stated that he had never been in cambodia.

however, a tape recorded during a conversation with richard nixon in 1971, o'neill tells nixon that he did go to cambodia.

nixon then asked him if he went there on a swift boat.

o'neill answered in the affirmative.

nixon and his tape recorder... even though i met him once, i never wanted to kiss him before.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,029 • Replies: 65

No top replies

Ooh!

0 Replies

CNN's Newsnight played the O'Neill-Nixon tape, with text graphic on screen:

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.

They all worked along the border because the river runs along the border.

0 Replies

So, guess when they worked along the border they called that being in Cambodia. Maybe it's like a shorthand thing.

'Cause O'Neill says he was in Cambodia, too. He doesn't say "I wasn't in Cambodia [what question was he answering?], I was along the border." He says, "I was in Cambodia, sir."

0 Replies

Good point, soz. That could be the way all of them talked about it and it certainly takes the steam out of the 'he lied about being in Cambodia' argument.

0 Replies

the fun part is going to be the usual suspects defending and spinning this......

never let something as stupid as what you can see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears dissuade you boys.....

0 Replies

I don't doubt that O'Neill was covering the Cambodian border later in the War. As the Air Force and Army gained greater control of the HCM Trail where the VC would smuggle supplies and rockets south of the DMA, the N. Vietnamese Army began using more routes in Cambodia and Laos to bring troops and supplies into S. Vietnam.

But, clearly, John Kerry was not in Cambodia during the Christmas cease fire, and I seriously doubt he was there in January.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

I don't doubt that O'Neill was covering the Cambodian border later in the War. As the Air Force and Army gained greater control of the HCM Trail where the VC would smuggle supplies and rockets south of the DMA, the N. Vietnamese Army began using more routes in Cambodia and Laos to bring troops and supplies into S. Vietnam.

But, clearly, John Kerry was not in Cambodia during the Christmas cease fire, and I seriously doubt he was there in January.

I think what's interesting about what he said is not the fact that he was in Cambodia, but the fact that he considered working along the border as being IN Cambodia. It's possible that they all saw it that way.

0 Replies

Nobody except the Bushnuts gives a royal rat's ass where Kerry was or thinks he was on a Christmas eve 30 some years ago. God, it is absolutely pathetic that this is all they got!

0 Replies

You say it shouldn't matter Harper? Why not? Y'all have gored Bush repeatedly about lying about WMD's and he has repeatedly been called a liar by many of you. That is one of the reasons (among many others I grant you) that you want him gone. Yet you are so quick to overlook the fact that for 30+ years Kerry has retold this story which is also a lie. Will he tell us others if he is elected? I don't know. Should this lie impact a voter's decision this November? I don't know.

I think each voter should weigh whether or not it matters to them. And I am sure the arguments about how much weight to give it will go mostly along party lines, but that is life I guess. But to say it does not matter that he is lying yet attack Bush for supposedly lying about WMD's and such is at best hypocritical of the democrats here and elsewhere.

IMO, of course, for what it is worth. Laughing

0 Replies

Do you think the scale might be a tiny bit different, CoastalRat? Kerry said something which may or may not have been true (still not certain) while on the way to making a rhetorical point about covert operations. How he felt seeing his president lie.

If Bush lied, the lies were the basis of an enormous operation that cost nearly a thousand American lives and many more Iraqi lives.

Do you think that even if one assumes both are lies, they might not be exactly comparable?

0 Replies

That's a mighty big "if" comapred to a known. That's also a big difference.

0 Replies

What's known? That Kerry lied? No, that is still not determined.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Do you think the scale might be a tiny bit different, CoastalRat? Kerry said something which may or may not have been true (still not certain) while on the way to making a rhetorical point about covert operations. How he felt seeing his president lie.

If Bush lied, the lies were the basis of an enormous operation that cost nearly a thousand American lives and many more Iraqi lives.

Do you think that even if one assumes both are lies, they might not be exactly comparable?

Assuming they both lied, of course it is comparable. It is a character flaw to lie in order to enhance what one says. He has maintained the lie and possibly has lied about other aspects of his service. I don't think it has been proved that anything else about his service was a lie, but the doubt is now there. Again, each must decide how much this concerns them. Some may not be concerned at all. That's fine. But to claim that it makes no difference that he lied about this for 30+ years is a bit hypocritical to me while claiming it does not matter what Bush may have believed about WMD's, the absence of WMDs means he lied and he is being crucified for it.

Oh, and about not being sure or proved that he lied, even his campaign is admitting that he was "mistaken" about this event that he has maintained was "seared - seared" into his memory. So I think the least you can do is admit he has lied. It may have no bearing on how you view him, but admit the obvious.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Oh, and about not being sure or proved that he lied, even his campaign is admitting that he was "mistaken" about this event that he has maintained was "seared - seared" into his memory. So I think the least you can do is admit he has lied. It may have no bearing on how you view him, but admit the obvious.

Being emphatically mistaken does not make one a liar. Are there not memories that are 'seared' into your brain that might have happened at a different time than the time you remember? My own memory is so flawed that I have vivid memories of incidents where I was not actually present, rather I had been told of it around the time that it happened. Over time, my brain stored these memories away as my own. Anyone who steps back and looks at these two 'lies' can see there is a world of difference between them.

0 Replies

Can you get me a link CoastalRat? I haven't seen that, no.

You actually claim that is comparable?

Assuming both lied, Bush:

1.) Shaped intelligence in such a way to further his agenda as president

2.) Ignored intelligence and advisors who said he was wrong

3.) Fractured relationships with long-term allies

4.) Created untold physical suffering and death

Kerry:

1.) On his way to making a rhetorical point regarding covert operations, and how it was seared into his memory that the president lied about whether troops were in Cambodia, fibs about whether he himself was in Cambodia at the time.

What far-reaching consequences did that hold?

0 Replies

FreeDuck, yes, exactly. They are quantifiably different in that respect as well. Various elements -- knowing there were troops in Cambodia, being nearby, seeing the president speak -- could easily have become melded by the human mind, especially upon repeated tellings. (Again, I mention sexual abuse cases in the 80's.)

0 Replies

Why must we assume both lied? Kerry DID lie, Bush is ACCUSSED of lying.

0 Replies

So you think it is more likely that Bush made a mistake about WMD in the here and now than that Kerry made a mistake in recollecting his whereabouts on Christmas 35 years ago.

0 Replies

We are assuming for the sake of this line of argument, which is that the lies, if they are such, are comparable.

0 Replies

Swifty O'Neill Busted

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know