Swifty O'Neill Busted

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

I would agree that over an extended period of time, memories can become confused and some people can believe something happened that did not. But remember, this story was first repeated by Kerry within a couple years of the event. I am sorry, but it is too much for me to believe that he was already believing this to have happened. If he had already come to a belief that it really happened, then that would be an even stronger reason in my book to be wary of him. Of course, had he fooled himself that it really happened, why now is he so quick to admit it didn't. If he really believed it happened, why back off? Why not insist he is correct and it did happen?

0 Replies

CR, isn't it possible that the things he described actually happened, just not when he remembers they happened? Can you remember the dates of all the things that have happened to you? I can't even remember the years.

Anyway, this horse is beat to death. If you think that a recovering drug addict and alcoholic who made virtually no public contribution for most of his adult life is good enough to be president, but disqualify Kerry for having a bad memory then I say thank God you have only one vote.

Ok, that was a little over the top. Sorry. Isn't this whole thing kind of silly in the grand scheme of things?

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
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.

I would agree that over an extended period of time, memories can become confused and some people can believe something happened that did not. But remember, this story was first repeated by Kerry within a couple years of the event. I am sorry, but it is too much for me to believe that he was already believing this to have happened. If he had already come to a belief that it really happened, then that would be an even stronger reason in my book to be wary of him. Of course, had he fooled himself that it really happened, why now is he so quick to admit it didn't. If he really believed it happened, why back off? Why not insist he is correct and it did happen?

Good point CR, Kerry repeated this story 50 times in various interviews etc. which is why I do not discount the Swifties charges all together, they are right about some things and wrong about some, but if they hadn't come forward many would be believing everything Kerry said after the war.

These guys have been harboring this anger and their side of things for 30 years and I don't blame them for picking a time that would hurt Kerry most to make their attack.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

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?

In my book So, as I think I said, I consider lying to promote one's agenda or enhance one's appearance a possible problem regardless of the nature of the consequences. Now, you keep saying Bush lied. To be honest, I can't agree with that fully, based on the facts. He made a statement that I think he believed at the time based on data he was given. You say that is still a lie. Ok, fine, you are using that as one (of many) reasons not to vote for him. You have weighted your belief that he lied and decided it means something, even though it is possible he was not lying when he made the WMDs the main thrust of his argument for war. I personally don't think it was a lie, but I do think he was wrong in his belief.

Kerry has no such fallback in my opinion since his campaign has admitted he was "mistaken". I don't call repeating something over and over when you know it is false to be a mistake. It is a lie.

I know I am not explaining this to the point where you will be satisfied that I also am not being hypocritical, but I am much better speaking what I want to get across than I am writing it. Sorry.

Oh, I will find the link you asked for. I posted it elsewhere, just have to find it again.

0 Replies

This hasn't hurt Kerry in the least, in fact, it is helping him.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

CR, isn't it possible that the things he described actually happened, just not when he remembers they happened? Can you remember the dates of all the things that have happened to you? I can't even remember the years.

Anyway, this horse is beat to death. If you think that a recovering drug addict and alcoholic who made virtually no public contribution for most of his adult life is good enough to be president, but disqualify Kerry for having a bad memory then I say thank God you have only one vote.

Ok, that was a little over the top. Sorry. Isn't this whole thing kind of silly in the grand scheme of things?

FreeDuck, I agree much of it is silly. As I have repeatedly said, each person must weigh for himself how much this should affect their vote. To some it won't matter (Kerry supporters), to others it will (Bush supporters). So it really is beating a dead horse.

But then again, so many of the discussions here are simply beating dead horses because we are so polarized in our beliefs of what is best for the US. But the thing we all sometimes forget is that both sides really do want what is best for this country, we just have different views on how to make this country better.

0 Replies

Thanks for the link.

I actually don't keep saying that Bush lied. I keep saying "assuming" for the sake of argument, because I am trying to get you to say whether you really feel that those two situations, if they are both lies, are comparable.

My sister told my Aunt Fanny that her hair looks nice when she actually thought it looked really awful. I told my sister that I was having an affair with her husband when actually I wasn't. Those are both lies. Are they comparable?

0 Replies

Here is the link Sozobe.

http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fop-ed%2F20040812-090512-6687r.htm

0 Replies

That's about Christmas, not Cambodia.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

That's about Christmas, not Cambodia.

His claim is that he was in Cambodia on Christmas!!!!! And that the memory was seared into his brain. Of course it is about Christmas. It is the only time he claims to have been in Cambodia. At least it was the only time until he has been forced to admit he was not there at Christmas. He may very well be saying that it was some other time now.

Which frankly is all he can do to attempt to save face. Heck, I too would take that route, so I don't blame him.

0 Replies

But CoastalRat, that's getting to "Aunt Fanny, your hair is nice" as opposed to "Aunt Fanny, your hair is gorgeous" level of hair splitting. Christmas vs. January? Christmas is not the point! The whole quote, again (this is actually such a big deal? shaking head):

Quote:

I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me.

The Christmas part is not the point. It makes no difference in the context of the quote. "I remember January of 1968..." it makes no difference. The point of it is watching the President of the United States telling the American people that the troops were not in Cambodia, when he knew that to be false.

Nice hair, Aunt Fanny.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

But CoastalRat, that's getting to "Aunt Fanny, your hair is nice" as opposed to "Aunt Fanny, your hair is gorgeous" level of hair splitting. Christmas vs. January? Christmas is not the point! The whole quote, again (this is actually such a big deal? shaking head):

Quote:
I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me.

The Christmas part is not the point. It makes no difference in the context of the quote. "I remember January of 1968..." it makes no difference. The point of it is watching the President of the United States telling the American people that the troops were not in Cambodia, when he knew that to be false.

Nice hair, Aunt Fanny.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one. I have not seen anything that proves he was ever in Cambodia. He insisted that the memory was seared into him. I could believe it was simply an error if he had talked about being in Cambodia around Christmastime, but he has always said it was Christmas. And there is nothing anywhere that I know of that indicates he was ever in Cambodia. Thus he must be lying.

Again, I don't think it is a huge deal other than showing that, like many people before him, he will lie to advance his own agenda. You have decided to explain away the lie. That's fine. I've got no problem with that.

0 Replies

Still haven't addressed whether the lies, if we assume they are lies, are comparable.

Meanwhile, I don't know. Maybe he did lie. The actual records indicate he was within 2 hours. O'Neill's words about being in Cambodia himself indicate that perhaps in was a terminology thing. (He said he was in Cambodia, and then adds near the border.)

But it has been far from established that he DID lie. Even the cite you have re: Christmas says it's not conclusive. Personally, I think that when he was a soldier, the president said there were no troops in Cambodia, when there were and Kerry knew it. That is the point of his statement and I believe it.

But of all the things that make me think Kerry would be a good or bad president, this is rated about .000001% in terms of importance. This is the best they can come up with? I think that's a pretty powerful endorsement, if anything.

0 Replies

Ok, I will try one last time Sozobe. If you concede that both Bush and Kerry have lied to advance their own personal agenda, then I think the lies are comparable from the standpoint of showing the type of character of each of them. What results from the lies has little bearing on that. I have learned that if you are willing to lie about small things to gain your agenda, you will lie just as easily about larger things.

From a strict standpoint of the result of the lies, again conceding that both lied, if you believe that freeing Iraq from Saddam was not worth the cost, then of course the lies are not comparable.

Ok, please tell me we are done now. My hands are getting tired. Smile

0 Replies

Oh, and I don't know whether LBJ lied about troops being in Cambodia or not at that time. I wasn't much at following the news back then. Just a tad young at the time. If he did lie about the troops, then he was either a) wrong to do so or b) doing so for security reasons. I certainly won't fault LBJ without knowing more. But Kerry could have easily just claimed to know that troops were there rather than make up a story (or enhance the story if you choose to believe him) about having this memory of being in Cambodia at Christmas "seared - seared" into his memory.

Ah well, enough.

0 Replies

Not done. :-)

I disagree. Lying about small things, even if they are lies, is not the same as lying about big things.

But I'm happy to leave it at that. :-D

0 Replies

Ooh, you added one more so I get to, too...

We still don't KNOW that he wasn't in Cambodia.

0 Replies

I just realized I neglected to take an obvious path -- if small lies matter, small lies of BUSH's matter, right?

[lays in wait, wonders if her trap is too obvious, notices a wary gleam in CoastalRat's eye...]

0 Replies

I deliberately didn't go down this path because it is a VERY long path. If we have to sling mud back in order to make our point it's going to get very messy. Anybody have a link to that photo of Bush boozing it up in the early nineties after he supposedly quit drinking in the 80s?

0 Replies

Quote:

And there is nothing anywhere that I know of that indicates he was ever in Cambodia. Thus he must be lying.

Well, this doesn't follow, logically, but whatever.

I think there were probably a LOT of troops in Cambodia with no official record of being there - we weren't supposed to be there, remember?

There is no doubt that U.S. troops were in Cambodia at the time. It's not like you would pilot your boat over the border and see a great big line labelled 'cambodia' like a map or something, so it is possible that Kerry is mistaken, though the question does come back to me...

Why the Hell does it matter one bit to this election? Both candidates have a past that people question, so let's just leave it at that and talk about policy, sheesh...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Swifty O'Neill Busted

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know