John O’Neill in 1971 hated Kerry then, hates him now
HoustonChronicle.com – Witness breaks silence – backs Kerry’s story. Why is all this old material suddenly news.
This seems to have gone on long enough. The whole thing stinks of Richard Nixon’s use of a dirty tricks squad headed by Donald Segretti and modelled after the fabled trickster Dick Tuck – Nixon’s nemesis. If you didn’t know it, John O’Neill of the Swift Boat group was also used by Nixon back then too. If we are going to run the 1968 John Kerry against the 1968 GW Bush this would make more sense. But that’s not who we have and I wonder how the 1968 Bush would fare.
To me this all started before the campaign. It was a known fact that Carl Rove had this Swift Boat group up his sleeve. Its website name was bought back in April. They don’t like Kerry, fine. But this is pure low-life mud-slinging. The problem is the President has zero achievements to run on. He can’t get the economy going and even by starting a war the economy won’t budge. That’s a first! His administration is promoting offshoring jobs and promoting illegal aliens to citizenship. Maybe that’s part of the problem. The deficit is a disaster and I just don’t see how he can win re-election. Since when does “stay the course” really mean anything to fickle Americans? And what course are we talking about?
Meanwhile, the entire anti-Kerry smear campaign goes back to 1971 when current Swift boat honcho John O’Neill actually got into a nasty debate with Kerry on the Dick Cavette show. Kerry was an young protestor and O’Neill hated him for it. According to these reports O’Neill has been trotted out at least once before as a pro-war foil by the Nixon Whitehouse.
It is not the first time that Kerry has been criticised by veterans who resented his role in speaking out against the Vietnam war. Writing in The New Yorker, Joe Klein reported that Nixon’s chief counsel, Charles Colson formed the Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace featuring John E. O’Neill to attack Kerry.
Klein recounted a conversation with Colson years later in which Colson said of Kerry “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 [Nixon], and we did everything we could do to boost his group.” [3]
Also read this entry on O’Neill.
So the Swift Boat stuff starts to appear. This particular post got my attention. It uses the old bromides. Drudge rolls out a teaser then the right wing media jumps all over it all bemoaning the fact that the “mainstream” news is ignoring it. They still say this. Personally I think it’s over-covered. What the media is ignoring are the claims that don’t seem to add up. Then the counter claims appear. My fav is posted below.
Capitol Hill Blue: Anti-Kerry Ad Laced With Distortions, Inaccuracies
McCain : I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crewmates have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam.
What made this interesting was the reaction to John McCains assertions that this appears to be a bunch of dirty tricks and propaganda. Suddenly the radio talk show hosts — who were all huge McCain fans — went ballistic. McCain is now an idiot — a stooge. A stooge for who?
That said you can read one website that lists a bunch of disgruntled Vets against Kerry. If you read between the lines you find that this is all about Kerry’s 1971 anti-war attitude AFTER his tour(s) of duty. They’re blaming him for what? Complaining 33 years ago about a controverisial war in which he took part? Hm. I guess he won’t get their vote. A lot of people are not going to vote for Kerry, but mostly because of current events, not Viet Nam era grudges.
related link:
National Review article on the O’Neill-Kerry grudge
By this time, O’Neill had been star-spotted by President Nixon, and he met the president at the White House. (The sunny atmosphere turned a little frostier when O’Neill confided that he’d voted for Hubert Humphrey in ’68: “The people all around me were shocked” when he told Nixon he was a Democrat.) He was also introduced to several Democratic congressmen and senators who didn’t like Kerry’s slanderous grandstanding.
Mr. Cook-Lefty-Anonymous. You looked through the window but missed the house.
Firstly, there is quite a bit of testimony missing from this. This was simply Kerry’s statement which is about six pages long. There are about 26 more pages of testimony to that appearance.
“These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
That is a hell of a claim. Where is the evidence for this? You cannot just dismiss this one as “someone told me.” The crux of his testimony rests on this statement. Is it true, a lie or pure hearsay? The left of course will use their typical weasel tactics to claim this is hearsay. Of course, this brings up the point of why he mentioned it in the first place if there is no evidence to establish its veracity. Oh, that’s right, a litte bird at the “Winter Soldier Investigation” told him. Keep in mind that Kerry’s list of horrors pulls from the VVAW’s “Winter Soldier Investigation” which was later discredited.
Kerry was wrong on his evaluation of the Communist threat as well as the casualties among the South Vietnamese. Historian Guenter Lewy said, “…the number of civilians killed deliberately by the VC is appallingly high. No counterpart to this death toll caused by communist terror tactics exists on the allied side.” After Saigon fell, 2 million Cambodians and tens of thousands of Vietnamese were killed. But wrong is not a lie.
That he was spewing the exact “disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietname era” (Ion Pacepa, former Romanian spy chief. the highest ranking intelligence office ever to defect) shouldn’t bother any of course and it is not a lie.
So, where does that leave us? It all rests on the “day-to-day” statement. If you believe he made it up, then clearly he lied to Congress. If you believe that he was being accurate, then he clearly did not lie to Congress. If you believe it is pure hearsay, the although he didn’t lie to Congress, he didn’t exactly tell the whole truth.
Thomas
I love looking at all these goofy screen names. It makes you wonder why people get online and write this crap. It’s like half the country has turned into unobombers or something and the they’re trying to make a nervous wreck out of the other half. I guess they’re all looking for the little terrorist within themselves. Go see a shrink, get some help. If your rightwing crazy, have your medication adjusted. Go write a manifesto blog or something. Just leave us out of it.
You have people writing here about how irresponsible or bad Kerry or Bush or both are, but the same people won’t take responsibility for what the hell they write. Then they expect people to take them seriously. What’s this, a big joke with no punchline? So, where does that leave us? John, you have more nuts here than a a right wing talk radio show. I don’t know if that was your goal with this blog, but if it was you’ve exceeded it. If you give anonymous enough rope and column inches, he hangs himself 100% of the time. What is this, some kind of new intellectual spam? Return to sender. Why post this stuff? It’s a waste of your time. It’s a waste of time writing it. It’s a waste of electricity keeping this crap on a server.
Actually, Mr. Anonymous that was supposed to be “Kook”. (Although, who know he might be a chef too. ;->)
Thomas
The biggest chuckle is, somehow, where Kerry spent Xmas 1968 is supposed to decide your vote!
Well, George W. spent his Xmas 1968 on a bar stool in Texas. There’s a hell of a recommendation!
Actually, Mr. Simpleton, I know exactly how hearsay is used in court, which makes Kerry’s testimony rather troublesome. In essence, he made claims and then hid behind hearsay. There is a reason hearsay is not allowed court: It impedes the ability to find truth.
A bunch of guys told him all these things which he conveniently never bothered to verify. Verifying your facts means more than, “Hey Bob, did your commander order you to rape some women?” He is clearly suggesting that the statements and claims, conveniently made by other people, are true. In other words, hiding behind hearsay does not obviate his obligation to verify their stories which he clearly did not do.
RE: Day-to-day statement
Of course you will say that it is hearsay. Someone told me that you are a complete imbecile, thus it must be true.
“150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia.”
Many of those claims were completely false. Would you like to try again? Oh, that’s right, you are going to whip up the hearsay argument again. “These other soldiers told me this that I’m going to tell you without any fact checking. I’m not suggesting it’s true, but I’ll say it anyway.” Weak.
His claim is a huge statement and cannot simply be thrown out there as “I heard it from a couple of guys.” That is like someone getting up in front of Congress and saying, “A bunch of guys told me that the President raped his staff.” You have to be able to back that statement and simply hiding behind hearsay doesn’t cut it.
Actually, I have a couple of problems with Kerry’s testimony. Firstly, while he did not lie, clearly he was intentionally deceptive (Perfect makings for a politician). He made some profound statements with no facts to back them up. Secondly, what he did state was flatly wrong in many cases. Lastly, the impact of those mistakes had far reaching implications. Ask the families of the South Vietnamese what they think of Kerry.
Clearly reading is not one of your strong suits. Interpretations of the day-to-day statement aside, I have already stated that, according to Clintonian standards, Kerry did not lie to Congress. However, I believe he was full of shit on the day-to-day comment, which is by far the most damning statement he made. I find it reprehensible to protect someone that throws out that kind of statement without verifying the facts. Yes, **verifying** the facts. I have no idea whether his statements accurately reflect what he thinks he heard from Winter Soldier Investigation, but I do know that stating that the military is giving written orders to that fact is something that cannot be dismissed. Using your hearsay argument, he would have been completely justified in saying anything by simply stating he heard from some other veterans.
So, let’s recap:
Did he lie or not to Congress in 1971? Technically, no.
Did he act honorably? No, IMO. He parroted statements from sources that we now know embellished their accounts.
My original question was just that. (You see, when the statement ends with a “?” it is called a question. Thus, I was calling for additional information. Should I type it slower for you?) Thus, I have my answer. Do I think that Kerry is any more honest that I did before your record babble? Barely. His “Christmas in Cambodia” really shot any hope believing he’s honest, but at least he didn’t lie to the government. That puts him one up on Clinton.
Ed, I ate a cheese sandwich on Christmas Eve in 1988. That’s why I’m voting for John Kerry. He like cheese sandwiches. President Bush like Cheeze Whiz on his steak sandwich. Cheeze Whiz is good, for on crackers. I can’t vote for somebody who puts it on a steak sandwich. Too weird!
> The biggest chuckle is, somehow, where Kerry spent Xmas
> 1968 is supposed to decide your vote!
Let me guess, you think Clinton was impeached because he got a blow job in the White House? The Christmas in Cambodia was nothing less than a bold faced lie. By that I mean, he made that statement knowing it was false and used it to try to persuade the Senate. That doesn’t seem to disturb people, but then again the left has never been disturbed by dishonesty.
O’Neill is certainly a willing tool for the Republicans. In fact, he actually voted for Al Gore In 2000. If that isn’t evidence of a conspiracy, why, I never…
And Reagan voted for Roosevelt!!