OOPS! Swiftliars Busted Again - The Orange Mane

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 07:34 AM

This just out: Remember when O'Neill jumped on Kerry for saying he had gone into Cambodian waters by saying that the borders were guarded and no Swift boat ever crossed the Cambodian border?

OOPS. The AP just came out with an article. It appears they went back to Nixon's copious White House tapes (remember those?) and discovered his meeting with O'Neill (where Nixon is coaching O'Neill in how to attack Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show). During this meeting, O'Neill told the president he had been ordered into Cambodia a few times. "Yes, sir" he says, when Nixon presses him on the issue. "We were in Cambodia."

Here's the funny part: O'Neill says he's not lying now, he was lying then. So he's not lying to us, but he lied to the POTUS?

Maybe he should rename his book: "Unfit for Belief"

More to come.

Mile High Shack · 08-26-2004, 07:37 AM

I thought Nixon wasn't even president when Kerry said he was in Cambodia

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

I thought Nixon wasn't even president when Kerry said he was in Cambodia

Kerry's memory was fouled up on that one - but for legitimate reasons (at least to a reasonable person). In fact, he said they entered Cambodian waters on Christmas Eve of 1968. Nixon had been elected in November, but didn't take office till January - so he was the President-Elect. One of the gunners on Kerry's boat told him they weren't there on Christmas Eve, but four days later - it was "around" Christmas. Now the Kerry campaign says they may not have entered Cambodian waters. Hard to make out a border on the water.

Doesn't matter. A personal friend of mine made many trips into Cambodia at that time. If you're chasing VC, who gives a shiite where the border is? Nixon certainly didn't when he ordered illegal carpet bombing into Cambodia and Laos.

Rascal · 08-26-2004, 07:56 AM

It's okay for Kerry's memory to be fouled up but not O'Neil's? Right...

Yet another hypocritical moment from the left.

And the same damn thing you said about identifying a border could be applied to the O'Neil situation.

This is ridiculous.

enjolras · 08-26-2004, 08:03 AM

Quote:

It's okay for Kerry's memory to be fouled up but not O'Neil's? Right...

Sponging a date by a few days is one thing.. saying equivocally "We entered Cambodian waters" on the one hand, and then saying "We never entered Cambodian waters" (a DIRECT cotnradication) is another. One is a problem of getting all of the facts perfectly correct, the other is simply lying.

So yes..they ARE different. It's like interviewing a witness after a crime. They tend to get the broad facts absolutely correct, but screw up the small details.

Southern Bronco · 08-26-2004, 08:56 AM

Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia. He lied to Congress, he lied to the Boston Globe, he lied to the Senate. Yet Kerry said that being in Cambodia was "seared-- seared" into his memory. The reason he LIED was to gain POLITICAL advantage. This is NOT a small detail, although many here wish it were so.

And he has aready admitted to the LIE.

watermock · 08-26-2004, 09:44 AM

This is funny.
Carry on.

Kerry has no reference, no backup and doesn't even know who the President is.

It's so damn funny it's hyterical.

It's like Apocolypse Now with Marlon Brando.

He's full of shiat.

It' was the best of times, it was the worst of the times, hell, I don't remember what time it was....it was Nixons Fault....

Kerry was not even in Nam when Nixon cleaned out Cambodia.

Get your facts straight. Jesus Christ. It was 1969.

Kerry says Nixon sent him to Cambodia.

"We cut off heads and ears and arms..."

This is our war hero?

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Bronco

Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia. He lied to Congress, he lied to the Boston Globe, he lied to the Senate. Yet Kerry said that being in Cambodia was "seared-- seared" into his memory. The reason he LIED was to gain POLITICAL advantage. This is NOT a small detail, although many here wish it were so.

And he has aready admitted to the LIE.

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

But O'Neill was there, by his own admission to Nixon, which proves Kerry's point: The U.S. was making illegal incursions into Cambodia.

watermock · 08-26-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

But O'Neill was there, by his own admission to Nixon, which proves Kerry's point: The U.S. was making illegal incursions into Cambodia.

Jesus Christ. Now there is on evidence one way or the other. WTF are you on when you go to May of been and How do you know where a border is. ?

Are you deaf dumb and blind? This isn't a movie. Let me explain something to you again.

Kerry was in Cambodia under LBJ or he wasn't there at all. YOU GOT IT DUMBASS.

You still don't get it.

This is so easy.

watermock · 08-26-2004, 10:06 AM

Quote:

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

Here is Ro.

WTF is he even talking about

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

Jesus Christ. Now there is on evidence one way or the other. WTF are you on when you go to May of been and How do you know where a border is. ?

Are you deaf dumb and blind? This isn't a movie. Let me explain something to you again.

Kerry was in Cambodia under LBJ or he wasn't there at all. YOU GOT IT DUMBASS.

You still don't get it.

This is so easy.

Was Nixon the President-elect at that time and had LBJ already (to all intents and purposes) resigned?

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watermock

Here is Ro.

WTF is he even talking about

Here's what I'm talking about (for those who are reading comprehension challenged) - Ever been on a boat? Now let's say you're on this boat going up a river and you know, from the charts, that the river goes into Cambodia. Unless you've got SATNAV or something, at what point do you enter Cambodia? Do they have a little arched sign over the river saying "Welcome to Beautiful Cambodia?" Are there little mile markers along the riverside? Are there little Cambodians throwing flowers at your boat as you enter their country? (Whoops, no, that would be Iraq)

watermock · 08-26-2004, 10:21 AM

First it's not iraq, which is your ulitmate desination. The whole post is full of assumptions. Suppose this, Suppose that.

Even his Biographer had dished this liar and your playing suppose this suppose that?

Dude. The that game is over. Your an idiot. Game over.

Hercules Rockefeller · 08-26-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

"Never?" There's no evidence of that one way or the other. More realistically, you could say "May have been." How do you know where a border is on a body of water?

Really? For all the Dems that like to cite the official record as proof of his actions, nothing documented said he was ever there and none of his commanders said he came anywhere close.

Besides Kerry's comments, there's nothing to say he was there and for someone who likes to trot out his crewmates to back him up at every opportunity, they're strangely silent on this issue.

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Really? For all the Dems that like to cite the official record as proof of his actions, nothing documented said he was ever there and none of his commanders said he came anywhere close.

Besides Kerry's comments, there's nothing to say he was there and for someone who likes to trot out his crewmates to back him up at every opportunity, they're strangely silent on this issue.

And yet, the guy who took over Kerry's boat after he left country told Nixon that he went into Cambodia a number of times. I wonder if those trips were "on the record?"

And one of Kerry's crewmates did agree that they went into Cambodia. He just said Kerry got the date wrong. He says it was three days after Christmas, 1968, not Christmas Eve.

Hercules Rockefeller · 08-26-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And one of Kerry's crewmates did agree that they went into Cambodia. He just said Kerry got the date wrong. He says it was three days after Christmas, 1968, not Christmas Eve.

and yet the Kerry campaign has moved it to sometime in 1969 now. Funny that Kerry can't seem to remember the date, or come close to it, of an event that he considers a turning point in his life and its memory is seared into him. Most people are able to remember the date of events like that pretty closely or at least relatively closely, they don't give a couple month period of time.

Blueflame · 08-26-2004, 01:35 PM

The point is that O'Neill (head liar of the SBVB) has been caught in yet another whopper. Have any of these guys told a verifiable truth yet?

Hercules Rockefeller · 08-26-2004, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueflame

The point is that O'Neill (head liar of the SBVB) has been caught in yet another whopper. Have any of these guys told a verifiable truth yet?

Let's see, Kerry has admitted he wasn't in Cambodia, backed off his statement that in the action he won his Bronze Star he was the only Swift Boat that stayed after the mine explosion when in fact he was the one who left and then came back, and acknowledged that his 1st Purple Heart could have been self-inflicted.

I'd guess that by going by Kerry's response to those three claims by the Swift Boat guys, that's pretty verifiable that their claims have merit. If not Kerry would sue for libel, merely threatening it isn't enough. You said that the WH should go after people who make backhanded comments on Hardball if it was a lie, or you can't claim it was. Guess you should be consistent in your argument that if what the SBVT were saying was a lie, Kerry should sue for libel.

Weird that you said you were exhausted with this topic Blue, but continue to post in threads about it.

Rohirrim · 08-26-2004, 01:49 PM

This is what gets me: You have a guy like O'Neill. He was hired by Charles Colson (the guy who went to prison for running Nixon's dirty tricks team) to smear Kerry in 1971. He meets with the King of Darkness himself for some coaching on how to attack Kerry on the night of his TV appearance. He (according to O'Neill) lies to Nixon in that meeting. He's an attorney who is now using Hoffman, Thurlow, etc. to hawk his book and make a bunch of money. And now, we're supposed to take everything this guy has to say at face value? Yeah, he's telling the truth, and Kerry's lying.

Earth to people: THE GUY'S A PROFESSIONAL LIAR.

Blueflame · 08-26-2004, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Let's see, Kerry has admitted he wasn't in Cambodia, backed off his statement that in the action he won his Bronze Star he was the only Swift Boat that stayed after the mine explosion when in fact he was the one who left and then came back, and acknowledged that his 1st Purple Heart could have been self-inflicted.

Strange that you swallow whole cloth lies like "we weren't under fire" from Thurlow and "I witnessed these events; oh, my bad, that was based on third-hand hearsay" from Al French, yet cry bs over faulty memory of trivial details on Kerry's part.

Quote:

I'd guess that by going by Kerry's response to those three claims by the Swift Boat guys, that's pretty verifiable that their claims have merit. If not Kerry would sue for libel, merely threatening it isn't enough. You said that the WH should go after people who make backhanded comments on Hardball if it was a lie, or you can't claim it was. Guess you should be consistent in your argument that if what the SBVT were saying was a lie, Kerry should sue for libel.

He very well may sue for libel. Right now the guy's rather preoccupied with other matters, though.

Quote:

Weird that you said you were exhausted with this topic Blue, but continue to post in threads about it.

I am fatigued with having to make the same arguments over and over again... covering the same territory with different posters. The previous conversation was nothing more than a rehash of another discussion.

This topic (yet another O'Neill lie) is new, not 3-day-old news.

Hercules Rockefeller · 08-26-2004, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueflame

Strange that you swallow whole cloth lies like "we weren't under fire" from Thurlow and "I witnessed these events; oh, my bad, that was based on third-hand hearsay" from Al French, yet cry bs over faulty memory of trivial details on Kerry's part.

Actually I've never said anyone's claims were 100%, but I've always said they can't be totally lying if Kerry can't keep his story straight and is always changing it. You're the one that swallows any claim that supports Kerry as hook, line, and sinker such as the new guy today who was simply a witness just like the SBVT all were, but his claim is somehow 100% true.

Quote:

He very well may sue for libel. Right now the guy's rather preoccupied with other matters, though.

His campaign has been preoccupied with going after SBVT for a couple weeks now and the ads are costing him voters in a close election, you'd think that if they were libeling him, he'd have filed suit by now to show everyone they were lying. Nice try though.

Blueflame · 08-26-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Actually I've never said anyone's claims were 100%, but I've always said they can't be totally lying if Kerry can't keep his story straight and is always changing it. You're the one that swallows any claim that supports Kerry as hook, line, and sinker such as the new guy today who was simply a witness just like the SBVT all were, but his claim is somehow 100% true.

His campaign has been preoccupied with going after SBVT for a couple weeks now and the ads are costing him voters in a close election, you'd think that if they were libeling him, he'd have filed suit by now to show everyone they were lying. Nice try though.

Uh-huh... I'm sure a Kerry refutation of Thurlow's claims would have carried the same weight if it had been issued weeks ago (as a "he said vs he said")... before the FOIA request for his military records provided ironclad proof of his lies. Waiting for the documentation made a much heavier impact. This week's polls are too soon to reflect much of the swiftlie discreditation.

Gathering all the information for a solid rebuttal takes time.

I've read that Kerry's military records/postwar activities have been made an issue in every campaign he's experienced... and that he's always... always come out ahead on that score. And it does open the door for more scrutiny of Bush's (incomplete) military records, particularly his missing discharge paperwork.

Hercules Rockefeller · 08-26-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueflame

I've read that Kerry's military records/postwar activities have been made an issue in every campaign he's experienced... and that he's always... always come out ahead on that score. And it does open the door for more scrutiny of Bush's (incomplete) military records, particularly his missing discharge paperwork.

If you want to believe that winning in liberal Massachusetts that was vehemently anti-Vietnam is the same as winning nationwide with a lot of those who served against you opposing you, then more power to you.

Blueflame · 08-26-2004, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

If you want to believe that winning in liberal Massachusetts that was vehemently anti-Vietnam is the same as winning nationwide with a lot of those who served against you opposing you, then more power to you.

And if you want to believe the choice to throw rocks from a glass house is a brilliant PR move, then more power to you.

This campaign is a marathon; not a sprint, and I fully expect the swiftliars to backfire... then backlash... on Bush bigtime as the myriad lies... and connections to the Bush campaign... continue to be exposed.

Hercules Rockefeller · 08-26-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueflame

This campaign is a marathon; not a sprint, and I fully expect the swiftliars to backfire... then backlash... on Bush bigtime as the myriad lies... and connections to the Bush campaign... continue to be exposed.

You might want to check out the ties between the Kerry camp and Liberal 527s, those ties are just a bit more extensive then any claimed connection between the Bush campaign and SBVT. That's a fight the Kerry camp doesn't want to touch.

Oh and both the LA Times and Gallup polls had a majority say they believe Kerry's military record, yet Kerry's behind by 3 in both. Care to explain?

08-26-2004, 07:34 AM	#1
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,801	OOPS! Swiftliars Busted Again This just out: Remember when O'Neill jumped on Kerry for saying he had gone into Cambodian waters by saying that the borders were guarded and no Swift boat ever crossed the Cambodian border? OOPS. The AP just came out with an article. It appears they went back to Nixon's copious White House tapes (remember those?) and discovered his meeting with O'Neill (where Nixon is coaching O'Neill in how to attack Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show). During this meeting, O'Neill told the president he had been ordered into Cambodia a few times. "Yes, sir" he says, when Nixon presses him on the issue. "We were in Cambodia." Here's the funny part: O'Neill says he's not lying now, he was lying then. So he's not lying to us, but he lied to the POTUS? Maybe he should rename his book: "Unfit for Belief" More to come.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-26-2004, 07:37 AM	#2
Mile High Shack Ring of Famer Cock-a-doodle-do Join Date: May 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 17,010	I thought Nixon wasn't even president when Kerry said he was in Cambodia

08-26-2004, 07:56 AM	#4
Rascal RIP Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 16,581 Adopt-a-Bronco: Turf	It's okay for Kerry's memory to be fouled up but not O'Neil's? Right... Yet another hypocritical moment from the left. And the same damn thing you said about identifying a border could be applied to the O'Neil situation. This is ridiculous.

08-26-2004, 08:56 AM	#6
Southern Bronco Pro Bowler My tagline sucks Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 614	Kerry was NEVER in Cambodia. He lied to Congress, he lied to the Boston Globe, he lied to the Senate. Yet Kerry said that being in Cambodia was "seared-- seared" into his memory. The reason he LIED was to gain POLITICAL advantage. This is NOT a small detail, although many here wish it were so. And he has aready admitted to the LIE.

08-26-2004, 09:44 AM	#7
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	This is funny. Carry on. Kerry has no reference, no backup and doesn't even know who the President is. It's so damn funny it's hyterical. It's like Apocolypse Now with Marlon Brando. He's full of shiat. It' was the best of times, it was the worst of the times, hell, I don't remember what time it was....it was Nixons Fault.... Kerry was not even in Nam when Nixon cleaned out Cambodia. Get your facts straight. Jesus Christ. It was 1969. Kerry says Nixon sent him to Cambodia. "We cut off heads and ears and arms..." This is our war hero?

08-26-2004, 10:21 AM	#13
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090	First it's not iraq, which is your ulitmate desination. The whole post is full of assumptions. Suppose this, Suppose that. Even his Biographer had dished this liar and your playing suppose this suppose that? Dude. The that game is over. Your an idiot. Game over.

08-26-2004, 01:35 PM	#17
Blueflame Miss Congeniality Welcome to Peyton's Place Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: in my cups... lol Posts: 33,037 Adopt-a-Bronco: Randy Gradishar	The point is that O'Neill (head liar of the SBVB) has been caught in yet another whopper. Have any of these guys told a verifiable truth yet?

08-26-2004, 01:49 PM	#19
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,801	This is what gets me: You have a guy like O'Neill. He was hired by Charles Colson (the guy who went to prison for running Nixon's dirty tricks team) to smear Kerry in 1971. He meets with the King of Darkness himself for some coaching on how to attack Kerry on the night of his TV appearance. He (according to O'Neill) lies to Nixon in that meeting. He's an attorney who is now using Hoffman, Thurlow, etc. to hawk his book and make a bunch of money. And now, we're supposed to take everything this guy has to say at face value? Yeah, he's telling the truth, and Kerry's lying. Earth to people: THE GUY'S A PROFESSIONAL LIAR.