Jump to content

O'Neill and Scarborough -- Republican Assholes


woodlawn
This topic is 6679 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

While spending a few minutes channel-flipping last night I noticed that John O'Neill, the author of the anti-Kerry polemic "Unfit for Command," was once again holding forth on "Scarborough Country," the right-wing show hosted by former Florida Repub congressman Joe Scarborough on MSNBC.

 

O'Neill has been on this and other talk shows numerous times in recent weeks. This character is spending his life telling the world that John Kerry, who volunteered to sail a small boat up and down the Mekong River while the Viet Cong shot at him from the banks, is a bad person because he exaggerated his experiences and got a Silver Star rather than the Bronze Star he actually deserved. Kerry volunteered to get shot at in Vietnam, while Bush couldn't even be bothered to show up for flight training in Alabama. What kind of giant, swollen asshole would even consider carping about Kerry's courage on television, let alone actually do it? This fat, toad-like creature should inspire the disgust of all decent human beings.

 

Joe Scarborough is no better. Though he pretends to be a journalist, Scarby was actually sitting on the dais right behind Bush during the latter's recent campaign speech in Pensacola. He is part and parcel of the Bush Campaign, not a journalist by any stretch of the imagination. And he devoted more than half of his show last night to the crap spewed by O'Neill. Scarby, of course, never served in the military at all, yet he thinks it fitting to provide a platform for those who would impugn the courage of a man far braver than his cowardly self.

 

The only appropriate reaction to this dreck is to vomit. And if you happen to vomit, please mail it to Joe Scarborough at MSNBC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>John Kerry, who volunteered to sail a small

>boat up and down the Mekong River while the Viet Cong shot at

>him from the banks,

 

The same is true of John O'Neill. He, along with the others who are speaking out against John Kerry, were in Vietnam also, fighfting and risking their lives for their country. One of the reasons they did that was to defend the core liberties that this country offers - such as the right to express one's opinions about a person who is running for President.

 

>What kind of giant, swollen

>asshole would even consider carping about Kerry's courage on

>television, let alone actually do it?

 

I don't believe the issue is Kerry's courage - which, I agree, no sane person would question - but his honesty.

 

I recall quite vividly being told by many people, including you, that the issue of Bush's lack of military service and the AWOL accusations were an important issue (even though Clinton's draft-dodging wasn't) because Bush somehow made his military service an issue by flying onto that aircraft carrier dressed up like a fighter pilot.

 

Well, judging by the Democratic National Convention, the primary reason John Kerry and the Democrats think he should be President is because of his heroic military service. So if there are people who were IN VIETNAM and claim to be FIRST-HAND WITNESSES to events about which John Kerry is lying or exaggerating in order to make himself look more valiant, I can't see how anyone can claim that this shouldn't be aired.

 

For me personally, Kerry's volunteering to fight in Vietnam reflects extremely well on his character, courage and patriotism. But having made what he did in Vietnam such a central issue in his campaign, he has no right to object if other people who were ALSO FIGHTING FOR AMERICA IN VIETNAM want to say that Kerry's claims about Vietnam are false or exaggerated.

 

Attacks like this coming from people who never served - such as Scarborough or Sean Hannity (who I heard, disgustingly, refer to Kerry as a "coward" when he interviewed one of these guys months ago) is as revolting and inappropriate as you say. But attacks from people who ALSO FOUGHT IN VIETNAM and who SAW what they are speaking about may be unpersuasive, but - given how central to his campaign Kerry has made his military service, and given how shrilly and frequently Democrats speak of Bush's AWOL status -- there is nothing improper about these interviews whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Merlin

Kerry didn't exactly volunteer. He tried for a student deferment but didn't get it. Then he volunteered, not for the Army where the obvious fighting was, but for the Navy where he would have expected to be far from the Viet Cong, which had neither a navy nor an airforce. Spin it as you will, he has repeatedly lied about being in Cambodia for Christmas, and got his medals by recommending himself using exaggerated facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Kerry didn't exactly volunteer. He tried for a student

>deferment but didn't get it. Then he volunteered, not for the

>Army where the obvious fighting was, but for the Navy where he

>would have expected to be far from the Viet Cong, which had

>neither a navy nor an airforce.

 

How does that compare to what George Bush and Dick Cheney did during the Vietnam war, in terms of courage and patriotism and a willingness to risk one's life for one's country?

 

Spin it as you will, he has

>repeatedly lied about being in Cambodia for Christmas, . . . .

 

This is going to go over real well with the American public - "while George Bush was running around Alabama and Dick Cheney was at home with his wife beacause he had 'other priorities' during the war besides fighting, John Kerry was only in Cambodia in January, not in December. Therefore, vote Bush/Cheney."

 

>and got

>his medals by recommending himself using exaggerated facts.

 

People like you on the Right never learn. These types of attacks against Bill Clinton did nothing but ensure his re-election and high popularity when he left office.

 

You're no different than the drooling Bush-haters on the Left who scream BUSH = HITLER and whose idea of a political argument is BUSH LIED!!!! and "all Repiglicans lie".

 

Just as is true for the HALLIBURTON crowd, your irrational hatred for the other side is the other side's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to Scarborough Unfair?

 

>>Though he pretends to be a journalist, Scarby was actually sitting on the dais right behind Bush during the latter's recent campaign speech in Pensacola.<<

 

What gives you the idea that Scarborough pretends to be a journalist? He's a former Congressman who does a TV show where he talks to other Republicans.

 

I suppose you consider Jerry Springer a journalist too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The appearance of John O'Neill on Hardball with Chris Matthews the day before was much better. Matthews blasted O'Neill and made him look the fool puppet that he is.

 

What is crazy about these Swift Boat ads and the O'Neill book, is that no one really cares. If theses news shows on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox would leave the issue alone it would die quickly. There really isn't much of an issue for most folks. And the more the Republicans push the issue, the worse they look. The more O'Neill is on TV, the stupider he looks. The more the Republicans push this issue, the more they invite more examination of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld durng the Viet Nam era, and they should not want that.

 

As one who is from the Viet Nam era, I am tired of both campaigns trying to re-fight the Viet Nam war and revive the peace debate that went on during it. The Viet Nam era is painful for many of us that lived through it, and we would rather not live through it again. I wish both campaigns would more focus on the future rather than 35 year old history.

 

And speaking of Joe Scarborough... I was also surprised to see him on the dias with George Bush. In fact Scarborough hosted the campaign event in Jacksonville for Bush. I don't undertand how he can be actively be working for one presidential candiate, yet claiming to be some sort of journalist. I have written an e-mail to MSNBC askign for an explanation, but I have not gotten one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>What is crazy about these Swift Boat ads and the O'Neill book,

>is that no one really cares.

 

Actually, polls have shown that this issue is making some inroads with independent voters. It's obviously not going to change voters like you - you'd vote for Kerry even if it were revealed that he kept a squadron of 12 year-old girls locked in his basement so he could molest and eat them (and Merlin would vote for Bush even if - probably especially if - that got revealed about Bush).

 

But independent voters know little about Kerry. What they know from the Convention is that he was this great war hero. Listening to other Vietnam vets challenge that depiction if having an impact, which is why Democrats first tried to ignore the story - and now are attacking these Vietnam veterans - who are heroes in their own right - with a rabid viciousness (see Woodlawn's initial post to illustrate what I mean)

 

If theses news shows on MSNBC,

>CNN, and Fox would leave the issue alone it would die quickly.

 

News shows aren't in the business of ignoring issues - especially ones that purport to cast doubt on presidential candidates. That's what the news media is for - to provide a venue for such criticism.

 

Were you calling on the news media to ignore the stories about Bush being AWOL - or the stores that got released in the week before the 2000 election about his DUI citaion 20 years earlier?

 

>As one who is from the Viet Nam era, I am tired of both

>campaigns trying to re-fight the Viet Nam war and revive the

>peace debate that went on during it.

 

You cannot possibly deny that between the Democrats and the Republicans, it is the DEMOCRATS who are the ones wanting to yap on endlessly about Vietnam. Now this is understandable - their candidate was courageous and brave during that time while the Republicans' candidates (like Bill Clinton) were cowardly and fleeing. But if you're really angry about all the talk about Vietnam in this election, the blame lies primarily with the Democrat, whose candidate has made his activities during that time - rightly or wrongly - a centerpiece of his campaign.

 

>And speaking of Joe Scarborough... I was also surprised to

>see him on the dias with George Bush.

 

Oh, please. Like anyone is surprised that Joe Scarborough is a Republican hack? Would you be surprised if you saw Alan Colmes on a dias with John Kerry? Is Al Franken supposed to be non-partisan? What's the difference bewteen him and Joe Scarborough? None.

 

There's a difference bewteen supposedly objective REPORTERS and COMMENTATORS. The former have to pretend to be objective. The latter don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>John Kerry, who volunteered to sail a small

>>boat up and down the Mekong River while the Viet Cong shot

>at

>>him from the banks,

 

>The same is true of John O'Neill.

 

Then he should know better than to question Kerry's courage.

 

 

>>What kind of giant, swollen

>>asshole would even consider carping about Kerry's courage on

>>television, let alone actually do it?

 

>I don't believe the issue is Kerry's courage - which, I agree,

>no sane person would question - but his honesty.

 

O'Neill said that Kerry exaggerated the dangers that he faced in one incident so that he could win one medal that is awarded for bravery rather than another medal, also awarded for bravery. Given the unquestioned courage Kerry demonstrated one can only laugh at people who think that distinction has any meaning. And one can wonder what would motivate someone to turn his life into a crusade to publicize that distinction.

 

>I recall quite vividly being told by many people, including

>you, that the issue of Bush's lack of military service and the

>AWOL accusations were an important issue (even though

>Clinton's draft-dodging wasn't) because Bush somehow made his

>military service an issue by flying onto that aircraft carrier

>dressed up like a fighter pilot.

 

And? Can you explain why Bush chose to fly onto an aircraft carrier on a fighter jet in a flight suit rather than simply helicopter over in his usual business attire? Were all his suits at the dry cleaners that day? Did Laura forget to pick them up?

 

> So if

>there are people who were IN VIETNAM and claim to be

>FIRST-HAND WITNESSES to events about which John Kerry is lying

>or exaggerating in order to make himself look more valiant, I

>can't see how anyone can claim that this shouldn't be aired.

 

Anyone who thinks that whether Kerry should have won a bronze star rather than a silver star is important enough to devote most of an hour of prime time television to discussing it is a ridiculous crackpot. If O'Neill really cares about people who served in Vietnam, why didn't he write a book about the way Bush's administration has tried to slash the medical services they get at VA Hospitals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The same is true of John O'Neill. He, along with the others

>who are speaking out against John Kerry, were in Vietnam also,

>fighfting and risking their lives for their country. One of

>the reasons they did that was to defend the core liberties

>that this country offers - such as the right to express one's

>opinions about a person who is running for President.

 

Another Vietnam Atrocity

By WILLIAM D. McTAVISH

Aug 17, 2004

 

Spend 15 minutes watching John O’Neill and you see him for what he is: A sad, bitter old partisan still fighting the demons of Vietnam.

 

O’Neill, author of the anti-Kerry screed, Unfit for Duty, is founder and leader of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a collection of Vietnam vets who serve as little more than a front act for George W. Bush’s campaign to destroy Democratic Presidential candidate John F. Kerry at all costs.

 

Funded by two of Bush’s millionaire buddies from Houston, SBVT launched a campaign recently to question Kerry’s service in Vietnam and his fitness for command.

 

Ironic. A group of over-the-hill vets on one last mission for their commander in chief, a President who evaded service in Vietnam by pulling strings to get into a cushy Texas Air Guard unit and then, by most accounts, couldn’t even meet the minimum requirements of a weekend warrior.

 

And their mission? Destroy the reputation of a fellow Vietnam veteran, someone who actually served in-country, collecting a Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts along the way.

 

Their search and destroy mission includes a television ad where a lineup of vets who served near – but not with – Kerry question his honesty, integrity and bravery plus a book, co-authored by O’Neill and Jerry Corsi, a hate-spouting homophobe who likes to frequent right-wing bulletin boards where he calls Kerry “John Fucking Commie Kerry” and Democrats like Senator Hillary Clinton a “fat hog.”

 

Yes, that’s service with honor all right and their leader is a known liar who has waited 33 years for his chance to get even with John Kerry.

 

In 1971, Charles Colson, White House counsel and chief hatchet man for President Richard M. Nixon, recruited O’Neill, fresh from Vietnam and still gung ho about a war that many others – including those who served – doubted.

 

Colson wanted a vet who could debate another Viet vet – Kerry, the young leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

 

"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," Colson told reporter Joe Klein in a January 5 interview published in The New Yorker magazine.

 

Kerry creamed O’Neill on The Dick Cavett show. O’Neill’s friends say he remained bitter about the experience for 33 years until opportunity came knocking when Kerry took the Democratic nomination for President. With the help of Bush backers in his hometown of Houston, O’Neill put together SBVT, which historian Douglas Brinkley, author of the acclaimed Tour of Duty, calls nothing more than a group of “malcontents who have never forgiven Kerry for his actions in speaking out against the war.”

 

O’Neill and his cronies claim they are only interested in the truth yet he has his own problems when it comes to veracity.

 

"I've had no serious involvement in politics of any kind in over 32 years," O’Neill claimed on CNN’s Crossfire program last week.

 

Federal Election Commission records show O’Neill has contributed $14,650 to federal political candidates – all Republicans – since 1990. A search of newspaper databases in Houston show him mentioned often as a political activist for GOP causes. According to Texas Lawyer magazine, O’Neill lobbied former President George H.W. Bush for a federal judgeship in 1991 (and contributed to Bush’s 1992 Presidential campaign).

 

CNN also says he lied to them earlier this year by claiming he had not been interviewed on national television about Kerry before appearing on their network. Network executives later discovered O’Neill had, in fact, appeared on C-Span in March to discuss Kerry.

 

So the vets who belong to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth follow the lead of a longtime Republican operative who lies about his political past. They have embarked on one last mission for a commander-in-chief who has no qualms about using those who served their country for his own political gain.

 

Just like Vietnam.

 

(Capitol Hill Blue reporter and columnist McTavish is a veteran who served three deployments in Vietnam)

 

© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue

 

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5049.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, i find all of this humorous. first the democrats slime bush with the michael moore movie dressed up as a "documentary"; they all cheer for the wonderful revelations on screen reguardless of how slanted and inacurate. the republicans are outraged at the "lies" in the film and condem it.

 

then when an "independent" republican group or two responds with slime on kerry, these same folks are outraged at the "lies" about their hero kerry. how outrageous for anyone to do such a thing. the republicans now have a smirk on their face at this hatchet job.

 

when one side starts using such tactics, they should not be shocked when it is returned to them. both side have fallen into the gutter with these unsponsored attacks. how about a little elevation in the debate and grown up behavior. i am really put off by it all and sort of laugh at the juvenile behavior on both sides.

 

i do have one interesting question for the kerry fans. in talking about his 1968 christmas in cambodia (now recanted), kerry said that he was angry at president nixon who lied that american troops were in cambodia while kerry was in cambodia; as we know, nixon did not become president until 1969 so he was not president when kerry thought he was in cambodia. i believe in his acceptence speech, kerry refered to viet nam as "nixon's war" which i thought strange at the time as kennedy started the ball rolling and johnson really built it up. what is it with kerry and nixon/viet nam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Are you going to Scarborough Unfair?

 

>>>Though he pretends to be a journalist, Scarby was actually

>sitting on the dais right behind Bush during the latter's

>recent campaign speech in Pensacola.<<

>

>What gives you the idea that Scarborough pretends to be a

>journalist? He's a former Congressman who does a TV show

>where he talks to other Republicans.

>

>I suppose you consider Jerry Springer a journalist too.

 

The difference between Springer and Scarborough is that Springer didn't have an aide named Lori Klausutis found dead in his office. Lori's killer has not been found, but much as in the Chandra Levy/Gary Condit case, Scarborough remains the most likely suspect.

 

Scarborough is even worse than Karl Rove, because Karl Rove has never killed anyone (directly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Franken didn't have a dead aide found in his office.

 

Here's soemthing else to remember about the so-called "Swiftboat Vets for Truth":

 

None of them were there on that boat with Kerry.

 

First hand witnesses have stood side by side with Kerry and testified to what they saw.

 

In a court of law, who would have the greater credibility (outside of a court presided over by Antonin Scalia that is): first hand eyewitnesses or people who are repeating second of third hand information and/or rumors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Are you going to Scarborough Unfair?

 

Personally, I'm getting a tad bit tired of the whole "military service" debate. Thank Our Precious and Holy Lord that this will be the last generation of politicians

for a while, at least, that can use that political Pokemon card.

Please don't misunderstand my meaning... military service may indicate a certain predilection for leadership (and also, it may resoundingly not!). However, it's becoming a smokescreen of sorts, when what really should be on the news each night are plainspoken accounts of what either candidate plans on trying to accomplish over the next four years.

 

If military service continues to be an important factor in choosing our country's stewardship in the future, the saving grace is that it means there will be a LOT more minorities holding office!

 

 

Trix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>i do have one interesting question for the kerry fans. in

>talking about his 1968 christmas in cambodia (now recanted),

>kerry said that he was angry at president nixon who lied that

>american troops were in cambodia while kerry was in cambodia;

>as we know, nixon did not become president until 1969 so he

>was not president when kerry thought he was in cambodia. i

>believe in his acceptence speech, kerry refered to viet nam as

>"nixon's war" which i thought strange at the time as kennedy

>started the ball rolling and johnson really built it up. what

>is it with kerry and nixon/viet nam?

 

Here is a link to Kerry's acceptance speech. Look for a reference to Nixon, and you won't find one. Who told you it was there -- Limbaugh, or Hannity?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Spin it as you will, he has

>repeatedly lied about being in Cambodia for Christmas, and got

>his medals by recommending himself using exaggerated facts.

 

As usual, Merlin quotes the RNC/Rove approved Reborglican drivel and comes up short..again...

 

Former GOP NavSec Says Kerry Deserved Medals[/font size]

 

By Staff and Wire Reports

Aug 16, 2004, 11:02

 

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Navy Secretary under President Nixon, said Sunday that John Kerry deserved his combat medals for heroism in Vietnam.

 

Sen. John Warner of Virginia defended the process by which Kerry won his highest honor, the Silver Star.

 

"I'd stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition," Warner told CNN's "Late Edition."

 

Kerry was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Hearts as a Navy Swift boat commander in the Mekong Delta in February and March 1969.

 

"We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal [the Silver Star], a very high one, when it goes through the secretary," Warner said. "I feel that he deserved it." Like Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Nixon - both Navy vets of World War II whose war service was later questioned - Kerry has had to face recent allegations in TV ads from others serving near him in Vietnam claiming that he lied about his combat heroism.

 

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam prisoner of war, has condemned the ads and called on President George W. Bush to do the same but President Bush has refused.

 

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5047.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Are you going to Scarborough Unfair?

 

And as for would-be political leaders planning far in advance to use their military service as a stepping stone to national office -- that is VERY old. There are the great ones, of course -- Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, US Grant, Eisenhower -- genuine leaders from wars past who went on to the Presidency. But there were some pretty obvious smaller-fry self-promoters as well.

 

Civil War types were not above coordinating their service to the nation with their political ambitions. There is an eery parallel to Kerry in Gen. George McClellan, who was not exactly a ball of fire on the battlefield so that he could run straddling both pro and anti war constituencies. He was nominated as the Democratic Party candidate in 1864, and lost. To Abraham Lincoln.

 

Another military nest-featherer was George Custer, who parlayed his Civil War service into a post-war generalship and orchestrated the Battle of the Little Big Horn as his ticket to fame and glory. Unfortunately for him, he also lost.

 

A third case is a little more positive -- Teddy Roosevelt. He got GREAT coverage out of his run up and down that little hill in Puerto Rico. Perhaps not altogether unplanned.... He was also a pretty good president, though an accidental one (VP when McKinley was shot).

 

Where will Kerry's now-epic 40-day mini-Iliad lead? Hard to say. It seems to me that "hero" is stretching it a bit, especially when so many others served longer and under more dangerous conditions and aren't awarded that epithet. And isn't "hero" a title others should give you, rather than promoting it yourself for your own advancement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...