| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Who Will Answer Bill Maher's Good Question? |
| 2004-08-30 |
| via Townhall (h/t Lucianne) - EFL Jay Bryant - August 30, 2004 Friday night, Bill Maher had John O'Neill on his HBO television program. O'Neill, of course, is the principal author of Unfit for Command, the book version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign to challenge John Kerry's military record. The interview itself was almost unbearably anger-provoking, as Maher snidely attempted to skewer O'Neill over and over again, while a studio audience laughed and applauded the host's every word. At least, unlike Chris "Motormouth" Matthews, he didn't interrupt O'Neill's every sentence. In the face of this hostility, O'Neill was calm and respectful, not giving an inch, but always unflappably reasoned. I can only suppose he manages to stifle the urge to trade invective with a wiseacre like Maher by basking in the secure knowledge that he and his compatriots among the Swift Boat Veterans are an astonishing political success, the surest measure of which is the hateful reaction they have provoked among the Kerry-worshipping news media. In the process of the interview, Maher asked at least (and perhaps only) one interesting question: if all that O'Neill says is true, why is it that other Swift Boat veterans are backing Kerry? O'Neill didn't rise to the bait, and contented himself with pointing out that Kerry has in fact the support of fewer than twenty Swift Boat veterans, whereas well over 200 had signed up with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But it is a good question, nonetheless, much better than Maher imagines, because it leads - or at least should lead - to some follow-up questions that, so far as I know, no news organization has undertaken. ...more... Thoughtful, factual, article which goes where no others have gone before... and further both challenges and illuminates the craven duplicity and connivance of the media. MSM is committing suicide - and the blogosphere will carry the obit. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #25 Mojo, President Johnson's war record was questioned by someone who had served with him. Seems Johnson had a medal for something in the Korean (?) war that he shouldn't have had. If I remember right someone had written it up for him and gave him one. It was for a "battle" in the air over Korea. Turns out it was a short, no-event flight. Anyway, someone with him that day, the only flight he ever took, came forward and Johnson had to get rid of the medal. I don't remember all the details. Read on one of the many blogs I'm reading these days. |
| Posted by: AF Lady 2004-08-30 6:13:50 PM |
| #24 GJ - I think that was his wife - Teresa 'Shove it' Hines-Kerry. Looks to me she was the one who was shoveling something. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-08-30 5:56:49 PM |
| #23 mojo, who made the weird remark at Donkey Con, sKeery or his wife, that he got his medals the "old-fashioned way?" (Are we to imply that he bought them, as per what really happened?) |
| Posted by: GreatestJeneration 2004-08-30 5:51:29 PM |
| #22 RN - That's a Twain quote, almost: "If you always tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-30 5:29:27 PM |
| #21 Here's another good question, Mr. Maher: Has any previous Presidential candidate ever had his military service questioned by people who served with him? I can't think of any. That's what bothers me about Kerry. He was a dick in '71 for personal political gain at the expense of people who spent considerably more than 4 months in-country, and got their medals the hard way - like losing body parts, or even their life. He strikes me as a 24-carat goldbrick. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-08-30 3:00:56 PM |
| #20 RN, exactly right. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-08-30 2:45:09 PM |
| #19 MSM=Main Stream Media Also...I remember a sign in front of a church said..."If you always tell the truth...You never have to remember!" O'Neill and his fellows just keep putting the truth out there. And, Kerry keeps trying to remember what it was. |
| Posted by: RN 2004-08-30 2:42:47 PM |
| #18 I have to ask a question I should already know the answer for: what is MSM an abbreviation for? |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-08-30 2:36:58 PM |
| #17 It's a good question, deserving of a good answer. As I understand it, the claim of the Swifties rests on some of them being Kerry's superior officers, and some being in boats that took part in the same actions as Kerry, and thus having a different perspective of key events to which they are EQUALLY CREDIBLE witnesses. Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, scores again in bringing light into a situation that seems to be only generating heat. He doesn't as much takes sides with or against kerry as much as he points out the historical problem war historians always have of getting to the bottom of any action of war, and very sympathetically lumps Kerry in with all soldiers who may have differing views that naturally arise from being in the middle of pitched battle. Unfortunately, the way the military historians would try to get to the truth would not favor the 20 vets who support Kerry, some of whom were under his command, when compared against the 200 testifying against him. The historians would weigh the evidence, giving various weights and demerits to each person, based on where they were and what they did. The account of a fellow captain would be weighed differently than, say, the surgeon who said that one of Kerry's wounds was insignificant. Kerry's choice NOT to fully release his records would be definitely counted against him by historians blocked from getting their hands on them to examine them. Another shortcoming is the Cambodian Christmas incident which, lacking the elements of an active battle, does not gain any benefit of the doubt given to those acting within the fog of war generated by contact with the enemy. He claims to have been shot at by the Khmer Rouge, when the record indicates the borders would have been defended by Cambodian regulars still under the command of the regime that was itching to remain neutral. ================== Jarhead is right, but I'd like to clarify: Walter Russel mead notes that the vast majority of american soldiers have been Jacksonians. They have always been deeply involved with the concept and practice of Honor: Most duels in the United States prior to the practice being banned were conducted between people who were identifiable Jacksonians by their biographies. Offending or questioning the honor of a Jacksonian is a grievous offense, and Kerry's behavior after his return from Vietnam incurred their justifiable wrath. All of the above, of course, explains perfectly why John Cain doesn't like the criticism of Kerry in combat situations (benefit of the doubt based on fog of war), BUT felt that his behaviour after returning from Vietnam is fair game (No fog of war, and what was said and written is verifiable). |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-08-30 2:32:09 PM |
| #16 Obviously O'Neill has his facts and is solid under fire because he knows what he's talking about. When you have a firm base you can stand a strong wind. I'm sure Maher was blowing smoke, as he is intitled to do. It's his show and he gets to be da man. Everytime I've seen O'Neil he's been a rock. Maher does a dog face like MMoore to make points he can't argue. The "can you believe that" look. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-08-30 2:28:50 PM |
| #15 These guys (SBV4T) aren't going away because it is personal between them and Kerry. Has been for more then 30 years. Payback... she is a bitch. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-08-30 1:49:36 PM |
| #14 Sorry I missed it. O'Neill has proven to be a great guest on all the shows I've seen. Estrich aka Ostrich is the perfect display of LLL arrogance and ignorance for the average American to see. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-08-30 1:48:56 PM |
| #13 O'Neill is perfect for his role. He is extreamely well mannered and polite and really contrasts (positively) with the shrilling of Kerry's spokespeople. As for Estrich - What a shrill! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-08-30 1:06:10 PM |
| #12 Definitely a great way to start a monday. I only caught the first part of that interview but it was clear he was not backing down from the dhimmicrat goon squads. I'd love to see him rip Maher a new one. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-08-30 12:37:44 PM |
| #11 Rex, I heard Melanie Morgan say that and thought it was cool too. The Swift Boat Vet she had on was GREAT! (H/T Tony the Tiger). He was just all over Kerry and was so convincing. These guys are not going away and they are exposing Kerry for the empty suit weirdo that he is. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-08-30 12:30:05 PM |
| #10 I heard a great term today on the local talk radio here in Baghdad By The Bay....the host referred to the MSM as the "Old Media". Given the Success of the SVFT and how the Blogosphere has forced the alphabet dinosaurs to actaully address the story...I think it is a far more accurate label. And gawd, I can't stand listening to Estrich....that voice! And worse, it's connected to that necrotic growth she passes off for a brain. Please, someone....make it stop! |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-08-30 12:24:09 PM |
| #9 I saw the interview, and the description in the article is way too kind to that idiot Maher. O'Neill took Maher's scalp like a friggin' Apache. After one exchange Maher stood there with his jaw hanging open for about 10 seconds. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-08-30 11:27:59 AM |
| #8 ya gotta bring in the Dems to balance, but call them on their talking points. Estrich can actually admit when they have a weakness, but not now, not so close to the election, and not with Kerry sinking so fast. It's all about the "Republican smear machine" right now |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-08-30 9:32:31 AM |
| #7 .com wrote: I cannot figure out why FNC invites either Susie Estrogen or Blob Beckel on... I think I know why: to show as many people as possible, given new tune-in factor, how angry and unhinged these supposedly 'thoughtful' and 'caring' and 'compassionate' Democrats really are. It is highly doubtful that anyone who isn't already drinking the KoolAid is going to be swayed by Shriekin' Susan Estrus. Hugh Hewitt does it all the time. He brought in Bob Mulholland weekly -- until Bob realized how bad he was making the Dems look -- during the California Recall Campaign. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-08-30 9:01:47 AM |
| #6 It's occurred to me that Susan Estrich represents the liberal straw man, er, woman. Because she's such a tool, she makes a good "pet liberal". Unlikely to garner much in the way of sympathy or respect among the audience. Sort of like Colmes, except with balls. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-08-30 8:55:51 AM |
| #5 The audience sounds like the 911 Widows from New Jersey. The mindset that Kerry's vets are good and all others who disagree are bad seems to endemic to be these people. |
| Posted by: Bill Nelson 2004-08-30 8:39:42 AM |
| #4 I'd be a lot happier if Fox would drop their committment to presenting both sides of every issue, and just focus on serving as a counterbalance, sanity-check, and bullshit-detector/antidote to the remainder of the MSM who are functioning as mouthpieces for the Democratic Party. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-08-30 6:43:28 AM |
| #3 I cannot figure out why FNC invites either Susie Estrogen or Blob Beckel on - both are totally bought and paid for Dhimmi whores who are incapable of even acknowledging when they lose a point - on anything - no matter how trivial. They remind me of Hanan Ashrawi and Saab Erakat. Funny, come to think on it for a moment, the "causes" are damned similar, too. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-08-30 6:38:00 AM |
| #2 God I can hear Lura Ingram doing a Susan Esterich imitation (she actually did it on Imus on the phone once) saying that stupid crap. Hang it in your ample (and ugly) ear Susan. That 10 to 1 ratio is going to kill komrad kerry. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-30 6:35:31 AM |
| #1 Last night on FNC, Susan Esterich said that the influence of the swift boat vets would mean that Bush wouldn't be "legitimately elected". So now, any election in which disputed claims play a role is illegitimate? Or is it just when Euro-approved "progressives" dispute them? Applying this standard impartially would delegitimize the original JFK's election in 1960. Older or more history concious observers will recall that a supposed "missile gap" with the Soviet Union was one of JFK's pet issues. Today, we know categorically that no such gap existed and, further, that Kennedy knew it didn't. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-08-30 6:29:33 AM |