O'Neill on PBS NewsHour tonight (Thursday 8/19/04)

PBS ^

[Atlas Sneezed]

I just heard from a liberal who saw the program and he said that O'Neill could only say "almost conclusive" to a major point. Can you shed any light on that for me?

---

Not sure. O'Neill tends not to overplay his hand, so he uses modest qualifiers like this to good effect.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

O'neill it would be nice if i spelled his name right i guess !

[kabar]

Oliphant was so condescending it was disgusting. The idea that he would try to say that the facts opresented by O'Neill don't meet the standards of Journalism 101 is ludicrous. The journalists and historians have not been doing their jobs. They couldn't even pick up on the Cabodia story and Nixon. O'Neill has 8 on the scene observers to what happened in the Bronze Stsar incident. Don't these so-called journalists find it remarkable that only one of Kerry's officer peers supports him and not one of his superiors in the chain of command all the way up to ADM Hoffmann? And these creeps call themselves journalists.

[dr_who_2]

I imagine he's had plenty of practice debating the Kerry camp since the early seventies.

[BobS]

Are they in the 4th or 5th printing now? I heard 4th a few days ago.

[hgro]

Oliphant is a Kerry sycophant.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Try seventh! And.....that is straight from Regnery Publishing!

[Bigun]

Oliphant's repeated claims that the SBVs claims don't meet the high journalistic standards of the mainstream media...

Translation, What they are saying does not comport with what we (MSM) are trying to sell.

[NavySEAL F-16]

Tom Oliphant, is a honorable man,

He's a Democrat flack and a pure sycophant for Kerry.

[bvw]

Yes! A brave act, stands as a brave act -- a random man often stands almost seperate from his own brave act. A singular act, or acts in a brief period.

But to be consistently brave is a quality exceedingly rare except amoung the virtuous.

[BobS]

So is a printing 50,000 or what? I don't know.

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

O'Neill ate that fruit's lunch for him. What's with the hair, bowtie and the femme voice? He couldn't even sit still!

Maybe the hamster was kicking.

[Mo1]

Oliphant's repeated claims that the SBVs claims don't meet the high journalistic standards of the mainstream media are about the most pathetic defense I've heard so far.

Since when did the MSM have high standard??

[sevry]

Oliphant not like to be a raving madman such as Begala,

Or Carville. Yeah - he basically IS. Understand that.

I was thinking just that, watching it now. Tom could be Carville's long-lost newphew.

It's easy to criticize O'Neill for missing a bet. So I won't. I wouldn't have thought of this, myself, at the time, in that studio, if I'd been. But you have eight guys whose sworn testimony substantially agrees, which O'Neill did mention, and Rassman who keeps changing his story.

Oliphant: Well I-iiii have journalistic standards, high standard, high-high standards, which fellas, fellows?, like this will never understand. Because you, buddy . . .

O'Neill: Do those high standards demand that you prefer the testimony of a 'fella' who keeps changing his story about an incident to eight whose sworn testimony substantially agrees? How is that a high journalistic standard? What are you trying to say about journalism?

Oliphant: Nixon did it. NIXON IS THE REAL CRIMINAL!! No, no Jim. I meant to say, journalistic standard. And buddy, you haven't come close to getting to the plate in order to ground out after the game with this stuff in your book. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm not saying you're not.

O'Neill: Are you saying those eight men who were witnesses that day are all lying, and that Rassman who keeps changing his story is telling the truth?

Oliphant: John Kerry has had to face you guys in every election. This is old news, Jim. These guys pop up every election and bother John Kerry. And they'll probably go away again, as always. I think they'll just never understand journalistic integrity, and high standards. Did I mention high standards, Jim?

Lehrer: Yes you did.

O'Neill: But what sort of journalistic standard is it to prefer the testimony of someone who keeps changing their account to eight who do not, with regard to the same incident?

Oliphant: And Thurlow cannot be reliably sourced, Jim, because the Navy's official document contradicts his sworn . . testimony. Who are you going to believe? The US Navy, or someone funded by Republicans in an election year?

O'Neill: But Thurlow didn't write that report, or the words on the citation.

Oliphant: The Navy did! You can't prove to me those are Kerry's words or description.

O'Neill: Who else does it sound like, after you read it?

And so on. On second thought, maybe he conducted himself just right. And he did look tired. Hope he gets some rest after today's 'excitement'.

[sevry]

Oliphant's repeated claims that the SBVs claims don't meet the high journalistic standards

I'm sure after thirty or forty years, this guy is still searching for those. Maybe there's no such thing.

Sometimes you wonder.

[Diddley]

(Lehrer zinged Oliphant when he reminded him that "it's not just in the tabloids any more; we're covering it because Kerry addressed it.")
Beautiful!

The term "tar baby" comes to mind.

[CedarDave]

...sorry, there was a recall and we had to returned our copies and we're not going to be able to get anymore.

A lady on Hannity this p.m. said she visited a Borders in NJ and was told the book was no longer available because it had been recalled for slandering Kerry!!!

[Solamente]

"I was actually amazed that Jim Leher was as neutral as he was."

Surreal, wasn't it?

I was waiting for Oliphant's head to explode!

[mondoman]

Oliphant appeared as the quintessential effete Massachusetts Liberal condescending journalist who knows better.

[Edit35]

Oliphant apparently doesn't like Kerry on a personal level.

Nobody likes Kerry on a personal level.

If not for pure unadulterated Bush-hate, no one would be voting Democratic this election.