Posted on 08/25/2004 3:17:00 PM PDT by hinterlander
There are several methods of evaluating the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 254 of whom have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief.
There is the Bill O'Reilly method, which is to abandon independent thinking and simply come out in the middle, irrespective of where the two sides are. In response to Newt Gingrich's remark that the Swift Boat Veterans' independent ads were "the conservative movement's answer to Michael Moore," O'Reilly said, "I don't want either of them."
In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned BOTH Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half.
The O'Reilly method of analysis works well about once a century. The last time was when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.
Then there is the Chris Matthews method, which is to decide in advance that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are the lowest form of human life imaginable and then publicly excoriate them for consuming oxygen.
Matthews employs a logical calculus known as "begging the question," which goes something like this:
(1) John Kerry claims to be a great war hero.
(2) Maybe so, but legitimate questions have been raised about his combat record.
(3) How can you say that about a great war hero like John Kerry?
When John O'Neill, author of Unfit for Command, went on "Hardball," Matthews accused O'Neill of being a Republican operative and demanded that O'Neill detail for "Hardball's" six remaining viewers his voting history for the past 20 years in mind-numbing detail. (Completely destroying his case against Kerry, in 1988, O'Neill voted for George Herbert Walker Bush!) Apparently voting for a Republican presidential candidate 16 years ago is a credibility…quot;destroyer, whereas being a former member of the White House staff under Jimmy Carter, as Chris Matthews is, enhances one's credibility.
Normally an interview on a newly released book consists of the author being asked questions about his book and the author answering the questions. With O'Neill, Matthews interviewed himself.
Also, erstwhile war protester John Hurley was interviewed along with O'Neill about Unfit for Command. The fact that Hurley (1) didn't write the book, and (2) is a paid Kerry campaign worker raises no credibility issues. A colleague of Kerry's in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hurley's contribution to the interview about a book he didn't write consisted of his piping in periodically with insightful comments about O'Neill, such as "his book and his organization is built on lies and distortions."
O'Neill's contribution to a discussion about his own book consisted mostly of meaningless sentence fragments:
O'Neill: I don't believe that ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: Well, I'm not here to ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: His first Purple ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: Well, the first ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: You're right. I'm saying ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: Well, wait just a second. What you've done is ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
O'Neill: First of all ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)
Finally, O'Neill proposed that he be allowed to answer questions and Matthews erupted with an indignant speech notable mostly for being slightly longer than anything O'Neill ever got to say:
Matthews: "One of the oldest tricks on this show is for somebody to come on the show after talking for 20 minutes and say they haven't had the chance to talk. I'll be glad to clock you, John, on how many minutes you spoke on the show. So don't try that old trick. It is a particularly conservative trick, OK? So let's move on here."
Let's review the transcript!
Total words by book author John O'Neill: approximately 1,150. (Complete sentences devoid of Matthews interruptions: about 2.)
Total words by paid Kerry flack Hurley: approximately 950.
Total words by Matthews, excluding host prattle ("Welcome back to 'Hardball'!"): approximately 2,290.
At least Matthews didn't physically throw O'Neill off his set as he did Michelle Malkin a few nights later while she tried in vain to discuss her new book. The lion-hearted Matthews reserves that level of rudeness only for girls. (Now that I think about it, compared to the average Democrat male, maybe John Kerry IS manly.)
In lieu of the O'Reilly method (randomly coming out in "the middle" of every issue) or the Matthews method (deciding, ab initio, that any criticism of Kerry could come only from bottom-feeding, politically motivated whores), there is still another method of evaluating the evidence, which is to evaluate the evidence.
For starters, 254 Swift Boat veterans say Kerry is a fraud; 14 say he's a hero. Partisan considerations aside, which would be more difficult to do: Get 14 liars to keep a secret, or get 254 liars to do so? As a student of recent history, I defer to any registered Democrat on this question.
Of course, the 14 in Kerry's camp are not necessarily lying, being bribed, or hoping for a position in the Kerry administration …quot;- possibilities the media will never raise, I note. But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence."
Why don't we just give both sides some Swift boats, a few machine guns and lots of ammo, put them on a river somewhere, and let them settle this whole thing like gentlemen once and for all?
HA HA
Punk the media and John Kerry HEY Senator how does feel being punk by that woman
She is more woman than you are
METROSEXUAL FREAK
Amen.
People can argue about his medals, but , why won't he release his records? What about Christmas in Cambodia, he's changed that story, how many times now? The media won't investigate? They are such a joke-definately NOT JOURNALISTS.( They are propagandists for the DNC).
. Kerry has no excuse for what he did to all Viet Nam vets with his treasonous/irresponsible statements on the floor of the Senate- while we were at war. I heard a vet call in to a radio show , he said that what Kerry did changed the status of all the POW's in the VC prison camps to war criminals. How many of our soldiers we're tortured even more because of what Kerry said? It's unforgivable.
What the RAT party is doing in making excuses for it, trying to cover it up, trashing the vets trying to inform the public about it, is disgusting and unforgivable. It tells you all you need to know about the democRAT party. Please see my tagline.
I'm a little confused here. Why would Ann Coulter, who I admit I don't get, waste an entire column on B.O.?
If you're talking about the following line from his essay, and thought he was being serious, you need to get a sense of humor installed:
What sort of idiot would make the centrepiece of his presidential campaign four months of proud service in a war he's best known for opposing? I wouldn't stand for Parliament on a family values platform because I know someone's bound to bring up the 123 gay porn movies I had a bit part in back in Amsterdam in the 1970s.
"Anne implies that this posture is morally equivalent to refusing to judge the relative merits of genocide over those that fought against genocideThat's just silly."
No, Ann is using an extreme example to make a point, that O'Reilly is simply a pragmatist and does not deal with principles.
Kerry is running for the most important office in the World.
His lack of character in lying about his Vietnam record is a crucial issue in his ability to lead the country.
O'Reilly would have you believe that the facts cannot be learned, but they could if Kerry would sign a form 180
As voters we are going to have weigh the evidence and vote on what evidence is given to us (like jurors)
To say as O'Reilly does, we cannot never REALLY know is simply attempting to avoid doing the research necessary to know.
We elected one President (Clinton) because when conflicting stories came out, the American people held up their hands and said, 'who can tell who is telling the truth'
It is O'Reilly's responsibilty as a journalist to DIG out the facts and present them to the American public so we can know the truth.
Methinks God had Ann in mind when he took that rib from Adam to create Eve.
I know I did. :-)
Maybe the dems will be able to get Frank Lautenberg or Walter Mondale to run!
You know, the more I see, the more I think that the "right wing" pundits are right... That Kerry is being set up to lose by the dems, in order to clear the way for Hitlery to run in 2008. Be sure to watch the dems go into massive obstruction more (far more so than now) in order to try to get things as bad as possible, to advertise Hitlery as the savior of the country.
Mark
>>It almost makes me feel bad for him...then I realize he is a pompus ass who needs to be brought down often.
O'Reilly used to have a gal on his staff, Arthel Neville, a daughter of one of the Neville Brothers, the New Orleans musical family. While she was Liberal as could be, she also served to keep O'Reilly a little more grounded. She would criticize him and in general keep his head from expanding to the proportions it has reached today.
I really think the fall of O'Reilly as a watchable show dates to the time when Arthel left it. He really, really needs someone to play the "court jester" role.
I think O'Reilly is only guilty of going overboard in order to be fair to both sides. (Fair and Balanced??)
Matthews is a nmoron, though.
but ANN COULTER I LOVE YOU!! WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING MY MARRIAGE PROPOSALS!
;^)
And that's a "good thing".
Who's looking out for you, indeed.
Who's looking out for you, indeed.
Thanks for the ping!
Oh my, as my 3 year old says, OUCHIE.
Bill O'Reilly exposed!
Hey O'Reilly, there's still time for you to recoup some credibility by admitting you were wrong about the Swiftboat Vets.
If you don't, many of us will have a hard time taking you more seriously than Al Franken.
This is a good point and one could make the argument that O'rilley is shirking his journalistic responsibility. But not every issue is as clear cut as the support or oppositition to genocide. I also understand that Anne is engaging in hyperbole to make her argument. I just think the hyperbole detracts, rather than bolsters, the argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
