Posted on 08/25/2004 4:47:21 PM PDT by kezekiel
Yeah, after reading that tale, I need a beer...!
Yep, just what we can expect from the Media Arm of the Democratic Party.
I do not believe Kerry ever went into Cambodia, as helicopters (H-34) were the vehicle of choice, both for insertions and extractions. However, we did routinely go into both Cambodia and Laos, both before and after Nixon's inaguration.
I think you may be on to something there.
Not a bad place to start.
Isn't that the truth. Every time there's a disputed claim by the swiftvets, the media sends out the hounds and goes to great lengths to find any morsel that will discredit them.
When John Kerry makes a claim, it's taken at face value and nothing is done to either verify or discredit the claim. Beyond that, even if all evidence suggests any certain Kerry claim is less than credible, the media shrugs it off, ignores it, and does their part to make the controversy go away.
Huh? Did you not read the transcription? He said he was "in Cambodia".
"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," said John E. O'Neill in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system.
Now, either we admit there is a problem here, or we concede that we're using double standards. It's a dilemma.
We're holding Kerry's feet to the fire because he says he was "in Cambodia" when we believe he was only near Cambodia. Then we want to believe O'Neil was only near Cambodia when he says, on tape, that he was "in Cambodia".
I see a problem here, much as I hate to admit it.
Kerry, like Clinton, is a liar but Kerry, unlike Clinton, is not an accomplished liar. The hits on him are scoring and there is more to come.
Assuming O'Neill is a "public figure" -- and I think that he probably is, you would have to show that the "headline" writer acted with malice. Recklessness is not enough. it has to be a false statement, made with knowledge of the falsity of what was said, or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false, AND with the intent to injure. You get to the first problem with it is "false" that O'Neill lied.
O'Neill admitted that his statement was untrue. Now that does not mean it was a lie, and I think its fair to say it was not a lie. But, you are already in the gray area between "false statement" and "lie". Before you can even address the motives of the headline writer, you have to look at O'Neill's motives in telling Nixon he was in Cambodia. You are already deep into it, and you haven't even gotten to square one.
In fact, it is not enough to show that O'Neill's statement was not a lie. You have to show someting along the lines of, and I am speculating a bit here, "no reasonable headline writer could have THOUGHT it was a lie." That debate could take the rest of your life and mine. If you were able to show that no headline writer could in good faith have called O'Neill's admittedly false statement a [deliberate] lie, then you have to show that the reason why the headline writer CALLED it a lie was for the purpose of injuring O'Neill.
This would make a tremendous law school exam question, but pretty much a LOSER of a lawsuit. This is a really, really, tough row to hoe. Not on par with proving that Income Tax is illegal, or that courts that have flags with fringe on them are admiralty courts without jurisdiction over state citizens, but headed in that direction.
It's always a problem when you give your opponents sound bites. There are 60 days or so to work out the nuances of spending Christmas in Cambodia delivering Special Forces troops to the interior of Cambodia under Nixon's orders, vs working along the border.
The most important point here is the timing. Nixon did wage war in Cambodia, but Kerry had left by then. O'Neill was still there under Nixon's watch.
Kerry does not seem to distinguish between stuff he did, which was perfectly adequate in my book, and stuff he heard about or imagined.
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.