O'Reilly: Wrong to Attack Kerry's War Record

[sturm und drang]

Posted by Bill O'Reilly
Tuesday, August 16, 2004

The partisans are running wild over this Swift boat business, talk radio is crazy with it, and the smell of blood is in the air. John Kerry has made a major deal of his Vietnam War record, and now his opponents have opened fire on the senator's experiences.

It's all tawdry and distasteful, of course, but let's examine things unemotionally.

First off, I believe Jim Rassmann when he says that Kerry saved his life by pulling him out of a Vietnam river while under fire. Rassmann is a former Green Beret, a former police officer and a longtime registered Republican until earlier this year. If he says John Kerry is a hero, nobody should doubt it. Rassmann has earned the right to be trusted, and insulting his testimony is way out of line.

But I also believe Steve Gardner, a former Navy gunner who was also present on one of Kerry's Swift boats. He says the senator wrote up a false report, neglecting to inform the Navy that Gardner had accidentally shot a Vietnamese child during a firefight. This is a tough one. Gardner is implicating himself and has no reason to do so. But perhaps Kerry was looking out for him by not reporting the incident. Only Kerry knows.

It is very possible to perform heroically on some occasions and do less than admirable things on others. All human beings are flawed, and we are capable of both valor and deceit. That's what I think happened here. John Kerry was brave but he was also calculating. His heroism impressed most of his Swift boat mates, but his civilian anti-war activities and perceived grandstanding also alienated many other Vietnam vets. And so the battle lines are drawn.

What should we on the sidelines make of all this? Well, it's a judgment call. It is absolutely wrong for Americans to condemn Kerry's war record because he demonstrated provable valor. However, those who distrust him do deserve to be heard, although facts, not emotion, should be demanded.

I think the Swift boat political advertisement calling Kerry a charlatan is in poor taste, and if this kind of thing continues, it might well backfire on the Kerry haters. Most Americans are fair-minded, and bitter personal attacks do not go down well with folks who are not driven by partisanship.

Remember, Gen. Wesley Clark was knocked out of the presidential sweepstakes when he would not disown Michael Moore's insane remark that President Bush was a "deserter." Bush received an honorable discharge from the National Guard.

Adm. Elmo Zumwalt pinned a medal on John Kerry's chest. The record is the record unless rock-solid proof refutes it.

The lesson here is that blind partisanship is not an attribute. No person or candidate is all good or all bad. In America today, with both sides peddling lies and defamation and spin, it is alarmingly difficult just to get simple facts on which to base a responsible vote.

Somewhere Jack Webb is weeping.

[knowitall]

S and D, most of the people you are speaking to in this forum can't hear you over the screaming of the hawks.

[LRB]

However, those who distrust him do deserve to be heard, although facts, not emotion, should be demanded.

Seems OReilly contradicts himself here some. The fact is that both sides have decorated war veterans, but Kerry's and those against Kerry. But the facts should be heard, and the public should judge. But it seems to me the Kerry campaign is using more smear tactics and less facts. Kerry should respond with facts and not sick his lawyers on the Swiftvets to shut them up.

[knowitall]

LRB. It only feels like Kerry is using smear tactics because you are a "born and bred republican". You won't hear anything that doesn't adore the beloved GOP. I'm still on the fence, but all of your post on politics may be helping me to decide. You may have more influence than you think.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
LRB. It only feels like Kerry is using smear tactics because you are a "born and bred republican". You won't hear anything that doesn't adore the beloved GOP. I'm still on the fence, but all of your post on politics may be helping me to decide. You may have more influence than you think.

I'm hardly a born and bred Republican. Both my parents were Democrats while I was growing up. My mom even voted for Carter. I am admittedly conservative in my political outlook, but don't consider myself a Republican, although I tend to vote that way much more than not. Still for the right democrat, say Bill Bullock for Lt. Govenor Texas or Ron Kirk for mayor of Dallas, I gladly voted for them.

But my political views aside, I've seen precious little factual responses from the Kerry campaign to accusations that Kerry has lied. By and large character assasinations of Kerry's accusers have been the result. It shouldn't matter if Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler is accusing Kerry, he should be able to prove the accusations false without resorting to smearing the character of his accusers.

Even though I've made up my mind on who I'm going to vote for, Bush, I'd still like to know the truth. As it is know, I'm only getting facts from one side. Leads me to the conclusion that Kerry is lying because he can't factually rebutt the accusations.

[knowitall]

I may have misjudged you. I expected your response would be that of one "too easily wounded". But, anyone that believes ANY politician is a fool.

[LRB]

Which is why I want verifiable facts. Not just on Kerry. I tend not to trust traditional media sources to much either.

[knowitall]

It's much easier to manufacture facts than it is to uncover them. In the end, politics means personal agenda. Show me a fact, I'll prove it's a lie. Then they will prove my proof is a lie. Once again, back to square one. Who can shout the loudest....bla..bla..bla. The most important FACT of all is who can take America out of this tailspin.

[LRB]

That's why the facts need to be independently verifiable. Such as Kerry's comment on Cambodia which is an official part of the Senate record. Kerry also has part of his military record which has the application for medals. Unfortunately until Kerry releases the military to make those forms public, we can't verify what they say and who signed them.

Politicians can put a spin on anything, but the cold hard facts are just that. Look at Clinton, he swore up and down that he didnt' have sex with Monica. He swore up and down that he didn't lie in court. He was proven by cold hard facts to be wrong. Look at Nixon. He swore that he didnt' know any thing about the watergate breakin. Cold hard facts proved him wrong. In many cases we don't get these cold hard facts. And then you may be right that it's just a screaming and yelling contest with the loudest one being the winner. But IMO if we try to look to the facts and ignore the loud emotional outbursts for the most part, then we will be better off.

[knowitall]

Agnew, Kissinger, Reagan, LBJ.....All Liars. Does it really matter? Bush, Kerry also liars. There will be more lies to come. That will NEVER change. The world knows about us! Do you think other countries of the world have been exposed to our lies in a more "gruesome" manner? How do we convince them that we're humane? How do we convince them to follow our lead? We've got alot of making up to do.

[LRB]

I would highly doubt any person who said that they did not knowingly tell some sort of truth at one time or another. However I have seen few if any politicians who have made as much of an effort to be honest as Bush, and few besides Clinton who have had as much of a problem telling the truth as Kerry. To me it is quite a contrast. Kerry's public record is chock full of lies. I'm not aware of any about Bush, but will admit that there could be some. So if you want to say vote for the one who lies least, then I guess you could say that's what I'm doing IMO.

Now as to the rest of the world. I really don't think that ther is anything that we need to make up. Show me a better and more humane nation that the US, because I don't know of one. I don't think that you can convince anyone to follow you. Either they decide to follow you or they don't. You can try and force them to follow you, but it generally helps not to turn your back on someone you're forcing to do something. I say that we should to the very best to do what we feel is right and etical. We need to monitor ourselves and seek for improvement, not to convince others to follow us, but because it is the right thing to do and it will ultimately best benefit ourselves to do so. But sometimes doing what is right, humane, and ethical is not popular. I think that we need to have the moral courage to not be popular at time when pursuing that is right, humane, and ethical. But that's my opinion.

[knowitall]

Bush is more effective at trying to be honest? Perhaps. Pretentious is probably a more accurate description. If you don't think he's schooled in the art of Bullsh*t, then he's got you hook, line, and sinker. The winner is determined by the best verbal attacker? That's a sad state of affairs. God help us.

[dude1394]

Knowitall... In general I think you could say that Bush isn't in the habit of lying. Bush certainly is a politician and will stretch the truth like most will to put a good spin on things. But on the big things, he's a pretty straight shooter, and you pretty much know where he stands.

In fact it's sort of a rarity in politics to see someone shoot as straight as bush imho.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Posted by Bill O'Reilly

I look forward to the next Bill O'Reilly column you post sturm. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

This is the Intro to a book written from an advertising angle on how shrewdly crafted the public statements of Bush are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Compared to other presidents, Bush's deceptions might seem unremarkable. He has certainly not been caught lying in a scandal comparable to Watergate or Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern. Minor scandals have erupted during Bush's tenure, such as questions about his service in the Air National Guard and his administration's ties to Enron, but his behavior in these matters has been no different than that of previous chief executives. Nor do his statements about the conduct of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq stand out compared to the great war-related deceptions of previous presidents like Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon.

George W. Bush's dishonesty is different. Rather than simply lying, he has subtly and systematically attempted to deceive the nation about most of his major policy proposals. On issues ranging from tax cuts to stem cells to the debate over the war in Iraq, he has consistently twisted the truth beyond recognition in order to promote his policies.

Remarkably, he has done so while generally avoiding obviously false statements. Instead, Bush consistently uses well-designed phrases and strategically crafted arguments to distract, deceive, and mislead. The result is that all but the most careful listeners end up believing something completely untrue, while proving the President has lied is usually impossible.

Unlike famous White House dissemblers of the past, Bush almost never explicitly claims that black is white or day is night. Instead, he deceives the public with partial truths and misleading assertions. So rather than saying day is night, George W. Bush will focus on an instance of a solar eclipse or remind Americans that people who work graveyard shifts are asleep. Both might be true, but without the proper context, they're highly misleading. Because Bush's statements are so often constructed in this way, he has walked away from one deceptive claim after another scot-free."

the complete forward to "All the President's Spin"
All The President's Spin

[dude1394]

Interesting....Here's the first paragraph from the link.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-Governor Bush liked to tell the story of a hypothetical waitress who would benefit from his tax cut plan. "Under current tax law," he said, "a single waitress supporting two children on an income of $22,000 faces a higher marginal tax rate than a lawyer making $220,000," adding, "Under my plan, she will pay no income tax at all."

This wasn't much of a feat. What Bush failed to mention was that his hypothetical waitress probably already paid no federal income tax.

In August 2001, President Bush announced a new policy on the use of stem cells in federally funded medical research. "More than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist," he told the nation in a televised address, concluding, "We should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines."

Researchers eager to obtain access to these "existing" lines were quickly disappointed, however, when Tommy Thompson, Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, admitted that only 24 or 25 lines were actually "fully developed." Although 60 lines did exist, it was uncertain whether many of them would ever become available to researchers.

I hope this writer does a little better than that. If THIS is lying then I have to agree with Knowitall that all politicians do it, most advertisers, ceo's,mareketeers as well as message-board posters as well. But it doesn't meet my criteria.

[LRB]

This wasn't much of a feat. What Bush failed to mention was that his hypothetical waitress probably already paid no federal income tax.

LOL. This quote alone shows that the authors are every bit as disingenuous if not more than they accuse Bush of being. Does Bush spin the truth to his own advantage? Hell yes he does. Does every other major political figure in America do the same, including John Forbes Kerry? Absolutely. But so does 99% of all people who've put a resume together or interviewed for a job. I'm sorry, but like Dude this doesn't match my definition of lying or intentional deception. If you believe in something like the policies that Bush advocates, it is your job to push forward the positive aspects of that policy. Let others play devil's advocate and try and shoot it down and you can respond to those charges.

Obviously in this case the authors freely admit that they have no definite idea whether that waitress would or would not have paid taxes. Neither do they care to inform the reader that much of tax law is subjective and subject to interpretations. Many studies have shown that submitting the same income information to different tax professionals has produced widely differing results. Furthermore they make no attempt to cite the 2000 tax code laws in force at the time of the Bush speech to make their point but go forth only on broad assumptions. Seems that they wanted to provide themselves an out incase they were wrong. This seems to be exactly what they are accusing Bush of.

[Mavdog]

Those being deceived have the most difficulty seeing the deception....

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Those being deceived have the most difficulty seeing the deception....

This would be funny if not so pathetically ironic.

[kg_veteran]

Where's my colleagues' interest in Kerry's war records?
Even when he's caught in a lie, media aren't scrutinizing him same way they did Bush
By LEE CEARNAL


The same news media that demanded George W. Bush release his National Guard records — and went over them with a microscope — have shown an appalling lack of interest in John Kerry's military service. And as it turns out, there are far more legitimate questions about the latter than the former.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kerry has made his four months and 11 days in Vietnam the central theme of his presidential campaign. This is entirely understandable given his 20 years as the Senate's leading dove. He needs the cover that Vietnam can give him.

Just last week, one of his more fatuous claims came a cropper. Beginning in 1979, with an op-ed for the Boston Herald, Kerry has claimed repeatedly that he spent Christmas Eve of 1968 on a secret — and illegal — mission in Cambodia aboard his swift boat.

"On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse Now, took my patrol boat into Cambodia. In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real. But nowhere in Apocalypse Now did I sense that kind of absurdity."

He repeated the story again in 1986, on the Senate floor: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."

He added a fantastic detail in a 2003 Washington Post profile: "A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

" 'Who told you?' he demanded as he reached inside. 'My friends don't know about this.'

"The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.

" 'My good luck hat,' Kerry said, happy to see it. 'Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia.'

"Kerry put on the hat, pulling the brim over his forehead. His blue button-down shirt and tie clashed with the camouflage. He pointed his finger and raised his thumb, creating an imaginary gun. He looked silly, yet suddenly his campaign message was clear: Citizen-soldier. Linking patriotism to public service. It wasn't complex after all; it was Kerry.

"He smiled and aimed his finger: 'Pow.' "

This story was repeated early this year, in the fawning biography written by a Boston Globe reporter. Problem is, it's not true. His own crewmates say they were not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Even Kerry's own diary entry for that day says he was at his base in Sa Dec, 55 miles from the Cambodian border. In his biography of Kerry, Douglas Brinkly quoted the relevant passage: "Visions of sugarplums really do dance through your head and you think of stockings and snow and roast chestnuts and fires with birch logs and all that is good and warm and real. It's Christmas Eve."

With their man caught in a lie, Kerry's handlers last week floated a new version — he was near Cambodia.

"During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien.

"On Dec. 24, 1968, Lt. John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire. . . .

"Kerry's was not the only United States riverboat to respond and inadvertently or responsibly cross the border. In fact, it was this reality that led President Nixon to later invade Cambodia itself in 1970."

This won't fly either.

"Watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia?" The Mekong River does not form a border between Vietnam and Cambodia.

"Inadvertently?" Strange, considering that his memory of that Christmas Eve 1968 was "seared" into his memory — including the fact that Nixon was lying about U.S. forces' presence there, even though Nixon didn't even take office until mid-January.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Kerry ventured into Cambodia during his abbreviated tour in Vietnam. No orders, no after-action reports, no confirmation from others, nothing.

To have been caught in Cambodia would have been an international embarrassment and a court-martial offense. The border was clearly marked with warnings signs and patrolled by a PT boat to ensure that no allied boats crossed it. (Yes, allied special-ops forces were operating in Cambodia. But they were not inserted there by something as obvious and slow-moving as a swift boat. They were ferried in by helicopter.)

As to the truth of this tale, there is only Kerry's word, which the press seems quite willing to take, to the extent of not reporting on the controversy at all. It is not a trivial matter. Kerry has pimped the story repeatedly in an effort to paint himself as a stand-up eyewitness to events that were both illegal and, in his view, immoral.

And that's not the only issue that reporters are curiously incurious about. At least one of Kerry's Purple Hearts has been challenged by his unit's medical officer, who notes that the wound was barely visible and was treated with a Band-Aid. Some questions should also be asked about his Silver Star: Should shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back — as justifiable as it was as an act of war — be worthy of the nation's third-highest award for courage?

To those of you who say such questions are unseemly, consider that John Kerry's principal claim on the presidency is that he served four months and 11 days in Vietnam. OK, fine. Let's examine the records — all the records, which, unlike Bush and contrary to popular perception, Kerry has not released — and have a debate. We would be if it were George W. Bush. The media would see to it.

Cearnal is the special projects editor at the Chronicle. A former Marine helicopter pilot, he served in Vietnam from mid-1968 through mid-1969. Readers may e-mail him at lee.cearnal@chron.com.

[LRB]

Nice article, but no way the bleeding heart liberal ever agree to release Kerry's service records and damn him to losing the Presidential Election by a wide margin hell when not only his know lies are exposed but new ones as well.

[knowitall]

I think anyone in Vietnam during the "conflict, police action" has the right to talk about over a guy at a party in Alabama.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
I think anyone in Vietnam during the "conflict, police action" has the right to talk about over a guy at a party in Alabama.

Care to explain what you meant by this seemingly incomprehensible statement? I assume that you are referring to Bush is some obscure way with the Alabama reference, however I can't make out your point.

[knowitall]

You understand this statement completely. So does Bush......well, if Cheney breaks it down for him.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: knowitall
You understand this statement completely. So does Bush......well, if Cheney breaks it down for him.

No, actually I don't. Possibly it is the broken grammer. "has the right to talk about" what?

[knowitall]

Has the right to talk about it, the war. Sorry about that.