How many of you were aware…

That the lead man of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–John O’Neill–cast presidential votes for Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore (i.e. AGAINST Bush). He has also referred to GWB as “an empty suit.”

Obviously, this is a dying/dead subject, but how is it that the media (yep, here it is again) managed, for months on end, to say explicitly and imply that the Swift Boat people were just a pack of Bush operatives, when 90 seconds of light research would have proven otherwise? This information was reported (Aug. 28) in the NYT (to its credit) but the media never stopped treating these guys like they were anything other than partisan hacks having shady meetings in dark rooms with Dick Cheney.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “How many of you were aware…

  1. Is THAT why the Swift Boat guys made the Sunday talk show rounds for months on end? I always wondered– damned liberal media out there interviewing these people with no Bush ties saying things supported by tons of evidence– we can always count on the liberal media to, er, nevermind.

    Anyhow, yes, I know that O’Neill SAYS he voted for Gore and, before that, Perot, etc (see the Daily Howler’s archives for the real-time view). But of course, no one REALLY knows how O’Neill voted, since, as most know, we vote by secret ballot. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Lance

    Like

  2. Did I say that they got no press coverage? Uh, didn’t think so. But what sort of press coverage? Well John O’Neill was called a liar to his face on multiple occasions on network television. And he only got there after the ruckus raised in the non-mainstream media broke the door down. Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor of the New York Times, made the revealing admission to Editor & Publisher that she’s ”not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into the Swift Boat story.”

    And then there was the classic moment (hilarious) when Ted Koppel actually sent a crew to Vietnam to film alleged eyewitnesses in order to disprove one of the accounts — how Kerry won his Silver Star — in Unfit for Command. Casually, ABC news director Andrew Morse tells his viewers that ”the Vietnamese require an official minder to accompany journalists on reporting trips.” The minder-censor from the was there to ensure that the ”eyewitnesses” stuck to the script. But what was really funny was that the “eyewitness” reports ended up contradicting key claims of the official Kerry biography.

    And you seem to want to imply that there wasn’t evidence for the Swifties charges. Perhaps you could elaborate, because they raised several legitimate questions that were never answered by Kerry or his people–and Kerry refusing to release about 100 pages of his naval records (despite repeated calls for him to do so) doesn’t exactly inpsire confidence that he’s not hiding something. But I am interested by your impulse to dismiss their charges out of hand–I’ve always been intrigued by the kind of entitlement I sensed in the Kerry camp, like it was only their version of events that could be discussed seriously.

    It was a good swing Lance, but a swing…and a miss.
     

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Stuart

    Like

  3. Woah woah! you’re reading all sorts of fun things into my post. But since I apparently did that to yours, I shouldn’t get too huffy.

    I sarcasticaly said that the Swiftboat people had “tons of evidence.” I did not say that they had none. They had some stories, some of which may have had merit, others of which were he-said-she-said things that ultimately were a waste of air time. Did I “dismiss their charges out of hand”? No. I heard it, and found nothing compelling (and some of it, even if true, isn’t interesting– just like Bush and his National Guard flap, I just don’t care).

    And RE Alison Mitchell’s comments, Stuart– quite frankly, without cable TV, there’s not a whole hell of a lot that would make it on the air, including, but not limited to: X-Games, Southpark, the Daily Show, Iron Chef, the Sopranos, and re-runs of Full House.

    But this is neither here nor there. If I understand, correctly, your original post was that O’Neill “cast presidential votes for Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore,” and that no one knows this becuase of our liberal media. I simply (and rightly) noted that no one knows who O’Neill voted for, and (perhaps not so rightly) suggested that were the media really so liberal, anti-Kerry BS (since he-said-she-said stuff about 30-year-old irrelevant news is BS in my opinion) wouldn’t have made it on the air.

    Would that our press honestly discussed things that mattered, like Bush and Kerry’s plan for taxes, or Social Security, etc.

    Uh, hole in one? No– touchdown! What about goalgoalgoalgoalgoal? Or he shoots– he scores!!!!!!!! What do you say when you score in curling?!? 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Lance

    Like

  4. I think it’s spelled ‘W H O A’. 😉

    1. Irrelevant “anti-Kerry BS”–I think this point has been made before Lance, but it would/should have been TOTALLY irrelevant had Kerry not decided to build his entire campaign around it. I would have loved for this garbage to never have been an issue–but when Captain John stepped to the podium with his idiotic salute and persisted in centering his Vietnamn heroism as his main qualification for being president, that heroism HAD to be examine because HE made it the issue.

    2. Alison Mitchell’s point was not that it wouldn’t have made it on the air, but that mainstream media wouldn’t have given the story the time of day if cable (READ: Fox) hadn’t forced them to. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Anonymous

    Like

  5. I think it’s spelled ‘W H O A’. 😉

    1. Irrelevant “anti-Kerry BS”–I think this point has been made before Lance, but it would/should have been TOTALLY irrelevant had Kerry not decided to build his entire campaign around it. I would have loved for this garbage to never have been an issue–but when Captain John stepped to the podium with his idiotic salute and persisted in centering his Vietnamn heroism as his main qualification for being president, that heroism HAD to be examine because HE made it the issue.

    2. Alison Mitchell’s point was not that it wouldn’t have made it on the air, but that mainstream media wouldn’t have given the story the time of day if cable (READ: Fox) hadn’t forced them to. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Anonymous

    Like

  6. Hey Anon.

    Right, though the OED gives all sorts of varient spellings. Still, I freely admit that I’m the worst speller around.

    Anyhow:

    1) I don’t think it was so much Kerry pushing the military service thing as the fact that WE’RE IN A WAR, and so it’s a plus when the President can say that he’s got some military experience. Imagine if he had a Clinton-type record– the press (esp. the AM echo chamber) would have KILLED him. And of course, since military experience is a plus, it’s to the other side’s advantage to try and tarnish it in any way possible…

    2) And my point is that nowadays, mainsteam media gives EVERYTHING the time of day because there’s so much crap out there that makes it on the fringe. And finally, if FOX can set the agenda of the mainsteam media by hyping something, where does that liberal bias fit in? 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>Lance

    Like

  7. OK, no more spelling complaints. Don’t make me have to use a spell check. Too tedious. 

    <><><><>Posted by<><> <><>< HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?headlife.blogspot.com" TITLE="ronan at jhu dot edu">Chief Headlife<>

    Like

Comments are closed.