Posted on 08/13/2004 6:47:55 AM PDT by jmstein7
Bill O’Reilly’s Criticism of Swift Boat Vets is Dishonest Spin
By Jonathan M. Stein
Bill O’Reilly, who publicly assailed the distortions of director Michael Moore during the Democrats’ convention in Boston, is now guilty of using Moore’s own deceitful tactics against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a veterans group of over 200 members questioning the wartime claims of John Kerry in a contemporary television ad.
On August 5, 2004, Mr. O’Reilly stated his main argument against the Swift Boat Vets, that “none of these guys . . . were on the boat with Kerry.” On August 9, 2004, O’Reilly discounted the opinion of a veteran who did serve on Kerry’s boat as a gunner, Steve Gardner, because, said O’Reilly, “[Gardner was] only with [Kerry] for a short period of time.” Aside from being trite and contradictory criticisms, O’Reilly’s statements are ominously similar to the criticisms of the Swift Boat Vets leveled by the spin-doctors at the Democratic National Committee. So much for the “no spin zone.”
In an August 5, 2004 fax from the Democrats’ lawyers to television stations slated to run the veterans’ ad, the Democrats’ legal team threatened legal action against stations because “not a single one of the men [in the ad] who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's.” This type of word game, e.g. equating “being on the same boat” as Kerry as “serving with” Kerry, is a common deception used by Michael Moore – and, for that matter, Bill Clinton (e.g., the meaning of the word “is”).
The simple fact is, “serving with” someone is not limited to the mere circumstance of being on the same boat. Swift Boat patrols were conducted using multiple craft in close clusters – thus, several swift boats would patrol in a closely-knit group. It is entirely dishonest to claim that merely because some of the men were not sitting in Kerry’s boat that they did not “serve with him.” Any engagement entered into by the crew of one craft could easily be observed by the crew of another craft. Further, many of the men who constitute the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group actually appear in the 8mm movies John Kerry shot during his four months in Vietnam! Thus, the DNC and O’Reilly claims that the Swift Boat Vets did not serve with Kerry have absolutely no merit whatsoever – and serve to egregiously libel good men who risked their lives, and gave their blood, for our country. They have earned the right to speak, and the DNC’s attempt to silence them, and Bill O’Reilly’s complicity, is despicable. O’Reilly is clearly not looking out for anti-Kerry vets, truth notwithstanding.
Finally, in an August 5, 2004 interview with political analyst Dick Morris, O’Reilly equated the actions of the Swift Boat Vets with the political actions of radical left-wing groups such as MoveOn.Org. O’Reilly did not go so far as to endorse the idea that Republican donors giving to the Vets linked the Vets to President Bush. However, O’Reilly did tacitly aver that donations to the Vets from Republican donors make the Vets a right-wing political action group. That is nonsense – such illogical thinking is a hallmark of Michael Moore; for example, in his latest movie, Moore claims that the fact that the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family made nominal investments in the same company is a dispositive link between the Bush family and the Saudis. Hogwash. A correlation is not dispositive of causation.
O’Reilly seems eager to tag the Vets as a right-wing group because they have received Republican money; the missing link is that O’Reilly has no proof that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were established by Republican money. There is no such proof because it is nonexistent. Unlike MoveOn.Org, which was established by left-wing donors for the purpose of attacking President Bush, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is merely a recent incarnation of a loosely-associated group of veterans, including John O’Neill, which has been in existence since 1971. The group came together at that time for the purpose of clearing the good names of Vietnam Vets who had been publicly defamed by the anti-war groups such as John Kerry’s “Vietnam Veterans Against the War.”
Therefore, Bill O’Reilly’s equating the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with far left-wing organizations like MoveOn.Org is just . . . ridiculous.
BUMP!
Any suggestion as to publications that might run this?
Any suggestion as to publications that might run this?
O'Really's bloviated opining gets on my nerves.
Try Washington Times Op Ed.
oped@washingtontimes.com
"We prefer opinion articles that are 750 words in length...please include your name, address, and daytime telephone number""
Your dilemma is that while many left-wing rags would love to bash O'Reilly, they don't want anything that favors the Swift Boat Vets.
Good luck.
What about Newsmax or Grassfire or Worldnetdaily? Good article. Did you see Crissy Matthews browbeat O'Neill last night? He got O'Neill to admit he lived in Houston (gasp) and that he voted for Perot twice and for GORE in the last election - a Republican plot indeed.
I enjoy it when he attempts to interview Miss Coulter! She twists him in the shape of a pretzel.
O'Reilly is shallow and definitely unknowledgeable about anything.
You might try The New American, but the circulation is small. Better bet is to contact the only newspapers that are worthwhile: The Washington Times, or The New York Post.
Letters to the Editor...all across The Country...
"The local press in every community is much more independent..."
Karen Hughes
"O’Reilly stated his main argument against the Swift Boat Vets, that “none of these guys . . . were on the boat with Kerry.” On August 9, 2004, O’Reilly discounted the opinion of a veteran who did serve on Kerry’s boat as a gunner, Steve Gardner, because, said O’Reilly, “[Gardner was] only with [Kerry] for a short period of time.”"
While I have a TV set I have never seen or heard O'Reilly while his program was on.
This really make perfect sense, I was never in his studio and therefore cannot comment on what may or may not have happened. ;-)
Furthermore, since I seldom watch his full show, I certainly cannont comment on what I did see and hear, since I only watched for a short time. ;-)
O'Reilly is the biggest jackass out there in my opinion. I think he just says whatever pops into his head to try to stir things up. The only consistent theme he has is that he alone is right. I think it burns him up that his radio show has dismal ratings compared to Rush and Sean.
What was abundantly clear in the O'Reilly interview of the Swiftboat vet the other evening ... is O'Reilly's lack of military service. His reasoning was skewed by the fact he doesn't have a clue when it comes to judging the motivation and veracity of a veteran who served two complete tours in Vietnam ... compared to Kerry who bugged out after 4 months with three very questionable PH's. This veteran obviously had the credentials to pass judgment on Kerry's exploits as he was in the same unit, at the same time, with Kerry. This was lost on O'Reilly who couldn't grasp the concept of military unit cohesiveness and integrity ... something he'd surely grasp if he had deigned to serve himself.
Fox is out of the question: with gavel-to-gavel coverage of the latest exciting celebrity trial, who there has the time?
I agree with another poster: WashTimes or NYPost. All I ever get from Grassfire is spam petitions. The Federalist, or maybe TownHall?
B. O. Reilly has always been 'fairly unbalanced'
imo
Often I find O'Reilly doesn't know as much about a subject as he seems to try and make us think he does. Sometimes he draws conclusions too soon. I'll still watch him but I think he grandstands for ratings then withdraws somewhat so he won't be called unfair. I think he usually has his facts right, but his opinions are just that: "his". I was surprised that he indicated, the other night, that it was good that the swiftboat vets for truth story was dying down. He said that because he criticized the anal exam the media gave Bush on his Nat'l Guard service, and wanted to be consistent on his criticism of the media (fair and balanced I guess), but I think it was at the cost of hearing both sides.
She's not the only one who whips him. Geraldine Ferraro and Robert Reich always make him look like an idiot.
I do not watch O'Reilly's TV show (no TV) I do listen regularly to this radio program since the beginning. O'Reilly hates Drudge even going so far as to tell Imus that someone should "kill Drudge." (Michael Savage was kicked off TV for less with O'Reilly saying it was justified to do so.)
As crazy as it may sound I really believe that O'Reilly knew the vets would be trashed by the mainstream media employees (who didn't know?) and Drudge's association with the vets could be exploited to discredit him.
In fact, even FreeRepublic is taking hits because people associated with the vets' book posted comments here.
Also, I've seen one post here and heard several callers say that backing the vets is harmful to conservatism. the President, and discredits talk radio. The post and the calls were from worried "Republicans."
Is it professional jealousy on O'Reilly's part that drives him? The hatred of Drudge? Or just the chance to be the only "conservative" who didn't "fall" for it while the other hosts take hits from the public?
So confident are the leftist pukes that they can take down the vets that they feeeeeeeeeeeel they can take down others. O'Reilly is along for the ride.
The poor devils.
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.