Posted on 08/30/2004 3:16:23 AM PDT by rabidbushie
Friday night, Bill Maher had John O'Neill on his HBO television program. O'Neill, of course, is the principal author of Unfit for Command, the book version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign to challenge John Kerry's military record.
The interview itself was almost unbearably anger-provoking, as Maher snidely attempted to skewer O'Neill over and over again, while a studio audience laughed and applauded the host's every word. At least, unlike Chris "Motormouth" Matthews, he didn't interrupt O'Neill's every sentence.
(Snip)
In the process of the interview, Maher asked at least (and perhaps only) one interesting question: if all that O'Neill says is true, why is it that other Swift Boat veterans are backing Kerry?
O'Neill didn't rise to the bait, and contented himself with pointing out that Kerry has in fact the support of fewer than twenty Swift Boat veterans, whereas well over 200 had signed up with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
But it is a good question, nonetheless, much better than Maher imagines, because it leads - or at least should lead - to some follow-up questions that, so far as I know, no news organization has undertaken.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
They support him for the same reason that Klinton won two terms. To many voters, politics is like a sporting event. It's "My Team" no matter what.
This question holds exactly zero interest for the MSM. It is only when a Republican speaks out that motivation becomes an issue. Here are two additional questions that, to the best of my knowledge, the MSM has made no effort to answer.
1. Who else besides John F. Kerry left Vietnam after only four months with three Purple Hearts? I'll bet they can be counted on one hand and you know for a fact that, had Bush been in Kerry's place, that's all the media would be interested in answering. After all, somebody spent all that time perusing old W photos and researching each ribbon on his uniform to see if any were unearned. Who did that? No interest by the MSM.
2. What's Max Cleland expect to get out of being Kerry's campaign lapdog? Secretary of Defense? Again had the Bush/Kerry roles been reversed, all the MSM would have been focused on would be why Cleland would do it, what was in it for him?
Good questions, and I don't have definitive answers to them. I do have my suspicions, though.
Firstly, Maher is paid (with our tax dollars) to propagate the socialist line. He is but another shill for the left.
Secondly, whether O'Neill is telling the truth, or not, has absolutely nothing to do with other Swift Boat veterans who are backing Kerry.
Maher and his handlers, know the question is irrelevant to the Swifties claims.
It is, however, very interesting that there is never any mention that O'Neill and Corsi have stated publicly that they would welcome Kerry's camp, or any others to sue them in a court of law, if they believe anything that O'Neill and Corsi represent to be true in the book, UNFIT FOR COMMAND, is in fact not true.
After the Kerry goons threatened the TV stations with a lawsuit, should they play the ad, O'Neill sent each station they had solicited to run the ad a package of signed affidavits. Upon reading the sworn affidavits, the TV stations aired the ad.
I think Ketchup Boy's small "Band of Brothers" is one of the reasons TeRAYza won't release her financial records.
I'd like to have the answer to that question..
and this one..
if all that Kerry says is true, why is it that other Swift Boat veterans are opposing Kerry?
A far better question is why John Kerry made his Vietnam military service the cornerstone of his presidential campaign knowing that his medals were questionable, his rabid anti-war activities would be exposed, and many of his fellow Vietnam veterans would speak out against him.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1202785/posts <-- Same article
We all know the MSM will NOT investigate this......so it's up to us. I've spent the last hour sending this article along with the list of Kerry's Band of Bros. to a lot of media who I "think" will take a serious look. Also included Rush, Sean and Boortz - if they broadcast the question maybe, just maybe it will spur some journalist to do their job. I even sent it to Scott Baker, the Pittsburgh reporter on the receiving end of Tehreeeeza's "shove it" comment.
I guess Liscombe says he has more stuff coming out, but can not find answers to these questions because the Kerry people's answers are ludicrous and unrelated.
Two reasons off the top of my head, this a.m....Kerry thought he had covered his tracks and knows the MSM is on his side....Im sure there are many more.
Please share.
I think this will be the last campaign that anyone will underestimate the power of the Internet. Kerry clearly thought he could sucker the public.
Three possibilities:
1. Money
2. Shared war crimes (kerry admitted this, someone was with him)
3. Partisanship to the max
Prolly not, I think: self-aggrandizement was enough to get them to commit to the puffery while they presumed it safe; now they gotta see their stories through at any cost to save face.
Next minute, they're having an 'OH SH*T' moment.
That'll learn 'em. Exalt yourself, be humbled.
The question itself betrays the usual double standard. Were the Swifties correcting the lies of a Republican, those few who might defend the Republican would just be dismissed as "partisans". No one would try to give such a small minority the same credence as is being attempted by Maher. No, it is not a qood question. Rather, it's a very typical and predictable question.
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.