<<< I watched the Matthews' show last night and was so furious by the end of it>>>
I also watched the Matthews' show last night and was furious by the end of it, but for different reasons.
But first let me digress a bit.
When Jennifer Flowers and all those other women made their accusations against Bill Clinton, I was troubled.
I was not sure where these women were coming from. Were they trying to cash in or were they trying to do Clinton in? I wasn't sure.
But when I looked into the matter, it didn't matter what their motivations were. The facts were as far as I could tell, they were mostly telling the truth and Bill Clinton was not. I was one of the first on SI to post (repeatly and at times vehemently) I thought Bill Clinton was dishonest.
In this case however, it is clear to me O'Neill and the people who put him up to this is conducting a smear.
They are not making any accusations that can be addressed fairly.
As an example, John Kerry risked his own life to save the life of a Special Forces officer. The SF officer testifies to that as well as all the men on the boat who witnessed the action. The Navy awarded John Kerry the Bronze Star for heroism.
But 35 years later, these Swift boaters participating in a well financed campaign agsinst John Kerry say something to the effect that (they don't say how far they away from Kerry's boat) that essentially that is what happened but there were differences as to the perceived danger of enemy fire at the time.
The action took place on the Mekong River, that is somewhat like the Mississippi River in width if not in length, and the Swift boaters expect you to believe that 35 years ago they were all focused on John Kerry's actions when fighting was going on and saw things differently (but not by all that much). Essentially they were saying that there weren't that many bullits near Kerry.
They don't say that they didn't see enemy fire in that direction. They say that there couldn't have been that much fire because yada, yada, yada.
Also, elsewhere, they say that Kerry was wounded three times in a short period of time and anybody that was wounded that many times in a short period of time could not be a good soldier - or words to that effect.
Also, 35 years later, they claim that if Admiral Zumwalt would not have awarded Kerry (in a dierrent action) a silver star, if he knew what they knew. (BTW - according to other accounts I have heard, Admiral Zumwalt wanted to award Kerry a Distinguished Service Cross (which is a much higher award than the silver star - which already is a very high award) but wanted to act right away and award Kerry a Silver Star on the spot.
The point is after 35 years and after being well financed, the Swift Boat accusers can not make a case. They could not make a specific accusation. They have even written a book. And in that period of time they couldn't get the actual testimony of the person that treated Kerry in one of the Purple Hearts the Swift Boaters accuse Kerry of not earning. They got the testimony of some one who saw Kerry being treated and it didn't appear to be sufficient to warrant (in their opinion) a purple heart.
O'Neill had plenty of time, if you go back and see the tape of the show again, and time the opportunities he had to make damaging accusations. All I heard from him were very vague accusations - nothing essentially different that what is on the citiations - but a lot of yada, yada, yadas. |
