O'Neill Dares Kerry: 'Sue Me'

The Coffee Shop
1

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spokesman John O’Neill dared Sen. John Kerry on Sunday to sue him for libel if, as Kerry’s presidential campaign maintains, key claims in O’Neill’s book “Unfit for Command” are not true.

“I invite him to sue me for libel,” O’Neill, who co-authored the overnight best seller with Jerome Corsi, told WABC Radio’s Monica Crowley.

“If he was actually in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, he should sue me. If, in fact, those other five Boats, on March the 13, , if they all fled like he did, instead of staying like he knows they did, he should sue me.”

O’Neill continued, “If he didn’t wound himself with a grenade, causing sort of a rice-fanny wound, and then reported it to the Navy as a water mine - if he didn’t do that on March 13, he should sue me.”

O’Neill issued the challenge after noting that Kerry’s campaign has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress the information in “Unfit for Command.”

“On our first ad, he had two huge law firms send letters to every station, threatening to sue the stations themselves” if they ran the ad, the former Swift Boat commander told Crowley.

“The next thing he did was challenge the book’s publisher, Regnery, indicating he would sue them if they continued printing the book,” he added.

The best-selling author said that while Regnery declined to stop printing “Unfit,” it offered to republish Kerry’s 1971 book, “The New Soldier,” which chronicles the top Democrat’s anti-war protests with a group bankrolled by Jane Fonda.

Kerry has declined to have “The New Soldier” republished over the years and reportedly bought up most of the available copies in 1972, after his opponent in a congressional race used it to paint him as anti-American.From Newsmax.com

2

What’s your point?

If the lack of a libel suit means that everything is true then Junior has a hell of a lot more explaining to do than Kerry.

But everyone (possibly even you) knows that one does not follow from the other.

3

Cuz, you have repeatedly stated that you are not a Republican, you’re not a Democrat, you’re a libertarian. You have also claimed that you dislike both Bush and Kerry, calling the election ‘the evil of two lessers’.

Why is it then that the vast majority of posts I’ve seen you start are always critical of Kerry/Democrats? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post something drawing attention to Bush’s failings.

4

“What’s your point?”

    • My point is that Kerry has tried to muscle the TV and radio stations not to take SwiftVet’s advertising, and they’ve accused Bush of financing them (which would be illegal) but he hasn’t addressed the accusations. He is apparently more interested in denying the SwiftVets their rights to speak.

“If the lack of a libel suit means that everything is true then Junior has a hell of a lot more explaining to do than Kerry.”

    • Just what does “Junior” have to explain? Not that anything you throw at “Junior” would be pertinent to Kerry’s veracity. BTW, did you know that I dislike the president only marginally less than I dislike Kerry?

“But everyone (possibly even you) knows that one does not follow from the other.”

    • I know that 250 guys have a story they’re telling, and some of them have been telling it for 30 years. Meanwhile, Kerry’s story changes daily. Does that not bother you?
5

“Cuz, you have repeatedly stated that you are not a Republican, you’re not a Democrat, you’re a libertarian. You have also claimed that you dislike both Bush and Kerry, calling the election ‘the evil of two lessers’.”

    • You are correct, grasshopper

“Why is it then that the vast majority of posts I’ve seen you start are always critical of Kerry/Democrats? I don’t think I’ve ever seen you post something drawing attention to Bush’s failings.”

    • Because there is no shortage of rantings against Bush. Why waste my time saying “amen” to those who think he has bollixed the WOT?
6

Notice that the Kerry camp has a problem with the “smear campaign”; They really can’t dispute the numerous claims that what Kerry said he did in Vietman did not happen as he said it did and they don’t deny that Kerry was a shit talking hippy freak after the war, they just don’t like the way in which the public is being informed of what actually happened.

7

“They really can’t dispute the numerous claims that what Kerry said he did in Vietman did not happen as he said it did and they don’t deny that Kerry was a shit talking hippy freak after the war”

Thank you. There is intelligent life here after all!

8

They really can’t dispute the numerous claims that what Kerry said he did in Vietman did not happen as he said it did

You mean other than the reams of Navy documents available on his website for months, then I guess he can’t. And last I looked SBVT don’t have anything more than questionable testimonials from mostly guys who weren’t even there, and certainly weren’t on his boat. But assuming they were at least nearby, then that just leaves you with testimony versus testimony and Navy documentation. But I guess for you documentary and contrary witness testimony just gets in the way, eh?

9

Thank you. There is intelligent life here after all!

Ha ha - Elwood and mojozenmaster form a critical mass of “intelligence”. Pray for an implosion…

10

The swiftboats operated in groups; Patrols. So the guys that you said were not there or were not on the same boat, were nearby; within yards of each other. They didn’t need to be on the same boat. Your comparison is like saying that when a platoon is out on patrol, members of the platoon who are not walking point, or rear guard are not part of the same patrol because they’re covering the flanks.

But to answer your question, you are correct; I never trust documentary or witness testimony if it comes from liberals. It tends to get in the way of the truth.

11

But to answer your question, you are correct; I never trust documentary or witness testimony if it comes from liberals. It tends to get in the way of the truth.

Exactly why this is not an argument or discussion. When one side has made up their mind not to listen to the other, you can’t talk intelligently. Too bad for mojozenmaster.

12

you do of course realize that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone like to john kerry to win a libel suit and thus o’neill’s “sue me” statement actually casts little light on the veracity of his statements against kerry…

13

i suspect you’re a fox news watcher. even scarborough is now admitting, reluctantly, that the swifties are fabricators. when you have to win an election this way–whether a republican or democrat–you signal your lack of moral base and, in my mind, any sense of true patriotism you have comes into question.

the washington post, chicago tribune, ny times, knight-ridder, and on and on, all have investigated this, and found the swifties accusations absolutely false as regards kerry’s 5 medals won. ironically, the swifties are probably correct in determining kerry’s exact whereabouts during christmas of 1968. he was probably not in a river 5 miles inside cambodia, as he recalls, but was more likely in that river still this side of the cambodian border.

unfortunately, the swifties have entirely blown their cover, and are obviously an organization NOT for truth, but for the smearing of a democrat. as a result, the only people who’ll pay attention to them are those who are already converted to their side.

the short term loser is kerry. the long term loser is bush. the smart move is for bush to distance himself from the swifties, and to have done it a week ago. however, he’s giving political answers to a moral question, and in so doing he’s sacrificing his own greatest asset heretofore: the moral high ground.

the problem with a discussion like this is that the two sides can’t agree on an a priori set of axioms. there is the far left media, that makes up its own “facts,” and one might put michael moore in this camp. then there’s the far right, and rush limbaugh, the federalist, etc., would be in this camp. then there are 150 of the top newspapers in the country, which one might call the mainstream media. these are the journalists the country has turned to for straight-up investigative reporting–the arbitrators, one might say, in dispute such as this one. it has been my experience, however, that both those on the far right and left discount mainstream journalism except when it supports their version of the facts.

therefore, i don’t suspect anything the mainstream reports about the swifties will satisfy you.

14

I guess I don’t see where the Swift Boat vets have been proven to be wrong about anything. Some of their contentions are disputed and might be wrong, but that is no surprise since eye witness testimony is often inaccurate in combat.

They are obviously right about Cambodia. Kerry’s camp has backed away from that.

It seems they are right about at least one of the Purple Hearts. Kerry’s camp is now admitting that the first Purple Heart “might” have been awarded for an accidentially self inflicted wound.

You might want to watch this play out before you make your make final decisions. The Swift Boat vets stories don’t change and Kerry’s story does. The Swift Boat Vets step up and answer questions, but Kerry won’t. At some point Kerry will be forced to answer questions and release documents. Keep you mind open until at least then.

It is undisputed, not ironic, that Kerry lied about Cambodia. Let the process play out before you conclude that he hasn’t lied about other parts of his service record.

I do not, and I don’t think the Swift Boat vets believe that Kerry’s service was not honorable and a credit to him. Kerry should be proud of it. Having said that, it is increasingly likely that he has inflated it and lied about it over the years, much like the post war testimony he now admits as being “over the top.”

15

It seems they are right about at least one of the Purple Hearts. Kerry’s camp is now admitting that the first Purple Heart “might” have been awarded for an accidentially self inflicted wound.

Art - where is it reported that the Kerry camp is admitting this?

And do you have a link for the quotation from Kerry himself at the end of your post?

thanks
Nick

16

I don’t know where you’re getting this “admission” of Kerry’s Purple Heart being self-inflicted, but to be frank, it’s irrelevant. My understanding is that it doesn’t matter how one gets wounded, but only that it occurs during battle.

Bob Dole noted yesterday that he “heard” that Kerry’s wounds didn’t really bleed or something like that. That’s rather interesting because in Bob Dole’s own biography, he notes that he received his own first Purple Heart in WWII because he probably misthrew his own grenade, injuring himself. I don’t see himself giving back that Purple Heart. And the last time I noted, not being a doctor or a combat soldier, if I or you, for that matter, were to be shot or hit by shrapnel, we would likely bleed, and quite a bit. I don’t know where the hell Bob Dole gets off saying shit like that.

The problem is this - if one wants to, we can start re-examining every medal winner’s circumstances, to make sure they “deserve” the medals. But that would dishonor their bravery and valor. Yet we are still doing it, which is especially ironic and disgraceful, given who’s doing the examining.

And as I’ve noted before, it’s not Kerry’s responsibility to prove anything - it’s the SBVT’s burden to prove their allegations. And as of now, they’ve proven nothing other than they’re happy to be part of the right-wing hit squad to the court of looking-for-a-reason Republican haters.

17

the short term loser is kerry. the long term loser is bush. the smart move is for bush to distance himself from the swifties, and to have done it a week ago. however, he’s giving political answers to a moral question, and in so doing he’s sacrificing his own greatest asset heretofore: the moral high ground.

You forget that the other long term loser is us, the electorate. Instead of getting honest (if that were ever possible) discussion of the issues, we get attack ads, and fraudulent ones at that. And the fact that we even have such a discussion going means that they work - they distract and inflame, so clearly they are serving their purpose.

Kerry tried the “ignore and it’ll go away” strategy for a couple of weeks. Turns out the electorate is not only neglected but rather stupid, and will buy anything, especially if it already fits into their world view. So now Kerry has to hit back and give up the moral high ground.

Just goes to show you that the moral high ground is a very precarious place.

18

See my newest post about Why Vets Hate Kerry.

“i suspect you’re a fox news watcher.”

    • I watch FOX on occasion, but not regularly.

“even scarborough is now admitting, reluctantly, that the swifties are fabricators. when you have to win an election this way–whether a republican or democrat–you signal your lack of moral base and, in my mind, any sense of true patriotism you have comes into question.”

    • I don’t think I’ve heard anyone else on the conservative side say these men are fabricators, and in fact some of them have been dogging Kerry for years. As I said earlier, their story hasn’t changed but Kerry’s continues to. Drudge is reporting today that Kerry’s campaign HQ is suggesting that his first purple heart might not have been truly earned. Meanwhile, you’ve got 8 of the top ten 527s aligned with Kerry, so whose got the credibility problem?

“the washington post, chicago tribune, ny times, knight-ridder, and on and on, all have investigated this, and found the swifties accusations absolutely false as regards kerry’s 5 medals won.”

    • News to me, I’ll check into that. See above about PH #1

“ironically, the swifties are probably correct in determining kerry’s exact whereabouts during christmas of 1968.”

    • Probably? We know damn well he wasn’t on orders from Nixon, as is “seared into my brain.”

“he was probably not in a river 5 miles inside cambodia, as he recalls, but was more likely in that river still this side of the cambodian border.”

    • Or maybe in Saigon. Whatever, it’s NOT what he as “seared into my brain.”

“unfortunately, the swifties have entirely blown their cover, and are obviously an organization NOT for truth, but for the smearing of a democrat. as a result, the only people who’ll pay attention to them are those who are already converted to their side.”

    • I’ll certainly have to run this up the flagpole and see who besides the left is saluting it.

“the short term loser is kerry. the long term loser is bush. the smart move is for bush to distance himself from the swifties, and to have done it a week ago.”

    • The swifties were never close to Bush AFIK.

“however, he’s giving political answers to a moral question, and in so doing he’s sacrificing his own greatest asset heretofore: the moral high ground.”

    • It’s impossible to lose the moral high ground when sparring with Kerry.

“then there are 150 of the top newspapers in the country, which one might call the mainstream media.”

    • Or one might call them the near left.

“these are the journalists the country has turned to for straight-up investigative reporting–the arbitrators, one might say, in dispute such as this one.”

    • Woah Nelly, not in my book.

“it has been my experience, however, that both those on the far right and left discount mainstream journalism except when it supports their version of the facts.”

    • Which (ironically?) seems to happen regularly with the left, and seldom with the right.

“therefore, i don’t suspect anything the mainstream reports about the swifties will satisfy you.”

    • You are certainly correct about that.
19

“And as I’ve noted before, it’s not Kerry’s responsibility to prove anything - it’s the SBVT’s burden to prove their allegations. And as of now, they’ve proven nothing other than they’re happy to be part of the right-wing hit squad to the court of looking-for-a-reason Republican haters.”

Maybe you missed it, but Kerry chose to run on his military record, instead of his Senatorial record. Not a bad idea, considering how bad his Senatorial record is, but since he decided that Viet Nam was far more relevant than all the years since, it certainly begs two questions:

1- Why are you afraid to openly debate what you’ve raised as your principle issue (service in Nam 35 years ago)

2- Is your record as a Senator that empty?

20

"The swifties were never close to Bush AFIK. "

I’d have to check my names and faces on this, but my understanding is that Pres. Bush’s campaign manager for veterans affairs appears in the SBVT commercial.