The Viet Nam Battle Continues
Reported by Eleanor - August 22, 2004 -
Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (Aug. 22, 5:00 p.m.) was again mostly about the swift boat story. A Joe Lieberman interview took up the rest of this program. (With Joe's usual republican-light comments.)
Joe Lieberman: a) John Kerry deserved his medals so why bring this up now when we should be debating other things. (Who brought it up? The republicans say that Kerry made Viet Nam the "centerpiece of his campaign." So it's a free-for-all, justifying anything they want to say to make Kerry look bad - including lying. Since they can't discuss Bush's record, they muddy Kerry's. Why didn't Mr. Lieberman make these points for the democratic side, instead of being so accommodating?) b) In response to a question about a "wrong signal" by Kerry concerning bringing troops home in a year, Lieberman said the point is Kerry's use of the word "plan" when deadlines are not a good idea. c) To a question about the redeployment of troops from Korea, the Lieberman response was that the surprising thing about Bush's redeployment of troops is the announcement in the middle of a campaign. South Korea supports it, but it will take a decade. (This interview is proof once again that Lieberman was one of Gore's greatest weaknesses.)
Swift Boat Discussion - John Hurley and Van O'Dell debated the details of the SBFT claims as Chris Wallace asked questions trying to cover all the main points. The bottom line of this discussion was the admission by O'Dell that he has no documents supporting his claims, just "eye witness accounts." Wallace had copies of after-action reports that supported none of O'Dell's claims. Hurley called it a republican smear campaign.
During a 25 minute panel discussion on the swift boat topic, Ceci Connolly (the liberal-light), said the Cambodia claim was problematic, and the Kerry comment about it being seared into his memory was fuzzy. (When the point had already been made by John Hurley that Kerry was near Cambodia on that night; in Cambodia on another night; and that the combat itself was seared into his memory, not the date). Connolly (redeeming herself a little) said that the facts support Kerry 1)Thurlow's citation mentions enemy fire 2) People who were there support Kerry's account 3) George Elliott and Adrian Lansdale have changed their stories since 1996, with praise then and accusations now.
Juan Williams was on message. He said there was no dispute about Kerry's heroism. The accounts are changing, and the records back up Kerry's account. "They are lying. If this case were in a courtroom, it would be thrown out as ridiculous." Political motivation is behind this. They are angry at Kerry for his anti-war stance. They are Bush supporters. The co-author of the book has slandered a number of people. (He cites specifics of the slander.)
When Chris Wallace asked how Kerry gets out of this, Brit Hume responded: "It's run its course, but has raised suspicions about Kerry." The Kerry "thread" that runs through this is the "sense of an absolutely incorrigible opportunist" who "grabs any chance" to advance himself. He goes to Viet Nam, does his duty - evidently heroically -..... medals that are questioned...used as a quick ticket out of there. (This sums up the republican position nicely, in spite of the documented facts.)
