Could this be an example of a digital brownshirt?

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at October 24, 2004 05:40 AM

A digital brownshirt? Perhaps you’re referring to Bill O’Reilly….?

While I’m surprised that O’Donnell let himself go, it has to be hard to be sitting that close to a blatant and smear-mongering Liar such as Mr. O’Neill and keeping yourself in check. It’s not as though he hasn’t expressed exactly the same thing before over and over and over; no one on earth who would be watching a Pat Buchanan “news” piece hasn’t heard O’Neill’s bile before; he was hardly being censored by O’Donnell’s ultimate loss of patience with him. Everything thing he was claiming has, repeatedly, been shown to be false. Giving him more free airtime to express his repeatedly exposed lies surprised me far more than someone labeling him correctly as the poisonous liar that he is.

And let me repeat that….O’Neill is a noxious Liar.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 24, 2004 04:52 PM

Everything thing he was claiming has, repeatedly, been shown to be false.

So you assert.

Keep eating your own dogfood and you’re going to wind up with Terret’s like your friend O’Donnell.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at October 24, 2004 04:57 PM

jackson zed, are you a retard because you’re republican or are you republican because you’re a retard? It’s “tourette’s” you slack-jawed yockel and O’Neill’s claims have in fact been proven to be bull.

Posted by: redSun at October 24, 2004 06:21 PM

Jatsby and redSun. You both sound like you got Rabies…

Tell you what, the both of you - Post one single instance of O’Neill lyin’, and I’ll quit refuting your crap arguments, which are no arguments at all.

Otherwise, you’re both doing the same thing O’Donnell did, which is scream Liar, Liar.

You keep stickin’ that Strawman Liar up there, and I’ll just keep setting it ablaze.

Oh… At let me repeat that for you both - Prove that O’Neill is lyin’, and I’ll shut up. ‘Til then boys, good luck.

How about Christmas Dinner in Cambodia?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 24, 2004 07:12 PM

Jatsby:

And let me repeat that….O’Neill is a noxious Liar.

Of course I’ll let you repeat that. You see, that’s the difference: I don’t attempt to drown out someone I disagree with, nor insult them with calumnies. If I think you’re saying something idiotic, it’s up to me to prove it, not just call you an Idiot repeatedly.

BTW I don’t consider you an idiot. Radically, deeply, self-evidently wrong, but no idiot. I’d appreciate it if you’d prove me wrong - for example, the authorship of the after-action report is pretty clear.

redSun:

jackson zed, are you a retard because you’re republican or are you republican because you’re a retard?

A reminder:

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

This is your first and only warning.

Jackson Zed:
redSun’s right, it is Tourette’s. And may I draw your attention to remarks about civility etc.

You don’t have to respect them: you have to act as if you do. It’s more effective too. John O’Neil came across as being far more credible by keeping his cool, didn’t he? And with far more provocation?

The various verbal barbs thrown about at the moment aren’t too bad, but I don’t like the trend. So pretty-please-with-sugar-and-a-cherry-on-top stop with the insults, everybody. Ta.

Posted by: aebrain at October 24, 2004 07:51 PM

They have learned well from O’Donnell. I happened to be watching that show that night, passing thru, so as not to let my rating station think I frequented outfits like MSNBC or CNN. O‘Donnell and his buds above show what we are in for if these people win. O’neill had a three point answer, and it is a far better proven discourse that Kerry did write that after action report. Because O’Donnell yelled for 10 minutes, or his cohorts Jatsby and redsun don’t want to believe it; does not make the truth disappear. They are like Kerry…..liberals make it up…. by the way Kerry’s goose is cooked not shot. Can’t wait for the news splash tomorrow…watch the unleashing and the liberals howling to the moon!

Posted by: dickmr at October 24, 2004 08:24 PM

jackson zed, are you a retard because you’re republican or are you republican because you’re a retard? It’s “tourette’s” you slack-jawed yockel

redSun!

Merci bien. Votre commande de Français est excellente. By the way, it’s y-o-k-e-l, without the “c.”

And for your information, I’m neither a “retard” nor a republican, although I’m sure it makes no difference to you. As you so ably demonsrate, it’s apparently a universal leftist trait to speak with certitude concerning things about which you actually know very little, or in this case, nothing at all.

…and O’Neill’s claims have in fact been proven to be bull.

So you assert.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at October 24, 2004 09:11 PM

aebrain, your reserve is commendable. I think it’s patronizing as well, but that’s only an opinion. So, what would you accept as proof of O’Neill’s lies? There have been several dissections of his claims, but I suspect you’ll deny their qualifications…why don’t you show me why you think the authorship of the after-action report is clear and I’ll look at the resources providing that explanation while I provide you with my resources as well, and we can compare notes, eh? I’m always happy to learn something new, and hope you can keep an open mind as well.

mrdick, I suspect that Security Council news that you’re hoping for with bated breath will ultimately be disappointing for you…it should be, anyway, once the entire story is out.

Posted by: Jatsby at October 25, 2004 04:26 AM

Jatsby. I know you directed it at AEB, but I’ll just give you a helping hand on the AfterAction Report issue - Hit the SBVT site. A member there sought and got access to Official Navy records and has thoroughly researched the coding used to indicate who indeed did file AAPs.

NavyChief is the NIC.

Of course, I suppose you could argue that Kerry is relying upon the word of Alston, who was on Kerry’s boat for exactly 5 days (and NOT on the mission in question), just because Kerry says it is so. But I think that’s a bit disingenuous, don’t you?

Kerry’s word up to this point has been ‘The Navy official Records’ tell the story. Only problem is, HE WROTE THEM. And of course there’s that silly little matter of the Form 180, as well.

He’s a LIAR, Jatsby. Plain, Simple and Straight-up.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 25, 2004 11:19 AM

BTW, Jatsby. You claim there have been ‘several dissections’ of O’Neill’s claims. With all that slicin’ and dicin’ goin’ on, do you suppose you could provide a few sources?

Link ‘em, Sir. The more the merrier.

I’ve been itchin’ for 35 years for this opportunity.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 25, 2004 11:25 AM

Jatsby :

I think it’s patronizing as well, but that’s only an opinion.

Alas, a personal failing of mine that I try to keep in check. You’re almost certainly correct, and I apologise unreservedly. That it was inadvertent makes it worse, not better.

why don’t you show me why you think the authorship of the after-action report is clear and I’ll look at the resources providing that explanation while I provide you with my resources as well, and we can compare notes, eh? I’m always happy to learn something new, and hope you can keep an open mind as well.

AHA! We have a meeting of minds here! Excellent suggestion, Sir. It will help clarify my thoughts, and educate you. Or, even more valuably to me, educate me. With luck, we’ll both learn something. Pardon me while I do some Googling and examination of browser sites visited recently. This will take a while.

But as a starter for 10, there’s an article in the New York Sun. As they require registration, I’ll also give a link to the SwiftVet mirror.

Also see the Chicago Sun-Times dated October 1 which IIRC is where I first read it.

Against: this WaPo article (dated August 19), whose only “proof” is

The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans’ records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely “duked the system” to present his version of events.

Note that this is dated before the later article, which does have documentary evidence (it convinced me) that AFAIK hasn’t been rebutted. Meanwhile, ex-naval personnel commenting on the Captain’s Quarters give a lot more nitty-gritty detail about callsigns, timelines, and technical evidence not suitable for mass-market publication. They are in accordance with my own (limited) knowledge, which dates to procedures 10 years later (though does include specific knowledge on comms spot report format, RAINFORM, ADFORMS, and stuff I can’t discuss and which isn’t relevant anyway.)

Also what’s not particularly relevant:
According to the Congressional Record,

I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was.

WELL OF COURSE HE DID! So did all other officers, it was part of their job to do so! This has no bearing on this particular incident, other than to confirm what anyone with any military naval experience like me knew all along. Kerry sometimes sent in after-action reports - “spot reports after each mission”.

OK, over to you. I excluded data from blogs which don’t have technical expertise, and also from partisan sources whenever I could. Newspapers are the preferred source. You don’t have to follow that restriction, facts are facts even if it’s Kos or even DU stating them. I reserve the right to question credentials though - there are a lot of fakes out there who say they’re ex-navy, but don’t know the difference between a cover, a hatch, or a companionway- let alone a CRATT from an ICKCMX.
Oh yes, I’m not ex-navy myself - I just have spent bucketloads of time on board naval vessels as part of my civilian job. I design and build some of the kit they use.

Posted by: aebrain at October 25, 2004 11:27 AM

AEB I know I’m nit-pickin’ here…

An After Action Report is filed if there is ACTION.

No action, No report.

That’s EXACTLY why Kerry’s first PH is so suspect, because his CO has already stated he told Kerry he would not be getting a PH because there was no reason to file an AAR.

If I recall the excuses that Kerry and company cooked up, it started with questioning Dr. Letson’s memory 34 years after the fact. Then, they moved on to pointing out it wasn’t Dr. Letson who signed the form, so how could he have treated him? After that was bashed to bits by some of us who know something about SickBay and AidStation Protocol, they moved on to just calling us all a bunch of Liars.

JUST as O’Donnell did to Mr. O’Neill.

I’ll bet you a BandAid & a small shot of Betadine that redSun and Jatsby will just suffer along in silence from here on out - if I was a betting man.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 25, 2004 03:16 PM

Cap’n Doc :
Jatsby’s had 3 full days to reply. Time stamps are in local time, so my reply to him was 5 hours before(!) he sent his message, or about 4-6 hours after he posted in GMT terms.

Life’s too short for me to monitor this thread, only to hear crickets chirping. Send me a snailmail address via e-mail, and I’ll mail over a BandAid - not sure we have Betadine here in Oz.

Damn. I was really hoping he knew something I didn’t.

Posted by: aebrain at October 27, 2004 11:20 PM