O'Reilly on the Swift Boat Vets

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I am just curious how the people who say O'Reilly is a a uber-right winger feel about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their silence is deafening. Fox News right wing biased my ass.

[Utah]

I think OReilly is dead wrong. Kerry put his service in play. Should Kerry be able to say whatever he wants without being challenged.

It has already been shown that his Vietnam record is wrong and it is very possible Kerry lied with the whole "seared" thing.

Also,shows that OReilly and Fox are far more neutral than people think.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
You are indeed naive than to the ways of Washington. The only peoples whose word matters on this issue are the people who were actually on HIS boat

[/ QUOTE ]

Swift boats often worked together and were all part of the same unit. To say the only people whose words matter were the one his boat is patently absurd.

[Rushmore]

I do not agree with O'Reilly's take on this issue. I think it's fairly obvious that Kerry has been campaigning for the presidency for 35 years now, and the manipulations that he has seen fit to employ ought to be scrutinized, or at least permitted scrutiny.

On the other hand, it was good to see this article.

It smacks of Fairness and Balance.

[Taxman]

Yup you're right. This has single handedly proven that Fox has no bias whatsoever. I personally think O'Reilly is more of a run-of-the-mill right winger, but it has been proven that he often implicitly and occassionally explicitly misleads his fans. This in itself doesn't bother me too much as Michael Moore, for example, often does the same (although O'Reilly can be more blatant about it). It does bother me that he claims to be completely objective and that when anyone disagrees with him, he often resorts to bully tactics (whereas Moore uses humor). If O'Reilly were to simply admit that he is conservative (not necessarily a neocon) and opinionated, I would not really have any negative opinion about him. As it is, I do still watch his show occasionally as it is always good to hear a few different opinions on a matter.

Despite the previous arguments on this board, I think most people who dislike O'Reilly think more along my lines than simply writing him off as a right wing nut. Maybe I'm giving others too much credit here, but I think not given that most of the true O'Reilly haters probably wouldn't let something like this thread keep them from responding with some "yes but" comments.

Sometimes O'Reilly can be fair, maybe even often, but often is not always and always is what I would expect out of a respectable news reporter. As for this issue in particular, I think O'Reilly's point is pretty obvious. Many respectable people have verified and reverified Kerry's valor in battle, and the whole attack from that angle is pretty weak, "hundreds" of supporters, or not.

Any news station that has as many conservative talk shows (re: all of them except, theoretically, for Hannity and Colmes) and that condones it's anchors finishing their segment by admonishing critics of Rush Limbaugh (I witnessed this first hand) has at least a slight consevative bias by my book, but that's just me.

[Taxman]

It's also absurd to say that over 200 people you know nothing about are credible.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fairly obvious that Kerry has been campaigning for the presidency for 35 years now

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you give him way too much credit.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are indeed naive than to the ways of Washington. The only peoples whose word matters on this issue are the people who were actually on HIS boat.

[/ QUOTE ]

His peers were on boats a few yards away. I believe the words of his peers matter as much as those of his subordinates.

I suppose most of the left would feel the same way had the word of his peers conformed with their vision of Kerry. Since the word of Kerry's peers is at odds with the lefts vision of Kerry, it is simply ignored as being irrelevant. The world would be a better place if rose colored glasses were banned.

Stu

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also absurd to say that over 200 people you know nothing about are credible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not claiming that every one of them is credible. My point is that why would 200 people level serious charges like this, thrust themselves into the national limelight and possibly face quite negative feedback? Also, have you read the book? It is very well put together, is extensively footnoted, etc.

[Taxman]

I admit I haven't read the book and if I can find the time I will (summer school is a bitch). Nevertheless my point is that Kerry's valor has been proven. Even if some things have been painted an off color, the fact that he is a war hero remains unchanged. If people are going to question Kerry so closely, then we must continue to ask why it has yet to be proven that Bush did not go AWOL during his "service."

Some people like being in the spotlight, limelight, or whatever you want to call it. My personal opinion is that these people do indeed have a problem with Kerry, but mostly because of his anti war stances after he returned from Vietnam.

As for the footnotes, I again admit my lack of personal experience with the book, but it is well known that extensive footnoting doesn't mean effective or straightfoward footnoting. I must defer to you on the accuracy of the book, but I maintain that based on what I have heard, the allegations against Kerry that have any credence are no worse than the many questions surrounding the incumbent on not only his military record, but on his life before moving into the political arena.