Oliphant slammed O'Neill on PBS...

[imax2268]

did anyone catch that...?

Oliphant layed the smackdown on O'Niell and all O'Niell could do was sit there with a smirk on his face because he got his ass...and his book...handed to him...

if anyone knows where to get a transcript...please post it...

[gottaB]

1. here

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/vietnam_8-19.html

Note to Mr. Oliphant: www.johnkerry.com

[Paradise]

3. thanks, gottaB. :) n/t

[imax2268]

2. Thanks...

this was the part I liked...

(snip)
There are eyewitness accounts actually on all sides of this story. The closer you get to Kerry, the more one-sided in favor of Kerry these accounts tend to be.

There is a problem that one of your people, this Mr. Thurlow, has made an allegation about there being no combat fire coming that day that is contradicted by the citation of his own Bronze Star.

Now, you can then say, well, that was all made up and that Kerry lied and produced that, for which you provide no evidence.

And we keep going in this endless cycle of, see, I put this out there, I made this accusation, I made this charge, but held to a higher standard, I'm not saying your... that this didn't happen or that something did happen, I'm saying that you haven't come within a country mile of meeting first-grade journalistic standards for accuracy.
(snip)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. It was excellent. A comeback to an O'Neill line is ...

Oliphant was very good. Cool, but you could see his passion. Beware of getting an intellectual's dander up, they can be very tenacious!

Near the end, O'Neill claimed that "any jury" in the US that read his book would be convinced. Over-stated, but it misses the point. The reason why we have debates and lawyers for the defense and cross-examination of witnesses is that any one-sided account can be convincing on the surface.

I was hoping Oliphant was going to reply, "Your book is one-sided. That's why we have cross-examination in US courts, so that we can get at the truth".