Behind the Smear - Ted Sampley is Nuts

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Behind the Smear - Ted Sampley is Nuts
23
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 2:58pm
I caught Scarborogh Country last night and found Pat Buchanan interviewing John O'Neill about the Swift Boat accusations (two old Nixon buddies rekindling an old flame...) but was surprised as I watched MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell expose Ted Sampley from Vietnam Veteran's Against Kerry for the nut that he is. From the transcript:

BUCHANAN:  OK.  All right.

Let‘s bring—Ted Sampley, go ahead. 

SAMPLEY:  Well, as far as journalistic standards, all you have got is go do is go back to the year 2000 to “The Boston Globe.”  And you will find that Kerry‘s crew—this is when the first issue of Kerry committing a war crime by shooting a Viet Cong that had already been hit by an M-60 machine gun and then twin 50s, .50-calibers—his crew told a different story back then.  And now they have changed it to fit the way Kerry wants the story go.  So that‘s journalistic standards.  Go there. 

BUCHANAN:  What did they say?

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL:  Ted, after you were convicted of assault and battery on a Senator McCain staffer and you said that Senator McCain was a member of the KGB, is there anything about that that you would like to retract to show us what standards you want to use today?

SAMPLEY:  If you would like to invite me on this show to talk about

John McCain, let‘s do it.  I can back everything I say about

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL:  We have to talk about you.  When you come forward to criticize someone else, we then have to talk about you. 

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL:  You said John McCain was brainwashed and is a “Manchurian Candidate” and is an agent of another government.  That‘s who we now have.  That‘s who we are sharing this broadcast with right now.  You‘ve said those things, haven‘t you?

SAMPLEY:  Let‘s ask about John Kerry in Kansas in 1971 when he participated—or his organization participated in a plot or discussion of a plot to kill U.S. senators.  That was in the past.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5670691/

Is this man a professional smear merchant for Bush or is it just an amazing coincidence that he's a veteran willing to publicly denounce chickenhawk Bush's decorated opponents in two successive campaigns?

Sort of taken aback, I googled Sampley today and came across John McCain's harsh condemnation of him:


Statement of Senator John McCain:

"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.

I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.  I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit.  He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans.  The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/14/01750/5941

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 3:26pm
No question Sampley is nuts-are you implying this makes any Vietnam vet who criticizes Kerry nuts as well? You seem to be lumping O'Neill in with Sampley for instance, as if being uts is what's really behind all of these accusations. I believe that any of our veterans have a right to speak their opinion and correct what they consider to be Kerry's misrepresentations of his record. Doesn't make them nuts.

In any case, it appears at the very least Kerry fabricated a tale of (illegally) being in Cambodia one Chrstmas-a story that has roundly been proved false and that even Kerry himself has backed away from:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002203.php

August 07, 2004

Christmas In Cambodia: Kerry's Intellectual Laziness On Parade

One more thing about the Swiftvets and John Kerry that certainly indicates that Kerry habitually either exaggerated or lied about his service in Viet Nam appears in the letter posted below. John Kerry has repeatedly insisted that he spent Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia, which would have been an illegal act as we were not at war with Cambodia at that time. Kerry said his disillusion with the US government and the war began on this night, as he spent his night in Cambodia listening to President Richard Nixon claim that no American troops were there. Here's the relevant section of John O'Neill's letter:

If there is a consistent repeated story by John Kerry about his Vietnam experience, it is his story about how he and his boat spent Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 illegally present in Cambodia and, listening to President Nixon's contrary assurances, developed "a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements." See Exhibit 24, Kranish book, p. 84. The point of his story was that his government and his commanders were lying about Kerry's presence in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. During a critical debate on the floor of the United States Senate on March 27, 1986, Senator John Kerry said:

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me ....

Exhibit 25, Congressional Record - Senate of March 27, 1986, page 3594.

By way of further example, Kerry wrote an article for the Boston Herald on October 14, 1979:

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

See Exhibit 26.

The Christmas in Cambodia story of John Kerry was repeated as recently as July 7, 2004 by Michael Kranish, a principal biographer of Kerry from The Boston Globe. On the Hannity & Colmes television show, Kranish indicated that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia was a critical turning point in Kerry's life.

The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam."

All just the ravings of some nuts, I guess.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 4:59pm
Amazing...

Take a decorated Vietnam Vet on the one hand. A young man who went to Viet Nam, saw combat, and according to those closest to him did it honorably.

Then take a spoiled rich kid who did coke and barely made it through school. He even managed to escape duty in the national guard.

Put these 2 guys side by side and watch the Bush supporters crucify the first and not question anything their incompetent king has ever done.

Can you imagine if the tables were turned and Kerry was the slackey - they'd have him buried by now.

Bush supporters Really are a bunch of robots.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 5:16pm

<<A young man who went to Viet Nam, saw combat, and according to those closest to him did it honorably. >>


Who's that? His mother? His wife?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 5:26pm
<>



Just so precious. The man he saved from a drowning death in VietNam and his former comrades who stood by his side at the convention.

How about using all those sharp investigative skill to find out the REAL story about Bush's uh, military service?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 6:28pm

Take a decorated Vietnam Vet on the one hand. A young man who went to Viet Nam, saw combat, and according to those closest to him did it honorably.

Then take a spoiled rich kid who did coke and barely made it through school. He even managed to escape duty in the national guard.

Put these 2 guys side by side and watch the Bush supporters crucify the first and not question anything their incompetent king has ever done. >

I'm not "crucifying" anyone...I'm just saying that if Kerry chooses to use his four months in Vietnam as the centerpiece of his campaign and as his main argument that he is fit to lead this nation in time of war, the vets who served with him have EVERY RIGHT to disagree if that's their view, and it doesn't make them nuts. Has nothing whatsoever to do with what Bush did or didn't do. Personally it wouldn't have any bearing on whether I would vote for either one of them, but to those for whom these are important issues, it is their right to speak out if they choose.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 6:48pm
Of course I'm not implying that. And I don't think O'Neill is nuts. I think he's exactly the same man he was in the early 70's - a convenient and willing tool used by powerfull men. Obviously he sees this as a chance to finish his life's work of trying to win an argument against John Kerry.

A few months ago, before this swift boat stuff was organized by republican PR people, the talk was all about (and fairly non-stop on this board) Sampley's group. Now it's O'Neill and this Corsi guy. Of course our veterans have a right to speak their opinions. But I think people like Sampley and O'Neill and Corsi aren't about "correcting what they consider to be Kerry's misrepresentations." I think they're all about misrepresenting Kerry's record for political reasons. They did it to John McCain, and they're doing it to Kerry.

The amusing thing is that their smear stories don't even jibe. Some people are saying he was dangerously reckless because he was after medals, and they "know" because they were "there." Others are saying he was a coward who ran away, but lied in reports to gain medals and they "know" because they were "there." Well, which is it?

As for the Cambodia thing (funny how they've chosen something that's absolutely impossible to verify) if Kerry was on a secret mission in Cambodia, don't you think there would be no record of it? That commanders would deny it happened? Your link spends alot of time incorrectly paraphrasing Kerry's statements to make him seem incredible. Yeah, Nixon wasn't the President in 1968. He was the President Elect, about to take office in 25 short days. It wouldn't have been unusual for him to be discussing the war or discussing Cambodia, especially since Nixon began bombing Cambodia just three months after Kerry's mission (also an illegal act - I love how your source makes it seem like Kerry would have taken it upon himself to violate international law and somehow break & enter a country). I don't know much about the bombing of Cambodia, but something tells me they didn't just wake up one day and say "Oh what the heck, let's do it." There was probably a bit of reconaisance first. I also love the claim that Sa Dec is not "close" to the border. "Why it's 50 miles away!" How on earth would the commander of a boat ever travel those 50 miles...it might take a whole hour...



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 8:17pm


All perfectly reasonable explanations, but one has to wonder, if true, why Kerry himself has since changed his story?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 9:28pm
Could you show me where you think Kerry has changed his story? (Since I think this whole issue is sort of ridiculous, and certainly won't change my vote, I haven't been paying alot of attention to the hoopla.)
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 10:36pm
<<<>


Just so precious. The man he saved from a drowning death in VietNam and his former comrades who stood by his side at the convention. >>

A man who spent a few hours on his boat and his 'commrades' who served with him for less than three weeks?

<

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 08-11-2004 - 10:58pm
Bush was obligated to take his flight physical. No explanation has been given for this failure. He took his last physical in May 1971. He was supposed to be a pilot until May 1974. He failed to keep his commitment to do so.

Bush was obligated to serve until May 1974, but he managed somehow to get out early in Oct 1973.

I cannot understand how you are able to overlook these indicators of a lack of sincerity, patriotism and commitment. It disturbs me greatly that this is glossed over as inconsequential, while Kerry is being viewed under a microscope. If we were talking about just a different political philosophy it would be different. But we are talking about true commitment, dedication, and duty. I wish I could see these qualities in Bush, but I don't.

Please provide me with a quote (and a link to) from his outstanding reviews in 1972 or 1973.


< From all of the records that do exist we know that he was honorably discharged, accrued significantly more hours of flight time than he needed for his discharge, got outstanding reviews, and that there is no indication that he didn't do everything he was obligated to. >

Pages