As Josh Marshall points out here, finally, someone has the cojones to just call Swift Boat Liars for Bush mouthpiece John O'Neill what everyone has known for months -- that he's a liar. (Granted, it's just in the headline, but I'll take what I can get.) However, if you read the article carefully, it's actually even worse as you see how O'Neill tries to dig himself out.
From an old taped conversation, we have O'Neill saying to Richard Nixon, "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border ...". It's not at all clear how those two statements can be consistent. It's akin to saying, "I was in Cambodia, sir. And, in addition, I was not in Cambodia, sir." O'Neill is now trying to save his sorry ass by claiming that you can't just read the first sentence, you have to put it in the context of the following sentence as well. I was there. Well, no I wasn't. Flip. Flop.
But wait. It gets better. If you continue, you read:
In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.
"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon.
OK, fair enough, he wasn't actually in Cambodia, just right there on the border, only 100 yards away. And yet, a few paragraphs later, we read:
In an interview Sunday on ABC's "This Week" O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
Well, what the &#^%$# is it? Inside Cambodia? Right on the border of Cambodia? 100 yards away from the border? No closer than 50 miles to the border?
You see, kids, what happens when you can't keep your lies straight?