Secret Service Association Calls Author of New Clinton 'Swiftboat' Book A Liar

[TrollBuster9090]

Remember the successful 'swiftboating' of John Kerry during the 2004 election? GOP hitmen quickly threw together a hack book called 'Unfit for Command' during the election campaign, denigrating Kerry's exemplary service as a swiftboat commander during the Vietnam War. The book was full of lies and assorted bullshit, but by the time the lies were actually exposed as such, the election was already over. That tactic has since been dubbed 'swiftboating.'




Well, they're running the same play again, but apparently this time their timing is off. The same crew released a book called "Crisis in Character," written by Gary Byrne, a former Secret Service agent during the Clinton Administration. The book is again, filled with lies and sensationalism, offered as proof that the Clintons are scumbags. (ie-claiming that Byrne walked in on Bill Clinton while he was making out with Walter Mondale's daughter.... etc.) Only this time they released the book a little too early, giving the former Secret Service agent's professional association (the AFAUSSS) time to respond, essentially calling the author A) A liar, and B) A scumbag for betraying the Secret Service's tradition of not talking about what they saw while in the service of Presidents.

The AFAUSSS put out a statement saying that Byrne was the lowest level of Secret Service agent...a uniformed agent who essentially did things like getting people to sign in when they entered the West Wing etc., and was never in a position to have seen all the things he claimed he saw. Here, they essentially call him a liar.

"One must question the veracity and content of any book which implies that its author played such an integral part of so many (claimed) incidents. Any critique of management by one who has never managed personnel or programs resounds hollow. Additionally, why would an employee wait in excess of ten years after terminating his employment with the Service to make his allegations public?"

More from POLITICO:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578

I remember when the SWIFTBOAT book came out. I was curious to read it, but swore I'd never buy it new. I'd wait for it to show up on Ebay after the election. It sold for about $10 before the election, and (literally) one month after the election it was selling for $0.02 on Ebay. (Two cents for the book, five bucks for 'shipping, handling, and humiliation' on the part of the seller.) I bought it, and as predicted, it was a very thin book, containing a single layer of bullshit, which had been stretched out about as far bullshit can stretch. Barely worth the two cents, IMHO.

In the case of THIS book, however, I predict it'll actually be selling for two cents on Ebay long BEFORE the election.

[SusanLarson]

1. A critique

Last edited Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Uhm I think that this is dirty and a betrayal of Secret Service principles, the story you quoted doesn't say what you says it does, at least not with the clarity your post is trying to give it.

It also has a ton of hedge words intended to be used if they get sued something that would not need to be there if they had the facts 100% on their side as this claims. "The group’s statement, which POLITICO obtained in advance of its release, very carefully calls Byrne a liar." Yet references his claims against management not his claims against the Clinton's. The truth is an absolute defense against claims of slander and defamation.

Why would someone wait 10 years the story states and I can answer that easily the United States Classified Information access agreement has a 10 years time frame on it. The Secret service likely has something similar stating that the agent will not disclose anything they see or hear for a period of 10 years. So he couldn't have legally disclosed anything any sooner. Though they would have preferred it be forever.

The publisher would likely have verified facts where possible through multiple parties before agreeing to publish the book to attempt to prevent their being sued. It's called fact checking.

I am sure the Clinton camp will be able to offer substantial rebuttals instead of he said/she said as is the case in this story.

[Kingofalldems]

8. So you are saying the Secret Service agents are lying?

Did you read the statement by AFAUSS?

This is not he said/she said.

[SusanLarson]

10. Did you?

Three statements are included...

"One must question the veracity and content of any book which implies that its author played such an integral part of so many (claimed) incidents."

Doesn't rebut any specific incidents, for example the author claimed to be a part of an incident but logistically could not have been. IE was out of the Whitehouse at the time, on vacation, etc. But is a general condemnation without any facts to judge its merits.

"Any critique of management by one who has never managed personnel or programs resounds hollow."

Doesn't address his claims about the Clinton at all, only about management.

Additionally, why would an employee wait in excess of ten years after terminating his employment with the Service to make his allegations public?"

Government Secrecy agreements.

Even when someone or thing benefits a Democrat we need to use critical thinking and not accept things at face value just because simply because the situation happens to go our way.

[Kingofalldems]

11. It rebuts his entire story.

Uniformed agents can only get so close.

And of course it has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

Too bad you jumped to the defense of these people.

[SusanLarson]

13. Rebuttal with actual facts is a powerful thing

Then I am sure the Clintons will have no problems presenting detailed facts to show that instead of vague statements.

IE at the time of the alleged incident the agent was stationed on the opposite side of the White House and therefore could not have witnessed the event he claims to have.

My response is about judging things based on facts, not vague statements.

[Kingofalldems]

17. They have no obligation to present anything.

As if they are supposed to prove their innocence to some right wing/Fox accusation.

JHC.

[Hortensis]

26. Exactly. Hostile attacks from the right will

"insist" on it, of course, and if, as expected, they refuse to dignify this with response, the new claim will be that they're hiding the truth.

No doubt you've seen this swiftboating tactic used before yourself, SusanLarson, a number of times probably. We all have.

[pnwmom]

23. They rebutted with facts. The primary fact is that he was a low level employee

who was not allowed close to the Clintons.

And the Buzz feed article also showed how his book contradicts his own sworn testimony in the Ken Starr investigation.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

14. The publisher (Center Street) seems to specialize in bullshit.

The publisher would likely have verified facts where possible through multiple parties before agreeing to publish the book to attempt to prevent their being sued. It's called fact checking.

I don't think fact checking is in their wheel house. Not to mention all the books that various publishers have published throughout the years that ended up being 100% fact-free.

The swiftboat book was bullshit, yet it got published, facts be damned. No difference here. The dude is a straight up liar, published a book of lies in an attempt to keep HRC out of office. The fact that the Secret Service is rebutting him should be enough.

[pnwmom]

22. We know Byrne is a liar, because his sworn testimony in the Ken Starr investigation

contradicts some of his stories in this book. So either he was lying then or he's lying now.

Also, his low level job didn't allow him close access to the President.

He's a liar spouting garbage nobody should be swallowing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/former-secret-service-agents-book-on-the-clintons-contradict?utm_term=.dnVQNvbpnn#.kuRl7jDvBB

Reached by BuzzFeed News on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Gary Byrne said that the author “will happily explain the alleged issues cited in this article when he begins his book tour - as well as his repeated efforts to protect the president from his personal misconduct and in some cases from his wife.” After a series of follow-up questions, the spokesperson did not clarify why Byrne could not explain the discrepancies on Tuesday.

Byrne himself hung up the phone on a BuzzFeed reporter after being asked why he wouldn’t explain the discrepancies, saying “I am working on a response to a couple things right now and I don’t have time to talk on the phone for one.” Reached again, he said, “We’ve taken care of it and you’ll just have to see what it is when you read the whole book.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578#ixzz4CEkxjCgU

The book has rankled current and former members of the Secret Service, who don’t like anyone airing their business in public — but who also take issue with Byrne inflating his role. Byrne was a uniformed officer in Bill Clinton’s White House. But that’s the lowest level of protection within the White House and around the president.

People familiar with West Wing security laugh at the idea that Byrne or any uniformed officer ever would have walked in on Bill Clinton anywhere, whether in a meeting or, as a New York Post article over the weekend claims, in the middle of a make-out session in the Map Room with the late daughter of former Vice President Walter Mondale. The Secret Service presidential detail would have stopped him. (That affair was a well-worn rumor during the Clinton years, though strongly denied by Eleanor Mondale, who died of brain cancer in 2011.)

“The inner perimeter is 100 percent controlled by the presidential protective division,” said a former supervisor of the presidential protective division, who asked not to be identified by name.

And if Byrne or any uniformed officer had been posted near a room the president entered, he would have been moved at least 15 yards away, to the outer edges of the security bubble — not quite what Byrne describes in his book: “I stood guard, pistol at my hip, outside the Oval Office, the last barrier before anyone saw Bill Clinton,” according to the Post, which has been teasing excerpts of the book.

SNIP

[BainsBane]

24. This story has been floated by right wingers for years now

They dragged it out again for the election. It's what they always do.

[MH1]

2. The US Navy and people who served with him refuted the swiftboating against Kerry.

There was very clear refutation of every line of b.s. in that book or the ads that went along with it.

Timing may have been an issue. But another factor is that in 1971 Kerry spoke out against the Vietnam war in a way that made many veterans unhappy with him - mostly because of how it was twisted and some words were taken out of context; but for some of them the very fact of him speaking out was enough to turn them against him. That became a powerful force against him and many also had the profound lack of personal integrity that they supported and promoted the unproven, bullshit claims against Kerry just because they didn't like the fact that he had spoken out about the war. The support by this cadre of unscrupulous vets lent an air of credibility to the false claims.

(All that, and black box voting.)

[BlueMTexpat]

3. Yes, all too many had been livid with Kerry for

years for having had the courage to speak out about Vietnam and they gleefully put him in the same category as Jane Fonda - whom they STILL hate with fervent and frothing passion - which was thoroughly unwarranted. Kerry had actually served in Vietnam. (Btw, I supported Jane then too, but that's another story. It was a very complicated era, as I recall.)

So the totally inaccurate "Swiftboat" narrative took firm root with these people who already wanted to believe the worst and they ran with it, aided in no small part by our M$M.

People who want to believe the worst about Hillary will continue do so, regardless of anything anyone says to rebut the lies. But the mere fact that this POS's superiors have come out almost immediately to discredit him rather than to support him helps. The other thing is that every so-called "scandal" against Hillary that the RW has "uncovered" during the past 35+ years has been shown to be bunk.

There is such a thing as "scandal fatigue" that discredits what these "hair-on-fire" scandalmongers have to say. But that won't stop them from continuing to repeat the crap.

I certainly concur about BB voting as well.

[TrollBuster9090]

4. Ironically, the thing that bothered me most about the Kerry swiftboat attack was that

Ironically, the thing that bothered me most about the Kerry swiftboat attack was that O'Neill (the faux author of the book) had been used as a catspaw against Kerry by the right since 1970, and yet somehow Kerry's campaign never saw it coming, or had planned out a strategy to deal with it. It was as if they gave Superman the nomination, but nobody in his campaign ever bothered to ask "gee, I wonder if anybody knows about that kryptonite thing? Nah! That was so long ago...."

In a way, that lack of preparedness against such an obvious line of attack almost disqualified him as a candidate.

[RobinA]

5. How Was That

an obvious line of attack? He serves honorably in Vietnam and then gets attacked by surrogates of someone who not only did not, but has a damn questionable record of National Guard service. Pre-swift boat, it's about the LAST angle I would have expected the Bushsters to take.

That said, the Kerry campaign SHOULD have crucified Bush on his so-called "military" record, but they did not. That was their mistake.

[TrollBuster9090]

16. It was an obvious line of attack because they used EXACTLY the same line of attack

to denigrate Kerry in 1970. John O'Neill was was the surrogate front man they sent out to attack Kerry on every talk show and every news program during the time he was testifying before Congress, and they brought him back to spout EXACTLY the same nonsense 35 years later. Amazingly, the Kerry campaign had no response prepared. That's not a reflection on Kerry's qualities as a man, a politician or a war hero. It's a reflection of his campaign, which should have seen that coming. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Paladin]

9. Yeah, it's a bummer when your candidate exhibits way too much honor.

[TrollBuster9090]

18. As I said above, my comment was in no way a reflection on Kerry as a man, a war hero, and a

successful statesman. It was a comment on his campaign, who should have seen that coming. It was obvious. John O'Neill was the little weasel they trotted out to assassinate Kerry's credibility in 1970, while he was testifying before Congress, and he was still around 35 years later, with the same bag full of lies, and the same willingness to use them. And yet, somehow, after having had 35 years to prepare either a defense, or a pre-emptive action, they had nothing.

[Thinkingabout]

6. They don't have anything to offer so they produce stories.

[dembotoz]

7. but but but if it is printed it must be true

next you are going to tell me not everything on those internet tubes may not be true

[Kingofalldems]

12. Is this the same publisher as the Swiftboat people?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. No.

Center Street did this one. But they specialize in bullshit self-help books, and RW authors like Rand Paul (and his wife Kelley), Michael Savage, Newt Gingrich, Ted Dekker, John C. Maxwell, and David French.

[TrollBuster9090]

19. No, but my guess is the same ghostwriters were used. nt

[Kingofalldems]

20. BTW, I was just told in this thread that the Clintons have to prove their innocence.

[TrollBuster9090]

21. I saw that. They don't have to 'prove' their innocence. But it's fair to expect that

it's fair to expect that their surrogates go out, pull back the curtain, and expose all the tired old political assassins that are behind this, as well as their connections to the same old plutocrats who fund them.

Incidentally, that's what the Kerry campaign should have done to the O'Neill book. They had advanced warning that the book was going to come out. The weekend BEFORE the book was released, Dean, Carville, Bagala, and a dozen other assorted political hit men should have fanned out and hit all the Sunday morning talk shows to say "A hit piece book is about to come out. It's allegedly written by John O'Neill, who was recruited by NIXON in 1970 to take down John Kerry, and the same people are behind this attack that you're about to see repeated next week. And by the way, John O'Neill couldn't even write a pamphlet, let alone a book. The book was ghost written by notorious crackpot and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi. (Then list all the crazy and disreputable things Corsi has written. Then list all the reactionary right-wing propaganda that's been put out by Regnery Publishing, the fake publishing house that published the book.

If they'd done that, by the time the book was due to be released, the news story wouldn't have been what was IN the book, but rather who was BEHIND the book.

[still_one]

25. That tactic didn't didn't work too well to those who were accused by Joe McCarthy.

1 in 5 Americans still believe that President Obama is foreign born.
The swift boat liars were given free reign by the MSM, with very little coverage countering the lies they were propagating.

Remember Richard Jewell?

I think the Chuck Todd school of journalism addresses this point quite clearly when he said, "it isn't his job to challenge republican lies"