160 Comments

1. Ben:

Oddly reminiscent of the “Monkey Business,” isn’t it?

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:32 pm 2. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

To the best of my knowledge, that ad is the truth. I don’t know these people well enough to vouch for them, but people I trust and know to be honorable do know them well enough.

Assume the ad is true. The book will have additional charges.

This is why I was so amazed when Kerry wrapped himself around his Vietnam Service.

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:38 pm 3. Section9:

There is some karmic justice in this.

Kerry’s people encouraged McAuliffe at the DNC and their MSM outriders to smear Bush with the “AWOL” meme of last January and February. Now, Kerry’s talisman, Vietnam, is going to come back to bite Kerry in the ass.

Live by the sword, die by the sword, Johnnie!

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:42 pm 4. Section9:

John: why did he wrap himself in Vietnam?

What else does he have, when all is said and done? Kerry’s campaign is centered around his biography. His biography is Kerry’s interpretation of his wartime experiences.

But what if others who had just as much, if not much more, combat experience than Senator Kerry step forward to challenge the First Principles of the Kerry saga?

Bad Mojo, that’s what happens.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:46 pm 5. Jeff B.:

Honestly, I had assumed that people who were calling this “the most devastating political ad I’ve ever seen blah blah blah” were succumbing to the usual partisan hyperbole.

Nope. This is f*****g tough to answer to. My naturally pessimistic, cynical viewpoint wonders if the MSM will simply ignore it/bury it/spin it, if the major networks will refuse ad-buys, etc. But the actual video itself is utterly back-breaking. I mean, the doctor who treated Kerry for his first Purple Heart calls him a liar right there in front of the camera! You just cannot ignore that away. Play that in a state like Pennsylvania (which is full of vets and conservative Democrats) and it’s electoral poison.

I’ll be interested (and hopefully not dispirited) to see how the media spins this one out over the next few days. Would it have been better to save this for October?

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:48 pm 6. richard mcenroe:

The video and the free chapter from O’Neil’s book at humaneventsonline.com are completely backed up…

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:49 pm 7. Rick Ballard:

This is the first test for the Kerry campaign. A professional campaign will have a rebuttal prepared and a focus message in the hands of anyone who is charged with press contact. I believe that the degree to which Kerry has been set up by the DNC is going to become apparent within 48 hours.

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:51 pm 8. Stephen_M:

Seeing this ad I could not be more pleased. Well, it would be great if many, many more saw it. Contributions will get this ad seen on MSM. I’m not part of this group. Just a vet who knows there’s a lot of mythbusting needed re Viet Nam and Kerry.

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:53 pm 9. richard mcenroe:

Now, the question becomes… will the MSM continue to try to sell the “SBVFT are Republican Shills” line without actually confronting any of them on the air? Will we see them on Face the Nation or This Week or 60 Minutes? Will Newsweek or Pinch or Rolling Stone give them any ink? Will Rather, Jennings or Couric actually have the nerve to challenge them to their faces, or will they try to bury them by ignoring them again?

Aug 4, 2004 - 7:56 pm 10. miguel:

The guys that actually served with Kerry were all on stage endorsing Kerry at the convention.

You cannot believe anything that “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” says. John O’Neill is a paid political attack dog. He arrived in Vietnam 2 months after Kerry had left. This is dirty campaigning at it’s worst.

By the way, where are all of Bush’s buddies from the Texas Air National Guard? No one barely even remembers him being there.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:01 pm 11. JK Ribera:

You can sure that with blogs like this one and Instaundit linking this video, the major media are watching. We shall see what they say.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:01 pm 12. Jeff B.:

Miguel, that’s rather nonresponsive. John O’Neill is not in those ads, to the best of my memory. Whereas people who served with John Kerry (and are willing to ANNOUNCE IT UPFRONT) are.

There’s no shame to be had in admitting your man is in trouble. I mean, you can still support him despite everything (Lord knows I’ve decided to solidly support President Bush despite my strong misgivings about his domestic policies), but it’s farcical to dismiss, for example, the claims of the DOCTOR who treated Kerry for his wounds.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:03 pm 13. Jeff B.:

By the way, I just tossed $50 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It’s all I can afford on my ex-college student salary. Here’s hoping they use it wisely.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:05 pm 14. Jim:

Kerry and the millions of Democrats with the hate-Bush tick will need to be put on a suicide watch, come the morning after the election.

I’m angry at the Democratic Party that it couldn’t muster a decent candidate for our country. The best the party could give to their country was Gephardt and Lieberman (!). And they didn’t even nominate either of those two. Isn’t there anyone? Governor Warner? Some congressman or other? Anybody? Instead they give us a stuffed shirt.

Bush is a good candidate, but we need two in order to deliberate over what is of value. There is no deliberation over what is over value during this election cycle. The other side didn’t show up.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:05 pm 15. Rick Ballard:

richard,

I’m not sure it matters. I’ve already emailed the links to five people. I’m pondering who else in my address book might be a leaner or pro Kerry. The nice thing about the internet is that you can replay stuff until you’re sure that you actually heard what you thought you heard. The doctor is an expecially nice touch. Kerry’s taking the early ride home was dependent on those PH’s. If the first one was phony…

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:06 pm 16. Syl:

Rick Ballard

“I believe that the degree to which Kerry has been set up by the DNC is going to become apparent within 48 hours.”

Bingo. They just had to know this would happen if Kerry focused on his Vietnam service so I’m sure they set up the campaign that way for this reason. And remember Kerry wanted to dump Terry McC but was overridden.

On the other hand I feel I’m into tin-foil territory thinking this way. Maybe they truly thought they could get away with it.

I must admit, this is all very uncomfortable. No matter how little I respect Kerry, I hate to see someone totally destroyed like this. And worry about a backlash against Republicans.

On the other hand, I’m probably being very naive. What a perfect outcome for HRC. I mean, Kerry being toast AND the Republicans blamed for it.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:07 pm 17. themarkman:

Jeff B. says: “Would it have been better to save this for October?”

Yes that would have been nice, but the Swift Boat Vets are not affiliated with the Bush campaign. Thanks to McCain-Feingold *spit*, it is illegal to run this ad within sixty days of the election, because it mentions Kerry by name.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:12 pm 18. JK Ribera:

Yes, miguel, I would would agree with Jeff B. Your answers were non-respsonsive. Kerry himself has made his own Vietnam heroics a cause. If they are not real, he would seem to be a dangerous person to support, almost psychologically out of touch.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:15 pm 19. Rick Ballard:

themarkman,

Do you happen to know if McCain-Finegold addresses leaving it up on a website? I thought the cutoff was thirty days too – are you sure about sixty?

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:17 pm 20. Syl:

OT warning.

I can’t believe this is in the NYTimes..though it’s Kristoff in the op-ed pages.

CAIR is going to have a FIT!!

Martyrs, Virgins, and Grapes

It’s about time this stuff gets out in the open. Kristoff shows a lot of courage just by bringing it up. I think it would be close to illegal in Britain.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:23 pm 21. ambisinistral:

Even worse for Kerry, this ad is going to inevitably lead to all the crazy war crimes charges he leveled after his four months of making Audie Murphy look like a piker.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:27 pm 22. Jeff B.:

Let me be clear on something: if these people are all exposed as liars and political hacks (not just “ooh, a Republican put up money for them!” because that says nothing about their actual views), then I will honestly step back and say I was unfair to judge Senator Kerry.

I just don’t see how that can be done, however. Too many people (his 22 out of 23 of his fellow Lieutenants? His entire chain of command?) have come out against him for this to be dismissed as a “dirty trick” by a fair-minded observer.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:28 pm 23. miguel:

What are these supossed vets saying that Kerry lied about? Does anyone know?

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:29 pm 24. Jeff B.:

Syl, I don’t want to continue the OT, but I will say that for all his innumerable faults and predictable bias, Nick Kristoff is the ONE regular on the NY Times op-ed page who is capable of surprising me. I disagree with him 85% of the time, but every now and then he really throws a curve at you. Not even Brooks and Safire do that.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:32 pm 25. Goof®:

It is 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary. My understanding is that the Interent is not covered.

Dreams of war, dreams of liars

Dreams of dragon’s fire

And of things that will bite

Sleep with one eye open

Gripping your pillow tight

Exit light

Enter night

Take my hand

Off to never never land

Now I lay me down to sleep

Pray the lord my soul to keep

If I die before I wake

Pray the lord my soul to take

Hush little baby, don’t say a word

And never mind that noise you heard

It’s just the beast under your bed,

In your closet, in your head

Exit light

Enter night

Grain of sand

Exit light

Enter night

Take my hand

We?re off to never never land

Credit to Metallica

90 days to go.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:33 pm 26. Roger:

Patrick Tyson aka “Goof”, will you you be an adult henceforth and refrain from littering my blog with lengthy quotes from Metallica (or anyone else)? I don’t do that in your house. Or or on your bandwidth. Thank you.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:39 pm 27. richard mcenroe:

Miguel ó I expect answering you is like peeing against a wall for all the effect it will have, since if you had the slightest honest curiosity you would go to their site and read it for yourself. but…

Kerry lied about his wounds

lied to get his medals

lied about his actions (including publishing another officer’s actions as his own on his campaign web page)

lied about witnessing war crimes (altho he does seem to have committed at least one geniune atrocity of his own)

Lied about his service in Nam (from what I gather, of his four-months in country, he spent approximately one month actually serving with the Swift boats)

lied about volunteering to defend his country (he enlisted in the Navy after failing to get a draft deferment)

Anybody else? Did I miss something?

And it’s not just his fellow officers and commanders; it’s two hundred odd enlisted men in his unit, including at least one former crewmember (ALWAYS trust the enlisted men’s opinion of an officer)

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:53 pm 28. Denis:

I’ve got a link to an alternate site to watch the ad here

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:54 pm 29. richard mcenroe:

Syl ó Set up or not, what does it say about the arrogance and judgment of the man that he thought he could take this tack and NOT have all this stuff come up?

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:56 pm 30. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

For Miguel, and others.

The counterattack will say that these people were paid to say that (Miguel already tried that), but in fact they are part of a 527 and hence cannot be paid (at least by outsiders).

Also, John O’Neill’s past will be used to paint him as a republican partisan. When O’Neill came back to the States, he started objecting to Kerry’s slanderous propaganda campaign. Colson picked up on this and had O’Neill meet with Nixon for half an hour or so just to boost his spirits. Hence, O’Neill will be called a Nixon shill. He was not and is not. His views are deeply held based on my conversation with him.

Then the Kerry folks will note that SBVFT used a PR firm that had significant Republican ties, and once again, using guilt by association, will imply that SBVFT is a tools of the “Republican Attack Machine.” In fact, the SBVFT hardly wanted to use a Democratic PR firm, and O’Neill had used the Republican firm, owned by the widow of his ex-law partner, in business work.

Given the severity of the charges, dirty tricksters may work to get some of the people to recant.

Here are the facts:

SBVFT was formed when Admiral Roy Hoffman (ret), one of Kerry’s former commanders, decided that the slanders made after the war by Kerry had to be answered. Since that time, the group has reached about 254 members – all Swift Boat Veterans.

Their first public action was to create a letter saying that they felt Kerry was unfit to command. The held a news conference and presented it, with every person who had commanded Kerry, and their chain of command through CINCPAC, unanimously signed the letter.

The MSM basically trashed them. The stories were minor or totally spiked ( ABC, NBC ). CBS ran a story that attacked the veterans so badly it leaves you wondering if they should all be locked up. Most stories consisted of a couple of paragraphs about the event, followed by the Kerry team’s spin, which was roughly what I described above, and which was immediately available on a different floor in the same building. Few media attempted to find out more (like the fact that Kerry had tried to dissuade Hoffman). An acquaintance of mine was present at the event, and watched as the media got very uncomfortable as the charges were made, and conversed with each other.

Finally, it should be noticed that the commercial was produced before the Democratic Convention. I don’t think the vets knew that Kerry was going to emphasize his service that much.

Aug 4, 2004 - 8:57 pm 31. holdfast:

So I went to donate on the Swifties site, and then realised – I’m not sure if it’s legal for a non-citizen with resident status to do so? Anyone know the answer to that one.

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:09 pm 32. richard mcenroe:

Holdfast ó It’s legal as long as you don’t ask them for any missile secrets…

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:14 pm 33. Rick Ballard:

richard,

It required his arrogance and lack of judgement in order for the setup to work. Kerry is not a good politician. There is no “Kerry machine” even in MA. Kerry (to my recollection) has always been dependent on the Kennedy party apparatus. I simply don’t believe that he has the deep party connections necessary to put together a coherent national campaign. I also think that his arrogance has led him to ignore advice that he must be getting. Count the gaffes since Monday a week ago. Edwards has had experience in precisely one election.

Let’s not forget that Kerry has had three to four months to get his act together. It seems as if the entire time was spent organizing the convention (which was very well run). I’m open to other interpretations but I’ve never seen such a wrong footed start. Even without this ad, so far he’s just not cutting it.

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:16 pm 34. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ó So the SBVFT using a “PR firm with Republican ties” and that’s a bad thing? Kind of like when Bush has ties to the Carlyle group, that’s bad, but when Soros and Michael Moore (through the Loews theatre chain showing his movie) have Carlyle ties, it isn’t?

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:18 pm 35. richard mcenroe:

Holdfast ó If it makes you feel any better, back during the Clinton years, during one of McCain’s earlier fits of campaign finance reform, This Week with David Brinkley had several Washington lobbyists on to explain that of course it was all right for foreign nationals in this country to donate to American political campaigns because “they had a right to participate in this country’s political process, too.” Nobody on the panel called them on it, not surprising since Cokie Roberts’ brother is one of the biggest lobbyists in DC.

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:22 pm 36. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Richard Mcenroe

No, I don’t think the SBVFT using a Republican PR firm has anything wrong with it. I was listing the way the Kerry operation will respond to this ad. I’ve seen them use exactly that red herring before against this group.

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:27 pm 37. Barry Dauphin:

Re: Donations from foreigners to political campaigns.

This article from Slate might help: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102724/

A few quotes from the article:

“Unless a foreign national is a legal permanent resident of the United States, he or she is strictly barred from funneling money to political candidates on the federal, state, and even local levels.”

“The wording of the prohibition, in Title 2 of the U.S. Code, was expanded slightly by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold. The section on contributions and donations by foreign nationals clearly bars them from making, or even promising to make, any sort of contribution or donationówhether monetary or in kindóto a candidate or a political committee. Also forbidden is the solicitation or acceptance of such donations. (The older, less verbose prohibition didn’t specifically mention political committees.)”

“Foreign nationals who are permanent residents of the United States, however, are exempt from the contributions ban: The FEC refers to this as the ‘green card exception.’”

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:36 pm 38. richard mcenroe:

John Moore ó I was agreeing with you, and simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the objection.

Barry Dauphin ó I’m curious: is Soros a permanent resident?

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:41 pm 39. WichitaBoy:

That is a very devastating ad.

It’s obvious what the response will be: “I don’t care if Kerry is Satan incarnate, I hate Bush and I’ll do anything to get rid of him.”

The Swift-boaters will be trashed and retrashed as Republican attack dogs. For those of you watching this who still believe there is such a thing as a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, have you ever been tempted even the least little teensy bit to reconsider your opinion on Ken Starr?

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:42 pm 40. miguel:

Does it strike anybody as odd that all the guys that served under Kerry are endorsing him, but SBVFT found some officers that don’t? What does that mean? Why would the guys that experienced battle with him be impresed but not his fellow officers?

I find George Elliot’s comments in the ad specially strange. He was Kerry’s commanding officer, and he stood by Kerry during his 1996 senate race. What could have causes him to turn on Kerry? He was quoted in the Boston Globe:

Elliot: “When [Kerry] came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in middle of ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, when [Kerry] came back and I heard his debrief, I said, ‘John, I don’t know whether you should be court-martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post,’. But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that,”

To richard mcenroe,

What, when and where did Kerry lie about these things? Kerry never said that he received major wounds, in fact, he said he didn’t miss a day of service for his first 2 wounds. Does that mean that he didn’t deserve the purple hearts?

I’ve read through some of SBVFTS’s website and there is a lot of misleading info there. For example, it says that Kerry only served 4 months, but Kerry actually served 2 tours, for his 2nd tour he volunteered to be a swift boat captain and that’s the one that lasted 4 months because of the 3 purple hearts.

By the way, the best summary of Kerry’s Vietnam experiences that I’ve read is at http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:50 pm 41. Bleeding heart conservative:

Somebody explain this to me, from Kerry’s book “The New Soldier”:

In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said “some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,” and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country; because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to; because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam; because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees — and they lie forgotten in Veterans Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol — and we cannot consider ourselves America’s best men when we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia….

we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia….

we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.

Ok. Is he ashamed of his service, or proud of it? His convention presentation makes me think someone else must have written these words.

But that would mean he was a hypocrite. How could that be?

Aug 4, 2004 - 9:57 pm 42. Barry Dauphin:

Richard Mcenroe:

Soros is not a permanent resident of US, he is a naturalized citizen of US. He is, however, a permanent horse’s hinie.

Aug 4, 2004 - 10:01 pm 43. Katherine:

Not one of the committed leftists is going to be swayed by this, even if Almighty came from heaven to vouch for veracity of the SBVís account.

They know perfectly well how F9/11 was made, they realize the manipulations and half-truths, innuendos and lack of context, but they justify it in the interest of the Greater Truth i.e. Bush is dangerous criminal to be rid off. Therefore, they are going to automatically assume that this ad is made exactly the same way. They will howl about audacity of the charge and how this is nothing but mean-spirited character assassination attempt, they will do their damnest to discredit the authors but they will not, for one second, consider that the vets may be speaking the truth. No self respecting MSM reporter will seriously look at the charges. In leftís quest for power ends justify means so they assume that their political opponents are motivated and act exactly the same way.

This is unfortunate effect of elevating political ideology to the status of religion.

Aug 4, 2004 - 10:24 pm 44. Cain:

Folks,

Before every conservative in America has a wet dream about these Swift Boat revelations, ask yourselves what YOUR candidate accomplished in his life that merits your utmost respect?

Talk about hypocrisy.

Aug 4, 2004 - 11:11 pm 45. Fresh Air:

Miguel–

You’re in way over your head here. Many people on this blog have intimately studied John Kerry’s wartime and post-war activities.

You can quibble over pieces of the ad, or certain charges in O’Neill’s book when it comes out, but you will find it nearly impossible to square the Kerry legend with the eyewitnesses’ accounts. This was inevitable, and you can thank Terry McCauliffe.

Aug 4, 2004 - 11:12 pm 46. Fresh Air:

Cain–

My candidate gave up alcohol (something I could never do). He re-dedicated his life to God. He’s only been married once. He led the United States during the worst attack on our soil in history. He freed 25 million people from an Islamofascist nightmare. He freed another 25 million people from a cruel totalitarian dictator. I could go on, but I think that’s enough for now.

Aug 4, 2004 - 11:20 pm 47. JorgXMcKie:

Miguel, do some research. John Kerry claims to have served 4 months “in country.” That is roughly true. It appears that he spent only one month of that in combat. Total records would help, but he won’t (unlike Bush, just like with Theresa’s tax returns) release them. This means we can’t see how he described what he wrote when he nominated himself for his medals.

Also, everyone who remembers Bush either running on his record of serving in the TANG or making it a centerpiece of his campaigns, hold up your hand? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller??

I do, however, remember Lurch intoning solemnly, “Bring. It. On.” Do you remember that one? Well, here it is.

P.S. “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Harry Truman. One of the really good Democrats

Aug 4, 2004 - 11:22 pm 48. penwil:

“Not one of the committed leftists is going to be swayed by this, even if Almighty came from heaven to vouch for veracity of the SBV?s account.”

I think it’s more whether enough independents and moderate demorcrats will choose to believe the swiftboat vets over Kerry. If enough do, he’s in trouble.

Whatever, it has hit the MSM, so it’s going to play out one way or other right in the voters’ faces. Tomorrow’s NYT has the story, and apparently the Kerry camp released an 18 (!) page document attempting to descredit the vets. Man, I don’t know . . . that seems risky to me. The vets aren’t professional politicians–they’re just guys, If the Kerry attack against them is too ugly, it could backfire. And after Nixon’s I am not a crook, and Clinton’s I did not have sex with that woman, professional politicians don’t have a lot of credibility with the American public any more.

Aug 4, 2004 - 11:40 pm 49. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The Kerry supporters are all enlisted men. That means that they didn’t see what he was doing – with his various tricks and bitching. When he was assigned riverine combat, which is dangerous, he bitched and moaned so much that he wasn’t assigned dangerous missions, and was transferred away from the danger zone within a week. He said “I didn’t volunteer to go up rivers.” To me, as a former Navy man, such a statement is inconceivable – you volunteer for whatever the Navy chooses to do with you – that’s a fundamental difference between the armed services and a corporation. Kerry apparently didn’t appreciate that.

In answer to the question, to be crew of a cowardly skipper is a good deal – you are less likely to die – which may also explain the loyalty of those enlisted men.

But there are others who served in combat with Kerry who had much different opinions. After all, a PCF didn’t go off alone – most missions were multi-boat missions, so lots of people were in combat with him.

You say there is a lot of misleading info on the SBVT’s web site, and then offer only one item: that they say he only served one tour. He did only serve one in-country Vietnam tour which was the only combat tour. There is an additional medal you got for in-country (a green and white thing which I no longer have). The swifties are quite correct/

To say that SBVT found a few officers is to distort things. SBVT was founded by those officers. It was founded this year by those officers to defend their honor and put out the truth about Kerry. In other words, all of those folks got together, contributed money and time, risked jobs in some cases, to set straight a record that had been wrong for too many decades. Every person in SBVT has a negative opinion of Kerry. All 250+ of them. The ones I have talked to have more than a negative opinion – they are very angry at him.

Note that all of those supporting Kerry are enlisted men. Those opposing him are of much larger number, and are enlisted and officers, including every commander he ever had.

You ask about George Elliot. Several of the Swifties stood up for Kerry in 1996 because he was accused of committing atrocities. To the Swifties, that was an attack on their entire unit. Defending Kerry from spurious charges in no way means that they approved of anything Kerry did. There is no flip-flop or anything suspicious about these people’s statements in 1996 and their disapproval of Kerry today. If you understand military honor, you would appreciate this.

If you want to have a good time, read the first chapter of the book by following the procedures here. I found it to make Kerry out to be even worse than I expected, and I’ve been studying this guy and talking to these folks for months.

Finally, the worst action of Kerry has not even been discussed. This is his anti-war activities, which involved meeting with the enemy and spreading many lies and enemy propaganda around the country – lies which were used by the Vietnamese just 2 months ago.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:00 am 50. Fresh Air:

Penwil–

I have to wonder why the Kerry campaign doesn’t wait for the specific charges before they assasinate all the accusers’ characters. Doesn’t this reek of a Clinton-style smear-job? They must really be worried.

A statistician could calculate the odds that so many of Kerry’s former commanders would be Republicans. I suspect they would be rather long.

I am sure the 18-page bamboozler will be just as the previous posters have anticipated, featuring all sorts of gratuitous character assasinations. I expect it will be yet another example of a fallacy from the left, the abusive ad hominem attack.

I will now play a serenade to the thinnest-skinned presidential candidate in United States history on the world’s smallest violin…

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:15 am 51. William Dyer:

There’s a chasm between the vets who spoke at Kerry’s convention and those behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s website and video. Here’s my take from cross-examining SBVFT spokesman John O’Neill in a 1992 jury trial. (Short version: I believe O’Neill.)

Aug 5, 2004 - 1:41 am 52. David Thomson:

ìBy the way, where are all of Bush’s buddies from the Texas Air National Guard? No one barely even remembers him being there.î

Why should they remember? It was over thirty years ago and George W. Bush was just another pilot. He was not someone who was the center of their universe. I would bet that you couldnít remember even a small handful of the people you were associated with that long ago.

Aug 5, 2004 - 1:44 am 53. bkochba:

I think the ad is not as effective as it could be b/c it combines the issue of Kerry’s antiwar protests and the issue of lying for medals. I think they should separate these issues out, and that the resentment about his antiwar activity (and any possible lies about what went on Vietnam) should be treated as a separate issue. A lot of people watching this ad might dismiss the crewmen as just conservative military who don’t trust Kerry b/c of his antiwar protests. If he actually lied to get a medal, that’s devastating. If he generally wasn’t trusted by his crewmates – if they perceived him as an operator, angling for medals for trivial things (even for those he didn’t lie for), if they thought he endangered them (one of the fellows says that) all that seems a whole different class of objection and they should decouple it from feelings of betrayal about his antiwar protests.

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:04 am 54. Sun-Tzu:

To begin with, I agree with penwil: I wonder if these SBVT people know what they are getting themselves into, since regardless of the truth of their message, they have thrown themselves into the middle of one massive storm. As others have noted, it is likely that they will have their characters besmirched, and it would not surprise me if every one of them has their backgrounds thoroughly picked over by the MSM (in the interests of getting the whole story, of course).

That being said, Miguel did ask one question which is striking: Why are Kerry’s enlisted men so consistently supportive of him?

Conversely, if the SBVT are a paid-for lot (not saying they are), presumably Kerry’s supporters might be as well (goose, meet gander). But if the two sides are not being bought off, the divergence between those who served under him and those who served at his level or commanded him is frankly disturbing. Something doesn’t jibe here.

I would tend to agree, however, with those who feel that Kerry invited this on himself. Ordinarily, I would say that Kerry’s actions in the Vietnam war matter far less than his conduct afterwards. The “Winter Soldier” business, and his claims that he had committed war crimes, and that the ordinary GI in Vietnam had frequently committed war crimes, should have attracted far more reaction than it has. (Is there a statute of limitations on war crimes? Why has no one investigated his own claim?)

But he essentially threw down the gauntlet (Ben’s comparison with the “Monkey Business” is quite apropos, IMO), and can hardly complain if it is then taken up.

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:10 am 55. Mike:

“Does it strike anybody as odd that all the guys that served under Kerry are endorsing him, but SBVFT found some officers that don’t? What does that mean?”

In addition to the points made by John Moore concerning this comment by Miguel, I think it’s also safe to say that the Kerry crew members all seem to be enjoying their fame by association. This would certainly be a powerful motivater for these guys when Kerry came knocking, asking for their ” support ” as stage props.

I wonder how many of Kerry’s crew privately feel the same way the anti-Kerry Swift Boat vets do, but have no choice now except to play along with the Kerry fairy tale. It’s the price they pay for allowing themselves to be seduced by the prospect of their 15 minutes ………..

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:16 am 56. ricpic:

Let me say the obvious. The effectiveness of this ad depends on how many see it.

Please contribute something. Whatever you are comfortable contributing.

And get word of the ad out to those you know.

We cannot afford this very wrong man as Commander In Chief.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:01 am 57. DennisThePeasant:

Roger-

I have 37 stanzas of Shakespearean blank verse and the lyrics to several ABBA songs that has nothing to the topic at hand that I was going to post here today. You know, for no particular reason…

Are you saying that would be a bad thing?

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:23 am 58. DennisThePeasant:

Rick Ballard-

You are incorrect. This is the Kerry campaign’s second test. The first was the convention.

All-

You’re missing the point about both the ad and the book.

The point is that at best Kerry most likely loses the entire month of August to campaign against Bush. August is now a campaign against O’Neill and the Swift Boaters. Irrespective of the damage, if any, the book and ads cause, Kerry loses one of the three months remaining to win the election.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:29 am 59. HA:

I just donated $100 to the Swift Vets. The dominant, illiberal, Kerry, DNC controlled media will try to bury this ad and pretend it doesn’t exist.

DON’T LET THEM DO THIS!

Make a donation to the Swift Vets so thay have the financial resoures to get the message out in spite of the goals of the dominant media.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:49 am 60. Charlie (Colorado):

Does it strike anybody as odd that all the guys that served under Kerry are endorsing him, but SBVFT found some officers that don’t?

Possibly, if it were true.

What does that mean?

It means we know where you’re getting your talking points.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:09 am 61. Lola:

I went and contributed my bit to the Swifties. I find it reprehensible that Kerry would do what he did. And he served just one month in Vietnam??? I wonder whether it’s worth trying to file a FOIA to get his military records released.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:22 am 62. Charlie (Colorado):

Before every conservative in America has a wet dream about these Swift Boat revelations, ask yourselves what YOUR candidate accomplished in his life that merits your utmost respect?

Hmmm. Let’s see:

Got degrees from Yale and Harvard. Both good schools, although not as good as Duke, of course.

Qualified and flew as an F-102 pilot, a plane I’m told was a hairy mutha to fly.

Got sober. Anyone who hasn’t dealt with this doesn’t know how impressive it is.

Built a reasonably successful professional baseball team.

Was a successful Governor, defeating a major horse’s ass against all odds the first time, and being re-elected in a landslide the second.

Took steps to really deal with Islamic fascism after 20 years of relative neglect.

Established a doctrine that liberty for others is key to our safety — the same “liberal” ideal that John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan held — and acted radically in its name, freeing 50-odd million people from totalitarian slavery.

Those are the things that occur to me offhand.

Next dumb-ass question?

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:23 am 63. jerry:

Miguel:

You may not know this but Elliot was defending Kerry from claims that he committed war crimes. Elliot was not endorsing Kerry or saying to vote for him. He just wanted to set the record straight. Elliot is a Republican.

On the Hero and Purple Heart issue. One of my Uncles received two purple hearts for actions in the Hurtgen Forrest and the Ardennes. The first wound took him out of the battle. The second should have but due to the urgent need for rifleman on the line he was send back up to his company from the forward aid station. He remained on the line throughout the remainder of the battle and never went back to the hospital when they came off the line in late January 1945. He received no medals for his actions. He did his duty under circumstances far more dangerous then those faced by Kerry or in fact very few Vietnam veterans.

If Kerry tried to run as a war hero in 1992, when far more WWII vets were alive he would have been buried in the laughter and ridicule.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:34 am 64. Charlie (Colorado):

Statistics:

Fresh Air: Assuming that we’re talking about registered Republicans, and that the split is roughly even among registered Republicans, Democrats, and independents — so the probability of one random individual being R is about 1/3 — the probability that 22 of them will be Republicans is

(1/3)^22

where ^ is the exponentiation operator.

Numerically, that’s 1/31381059609 or approximately 3.19e-11. Just a bit better than one in a trillion.

Make it fifty-fifty, and it’s about one in five million.

(If we assume instead, just for argument, that the chances that a 60-ish Navy vet are Republican is more like 9/10, then it’s (9/10)^22, or still only about 9 percent.)

Since you asked.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:40 am 65. penwil:

Drudge has more of what’s in the book. It’s brutal–there is simply no other word for it. Brutal.

Shooting an unarmed teenaged boy in the back who was running away–and for this he wrote himself up for the silver star. Machine gunning the chickens and pigs in a village that showed no evidence of being Viet Cong, and then setting fire to their hootches. Brutal.

I hope these vets are prepared for the firepower that the Kerry campaign and the liberal MSM are going to bring to bear against them, because the only way for Kerry to survive this is to rip those guys to shreds. And even then . . .

And meanwhile, back in the war, two leaders of a New York mosque have been caught in a sting operation trying to help a man they thought was a terrorist buy shoulder-fired missiles. Maybe the NYT would like to tell us again how all this is just war-mongering by the Bush campaign just to scare people . . .

 

Aug 5, 2004 - 7:57 am 66. Roberts:

Cain,

Evidently you don’t understand what the word “hypocrisy” means. Kerry is the embodiment of the word. He is now running himself as a hero of a war 30 years after condemning himself and his fellow soldiers as war criminals.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:07 am 67. Goof®:

John McCain

89 days to go.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:11 am 68. RogerA:

For any fellow Viet Nam vets out there, this is a memory check for me: as I recall (at least for the army) you received a purple heart when a medic or doc wrote up a field medical card–the chain of command did NOT “put you in for one.” I don’t know if the Navy worked that way or not. You did have to be “nominated” for a decoration and the level of decoration requested determined the ensuing level of review.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:14 am 69. hollywood:

Later, McCain said the Bush campaign has denied any involvement and added, “I can’t believe the president would pull such a cheap stunt.”

Believe it, Senator!

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:17 am 70. richard mcenroe:

Dennis the Peasant ó Don’t forget Ginzberg’s “Howl”… always a great board-stuffer.

And if we want to be sensitive to the aspirations of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, I’ve got Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta on file… makes Shakespeare’s Shylock look like Isaac Bashevis Singer, baby!

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:18 am 71. richard mcenroe:

Mike, Miguel ó I’ve also heard that most of Kerry’s “loyal” Swift boat members also got early transfers out of Nam after endorsing his auto-Silver Star recommendation.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:22 am 72. vnjagvet:

I believe this will be impossible to ignore, primarily because of Michael Moore and Moveon.org.

Their template has now been virtually blessed by the MSM, and I believe the Swifties have less ideological baggage as an objective matter. The target audience, the undecided voter should be kept in mind though, and this hand should not be overplayed.

As described more fully by John Moore and William Dyer above, I know this is not a propaganda effort because one of the Swift Boat commanders involved is a client of mine, and I have been advising him on this since the Spring.

I know he is nobody’s shil, and that he has the highest regard for Latch Hoffman, the Admiral who put this together.

I only hope it effectively combats the cynical exploitation of Vietnam on display last Thursday.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:23 am 73. Pat Curley:

Bits and pieces of this story have been out there. To correct some misstatements here:

1. Not all of the men who served under Kerry support him. Gunner’s Mate Stephen M. Gardner was revealed in Time in March as what I called “The Pete Best of Kerry’s Band of Brothers”. He despises Kerry. Unfortunately, Time chose Kerry Biographer Douglas Brinkley to write the story. Brinkley had interviewed nine of Kerry’s ten subordinates; by a fortunate (for Tour of Duty) coincidence, the one he missed was Gardner. Brinkley claimed to have made great efforts to locate Gardner; IIRC Mickey Kaus showed that Gardner could have been located in about 10 seconds via a Google search.

2. Many of the charges that the SBVfT make have appeared elsewhere; the charge about killing the old man appears prominently in a long biography of Kerry in the Boston Globe, as does the story about him finishing off a teenager who was wearing only a loincloth in the incident that resulted in Kerry’s Silver Star. I make no judgments about his conduct in these cases, just want to point out that they are well-known to Kerry fanatics like myself.

I think the ad is great. Not going to sway any Lefties, but the election is about the middle, some of whom may have been swayed by the convention’s narrative that Kerry was a war hero. If we undercut that prop, what’s he got left to run on? He told us next to nothing about what he’s done for the 35 years since.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:28 am 74. thibaud:

Jim,

I’m angry at the Democratic Party that it couldn’t muster a decent candidate for our country. The best the party could give to their country was Gephardt and Lieberman (!). …Isn’t there anyone? Anybody? Bush is a good candidate, but we need two in order to deliberate over what is of value. …The other side didn’t show up.

Agreed. Bad for the country to have a Democratic Party that’s either schizophrenic or flat-out lying when it comes to presenting its view of the crucial issue facing the nation.

IMO, the best choice the Dems could have put forward is the one national political figure in the party who can appeal to patriotic blue-collar types with a liberal-at-home, hawkish-abroad message of some credibility. (Joe Biden’s a has-been; doesn’t count).

Oddly enough, that person is… brace yourself… the junior Senator from New York. This Senator has won high marks from both sides of the aisle for her stand on and behavior in the Senate reagrding the war. She has moderated her views on many of the (non-feminist) issues and worked constructively with her colleagues to get things done.

And she’s still a tough-ass, cold-hearted bitch…. As much as she repels many Americans, does anyone believe that she would not be far tougher in dealings with foreign leaders than Sen. Hamlet?

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:29 am 75. thibaud:

I can’t see Hillary making nice to the misogynistic mullahs in Teheran as Jack Straw and the other dwarves have done, or Kerry is likely to do. Methinks it would not be all bad for us right now to have a bitchy feminist with a hawkish bent in the White House.

Is it too late for the Dems to dump Kerry? Anyone know what election laws in the states are regarding whether the Dems can change the ballots at this point?

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:35 am 76. D Anghelone:

Machine gunning the chickens and pigs in a village that showed no evidence of being Viet Cong, and then setting fire to their hootches.

I don’t understand this. What was he doing off the bus? I mean boat.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:36 am 77. Fresh Air:

Ms. Wood–

Bush didn’t produce the ad, a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth did. Just as Kerry refused to trash moveon.org and other assorted lunatic interest groups, Bush has no need to either attack or apologize for them. They are a partisan third-party, not part of Bush-Cheney.

Sorry, but McCain is actually responsible for all this thanks to his asinine campaign finance reform bill.

Aug 5, 2004 - 9:00 am 78. Pixy Misa:

And she’s still a tough-ass, cold-hearted bitch…. As much as she repels many Americans, does anyone believe that she would not be far tougher in dealings with foreign leaders than Sen. Hamlet?

Absolutely.

Now, I don’t much care for Hillary as a person, but I can certainly see her taking a hard line and holding firm when it’s necessary. Would you want to cross her?

Of course, she’s still part of a disfunctional party. But if Bush wins, the ensuing left-wing meltdown should clear the decks.

Aug 5, 2004 - 9:01 am 79. Roberts:

I truly despise Hillary, but it is amazing how Kerry is making her look like a far more viable candidate even to me.

Aug 5, 2004 - 9:01 am 80. Pixy Misa:

thibaud – I don’t think Hillary wants to run against Bush. No fool she.

Aug 5, 2004 - 9:02 am 81. RogerA:

The ONLY reason I could possibly hope for a Kerry victory is watching a Hillary challenge to an incumbent president–THAT would a sight to see.

Aug 5, 2004 - 9:08 am 82. MDP:

miguel: “What are these supossed vets saying that Kerry lied about? Does anyone know?”

Human Events has posted a chapter of “Unfit for Command” examining the questionable circumstances surrounding Kerry’s Purple Hearts. You have to give them a working email address to get the file. If you’re too lazy/suspicious to do that, you can read it here.

miguel: “I find George Elliot’s comments in the ad specially strange. He was Kerry’s commanding officer, and he stood by Kerry during his 1996 senate race. What could have causes him to turn on Kerry?”

A quote from “Unfit for Command”:

“Commander Geoge Elliott, who wrote up the initial draft of Kerry’s Silver Star citation, confirms that neither he, nor anyone else in the Silver Star process that he knows, realized before 1996 that Kerry was facing a single, wounded young Viet Cong fleeing in a loincloth. …. Commander Elliott indicates that a Silver Star recommendation would not have been made by him had he been aware of the actual facts.”

The rest of Drudge’s summary is worth reading.

Aug 5, 2004 - 9:27 am 83. hollywood:

Fresh Air,

Bogus claims run rampant in the Republican camp. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_go_co/harris_terror_plot_4&printer=1

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:01 am 84. doublecola:

Well, the debate about Kerry’s war record is certainly fair game, but let me post something from Salon, so we get a clearer perspective about the issue.

Unfortunately, I can see it now. Kerry will be elected and the far right will launch a costly investigation into his war record…

In any case, here’s the article from salon:

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:15 am 85. doublecola:

i screw up on my first post!

here’s the article:

Hopefully the media will do their job in exposing O’Neill’s longtime ties to the GOP and the fact that, as they admit, none of the men who appear in the ads that will run in some markets in Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin today, actually served on Kerry’s boat. So how did Larry Thurlow, a vet who appears in the Kerry-bashing ad know, as he claims, “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry?” Does he know this better than Jim Rassman, who when the chips were down, counted on Kerry to save his life? Or how about James Wasser, a radar man on one of Kerry’s swift boats, who says that if Kerry called his band of brothers for one last mission and said they were going to hell, “he’d have a full crew.”

The facts of Kerry’s service don’t really matter to O’Neill, anyway. Attacking Kerry has been O’Neill’s role since Nixon tapped him for the job in 1971, as Joe Conason reported in Salon in May, and his latest anti-Kerry effort is now funded and organized by Republicans:

“Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are veteran corporate media consultant and Texas Republican activist Merrie Spaeth, who is listed as the group’s media contact; eternal Kerry antagonist and Houston attorney John E. O’Neill, law partner of Spaeth’s late husband, Tex Lezar; and retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, a cigar-chomping former Vietnam commander once described as ‘the classic body-count guy’ who ‘wanted hooches destroyed and people killed.’”

“Spaeth told Salon that O’Neill first approached her last winter to discuss his ‘concerns about Sen. Kerry.’ O’Neill has been assailing Kerry since 1971, when the former Navy officer was selected for the role by Charles Colson, Richard Nixon’s dirty-tricks aide.”

Media Matters has more on O’Neill’s GOP ties, dating back to Nixon:

“During the CNN interview [with O'Neill], [Wolf] Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O’Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O’Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an ‘articulate’ and ‘credible leader’ of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore ‘an immediate target of the Nixon Administration.’ As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to ‘create a counterfoil’ to Kerry. Colson recounted, ‘We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.’ Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O’Neill and the Nixon administration.”

“Beyond his role in the Nixon administration’s strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O’Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O’Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O’Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.”

– Geraldine Sealey

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:17 am 86. Carolyn R:

It seems to me that John Kerry may be painting himself into a corner by trying to be all things to all people:

James Lileks on Kerry’s acceptance speech:

” ‘I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President.’

This really intrigues me. I agree that Vietnam was a defense of the United States, inasmuch as we were trying to blunt the advance of Communism. So: only Nixon can go to China. (Only Kirk can go to Chronos, for you Star Trek geeks.) Only Kerry can confirm that Vietnam was a just war. . . . .”

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0704/073004.html

Collin Levey on the Vets Against Kerry:

“As one of them said, “We didn’t lose the war on the ground in Vietnam, we lost it at home, and at home John Kerry was the field general.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001996876_collin05.html

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:19 am 87. JK Ribera:

I don’t know about others, but I found doublecola’s post particularly unconvincing. It tells us what it is already obvious – that this ad has been made by Kerry’s opponents. Who else would do it? But the post ignores the facts of the case which are now myriad and must be answered. The doctor who treated Kerry denying he deserved a purple heart is damning enought, but the rest….

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:29 am 88. ed:

Hmmm.

If I may comment on a common theme of “they are using _________ (fill in blank) who are associated with Republicans…”.

Dare I say it that it’s pretty unlikely that any firms that are closely associated with *Democrats* would be rather unwilling to associate themselves with a group that is attacking the *Democratic* candidate for President?

Really now. Some people really just have to shuck the tin-foil hats and wake the hell up. It’s pretty obvious to me that the only firms that would engage in such work would be those that are either singularly neutral, who wouldn’t touch something like this with your hands let alone theirs, or those that are associated with Republicans.

Seriously folks. It’s ok to disagree and the debates here are very interesting at times but could we leave the singularly ridiculous conspiracy theory stuff somewhere else?

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:30 am 89. Fresh Air:

Doublecola–

I think Charlie gave the odds of all 22 of the Swiftvets against Kerry, and they are on the order of a trillion to one.

You are simply doing what Conason specializes in: ad hominem attack. Why don’t you try to defend Kerry against the charges, if you can? Good luck.

Ms. Wood–

Your rinky-dink post about Katherine Harris is irrelevant, though I will concede that fantasia grips both sides of the political spectrum.

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:33 am 90. ed:

Hmmm.

“i screw up on my first post!

here’s the article:”

Could you perhaps provide a link rather than including the entire article?

Also …

*salon*? I wouldn’t quote them.

Also …

The people in question, as the article so nicely sidesteps, were Kerry’s fellow officers of swift boats in the same command. They’re also his commanding officers.

Another point that should be made is a question of just how much Kerry’s fellow boat-crew members have profited from him over the years. Considering that Kerry has based his entire rationale for public office on their good testimony it would be surprising if he hasn’t shifted money or contracts their way. I’m curious about this because it hasn’t been investigated or dealt with by the media.

That such couldn’t be possible is not even credible at all.

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:36 am 91. doublecola:

you wouldn’t quote salon, but you find yourself reading drudge?

here’s the link you requested:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Ed, for the record, I don’t know what to believe. I thought it would be nice, however, to add comments from the other side. fair and balanced and all.

The question of profit is a good one. Of course, publishing a book should bring in some money as well. It’s also interesting to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth won’t reveal where their money comes from.

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:50 am 92. doublecola:

JK,

“The doctor who treated Kerry denying he deserved a purple heart is damning enough…”

The problem is that doctor didn’t treat Kerry, another doctor did.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:02 am 93. NoDonkey:

Of course the vets had to buy an ad. It’s the only way to get around the slavishly pro-Kerry media.

If the media was doing their job, these men would have been interviewed long ago. Imagine if the situation were reversed.

The SWVT book would have already been on 60 minutes (like Joe Wilson and Richard Clark’s books) and the networks would have done dozen of stories about them already.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:08 am 94. Bleeding heart conservative:

There’s two issues here:

1. Were the medals and war hero status legitimate?

OR

2. Was his testimony about war crimes, the defamation of his fellow soldiers, true?

If his 1971 testimony is true: he is not a war hero, but a war criminal.

If his war hero status is true, he is a liar, and betrayed his brothers in arms by calling them and himself a war criminal.

He, and his supportes, can’t have it both ways!

2004: “I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President.”

1971: “There is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America… linking [the] loss of one American life to the preservation of freedom… is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.”

From “The New Soldier”:

“In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said “some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,” and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country; because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to; because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam; because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees — and they lie forgotten in Veterans Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol — and we cannot consider ourselves America’s best men when we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy.”

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:11 am 95. RiverRat:

Many of you seem to be asking why the enlisted crewmen of Kerry’s boat would support him.

Here’s a fact that many don’t know. On the day Kerry received the Silver Star. He put his crew in for medals also. 2 Bronze Stars w/combat V and 3 Navy Commendation medals w/combat V were awarded based on Kerry’s lies in addition to his Silver Star.

People, this was group medalgate! This was the most highly decorated boat in the history of the war for 1 action. It was a minor fire fight against about 20 local VC by 3 boats (18 crewmen) and about 70 South Vietnamese troops on the boats.

And yes, I’m a member of swiftvets and a decorated riverine sailor. We are not “shills” for Republican Pary. We are not Pro Bush. We’re simply Anti-Kerry for the reasons stated at http://www.swiftvets.com

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:11 am 96. Knucklehead:

Doublcola:

Sounds like you need to do some googling about McCain-Feingold and 527s.

Since you are interested in “fair and balanced”, you might find the information available at the following link interesting:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=exp&sec=totalexp&sub=topcom

Its mildly fascinating. One needs to get down to the 6th or 7th largest 527 to find a “Republican” one, then another 5 or so to find the next “Republican” one. Click on any and you can quickly find how much money they raise and spend and who their largest donors are. Amazing how much money unions and other Democrat supporting organizations and multi-gojillionaires pump into 527s. MovenOn.org is, for example, a fairly big 527 dedicated to defeating the president (i.e, electing John Kerry).

Here’s another link with info I find interesting:

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.asp?cycle=2004

and last, but by no means least, here’s who the 527 Big Dogs are and what they donate their money to:

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivs.asp?cycle=2004

Oh, yeah, on last thing. The SwiftVets don’t even seem to show up on radar as a Big Money 527. The majority of those are FOR, rather than AGIN, Mr. Kerry.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:26 am 97. Roberts:

The Salon article above, like Conason’s silly piece from which it appears to swipe all its claims, is pretty pathetic ( not to mention poorly fact-checked ). O’Neill’s “connections” to the “Republicans” are not the stuff of dark conspiracy but the normal events of a very intelligent and prominent lawyer such that O’Neill is.

Amusingly, those who dispute Swiftvets claims seem to forget that Kerry in effect confirmed them in testimony before Congress. He’s a self-admitted war criminal.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:27 am 98. doublecola:

It doesn’t trouble you that O’Neill did not serve in Vietnam with Kerry?

Or George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam, said about Kerry “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach.”

As I said, I don’t know what to believe yet. I’m researching this as thoroughly as I can.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:40 am 99. Pat Curley:

“Or how about James Wasser, a radar man on one of Kerry’s swift boats, who says that if Kerry called his band of brothers for one last mission and said they were going to hell, “he’d have a full crew.”

Not true, he’d be missing a Gunner’s Mate.

But PCF-44 Gunnerís Mate Stephen M. Gardneróin a long telephone interview from his home in Clover, South Carolinaóhas a starkly different memory. ìKerry was chickenshit,î he insists. ìWhenever a firefight started he always pulled up stakes and got the hell out of Dodge.î

The rest of the Salon article isn’t worth debunking–it’s innuendo all the way. O’Neill was considered for a judgeship by Bush, Sr? Obvious point–if he was only considered, then he didn’t get it, so he’d hardly be disposed to love the Bush family for “considering” him.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:51 am 100. jerry:

doublecola:

If I posted my Navy fitreps you would wonder why I didn’t make Admiral. The text is unimportant. Its where they rank you. Typical Navy fitrep reads something like “this officer is an outstanding leader, capable of meeting any and all challenges, makes key decisions quickly and without mistake, and I would be glad to stand beside him in battle anytime and any place. I rank him x outof y officers under my command during this rating period.” the key parameter in this sentence is rank x out of y. All the rest is BS. No CO wants to say one is own is a slug. It reflects badly on his capabilities.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:55 am 101. Rick Ballard:

Conason?

Kerry’s calling up Bubba’s Bimbo Brigade to handle this? Smearing women abused by Bill is an art form that Conason mastered well but I don’t think it’s transferable for effective use against vets. What’s the followup lineup? Blumenthal, Begala, Stepanoupolus, Davis and sundry? What warm thoughts that crew will bring to the electorate.

Go for it, John. You can do it. Smear those vets. Yeah, that’s the ticket, drag a bunch of officer’s and non-com’s names through the mud. Accuse them of profiteering. Claim “political” motivation and manipulation. C’mon John, kiss the buzzsaw.

Afterwards you can always claim that you were for it before you were against it.

Aug 5, 2004 - 11:58 am 102. doublecola:

Pat,

Can you site your source? Thanks!

Jerry,

“text is unimportant”? What other documented facts from the time can we go on? And if Kerry was as bad as the vets imply, then this should have been documented. I would say this reflects badly on Elliot’s capabilities and judgements.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:03 pm 103. Knucklehead:

Doublecola:

Well, at least we may be MovingOn, so to speak, past the ad hominum “evil Republicans” stuff.

Just expressing a knuckleheaded opinion here…

It doesn’t trouble you that O’Neill did not serve in Vietnam with Kerry?

No. He served in the same unit doing the same job in the same timeframe. He knows as much about the job and circumstances as John Kerry does. If he spent more than four months at it then there’s a good chance he knows considerably more than Kerry.

As far as I can tell from my own investigation of this interesting little catfight, O’Neill’s gripe with Kerry started more than thrity years ago when Kerry slandered Swift Boat veterans in particular and Vietnam veterans in general. I don’t know the man but unless there is some more compelling evidence against his honor and credibility than “He’s a filthy Republican!” or “He met Nixon!” then I find his willingness to stand up and try to warn the nation a rather admirable action on his part. He WILL be very heavily attacked whether he deserves it or not.

BTW – Didn’t Forrest Gump meet Nixon?

Or George Elliott, who also graded John Kerry in Vietnam, said about Kerry “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lieutenant Junior Grade Kerry was unsurpassed. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach.”

Military fitness reports are fairly pro-forma. Hard to make much of them without a broader context by which to assess the reporter and the subject. For example, a superior office might want to unload a junior officer for various reasons. If he’s not prepared to wreck the guy’s career or prevent him from getting promoted then he might say nice things and get the dope transfered. This sort of thing was particularly true in the days of the draft and a much larger military. Bang the paperwork out and don’t make waves. It is possible that the guy felt that way then but differently now.

It would be interesting to hear him address this apparent disconnect. I don’t find it enough of a disconnect to see that it trashes the case.

As I said, I don’t know what to believe yet. I’m researching this as thoroughly as I can.

Keep digging. When you find things that trouble you, ponder them for a while, ask yourself and others some questions.

I don’t know why 20 or so of Kerry’s former mates love the heck out of him while 250 or so hate his stinking guts. My own limited military experience suggests to me that when the ratio is 9 or 10 to one against, the target is probably a flaming bleepity bleep. There’s generally a strong get along and go along sense in a military unit. Small groups develop deep friendships but rarely does the large group ostracize and go to great lengths to strongly criticize a member without dang good cause.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:10 pm 104. MDP:

doublecola: “you wouldn’t quote salon, but you find yourself reading drudge?”

I think you have a point, although Drudge is probably a lot more centrist and, dare I say, trustworthy than most of Salon’s writers. Dismissing an argument because one dislikes the publication in which it appears is a form of the ad hominem fallacy.

doublecola: “It’s also interesting to note that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth won’t reveal where their money comes from.”

This NY Times story implies that the group has disclosed its contributors in public tax documents.

doublecola: “The problem is that doctor didn’t treat Kerry, another doctor did.”

See for yourself how the treating physician describes the incident.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:11 pm 105. infidel cowboy:

Swift Justice.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:12 pm 106. jerry:

doublecola:

I told you what is important…its how Elliot ranked LT(jg)John Kerry against his peers. You obviously, like many Kerry appologists, have no experience with military service. It is easy for him to fool you absent information from other sources. I have no idea how he was ranked. Here ’s how it works: the #1 guy is truly outstanding, the next two or three are pretty good, 4,5, and 6 are ok. There rest are slugs.

Scale it to group size.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:14 pm 107. Bostonian:

doublecola,

The truly interesting thing about the Swifties is that they are willing to put themselves forth so publicly.

It strains belief to think that such a large majority of his fellow officers would consent to do that unless they felt strongly that this was the right thing to do.

His senior officers are also on record saying that Kerry is unfit for command. They held a press conference a few months ago: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/4/132751.shtml

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:21 pm 108. Knucklehead:

Doublecola:

From the NYT article linked to in a post above:

…Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 200-member group that held a news conference in Washington this spring to make similar accusations. It is one of several independent groups, known as 527’s for the provision in the tax code that enables their operation, to run attack advertisements this season.

Tax documents show that from April to June, the group collected $158,750 from 11 people, $100,000 of it from Bob J. Perry, a Houston developer who is a major contributor to Republican campaigns.

The group is a 527, therefore it must disclose its contributors on forms submitted with the IRS. I gave you some links above regarding 527s. This particular 527 doesn’t rank high enough on the money scale to turn up on any of the Watchdog Radar scopes – a buck and a half is nothing (although it might be safe to say that their coffers filled a bit today from small donors ;>)

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:30 pm 109. Pat Curley:

“Can you site your source? Thanks.”

Click on the link under “Gunner’s Mate”–it’s Time Magazine.

Aug 5, 2004 - 12:44 pm 110. ambisinistral:

Bleeding Heart Conservative,

I believe you’ve hit the crux of Kerry’s dilema square on the head. If this were just isolated to Kerry’s Swift boat career it could be written off as somebody throwing mud 30 years after the fact. However, when you juxtaposition Kerry’s Winter Soldiers war crimes charges against it then the dynamic gets much more damaging to Kerry.

If he denies killing the farm animals, burning the huts, and shooting the kid it will be compared to his postwar statements that he did commit warcrimes. If he takes the high ground and denies it all, then why the charges 30 years ago?

It is impossible for him to be both a hero, a villian, and honest all at the same time. o matter how you rotate these facts, they don’t add up.

Aug 5, 2004 - 1:18 pm 111. WichitaBoy:

ambisinistral wrote: It is impossible for him to be both a hero, a villian, and honest all at the same time. No matter how you rotate these facts, they don’t add up.

Up until now it hasn’t mattered whether they added up or not. That’s because up until now it hasn’t been Kerry who was the candidate, it has been ABB. But you can’t elect ABB, you have to elect an honest-to-god real person. Enter Kerry.

Why was Kerry, of all people, the anointed one? Because he was held to be electable by a deeply dishonest Democratic party. The party which is against the war but “supports” the troops. Dean captured well what the Democrats actually support and I agree with Andrew Sullivan that Dean would have been the proper choice for the nomination. Then the argument would have been honest about what the real disagreement is. But the Democrats know in their hearts that they’re the minority here. So, instead of an honest choice, we got two anti-war “war heroes” brought in, one by the Clinton cadre, one by the Kennedy cadre. What could be more dishonest and insulting? “You stupid stupid rubes. Our candidate shot guns in a real war. Even though he disagrees with 98% of what you believe in, enough of you will be taken in to push our guy over the top.”

Democrats today are the party of pacifism, isolationism, and pork-barrels for special interests. Even the rubes can figure that out.

Aug 5, 2004 - 1:59 pm 112. PeterUK:

Let the man speak for himself,

“I didn’t really want to get involved in the war,” Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. “When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing.”

Spinsanity via Insta(no satellite)pundit

Aug 5, 2004 - 2:16 pm 113. Pat Curley:

Heh, Kerry’s lawyers are faxing a letter to TV stations threatening them with libel suits and FCC complaints if they air the ad. Love it! This just guarantees that the ad will be shown lots of times for free, as news!

What a maroon!

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:03 pm 114. Roberts:

Kerry’s lawyers are misrepresenting libel law in a rather brazen manner.

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:13 pm 115. doublecola:

Pat,

Thanks for pointing out the link.

Something to add from the article:

“…Jim Wasser telephoned me last week with the news that Gardner had ìrung him up out-of-the-blueî to discuss their shared days together in Vietnam. ìIt was greatî Wasser told me. ìYou know he fought bravely in Vietnam. He is still a brother. I miss him. I would like to see him.î He then hesitated and went on. ìBut he has developed a strange, negative assessment of Lieutenant Kerry. It shocked me. His memory is dead wrong. He remembers things so differently.Ö He has some kind of weird grudge against Lieutenant Kerry.î

I know it’s already been discussed, but those who served directly with Kerry–all but one, anyway–seem to love him. Those who didn’t serve at the same time with Kerry, or those who didn’t serve directly with him, have negative views. Question: Who would be the better judge of you? Those who worked with you directly, or those who didn’t?

You know the gunner’s mate story also conflicts with what other’s have said about Kerry–those that don’t like Kerry–they say he was reckless in combat, the gunner’s mate calls him a chicken. I don’t think you can be both.

Let’s also be clear. Most, though not all–of the attacks in the ad are really in response to what Kerry said upon returning from Viet Nam. The ad, however, implies much different.

Again, O’Neill never served with Kerry–or even at the same time as Kerry. Let’s not forget that O’Neill is a big time Republican insider. And, Robert Perry, who is the biggest contributor by far to O’Neill’s group, is the single largest Republican donor in Texas. Since 2000, Perry has donated nearly $800,000 to GOP political action committees. Just something to ponder.

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:17 pm 116. Rick Ballard:

“Just something to ponder.”

Geez, doublecola, I’m still working through the Bing, Soros, moveon, michael moore, ACTUP, SEIU, Rosalyn Carter, John Dean, INDYMEDIA, Atrios nexus.

I doubt that I’ll get to it.

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:33 pm 117. William Dyer:

doublecola wrote,

Let’s not forget that O’Neill is a big time Republican insider.

That might fairly be said of some of O’Neill’s partners. It might also fairly be said of some of O’Neill’s partners that they’re big-time Democratic insiders, though. Other than his speaking out about Kerry and subsequent invitation to visit the Nixon White House, would you care to offer one specific fact, one specific link, to prove the “big-time” nature of O’Neill’s Republican connections — something that’s personal and relevant to him, rather than guilt by association?

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:34 pm 118. doublecola:

Rick,

I certainly wouldn’t want you to look at both sides of an issue!

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:36 pm 119. doublecola:

William,

Here you go…from mediamatters.org

“During the CNN interview [with O'Neill], [Wolf] Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O’Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O’Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an ‘articulate’ and ‘credible leader’ of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore ‘an immediate target of the Nixon Administration.’

As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to ‘create a counterfoil’ to Kerry. Colson recounted, ‘We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.’ Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O’Neill and the Nixon administration.”

“Beyond his role in the Nixon administration’s strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O’Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O’Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O’Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.”

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:42 pm 120. RogerA:

DC: While who funds an organization is part of the calculus I look at in determining the worth of a story, it is ultimately the arguments made by the swift boat vets that matter to me most. I believe I am capable of looking at the arguments: for example, I found the version of Kerry gunning down an injured teen (who apparently had fired an RPG at them) completely justified. I have done exactly that in my own viet nam service. Having said that, I find the rest of their stories quite compelling and believable. You may focus on who funded the swift boat vets–their stories are far more important to me as they reflect on the character of a man who hopes to be President. I find that character completely wanting.

Aug 5, 2004 - 3:57 pm 121. RogerA:

To clarify my last post: stories derived from the Drudge excerpts of the book.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:01 pm 122. ambisinistral:

doublecola,

It doesn’t matter what the motives of his supporters or detractors are. Kerry cannot be simultaneously both a war hero and a war criminal. He damn himself with his own words.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:12 pm 123. Rick Ballard:

DC,

Somehow I just knew, really deep inside that you’d grab a Safeway bag and your 64 pack of crayolas and connect all the dots for us. Really fascinating info, deeply meaningful and totally focused on the issue. Well, thats it I guess, although I am still a bit puzzled.

Which one of the men in the ad was O’Neill?

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:14 pm 124. jerry:

Doublecola:

You are entitled to you opinions. But I would like to point out that you have already shown your ignorance of the military fitness report system. I tried to explain it to you and perhaps you do now understand the real criteria. However, you continue to show your ignorance of military matters. I would hold that John Kerry deserved none of the decoration he was given not because he may have faked it but because he didn’t do anything extraordinary in Vietnam to earn it. As a guy in his mid-50’s, I have a sense of what real heros whose combat experience was more intense than all but a few Vietnam veterans. I have three uncles who were infantrymen in WWII. They fought in France, Italy and Okinawa. Add to that an fourth uncle who served aboard a cruiser in the Pacific. None of them received any decorations other then a few purple hearts, Combat Infantry Badge (for the grunts) and ETO/PTO campaign ribbons. The problem I have with Kerry’s manipulation of his Vietnam experience is his self promotion. He is nothing more than a braggart. Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of WWII, was quite humble about his medals. Kerry would not be generating any controversy if said “I went to Vietnam and did my duty.” That is a lot more then most of my generation can say. It should be good enough for him.

Anybody want to bet that DC is a twenty something DU type?

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:20 pm 125. doublecola:

Rick,

You’re so cute when you condescend.

In any case, according to NewsMax, John OíNeill is the spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,

and I believe he has a book out now that he’s wants folks to buy.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:27 pm 126. doublecola:

Jerry,

Kerry “didn’t do anything extraordinary in Vietnam”?

Tell that to Jim Rassmann. Tell him that having his life saved–under enemy fire–was no big deal.

“I’ll be forever grateful to John for pulling me over that thing,” Rassmann said.

I’ll take Jim Rassmann’s word.

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:41 pm 127. Rick Ballard:

DC,

Why thank you, I’m flattered. I rarely get the opportunity here anymore to appropriately extend condescension.

BTW – Mr. O’Neill is not just trying to sell books. Amazon has “Unfit for Command” at #1.

Wonder if the DNC attorneys sent Amazon a letter?

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:44 pm 128. doublecola:

Rick,

Keep it honest. I never said “trying”.

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:49 pm 129. Rick Ballard:

DC,

Now that’s true nuance. The difference between “wants people to buy” and “trying to sell” is truly Kerryesque.

Sorry, I’ll definitely take more care. Maybe.

Apparently though, he is very effective at wanting people to buy.

Aug 5, 2004 - 4:59 pm 130. jerry:

DC:

How does that compare with landing on Omaha Beach; fighting in the hedgerows in Normandy; Slogging your way through the Hurtgen Forest (wounded); Freezing your butt off in the Ardennes (wounded) but returned to the line because of a shortage of rifleman; or assaulting across the Rhine? All my uncle got for these minor actions were the two Purple Hearts, CIB and ETO ribbon. That is how I scale heroism.

Here is a naval example for you. The priest who baptized my son was the senior surviving officer of the USS Vincennes at Savo Island. He organized the sailors in the water and made sure he his bluejackets were taken care of. He gave up his place in a raft to an enlisted man and went into the water. He did receive the Navy Cross. But this is how I scale heroism.

Pulling someone out of the water is what the Coast Guard does every day.

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:04 pm 131. doublecola:

Rick,

Actually, you missed my point…

It’s interesting to see that the Swift Boat ad attacking Kerry is launched about the same time as O’Neill’s book is released. That, my friend, is brilliant marketing. I have to give him that.

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:13 pm 132. doublecola:

Jerry,

I’m not questioning the valor your family members displayed. However, Pulling someone out of the water while under fire is a brave act.

You may not like Kerry, but you shouldn’t disrespect the life of the man he saved, Jim Rassmann.

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:17 pm 133. Knucklehead:

Doublecola:

At this point I can’t tell if your looking for answers or a doublekoolaid or just focus grouping some trial memes, but what the heck.

Question: Who would be the better judge of you? Those who worked with you directly, or those who didn’t?

I suppose this would depend on what I was being judged for. If I were engaged in some sort of activity that was questionable and those who worked directly with me were also involved in that questionable activity or were, for example, my good drinking buddies and/or didn’t recognize the activity as questionable, then they might judge me more favorably.

If, on the other hand, my performance were being judged against larger or higher level expectations, then those who did not work directly with me and viewed my activities from some distance might be more qualified to judge me.

If, for example, I managed a ball team which played badly but was a great guy to play for provided one wasn’t particularly interested in playing well or for a good team, my players might judge me very favorably whereas the other players and managers in the league might recognize me for the lousy manager that I am.

Ask yourself why virtually everyone outside of his direct crew would go to the extraordinary trouble of signing a joint letter that claims Kerry is unfit to be CIC. Huh? Why on earth would so many people do something like that unless they were very seriously convinced they were correct and that the matter was extraordinarily important.

The navy personell who originally brought this issue forward range through all the ranks right up to admirals. Why did everyone else involved with Seiftboats in Vietnam find Kerry so troublesome that they were willing to take this remarkable step at no small inconvenience to themselves and yet Kerry’s crew seems to love him.

JMO, but I find Kerry’s crewmates more suspect than the 200+ other Swiftboat vets.

Let’s also be clear. Most, though not all–of the attacks in the ad are really in response to what Kerry said upon returning from Viet Nam. The ad, however, implies much different.

There is no way to seperate Kerry’s words and actions after the war from his, and all other Swiftboaters, actions during the war. The are hand in glove.

As others above have pointed out, Kerry either lied to congress and slandered many good men or he, and many others, committed war crimes and atrocities. Both cannot be true. The Swiftboaters are standing up and saying, we didn’t commit war crimes and atrocities, but here’s some evidence Kerry did.

Now Kerry needs to answer. Did he commit the war crimes he claims he committed and does he have evidence to back up the accusations he made against Swiftboaters in general, or did he lie to congress.

Regarding who is funding what…

Who funded the ad is not an issue unless the ad is a falsehood.

Every “issues” 527 has fatcat donors. I gave the links, if you don’t want to see what they tell you that’s a personal problem. Nobody on the Republican side or any other Bush supporter is funding attacks against Bush and the same for Democrats and Kerry’s side. Only Fatcat donors have the money to fund these sorts of things. The issue here is whether or not there is a legitimate complaint against Kerry.

If you are going to toss out these charges because the ad was funded by a fatcat TX Republican then you also need to throw out virtually every charge that has ever been leveled against Bush because all that Bushitler nonsense and AWOL horse manure is funded by bottomless pocketed Dem fatcats.

Deal with the issue. Fatcat funding (and the preposterour campaign finance reform legistlation that brought us this 527 insanity) is a whole seperate issue in and of itself

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:24 pm 134. Cain:

My question: Why would John McCain bother speaking out against this whole swift vet thing if it were completely accurate and pointed? You’d think as a Bush supporter he’d keep his mouth shut and let the manure hit the oscillator.

Nice try by Fresh Air and Charlie (Colorado) to defend Bush’s pre-presidential history. A few points:

–Kudos to Bush for only being married once. But by that logic, should you have voted for Carter and Mondale over Reagan? More than 50% of marriages in this country end in divorce.

–Even taking Bush’s “military accomplishments” in the Texas Air National Guard at face value (a dubious proposition at best), it doesn’t measure up to volunteering to defend his country in Vietnam, which Bush chose not to do and Kerry did.

–By all accounts, Bush had every advantage in the world in getting ahead in business, yet did not run a successful business until the Rangers. If owning a successful baseball team reveals keen business acumen, then why not Marge Schott or Charlie Finley, both of whom won World Series?

–Sobriety. I know it’s difficult to get sober…but how much more impressive a virtue is it than not having a problem in the first place?

Let’s put it into perspective. These Presidential campaigns are obviously brutal. But suggesting Kerry’s pre-presidential life is less impressive than Bush’s was is simply absurd.

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:40 pm 135. doublecola:

Knucklehead,

The real truth will come out shortly. I doubt either side will be satisfied. Though, hopefully, the truth will be loud and clear to all.

For the record, I think it’s always smart to follow the money. It doesn’t always reveal the truth, but sometimes it does–and at the very least it raises questions that should be addressed.

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:42 pm 136. RiverRat:

Why in hell can’t you all stop the mental masterbation over political motivation.

I’m a member of this group and we are telling the truth. Not for political gain. This would never have become an issue without Kerry’s “current” lies and focus on his Vietnam service.

Can’t you see the cognitive dissonance? I’m a war hero? I’m against the war? I’m proud of naval officer defending America? America is wrong and communism is right?

For God’s sake, he did it 33 years ago and he’s doing it again today.

Regardless of the politics, can you not at least look at our case on the facts without making it political… Probably not….It’s sad. I gave my blood for this country and all you fools can do is throw stones from a keyboard.

Frankly, ….no, I won’t say what I’d like! But despicable comes to mind. Maybe pitiful works!

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:53 pm 137. Knucklehead:

Well, Doublecola, in the event that you are legitimately curious, sit back now and watch the Democratic Pary Character Assination Machine go into full-speed, shameless action. The will recognize no bounds to their viciousness. They will slander and attack anyone and everyone who gets in their way. They will now attempt to destroy 200+ people and, by implication everyone who served in Vietnam, with the notable exceptions of John Kerry and his Band of Brothers.

It will be a truly loathesome display.

If that’s what you wish to be a part of or support, well…

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:56 pm 138. miguel:

So what this comes down to is that some people don’t think that Kerry deserves the medals he got. George Elliot, who appears in the ad, wrote Kerry up for the silver star. The doctors who treated Kerry awarded him the purple hearts. What was Kerry supposed to do? Should he have declined the medals? How is this a sign of bad character?

Kerry and Bush were 20-something at the time, kids really.

Kerry went to Vietnam, came back from war with a bunch of medals, and then became a leader in the anti-war movement to the point that he appeared before a congresional commitee. Whatever you think of his anti-vietnam stance at the time, you have to admit that this is quite an accomplishment for a 25 year old kid. To me it shows that this was an ambitious guy with leadership skills that was thinking about the world and wanted to contribute to improve it.

Bush somehow got into the TANG, became a pilot and then, undisputedly, missed a required medical exam and stopped flying. After that, we don’t hear anything about him until the late 80s.

If you want to draw conclusions about “character” from these two experiences from 30+ years ago, I think that Bush loses everytime.

On a side note, I’ve been watching the cable news networks this afternoon. They are all giving the ad plenty of free air time, but I don’t think it is a big plus for Bush since there are so many caveats. The main stories seem to be,

- George Elliot stood by Kerry in ‘96

- The ‘doctor’ in the ad didn’t sign any of Kerry’s war time medical records.

- McCain is pissed off and wants Bush to repudiate the ad

- The Whitehouse responds that they would like to see ALL 527 ads stopped.

On another side note, swiftvets.com is down, I’m thinking they couldn’t handle the bandwidth.

Aug 5, 2004 - 5:58 pm 139. doublecola:

Knucklehead,

Well, the slander and attacks on John Kerry has already begun. You throw a rock, be prepared to have one thrown at you.

No, I don’t like it. But you’re accusing Democrats for what they are about to do, remember, the republicans are in this, too.

I want the truth–and, yes, I can handle the truth.

I’m going home now, it was a good discussion.

And, don’t take this wrong, Peace.

DC

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:04 pm 140. Rick Ballard:

RiverRat,

Whom are you addressing? A number of us here are obectively supporting your position. Others will speculate on motive until Nov. 2010. Did you think it would be otherwise?

There is no “regardless of politics”.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:14 pm 141. Bostonian:

Miguel,

Don’t go thinking Kerry had those medals pushed on him. Kerry *asked* for the medals. He drew up the damned paperwork!

Let’s not skip too lightly over Kerry’s conversion to the anti-war cause either. The guy is on record making outrageous, slanderous accusations of the men he served with. Accusations that he has never backed up and never retracted.

One way or the other, he is going to have to sort this out.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:29 pm 142. RiverRat:

“So what this comes down to is that some people don’t think that Kerry deserves the medals he got. George Elliot, who appears in the ad, wrote Kerry up for the silver star. The doctors who treated Kerry awarded him the purple hearts. What was Kerry supposed to do? Should he have declined the medals? How is this a sign of bad character?”

Declined? He recommended himself for the medals!

Actually all accounts of events indicate that Kerry wrote himself up for the award of his Silver Star. Elliott was not there. He just forwarded the request for awards for Kerry and everyone in his boat crew during a period when medals were the justification and incentive for a stupid policy.

There were 6 medals for a small firefight on one boat of 3 boats involved. 1 Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars and 3 Navy Commendation medals, all on Kerry’s boat. Why the hell do you think the crew of his boat supports him today? Complicity?

No casualties at all on “any” boat. No medals for any boat but Kerry’s. No Medals for the Army Advisors or the 70 Vietnamese Popular forces on site.

Do you know what mierda de toro means?

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:29 pm 143. holdfast:

DC:

“Well, the slander and attacks on John Kerry has already begun. You throw a rock, be prepared to have one thrown at you.”

Slander – Can you say “AWOL” or “Bushitler”? – How come we don’t have people calling on Kerry to repudiate Moveon and Michael Moore? Why didn’t Bush sue? It’s called NY Times v. Sullivan – the same reason that Kerry won’t sue, though his lame-ass counsel will posture.

On the veracity of the claims – if it were just a few guys, I would probably dismiss it out of hand – but this is over 200 officers and NCOs. They have to know that the MSM-Kerry Attack Machine (same thing) is going to shred them for their trouble. Why do all but one of Kerry’s crew seem to support him so staunchly? I don’t know – I have a few theories, but they’re not real nice.

As to life achievements:

Kerry did volunteer to go to Vietnam. There are a lot of caveats – request for deferment denied, Navy service safer and more pleasant than life as a grunt, only 4 months in country etc. – but he did go. George W. Bush did not go – and he cannot ovecome that deficit in this particular race. That’s why he talks, quite properly, about his record as president etc. I think that going into the TANG is more honourable than going to Canada or hiding out in Oxford, but less honourable than going to Vietnam. Thus GWB cannot and has not criticised Kerry’s Vietnam or post-Vietnam record.

These Swifties, on the other hand, have EVERY right to pick apart Kerry’s wartime record with a fine tooth comb. They earned that right. They don’t call themselves heros. They don’t brag about their service or produce home-movies about it.

Sen Kerry made this election all about Lt Kerry – and now his contemporaries are calling him on it.

Deal.

Aug 5, 2004 - 6:43 pm 144. jerry:

DC:

You just don’t get it. There is nothing extraordinary about pulling a man out of the water under fire. Its part of the job. You are expected to do it. You don’t give someone a medal for doing his job. What is he supposed to about his purple heart offer? WWII vets had no trouble refusing a Purple Heart for “band-Aid” wound. They did that all the time. Infantrymen who faced down Tiger tanks in the Ardennes did not get bronze stars, so why should anybody who pulls somebody out of the water under harassing fire get one? It is pretty clear that you have little knowledge of military activities and what is expected of soldiers and sailors in combat. To reiterate, awards are for deeds done above and beyond the expected, not for doing ones job no matter how efficiently or bravely the deed is done.

I was not being flip about Coastguardsmen either. They go out in any kind weather on Search and Rescue and that means “Perfect Storm” situations. Pulling someone off a capsized sailboat of Cape Hatteras during a hurricane is every bit as dangerous as Kerry’s rescue. They don’t get bronze stars for doing it either.

Aug 5, 2004 - 7:17 pm 145. William Dyer:

doublecola wrote,

“During the CNN interview [with O'Neill], [Wolf] Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O’Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story. O’Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an ‘articulate’ and ‘credible leader’ of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore ‘an immediate target of the Nixon Administration.’ As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to ‘create a counterfoil’ to Kerry. Colson recounted, ‘We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.’ Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O’Neill and the Nixon administration.”

Okay, take that at face value and ignore the sources’ credibility. This shows that the Nixon White House was looking for someone to counter the publicity that Kerry was getting as a sailor-turned-protester. No surprise there. So where’s the proof ? where’s anything other than speculation ? that O’Neill himself helped plan this, was party to the plans, participated directly in them, or benefited from them? Do you happen to have links to the Houston Chronicle or Boston Globe articles, or are you just cutting and pasting someone else’s spin?

Put another way: Assume that any hypothetical person was an attractive anti-anti-war demonstrator during the Nixon Administration, and that the Administration therefore “promoted” him, gave him good spin, mentioned his name, invited him to lunch one day. Doesn’t that sort of leave the Dr. Faustus part of the equation out of the bargain? Before you conclude that someone’s sold their soul to the devil, don’t you have to first make a showing beyond that the devil wanted his soul? Other than showing up in response to an invitation to meet the sitting President of the United States — which most Americans of any political persuasion, or none at all, would consider quite rude — where’s your showing that O’Neill considered himself a creation of the Nixon Administration? Or that in order to please them, to fulfill his “part of the bargain,” that he ever did anything differently than he otherwise would have?

The President admires you and asks you to the White House. By this logic, you’re his toady for life. Forget whatever else you do, or don’t do, with your life. Sheesh.

“Beyond his role in the Nixon administration’s strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O’Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O’Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O’Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.”

I see. He got a clerkship with a Supreme Court Justice who was appointed by a Republican President and that makes him forever after a Republican Party flack. This will rather amuse my law school classmate from the Texas Law School Class of 1980, who also clerked for (by-then-Chief) Justice Rehnquist. He’s a Yellow Dog Democrat from a family of Yellow Dog Democrats (actually a relative of Lyndon Johnson), he’s been a die-hard liberal since Hah-vahd College days, and he’s now a partner in a Texas-based firm that is one of the Democratic Party’s largest fundraisers.

News flash, DC: In 1980-1981, I clerked for a Carter appointee on the Fifth Circuit, who’s now its Chief Judge. I love her to death, and working for her was the best job I’ve ever had; but she knew that I was a Republican, and laughingly let me take time off to go across the street to a Reagan rally featuring an introduction by Roy Rogers, fer pete’s sake. She could not have cared less; it had nothing to do with anything she was doing or I was doing or we were doing together, no more than whether I was a Scorpio or a Libra. Clerking for a federal judge may be the very least overtly or covertly politicized legal job in the country, public sector or private.

And he was considered for a federal judgeship ? which he didn’t get. Ummm, again, news flash for you, DC, but when there’s a federal judgeship slot open, there are typically dozens of people “considered” for it, and they tend to be people who are highly credentialed and well respected.

Look, my friend, I know the species Politico Lawyerus. I’ve got friends and classmates who qualify. The current mayor of Houston, for example, was a year ahead of me in law school, and you can trace the points in his political career like a connect-the-dots drawing for four-year-olds. Clinton administration Deputy Secretary of Energy, Texas Democratic Party chief, now Mayor of Houston. Nothing wrong with that; nothing hidden; I voted for the guy for mayor even though he’s a Democrat, but I probably won’t vote for him when he runs for the Senate.

But no member of the species Politico Lawyerus goes 30 years without leaving more tracks in the sands of politics than John O’Neill has. He couldn’t have — he was too busy being a successful trial lawyer, which is very much a full-time occupation.

Remember what your burden of proof is here, DC — “big time Republican insider“! So where’s John O’Neill’s history of fundraising for Republicans? Where’s his history of running some candidate’s campaign? Where’s his history of making speeches, writing op-eds? How many party conventions has he gone to? How could he be a big-time Republican insider when the best you can come up with was that he clerked for a judge 30 years ago who was appointed by a Republican President?

Nice try. But definitely no cigar.

Aug 5, 2004 - 7:35 pm 146. William Dyer:

Bah. “… rude to refuse …” I of course meant to say.

Bottom line: If you’re trying to prove someone’s a political hack over a thirty year period, you’ve got to point to him doing some hacking. You haven’t, and you can’t.

Aug 5, 2004 - 7:51 pm 147. Roberts:

Doublecola, you are earning the condescension frankly. The swiftvets ad wasn’t created to sell the book – both were created to spread the story that those people wish heard.

Aug 5, 2004 - 8:53 pm 148. hollywood:

RiverRat,

It’s ironic and perhaps Freudian that you raise the issue of cognitive dissonance. Nuance is the opposite of cognitive dissonance. Herewith, cognitive dissonance. http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm

With respect, it is you and some other posters here who are displaying cognitive dissonance. You probably voted for Bush last time around and feel committed to voting for him again. It is very uncomfortable for you to deal with all the information (real or false) about his background, his deceits, his record, his ties and associates. So, you reject any criticism of him out of hand because the info is dissonant and runs contrary to the investment you’ve already made in him and his party. You’ve got two choices: 1) continuing with your denial, ignoring other information (ignorance is, after all, bliss) or 2) take a serious, fresh, open minded look at the situation and stop the knee jerking. It’s up to you, difficult though it may be.

Yours in mental health.

Aug 5, 2004 - 10:49 pm 149. Cain:

On Kerry and his post-Vietnam opposition:

Why do people continue to accuse opponents of Vietnam of believing that “communism is right”, as River Rat wrote above? Let’s set a few things straight.

As a veteran, Kerry was well-positioned to understand the war and thus had a certain degree of legitimacy when he chose to speak out. He wasn’t another campus protestor or hippie musician.

Dissent is patriotic. The US didn’t lose in Vietnam because of slackened morale, slackened morale existed because the US was losing in Vietnam.

Being able to protest the decisions made by our government is a constitutionally protected right, and one that I believe should not be impugned.

Aug 6, 2004 - 12:25 am 150. RiverRat:

Hollywood,

Let’s try this on for size. I voted for Gore in 2000.

I said nothing in any of my posts regarding Bush so why are you moving the goalposts? Hmmmm…I think I know.

Kerry has made a career as a communist apologist. Read a little history before pontificating.

Try reading the Wintersoldier testimony and about brotherly love with Daniel Ortega. Oh yeah! Do you know anything about the killing fields he contributed to?

Aug 6, 2004 - 2:23 am 151. hollywood:

RiverRat,

Thanks for your response. Obviously I was wrong about your 2000 vote. But I want to thank you for bringing up cognitive dissonance because the collective “you” I was referring to surely exhibits it here (self included). I think the concept is insightful and explains a lot. As for Kerry opposing Vietnam, I’m with Cain. That’s not being a commie symp. That’s patriotic, and shows he has the ability to re-think things. Something not exhibited by a certain White House resident. http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503181

Aug 6, 2004 - 8:26 am 152. jerry:

Woody:

Let’s see. Kerry supports the NVA and meets with representitive in Paris. He also supports the nuclear freeze movement, which in light of post communist disclosures, is shown to be run from Moscow, He supports Danny Ortega and the communists in El Salvador. Moving on to the GWI, he sides with Saddam Hussein. He currently advocates securing North Korea’s future as a communist dictatorship. I guess that still makes him a patriot in your mind.

I forgot, he did oppose a communist dictator once… Slobodon Milosevic. That time he support the Islamicists in Kosovo.

Aug 6, 2004 - 9:24 am 153. hollywood:

Jeery,

This is off topic, I know, but you seem like a knowledgeable guy and I am curious about the El Salvador situation, having been briefly to San Salvador. That’s an odd place with lots of social problems and lots of people carrying guns. Correct me if I’m imagining things, but didn’t Ollie North have something to do with that “rebellion”? It seems strange to me that the largest US Embassy in Latin America is in San Salvador–it looks kinda like a mini pentagon. We obviously have some interest there, but I can’t figure out quite what it is. Cheap labor? Cheap materials? Worries about other neighboring countries? I’d like to hear your take on the situation.

Aug 6, 2004 - 9:43 am 154. jerry:

hollywood:

You are avoiding the issue. Kerry supported the communist rulers against the people of Nicaragua and the Communist terrorists against the people of El Salvador.

Aug 6, 2004 - 9:48 am 155. hollywood:

jerry,

I said I was off topic and, yes, I am avoiding this incendiary issue. I’m just trying to pick your brain on why we have such a presence in El Salvador. Indulge me, please.

Aug 6, 2004 - 9:57 am 156. jerry:

Hollywood:

No, the issue is not incendiary. You stated that Kerry’s anti-war efforts fall under patriotic dissent. I am establishing a pattern behavior.

If you want an example of patriotic dissent I offer you the case of Joan Baez. Her last visit to Vietnam in the late 70’s led her to the conlcusion that she was wrong about the communists in Vietnam and really has since stayed away from endorsing communist insurgencies. Kerry on the other hand never said he was wrong about the communists in Vietnam and continued to endorse Communist and other anti-American regimes thtoughout the world.

Aug 6, 2004 - 10:03 am 157. miguel:

George Elliot retracted his accusations yesterday! He says he made a “terrible mistake” in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star .

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/

The whole SBVFT thing is starting to smell very fishy.

Aug 6, 2004 - 10:20 am 158. hollywood:

jerry,

I see your point. I don’t buy it, but don’t see any point in arguing it. Now, what have you got on El Salvador?

Aug 6, 2004 - 10:31 am 159. jerry:

hollywood:

I don’t have an opinion because I cannot validate your observations.

So why do you think Kerry has staked out those positions…Patriotism? ignorance? Stupidity?

Aug 6, 2004 - 10:33 am 160. hollywood:

jerry,

I don’t know. I’m gathering data. Here’s some you might agree with. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot5aug05,1,1100348.column?coll=la-util-op-ed I find it one-sided, but I’m thinking about it.

Aug 6, 2004 - 10:43 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: