67 Comments

1. ambisinistral:

As I said in the other thread, I couldn’t help but notice that the NYTs didn’t lead with their discrepency claims. I guess they didn’t find what they were looking for.

Well, it is a full blown story now. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

Aug 19, 2004 - 8:18 pm 2. Rick Ballard:

I’m shocked at your wild exagerations, Roger. There are only 3,472 words in the story and fully 99 of them deal with Christmas in Cambodia.

That is 23 more words than Sen. Kerry used in his acceptance speech to document his 28 years of public service. Surely, that must count for something.

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:07 pm 3. Samuel:

Roger

Until there is blood in the water, and I mean a lot of blood, expect more of the same. The Washington Times did a great piece on this (actually a multi-series) and on the front page to boot. They are of course a small paper by comparison to the WAPO and Peter Jennings and Co. certainly don’t get their lead-ins from the WATIMES, oh well. But I do expect this to get bigger, the later it delays the worse for the Democrats, they are playing a risky game indeed. Either way if Kerry wins he will not be effective because he it too dirty. I’ll leave it at that.

I have mentioned this before but if the media wanted to they could destroy him, will they? These things have a tendency to come to surface in these modern times, but if the media truly did their job it would not be after the election however.

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:08 pm 4. Terrye:

I am supposed to be in bed right now but I can’t sleep so here I am.

I wonder if Kerry is having the same problem..

Maybe it took the Times this long to print a story about the Republican dirty tricks and their boy’s problem because the article was so damn long.

3500 words? and for what? The vets are lying Republicans. how original.

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:09 pm 5. Terrye:

Samuel:

If some really nasty stuff is going to come out I wish it would happen now. I really don’t want to do the Clinton thing over again. They should have seen that comong too.

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:13 pm 6. vnjagvet:

I trust the Monday issue of the NYT will provide an equally long “expose’” of the financial support and connections of the DNC, Kerry and his minions with Moveon.org and the other “progressive” 527’s, and Michael Moore, et al (complete with cool charts showing Soros and THK-controlled/influenced foundations support).

But I am afraid my trust is misplaced. Isn’t it?

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:27 pm 7. Katherine:

Well, there you have it: Rick demonstrates how vicious the Republicans can get in attacking their opponents.

He uses facts, numbers, and SARCASM!

(He must have learned the last one from the Piranha Brothers.)

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:28 pm 8. Terrye:

vnj:

Why don’t you write a letter to the editor and ask them to do just that?

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:30 pm 9. MikeD:

The story is getting some legs, although not as long as would be desirable. Tonight on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer a good 10+ minute segment was devoted to the topic with John O’Neill of the SwiftVets and Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe. Lehrer was quite evenhanded and allowed O’Neill most of the speaking time. O’Neill laid out some of the allegations calmly and intelligently with Lehrer actually, I thought, leading him cogently. I usually tolerate Oliphant as one of the more reasonable spokesmen for the left side of the spectrum but his rejoinder was that the SwiftVets “just didn’t measure up to the required level of journalistic proof” and basically that is why the MSM has not run with the story. In light of journalistic performance of late and verification of at least one lie by Kerry that was a laugher (at best)and, I thought, he didn’t quite pull it off.

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:42 pm 10. Swopa:

I couldn’t help but notice that the NYTs didn’t lead with their discrepency claims. I guess they didn’t find what they were looking for.

I dunno about that — judging from the bottom half of the handy chart they provided, the NYT seems to have found several very clear discrepancies.

Ahhh, I remember back in the day, when Roger used to think contradictions like that were severely damaging to one’s credibility — heck, even having a book on sale made your claims highly suspect.

If I try, I can even remember the words (from the first link): “No one is honest, everyone tendentious, particularly the star witness who is busily flogging his own book which promulgates opinions … he either never held until recently or lied about in the past…. completely contradicts what he later said in his book, proving, one assumes, that he had to be lying once. Or do we have another flip-flopper on our hands?“

Alas, that was so long ago, all the way back in March. Roger’s sensibilities have come a long way since then.

Not that I’m saying Roger is tendentious or a flip-flopper himself, mind you. He’s just, uhh … metro-ethical!

Aug 19, 2004 - 9:45 pm 11. Pat Curley:

Thanks for the link to that handy-dandy chart. Notice how the liberal New York Times thinks there’s such a thing as guilt by association. One of John O’Neill’s late law partners was married to Mary Spaeth who’s the Swiftees spokesperson, but she’s also a friend of Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who’s “ta-dah!” a client of Karl Rove. I mean, seriously.

John Edwards had lunch a few weeks ago with Stephen Bing, who’s reported to be partners with a mobster. Connect those dots sometime.

Hilariously, the Times does not even mention that the Kerry campaign has given up on Christmas in Cambodia, that the moment that Kerry has cited as one of the most memorably in his life turned out to be a complete fiction.

Aug 19, 2004 - 10:07 pm 12. Rick Ballard:

Pat,

The lack of actual documentation for the chart is interesting. No AAR’s, nothing from the command history, not one of the reccommendations that had to precede each of Kerry’s cotations. When the truth about who initially reccommended Kerry for his awards finally comes out the chart will be much smaller.

Not to worry, Swopa. Hillary in ‘08!

P.T. Barnum’s dictum proves as true today as the day he first said it. Not a minute passes without another one being born.

Aug 19, 2004 - 10:15 pm 13. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

The massive investigatory of the New York Times comes up with only:

1) Elliott slightly changed the word of an affidavit but not in a significant manner.

2)Hoffman - said good things about Kerry in the past. Context, folks, Context.

3)Letson - didn’t sign off the medical paperwork. Normal procedure, as is obvious.

4)Lonsdale (they could have found more if they had tried) - defended Kerry from war crimes charges and general boosted him in 1996. Several swiftee, knowing that war crimes had not been committed by their unit, defended Kerry against war crimes charges that year.

5)Van Odell. Bronze star citation has enemy fire in incident where he (along with 3 other skippers who were present) says there was no enemy fire. Yawn.

Most of the Times effort was to put together a fragile web of associations to show ties in a manner normally used by Stalinn’s NKVD.

Aug 19, 2004 - 10:37 pm 14. Fresh Air:

Why didn’t the Times bother to take a stab at why 200+ members of Kerry’s old units are pissed enough to sign affidavits and risk wrecking their lives to have their story told?

Or are we are supposed to believe it’s because of their loyalty to Emperor Karl Rove?

Let’s just follow that choo-choo of thought for a second. I hate to have to point this out (because the New York Times obviously knows much more about these things than I do), but it’s mathematically impossible for all 200+ of the Swift Vets to be Republicans. And it’s mathematically improbable for more than 110-120 to be Republicans.

How is the Times prepared to explain the 80-90 independents and Democrats in the bunch?

Dick Nixon?

No. Lee Atwater.

That’s the ticket!

Aug 19, 2004 - 11:00 pm 15. MeTooThen:

MikeD,

Thanks for the post.

…”his rejoinder was that the SwiftVets “just didn’t measure up to the required level of journalistic proof” and basically that is why the MSM has not run with the story.”

I suspect that there might be some truth to that.

Or not.

Two words.

Joe Wilson.

If memory serves me, it was in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times where Ambassador Joseph Charles Wilson IV wrote that after several days of sipping tea and what-not, “Bush Lied”!

This, of course, set off a firestorm and some four score articles and a general froth excoriating the President for “misleading” this nation into an unnecessary war (just don’t ask the Kurds et al about this last part). And last time I checked, there may have something missing in the “journalistic proof” department when it came to the ejaculation of the “Bush Lied!” meme.

Since the SwiftVet allegations arose, I have maintained that the election outcome will be determined by the Times and the other uberMSM outlets and their figureheads, Tom, Dan, Peter (no really, it’s true, not just here but at Captainsquartersblog.com and beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog, sorry no link).

Kerry is all-but-toast if his Fourth Estate Masters turn on him at worst, or at least honestly and evenly cover this story.

This is a death-match. American Exceptionalism and Liberty vs. Untreated Narcissism and its attendant Self-Loathing and Devotion to a failed Socialist Manifesto.

I despair, yet again.

Aug 19, 2004 - 11:10 pm 16. Samuel:

Roger, Terrye, John Moore (and whoever)

This is why I took time off for a while. I just get damn obsessed, and believe me we Jews can get as obsessed as anyone. Kerry would never withstand what Clinton did, his personality is too Nixonian for that. John Kerry is just a self-serving ass and in the end he pays the most for it. Don’t even tempt me to get into the Jew denying side of him, most of his own family members have taken on their Jewish heritage but not John the “Irish Catholic from Massachusetts”. (Forget the fact most of his youth was spent outside of Massachusetts and his Cape Cod accent of the 1971 hearings was totally contrived). The fact is every deed he has done, good or bad, has been for the glory his privileged self, his eye fixed to the prize. And I mean good or bad, I am tempted to say things I ought not to, but I will speak a little.

Roger I know what I am about to say will sound over the top to many, but after you or others read it really ponder it. To me what I am going to say had a sense of deja vu when it hit me, it doesn’t mean it is right but I believe it to be, before I explain this while I believe it may be confirmed true one day, at this time I would respectfully hope it will be taken by you and others as Samuel being “over the top” in an interpretation of events concerning Kerry. I will probably not ever repeat this again, but if there comes greater knowledge to Kerry’s story beyond “timelines” and “dates” I believe it will lead to this…

First the obvious, John is not merely a liar, he is a phony and a fraud. He is a walking contradiction. He lives life in a mirror where everything is the opposite of reality. This is important to understand, it effected my conclusion. In my opinion he has some issues to deal with and perhaps worse than just emotionally and I will tell you why.

As it stands right now I believe most people believe John Kerry’s testimony in 1971 was an embellishment but mostly a lie that tarred all Vietnam Veterans. I further bet most people believe John Kerry is in reality just a 4 month service wannabe hero, faking injury as a ticket out of Vietnam, but certainly no war criminal as he claimed, just a glory hound not wanting to pay the true price for glory. Want to know the real question? Can it be both? I believe he may have told more truth than lie and in fact did do things in Vietnam that haunt him to this day. In 1971 did he merely tell truths about himself and then decide to embellish these with even worse realities all for the sake of minimizing his own guilt from such hauntings?

What in the hell are you talking about Samuel, you ask? I’ll tell you what am I talking about, and it is bugging the hell out of me. I think John Kerry effectively pulled a “Jim McGreevey” with his Vietnam service! I will also tell you this, I have personally heard some of John’s stories from his own mouth. At each time I thought he was merely embellishing and took what he said with a grain of salt. I am now taking in everything and putting it up against him, his persona and what he said.

I believe we are be missing the boat big-time. What? In my heart I feel, “Damn you fool! He was telling the truth… especially about himself!” Sure, he was just shielding himself, sickly twisting events to make a hero instead of villian out of himself, (ala “Jim McGreevey”) the stories of heroism and storming the beaches etc. weighed up against what I have heard lead me to one conclusion…

Kerry spoke more truth than fiction, especially if he applied to himself. Man is he in a pickle! So his “I committed atrocities” if truth is ever known I firmly believe will more lead to the need of a Presidential pardon, and not the Presidency. When one contemporary vet said, “Kerry was known more as one that would cut down women and children and kill innocent people.” Was his bravery merely a lack of restraint and bravado? His bravery in my opinion is in truth a lack of restraint.

I close this by saying take this with a grain of salt but think about, I believe there is more truth then fiction in John’s 1971 testimony… about John Kerry.

Aug 19, 2004 - 11:16 pm 17. Katherine:

ìMost of the Times effort was to put together a fragile web of associations to show ties in a manner normally used by Stalin’s NKVD.î

Which reminds me:

One of the most humorous lines that can be found in a Soviet era literature is this:

ìYou are an educated person ñ you read newspapers!î

Sadly, it seems this kind of statement is becoming also very funny in the context of our own press.

(I think it may have been from ìHow the Steel was Temperedî -no, it was not a manual from Magnitogorsk- but I would not swear to it.)

PS. I am afraid that I am boring you stiff with the stories from my ìformerî life. I will try to keep myself in check.

Aug 19, 2004 - 11:23 pm 18. Jamie Irons:

Katherine,

I find the stories of your former life fascinating…

Jamie Irons

Aug 19, 2004 - 11:41 pm 19. Mike:

Samuel:

I find Kerry’s credibility so suspect, I can’t bring myself to accept his own confession from ‘71 that he was involved in atrocities and war crimes. The guy exhibits so much evidence of sociopathic, narcissist tendencies that any such admission is calculated to help him, not harm him.

To put this another way, If Kerry realized that confessing to having committed non-existent war crimes would help his nascent political career, then the most public confessional was the forum he sought.

Kerry should have understood that in the eyes of any rational, moral individual, he loses either way. Make up the kind of crap he certainly has, and you’re nothing but a fraud. On the other hand, if you have in fact knowingly committed atrocities against non-combatants, then you’re conscienceless scum.

I can’t decide which he is, but I don’t waste much effort trying to figure it out. In the end, there isn’t much difference between a fraud and scum.

Aug 20, 2004 - 12:44 am 20. Mike:

I find the Times’ toe-dipping into the waters of After-action reports to be potentially blockbuster in nature.

In particular, the reference to the 3 (count’em, 3) holes in Thurlow’s boat, ” suggesting enemy fire,” and the 1 KIA and 5 wounded from “later intelligence reports…… reaffirming the presence of the enemy.”

Two questions. Why is this dubious information buried in the back end of a lengthy article, and why isn’t it specifically sourced? The Times is passing this off as fact. Let us see the entire reports, who wrote them, in what context, further details, etcetera.

If Kerry and Rassman’s version of the events is true, all 5 boats should have been swiss cheese. Are we in for more hold-back style disclosure from the Times, or are 3 holes in one boat the best they’ve got? (and Thurlow says the holes were from an earlier date).

To get back to my initial point, the Times has opened the door here. As I’ve mentioned in an earlier thread, Thurlow’s account reeks of the truth. The proof will be in the kind of documentation the Times is now reluctantly, stealthily and dishonestly offering up in as abridged a fashion as they dare try to get away with. The Times is a victim of their own pathological underhandedness here. We should be able to read between the lines on the ” 3 bullet holes, 1 KIA ” tidbit they’ve hoped will end all meaningful debate. I want to see what else is on these documents, precisely because I’m so confident the Times doesn’t want me to see it.

Allow me a chessy analogy here. The Times story reminds me a little of Dien Bien Phu. The French deliberately set up a showdown with the Viet minh, fully confident they would destroy the Viets. The Times and the rest of the left leaning MSM has been reluctantly dragged to the Swift Boat version of Dien Bien Phu, but they’re no less confident of victory. I think the Times may finally have committed itself to the battle that finishes Kerry………

Aug 20, 2004 - 1:10 am 21. David Thomson:

Only a relatively short time ago the liberal media would at least pretend to be objective and fair. I literally cannot remember a time when the bias was this unapologetically blatant. John Kerryís lie about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 should be headline news—and it soon will be! Inevitably, the American public is becoming aware of the scandal and Kerryís media buddies will no longer be able to protect him. They will probably have to throw in the towel sometime next week. Kerryís campaign is starting to unravel. The media elite may then indulge in some CYA and throw him to the dogs. Donít be surprised if they start to really attack the Massachusetts senator. Self preservation is still the number one rule of the jungle.

Aug 20, 2004 - 1:21 am 22. Mork:

For once, a major media organization has started reporting on the way that spin is organized, rather than merely being its victim.

That’s good news for anyone who cares about the political process.

Roger is just pissed because he’s a sleazy hack who’d rather smear his political opponents than argue with them, and now (a) the basis for the smear evaporated, and (b) the fools who really fell for the “SBVFT” con have ended up looking like the suckers that they are.

No wonder he’d rather blame the messenger!

The funny thing is, by the time this is over, the sleazebag Bush-Cheney folks will wish they’d never heard of John O’Neill and his merry band of grifters. I mean, no-one is going to give a toss whether Kerry was in Cambodia in December or January. But here we are again with the focus on Bush’s slimy evasions, and John Kerry’s heroic service record.

Please, Brer Fox, just don’t throw me into that briar patch.

Aug 20, 2004 - 1:22 am 23. Syl:

Mike and Samuel

I came to the same conclusion as Samuel just today. I even mentioned it in a posting. He used his own weakness to attack all Vietnam vets.

Free fire zones gave the guys the responsibility of using their own judgment instead of being restricted by strict roi. Kerry seems to have defined free fire zones as kill anything that moves, runs, sleeps, floats, yells, shoots, moos, oinks, quacks, or cheeps.

One doesn’t have to attack the troops to attack the war. But he did. There’s a reason.

Whatever his dark thoughts and lack of discipline and judgment, he attributes them to all his ‘brethren’ as well.

I believe he truly hates war because of how he acted. No maybe not hate, fear is probably a better word.

It gives me a truly frightening picture of what he might be like as President. Hesitant, depending on allies, never allowing himself to reach the brink where he’d actually have to use troops. Afraid of himself.

But if something horrible happened on our soil he would let loose with uncontrolled fury and I fear the consequences of that as much as his inability to prevent an attack here.

===========

Yet, Samuel also said:

“Either way if Kerry wins he will not be effective because he it too dirty. I’ll leave it at that.”

Oh my. Kerry wins. He has to resign and they get Edwards?

Oh my.

You’d think it was the plan or something.

Aug 20, 2004 - 1:27 am 24. Samuel:

Mike

I find Kerry’s credibility so suspect, I can’t bring myself to accept his own confession from ‘71 that he was involved in atrocities and war crimes…

First I am not saying anyone should accept such confession, let me say here that I have no doubt Kerry went way off of reality’s script to put it kindly. My real point is behind all of the grandstanding and horn blowing was this really a person just grandstanding for political gain? Or was he really hiding something behind this facade? While I am no Psychologist, I do believe there are some aspects to Kerry’s nuance and character I understand. So when you say…

The guy exhibits so much evidence of sociopathic, narcissist tendencies that any such admission is calculated to help him, not harm him. To put this another way, If Kerry realized that confessing to having committed non-existent war crimes would help his nascent political career, then the most public confessional was the forum he sought.

Bingo! Is that not kind of what I was saying? But at risk of sounding overly Freudian, would he confess in a way that would do him in, or would he mask his confession in ways to both forward himself and in some way “cleanse” himself of demons? Certainly if he is somewhat a sociopath then this would be easy to fathom. Let me just say Kerry is a very complex individual. In a sense that is why I said he very well may have “outed” himself in a fashion like “Jim McGreevey”. He took control and shaped events himself, the safest route for a man of his complexity. Do I know what eats at Kerry? No, it could be minor or nothing, again that is not the point, my point is at some point Kerry believed he committed atrocities and going to fight in Vietnam alone was not it. It could have been ugly events on one day alone but I believe it is there. Hate of War and/or glory seeking alone do not add up to me at this point, he had some ghost to exorcise and I believe that ghost is real.

I have said before and I will repeat I feel sorry for John Kerry, he has issues for sure, but the more I hear the stories today and weigh them up with what I heard yesterday and then piece together the bravado with actual provable events, I do believe it is both guilt masking and glory hounding we are dealing with. He is a attention seeker no doubt, but I also believe today that he may have had a few “macho moments” to justify is Warrier image that he knows crossed a line, he then covers for this by saying “we all did it”. We may never know, but the more I hear the more I believe both sides of John Kerry’s story hold some water. One thing I am convinced of, it was not for political gain and glory alone.

Aug 20, 2004 - 2:02 am 25. David Thomson:

ìThe guy exhibits so much evidence of sociopathic, narcissist tendencies that any such admission is calculated to help him, not harm him.î

Exactly. I donít think that John Kerry possesses any core values. He merely puts his wet finger into the air to see where the wind blows. There is no there there. He is a very dangerous man. This is not somebody we want to make life or death decisions. A balanced human being simply does not make up a fantasy about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia. This is something that most of us are psychologically, existentially, and morally unable to do. Are we saints? Not necessarily, but we know that there are limits. Please take a minute and really think about this thoroughly: what type of individual lies about something like this? To be brutally frank, doesnít such a person scare the hell out of you?

Aug 20, 2004 - 2:29 am 26. Samuel:

Mork

I am sure glad I escaped the “Liberal Matrix” you live in. A very surreal place indeed. The biggest difference between it and the real Matrix is those in the “Liberal Matrix” each reside in there very own liberal coocon!

Another key difference is there is no true energy generated in liberal cocoons, in fact warmth and energy is taken from others. Despite this fact, silliness prevails and the productive are ridiculed as takers and thieves, all for not turning over their productivity over to the “Liberal Matrix”. In the “Liberal Matrix” when one desires to simply keep more fruits of their own labor it is called stealing, go figure…

–

Roger is just pissed because he’s a sleazy hack who’d rather smear his political opponents than argue with them

–

Mork you smear Roger… yet accuse him of smearing. If it is a bad thing to smear then chose a different tactic and try the high road. Of course the Krugman/Moore rule prevails with you and it is all high road as such rules are only to be applied to Republicans. This is because your cause is so just all means are justified.

Everything else you say is liberal cocoon pap. Do yourself a favor, take your bitter shallow thinking and come back when you truly have something to say.

Yea like Roger, Syl, Terrye and many others here this is my first Republican vote as well. I guess your intellect was just too dazzling to move me. I doubt it influenced them positively either.

Of course we succesfully escaped the “Liberal Matrix” and to quote a profound thinker (you), I apply your own profoundess upon the true “pissed sleazy hack who’d rather smear his political opponents than argue with them.” And that would be you, all with a blind spot to boot. Do try to escape the “Liberal Matrix” though and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Aug 20, 2004 - 2:49 am 27. Samuel:

Syl

Reading your post after I responed to Mike it is quite obvious I agree. If true Kerry is in quite the pickle, and I believe he is. Could you imagine if they had this stuff on Bush? NYT front page constantly with a daily reminder of “BUSH LIED!”

Wouldn’t Mork be happy, fairminded chap he is.

Aug 20, 2004 - 2:56 am 28. Connecticut Yankee:

Captain’s Quarters just posted a link to Deborah Orin’s article in the New York Post, “Kerry Camp Frets Over Cambodia Tale.”

Congrats to Roger, who is one of the bloggers mentioned as “pointing out the holes in Kerry’s story–even as much of the press tries to ignore them.”

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27161.htm

Aug 20, 2004 - 3:57 am 29. ed:

Hmmmmm.

@swopa: “I dunno about that — judging from the bottom half of the handy chart they provided, the NYT seems to have found several very clear discrepancies.”

1. Ok. So what exactly is the point of this chart? That people in Texas aren’t reclusive hermits? Really now. Who cares who married whom?

2. Why am **I** not on the chart! I donated to SwiftVets! What the hell?

3. The problem with the lower portion of the chart is that it’s a classic before-after. The top part reflects the knowledge prior to Kerry’s true actions coming out. The lower portion reflects knowledge AFTER the truth came out.

Aug 20, 2004 - 4:49 am 30. Fresh Air:

Mork–

If I recall correctly, Michael Totten told you to “get stuffed.” So why don’t you? Or in the words of the British, bugger off!

Aug 20, 2004 - 5:41 am 31. Bostonian:

Mork, do you wanna put some money on that?

As for this bit:

For once, a major media organization has started reporting on the way that spin is organized, rather than merely being its victim.

That’s good news for anyone who cares about the political process.

Here I agree with you, but I’m talking about the spin that is produced by the NYT and other large media outlets. What they have done is so obvious that they will not get away with it. We’ve already started to see papers commenting on how other papers have chosen to cover the SBVT.

That is good indeed for the political process. These outlets have portrayed themselves far too long as the purveyors of disinterested truth.

Aug 20, 2004 - 6:13 am 32. Rick Ballard:

FA,

Ssh. Swopa and Mork both lead with ad hom’s on Roger. They are fair game today. DtP could use a little practice in the week leading up to the convention.

Besides, the DNC/NYT has provided dispositive proof that Republicans are actually against Kerry. A moment of truth in journalism. We can’t deny it any longer.

PS - I like Peter’s “toddle on home, micturating, there’s a lad.” Where has Peter been lately?

Aug 20, 2004 - 6:13 am 33. Bostonian:

ed

Hey, I wanna be on the chart too!!

Aug 20, 2004 - 6:15 am 34. Fresh Air:

Rick–

Sorry, I forgot about the salubrious benefits of troll-heaving. By all means, let the games continue!

Aug 20, 2004 - 6:37 am 35. Fresh Air:

OT, Michael Moore Hates America will be out by the end of September, or so promises the director.

Aug 20, 2004 - 6:49 am 36. Silicon valley Jim:

I’m going to repeat myself here. It doesn’t make any difference whether the Swift Boat Veterans are paid by the Republican party. It doesn’t make any difference whom they have married, whether they’re criminals, etc. The only thing that makes a difference is whether they’re telling the truth. Those other things may make a difference in some circumstances in deciding whether they’re telling the truth, but whether they’re telling the truth is the only thing that counts.

We already know that Sen. Kerry was not telling the truth about being in Cambodia on Christmas/Christmas Eve 1968. Furthermore, his story is one that he related on more than one occasion. Nor does it involve details of combat. I’m told that things are sufficiently confused once the bullets start flying that truthful men often tell different stories. Because of this, because of the number of those making the charges, because of the high percentage of those who served with Sen. Kerry who think he is unfit to be President, and because of what have risked in making the charges and continue to risk in standing by them, I think that they’re telling the truth.

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:16 am 37. Erik:

I find the NYT article extremely biased, and I have a lot to compare with. I dont think even the leftwing press here would write a story like that, at least not the national media. I do expect them to quoute it from the NYT though, now that they can claim “the paper of record” as a source.

It’s just too obvious that NYT doesnt have any real facts, just “X knew Y who was partner with Z, who was a client of Q”. Having “a lot” (how many is that?) of republican friends and clients in a republican state isn’t that strange.

Information, but no facts.

Same with Kerry, what I find most telling is the lack of verifiable details in his stories.

In 1971, he claims to know of horrible warcrimes, but fail to provide a single date, time or place, nor name anyone involved. No way to verify any of it.

Also, I dont think he ever claimed he reported these alleged crimes to the military, which seems strange for someone that are willing to testify in the Senate about it.

A lot of information, but no real facts.

His site has a timeline up, with combat involvement on christmas eve 1968, but no mention of where. And no mention of Cambodia on any date, not even a approximate timeframe.

Information, but no facts.

The swiftvets story is full of details and verifiable facts, and the contrast is clear.

The fact that NYT, or Kerry, doesn’t try to contradict those facts says more than the story itself does.

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:28 am 38. Connecticut Yankee:

Silicon valley Jim–

It looks as if Kerry has a history of making up stories about his time in Vietnam that don’t involve combat. One of the posters over at Captain Ed’s blog posted a link to the web site put up by former members of the crew of the USS Gridley, where Kerry served prior to serving with the Swift boats.

“Check out the comments of Radarman 2/c Phil Carter, who at the time thought Kerry was a fine officer. However, when he read (in Tour of Duty) excerpts from Kerry’s journal about his time in the Gridley, he was appalled, particularly by Kerry’s fabulist account of a port visit to Danang. What struck me so hard is this: why in hell would a guy place false and self-aggrandizing entries in his own journal? Why, indeed–it certainly supports the suspicion I have had for a long time, i.e. that this journal, as fraudulent as Kerry himself, was deliberately crafted for the purposes of being released to a friendly biographer when the time was ripe.” [quote is from the guy who posted the link]

http://home.nycap.rr.com/pwcarter/the%20kerry%20page.html

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:28 am 39. richard mcenroe:

Roger ó Your connections? C’mon everybody already knows you used to score hippie chicks in college by telling them you could introduce them to Hoffman and Rubin. No biggie.

Speaking of Spin ó Has the Reverend Alston been voted off the boat? He was missing from the latest reunion of the “band of brothers” this week. Surely this can’t possibly have anything to do with his having been outed as lying about witnessing Kerryís medal-winning prowess…

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:41 am 40. Lapsed Randian:

One thing that hasn’t received much attention is how difficult it would be for all of these men to have roughly the same memory from 30+ years ago.

Either they are telling a large portion of the truth, or they are conspiring to lie about the events in question. In fact, Kerry’s remarks yesterday would require over 250 veterans to be conspiring with one another to tell not only a lie, but a fairly precise narrative of a lie. My question is: how were/are they able to keep their story straight? Were they given a script? How were these people picked for the conspiracy? Is there not one person who was approached for this conspiracy, and, because of a sense of honor, declined to participate? And, not a single one of them has peeled off from the conspiracy, at least not as of yet. When is the last time a conspiracy went that well?

In a former life, I was a prosecutor. I never once saw a conspiracy run this tight, at least among amateurs.

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:44 am 41. Connecticut Yankee:

Lapsed Randian et al– is there any truth to the story over at Drudge that Kerry is trying to have the book banned? Sounds like he wants to give “banned in Boston” a whole new dimension of meaning.

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:49 am 42. Erik:

Another thing…

The only list of BOB I found on Kerrys site has 13 names on it. Only 9 of them actually “served under” him, so using Kerrys latest definition, the other four wouldn’t know him anymore than the 250 swiftvets. Makes you wonder why he brings them along…

Would be fun if someone asked one og those guys “Were you on Kerrys boat? If not, what are you doing here?”

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:53 am 43. Rick Ballard:

Yankee,

Wow! Too cool.

“The book Kerry doesn’t want you to read!!!

“Why Does John Kerry Fear This Book??”

“What is John Kerry trying tp hide?”

Regnery needs to get the add-on stickers printed today.

Aug 20, 2004 - 7:58 am 44. holdfast:

Check out this transcript of Michelle Malikn’s appearance on Hardball:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/

search down on “Malikn”

I’m familiar with Mathews tactics (yell, put words in people’s mouths, interrupt, talk over etc.) but this is really over the top. Either he doesn’t understand that shrapnel doesn;’t come directly out of the barrel of a gun (ignorant loser) or he’s trying to force Malkin to say that Kerry shot himself. This is in reference to the first purple heart incident. Grenades (launched or thrown) can be a bit nasty in close combat - catching a small, fairly slow piece of shrapnel from your own grenade is not that big a deal (unless you get it in the eye).

It was a rookie mistake - it doesn’t mean that Kerry was totally incompetent, and is the kind of thing that provides a good self-depracating story to tell in the mess in one’s later years - except that Kerry is so full of himself that he cannot use self-deprecating humor. He also made sure that he got a purple heart for a wound that was (a) totally superficial and (b) may have been self-inflicted, which makes him look like a loser. It’s not his actions that night that are at issue - any mission where everybody comes home in one piece is OK in my book; it’s his making sure he got the purple heart AND THEN using the 3 purple hearts to go home after only 34% of his tour, the only non-crippled swift vet to do so. It’s about gaming the system, running out on your “buddies” and not finishing what you started. And that goes to character - it may not matter to Roger (he cares more about lying in the Senate - I assume that everyone lies in the senate (except Cheney - he really wanted Leahy to commit an unnatural act)) but it matters a lot to people with a military ethos. Maybe that’s naive or foolish, but it’s also the truth, and America has a lot of vets. They expect better of their officers, including the CinC.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:03 am 45. RogerA:

All: If I may offer my particular perspective on the motives of the SBVFT: I believe they are motivated primarily because they were smeared by Kerry’s anti-war activities. I share their anger as a Viet Nam veteran. Kerry smeared everyone of us who served in Viet Nam. And he did things in Viet Nam that I personally court martialled some of my troopers for: indiscriminate destruction and killing of livestock. When Kerry accused VN vets of war crimes he smeared all of us. Did atrocities occur? Yes. Were they a matter of command policy, no. Were the perpetrators punished? Yes. The SBVFT are motivated exactly by what motivates me. And, trust me, it is a visceral hatred. Samuel and others have accurately described the nature of his character. For MY band of brothers–everyone of us who served in VN–our time has come to set the record straight. End of rant.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:10 am 46. Erik:

Yankee,

Here’s the Salon article that Drudge is referring to:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/19/swiftbook/index_np.html

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:12 am 47. Lapsed Randian:

RogerA: notwithstanding your visceral hatred, isn’t it fair to say that it would be hard to get an anti-Kerry narrative aligned among 250 people from 250 different (current) walks of life? If this is true, then motives don’t matter: only the events described by the 250 people matter, no?

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:14 am 48. Connecticut Yankee:

Erik–

Don’t know if you’ve seen this or not– another link from a poster over at Captain’s Quarters. This blog lists people that Kerry introduced as “crewmates” at the DNC who never served with him. One guy was a Marine, not a Navy man, and only knows Kerry from his law practice in Massachusetts. He met Kerry three years after Kerry served in ‘Nam. (Scroll down to the entry for Tuesday, “Another Fraud by Kerry”)

http://antimedia.blogspot.com

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:16 am 49. Connecticut Yankee:

Erik–

Thanks for the link.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:19 am 50. Erik:

Yankee,

thanks for that link

I just find it telling that he gets around a dozen guys to speak for him, and aren’t that concerned whether they were on the same boat or not, yet when others that where there speak up against him, he claims they dont know him.

That way of handling it speaks volumes.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:25 am 51. Rick Ballard:

RogerA,

First, thank you for your service. Second, that was not a rant. That was an absolutely top notch appraisal of the true motives of the SBVFT and all other veterans who oppose this scurrilous windbag.

Kerry smeared every soldier, sailor, airman, coastie, and marine who served the United States in Vietnam. He is smearing veterans again today with his attacks on the Swifties. He is a shameless, selfserving, selfpromoting liar who is not only unfit for command but unfit for any public office. His 20 years in the Senate produced a record so pitiful that he does not even mention it. You can write his legislative accomplishments on a matchbook cover. He has consistently voted against every weapons program proposed in the past twenty years and voted to reduce the intelligence service budget immediately after the first WTC bombing. He has no actual executive experience and demonstrates no evidence of ability to function in the office he so desperately seeks. He lied to the Senate about Vietnam in ‘71, he lied as a Senator about Vietnam in ‘86 and he’s lying about Vietnam today.

Now, that might be considered a rant.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:28 am 52. Fresh Air:

Rick–

That wasn’t a rant, that was…poetry.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:31 am 53. RogerA:

Rick–thank you. Lapsed Randian: you are absolutely correct. With an “n” of 250 the chances of that group being all republicans would be infinitely small.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:34 am 54. Lapsed Randian:

RogerA:

not just Republicans, but lying and conspiring Kaiser Sosa Republicans!

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:41 am 55. jerry:

RE: Book Ban

Does it surprise anyone that Kerry, who has lied on the Senate floor in support of a Communist Dictator, would oppose freedom of the Press? Socialism/Progressivism/Leftism is a progressive disease. When you fall off the wagon you end up not where you were when you stopped. You are where you would be if you never stopped. The left went into remission after the Cold War but have been activated after the 2000 election. So here it is 10-15 years later and they have in an instant gone from ignoring or ridiculing the opposition to openly trying to ban it. The Democrats, as embodied in Kerry, have abandoned the first amendment.

Well I have question for Mr. Kerry as represented here by our visiting members of the opposition: If Regency should ban “Unfit for Command” because they claim there are lies in the book, shouldn’t Kerry withdraw his candidacy because he lied about his presence in Cambodia when he was supporting Danny Ortega in the Senate?

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:47 am 56. Roberts:

Actually Swopa and Mork’s postings are hilarious. They focus on irrelevant “discrepancies” that aren’t and ignore the fact that John Kerry has been caught lying and has had to have his proxies back him off his own clear lies.

Aug 20, 2004 - 8:49 am 57. penwil:

The San Francisco Chronicle ran the story on the front page today, below the fold. I expected them to run the NYT piece, but they wrote their own, and I have to say I was somewhat surprised, in that they did at least present the vets’ side of the story, including quotes from O’Neill and a guy called Van Odell. Basically, they just laid out the he said/he said controversy over the medals. They used Kerry’s speech attacking the vets as being eeevillll Republicans as the lede. There was not a single mention of the Christmas in Cambodia story.

The story did suggest, though, that–while Kerry is accusing the vets of being Bush campaign operatives–what actually might be motivating them is instead anger over his anti-war activism.

And there were a couple of quotes from college professors (college professors are treated as holy oracles by the Chronicle) saying that the story might actually help Kerry because it draws attention to the fact that he was in Viet Nam

My God, Kerry was in Viet Nam! Why haven’t we been told this before?

Aug 20, 2004 - 9:10 am 58. Fresh Air:

All–

Statement from Van Odell, who was aboard one of the boats involved in the Bronze Star incident, regarding the smear of Larry Thurlow:

The Kerry Campaign is attacking the truthfulness of this man and the Bronze Star he so richly deserves for his actions on March 13, 1969. I was there. I saw what happened.

The mine’s detonation lifted PCF-3 completely out of the water just yards ahead of me. All boats commenced suppression fire in case enemy small arms fire ensued. None did.

All boats came to the aid of PCF-3, except one: John Kerry’s boat. Kerry fled.

Larry Thurlow piloted his boat straight toward the mine-damaged PCF-3 from which thick, black smoke billowed. He jumped aboard and personally led damage control operations that saved the boat and rescue operations that saved the lives of badly wounded men. Larry’s leadership was in the highest traditions of the naval service. His leadership allowed the other men and boats of the mission to exit the river safely. This single act of meritorious service — the chief requirement of the Bronze Star — should be honored, not ridiculed, by the Kerry campaign and its allies in the mainstream media.

There is also a statement issued today by John O’Neill in response to the Kerry campaign’s complaints yesterday. Both are at swiftvets.com.

Aug 20, 2004 - 9:23 am 59. bdog57:

All,

Imagine you are DtP. Now: re-read Mork’s post using heaps of sarcasm and directing those words to some DNC know-nothing. In this context, the post actually makes sense and is rather humorous as well.

Swopa,

The book thing makes sense if you claim that the SBVT are making money off of this (hint: they’re not…they’re donating the money to some charity/organization).

holdfast,

I actually saw part of that segment last night. Absolutely unbelievable. I almost started throwing things at my TV. Michelle comments about the experience here. She tells it how it was. Matthews was being wilfully obtuse and ill-mannered. BTW, she looks much better in person than her picture would suggest (interesting that Matthews would deride her on her youthful appearance…whatever).

Samuel,

Either you or someone else here has commented about how the MSM’s “Softball” approach to Kerry has made him ill-prepared. Michelle’s final paragraph discusses this well.

Conversely, their “Hardball” approach has toughened Bush up. Chris Suellentrop’s article in Slate on Bush’s stumping abilities (awesome), and the Larry King interview with GWB and Laura really attest to a tightened-up message. I’d be really surprised if they can catch him flat-footed on anything from now until November. Not for lack of trying either.

Quote of the Day

from Polipundit

Aug 20, 2004 - 9:32 am 60. RogerA:

bdog57: I think Matthews and other members of the MSM are beinging to understand their grip on the media is slipping from their hands–and they are in the process of lashing out.

Aug 20, 2004 - 9:49 am 61. doublecola:

there’s an excellent–to me, anyway–analyis of the swiftboatvet ad here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2105353/

I think going after Kerry’s medals, etc. could backfire. And if it does, the Cambodia issue may just disappear as well.

Aug 20, 2004 - 10:42 am 62. doublecola:

I donít know, you add these up and you have to ask some honest questions about what the truth in this matter really is.

Is John OíNeill a truthful man?:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408180004

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/06/kerry_smear/

-

Hoffmanís Allegations

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406020006

Elliottís conflicting statements:

Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry’s Silver Star “well deserved” and his action “courageous” for beaching his boat in the face of an ambush:

Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): 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. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there.

-

On Thurlow:

Thurlow’s citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that “all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks” after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid “while still under enemy fire,” and adds: “His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.”

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow’s actions “took place under constant enemy small arms fire.” It was signed by Elliott.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

-

And, along with todayís NYTimes article, this link provides a good overall summary:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231

Aug 20, 2004 - 11:14 am 63. Samuel:

doublecola

I think going after Kerry’s medals, etc. could backfire. And if it does, the Cambodia issue may just disappear as well.

Just keep dreaming, you need to escape from that liberal matrix you are living in… it’s just not real.

–

bdog57

Either you or someone else here has commented about how the MSM’s “Softball” approach to Kerry has made him ill-prepared. Michelle’s final paragraph discusses this well.

I have preached this from the beginning about Democrats in general. They have the short term benefit of bearing less burden, but this leads to a political weak state by comparison as the Republican’s are made to constantly jump over hurdles and score on goalposts that are moved regularly and all without warning. Of course this is done while carrying weights and being subjected to one sided referrees. No wonder they are politicaly stronger, they have had to be, it is all coming home to roost on the Dems.

Aug 20, 2004 - 11:39 am 64. penwil:

doublecola:

You might want to take a look at the new swiftboat vet ad. It’s got Kerry’s war crimes testimony in his very own voice (no way to wriggle, waffle, or deny there), followed up by POWs saying that they were TORTURED because they wouldn’t say what Kerry gave away for free. So what’s your man going to do now–attack a POW who was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison as a Republican shill?

And think of the timing–the ad comes out on the very day that Kerry and the NYT just blasted the whole sorry mess out into the public consciousness. Now people will be looking for the ad, and what are they going to see? Tortured POWs blaming Kerry for their pain.

Disappear? In your dreams . . .

Aug 20, 2004 - 11:57 am 65. Roberts:

Amusing how we are now seeing the Kerry shills repeat the same already discredited “responses” … must be missing a fax from Kerry HQ.

Aug 20, 2004 - 1:06 pm 66. doublecola:

Roberts,

I’m sorry. I should know better than to post facts.

DC

Aug 20, 2004 - 3:12 pm 67. foreign devil:

Really….what a lot of verbiage to wade through (5 pages) to get to the only paragrapph at the end which dealt at all with the issues raised in the Swift Boat ad and to acknowledge (barely) that there might be something to it. I have come to the conclusion that now that I have a computer (I was a late bloomer folks–long story) I won’t ever buy another newspaper again. Why waste money for something I know is going to tell me lies. God Bless the Blogosphere!

Aug 20, 2004 - 4:33 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: