228 Comments

1. Tano:

Final Nail in Swift Boat Liars Coffin?

After every one of the medal charges against Kerry has now been demonstrated to be either a blatant lie, or a gross distortion, or, at best, an unsupported charge, – and after all the dishonest hacks respond to that by saying “oh never mind – the REAL issue has always been Cambodia” – we now have the final act.

Seems that that eternal treasure-trove of insight into political shenanigans – the Nixon WH tapes – has yielded up another gem.

John O’Niell, head of the merry band of liars, in a conversation with Nixon, on tape.

“O’NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O’NEILL: Yes, sir.”

Well, well, well. Who woulda thunk it?

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:48 am 2. Clio:

Roger,

I have a slightly different perspective on the Jon Stewart interview. I’m a big fan of the guy (flew to NY last week partly to see the show live–bummer, we just got Norm Coleman as guest).

The thing about the Daily Show is that it is Fake News–there’s no hidden agenda, if it’s funny it goes on, regardless of perspective.

That said, Jon definitely leans left (though I’d guess his favorite political guest is actually John McCain). So does his audience. Any surprise there?

Give the guy credit for raising the Cambodia question at all. To my mind, Kerry’s non-response is not helpful to him.

In the past month the Dems have sent former Pres. Clinton AND their nominee onto the show; the VP candidate announced his entry into the Presidential race on the show last year.

If the Republicans were more nimble they’d skip sending Mr. Coleman (nice enough, but who cares?) and put W or at least his wife or daughters in the hotseat. Stewart is no attack dog. He, like real journalists, will lob softballs and even, yes, pander to the big guns who agree to grace his stage. A little guts here would go a long way.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:53 am 3. Clio:

Oh, and, the RNC convention IS going to be in NYC. What better timing could there be? Hey, brainiacs in the Republican Party–get smart, send Cheney’s lesbian daughter on!

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:56 am 4. David Thomson:

An owner of New York Times stock, for instance, should be very worried. This news organization has long been detested by conservatives. Unfortunately, many people dismissed the latter as self pitying whiners who tend to exaggerate. Now those so-called middle of the roaders have become aware of the bias and moral corruption of the Times. Fewer readers are going out of their way to see what ìthe paper of recordî has to say about a particular issue. Advertisers have likely not become aware of the deteriorating situation. But when they do—the NY Times will be hurt severely. Why has the indifference lasted so long? My guess is that the pocketbooks of the editors and journalists havenít taken a direct hit. These folks still receive their large salaries and bonuses.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:09 am 5. dr. sanity:

One of the things most interesting to me is that you can generally tell which side of the political spectrum a blogger is from by the articles they choose to respond to (check out http://www.memeorandum.com/) and that this is similar to the function of the “gatekeeper” in the other media. It suggests that the gatekeeper is less a deliberate, conscious choice on the part of editors and producers, and more connected to the fact that humans only see what they want to see and will single out news that fits their preconceived notions. At least in the blogsphere you understand the preconceived notions upfront and the bloggers don’t pretend to be neutral or even objective.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:18 am 6. Mike Silverman:

The ascension of blogs and other forms of “personal media” I think really began after 9/11, and accelerated witht he Iraq war, when the mainstreammedia often didn’t report the whol story, or even make a real effort to do so.

I also recall the Trent Lott affair, which was universally ignored by the mainstream media, and only became an issue because of bloggers.

Now we just need intelligent aggregation software to combine the output of dozens of blogs into a semi-coherent whole, something that in many ways looks like a newspaper, but isn’t one in the traditional sense and at that point there would be little need for traditional newspapers other then as a source for local news.

Maybe the NYT will be reborn in this new era as a giant liberal opinion blog…or perhaps not…most of the NYT’s cachet comes from them claiming to be unbiased. If they admit liberal bias, why would anyone bother reading them — including liberals, since there are liberal blogs that are much more entertaining then the Times.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:20 am 7. Knucklehead:

Hugh Hewitt has an interesting column, The collapse of America’s Media Elite, on this topic.

JMO, but from poking around at jounalism.org’s “State of the Media 2004″ site (which I’ve linked to here before and am too lazy to do so again), the only thing propping up the newspaper segment of the MSM is ad revenue. If and when the blogosphere finds some way to localize enough to begin capturing even 20 or 30% of local ad revenue from newspapers, the MSM can kiss that segment goodbye. If Kerry does manage to get elected (doesn’t seem likely to me) he will owe the MSM bigtime and we can fully expect to see something from him that tries to begin repaying that debt. Something, for example, diguised as a federal internet tax that will seriously hamper the ability of bloggers to compete with MSM print segments.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:20 am 8. jedrury:

The money angle of Roger’s point, and other

posts, is very intriguing but I seriously doubt that payback time comes – if “the War Hero” gets in.

Blogs require relatively little money to start and fund – tho Roger may have another take on that.

Ad revenues take time to shift away from MSM [seen evidence of shift with some entity buying 25% of Craigslist because of the classified -

the bread, butter and jam of the newspapers !] but the point about aggretation software is interesting. But you don’t want to go to one source for news, that has been tried and all you get in homogenized opinion.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:39 am 9. BobT:

Tano

Cover your ears and scream as much as you want.

Roger et al.

It’s difficult to comment about this kind of post without writing an essay about the MSM and the blogosphere (which I won’t).

I agree with the general proposition that the MSM has lost its way in a fairly fundamental way. I also agree that blogs have served a purpose in providing a platform for sometimes very good journalism.

However…

IMO, the blogosphere needs to take care not to succumb to the same arrogance and hubris that has been a big factor in the decline of the MSM. Only a very small segment of the population is even aware of blogs, and fewer still take them as anything other than entertainment. YMMV…

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:44 am 10. richard mcenroe:

Kerry Continues to Oppress the Vietnamese People

Tano ó Now this assumes you know two out of twenty-six letters, but look up the definitions of “along” and “in”, would you?

Also, tell us which unit O’Neill was serving with at the time of this service.

Also, tell us where Kerry was at this time, since the Kerry camp makes so much of Kerry and O’Neill’s never having served together.

Run along now.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:00 am 11. Fresh Air:

Tano–

Is that transcript from your personal stash of Nixon tapes?

I hate to dignify your Haley’s Comet-like appearance here, but according to this history, U.S. troops, consistent with official U.S. policy invaded Cambodia on April 30, 1970. We pulled out on June 29, 1970.

From a National Review story about O’Neill:

After a year on the Woodpecker, O’Neill transferred to the Swift boats in the spring of 1969, serving on them until the summer of 1970.

Tano, if O’Neill was in Cambodia, he obviously could have been doing it while it was legal to do so and official U.S. policy. There was no period during Kerry’s service there in which he could have been there legally. And the whole point of Kerry’s claim is that he had been sent there at a time when it was illegal to do so and while the president was publicly denying it. Never mind that Kerry got the president in December 1968 wrong.

If you can’t grasp this distinction you have no business commenting on this blog. Goodbye, Tano.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:07 am 12. Jack Okie:

Roger, et al -

One of the current limitations of the blogosphere seems to be the kind of investigative reporting that requires “boots on the ground”. Somebody needs to be checking out the links between Kerry and his “band of brothers”: Have they benefited, financially or otherwise, from this long association? The MSM seems disinclined. Are there folks within the blogosphere who have both the time and skills to do the in-person interviews and yes, snooping?

As for diverting the revenue stream, how about a model where the blogosphere evolves to function a kind of wire service, with local tv and radio news departments paying for the service? It doesn’t seem in the near future that there will be enough direct consumers of news on the internet to make it a paying proposition.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:12 am 13. Tano:

Gee Richard,

I looked up “in”, as you suggested. It seems to me that the meaning of the word “in” is directly opposite of the meaning of the phrase “never in”.

As in “I was never in Cambodia”, which O’Neill has often stated. As opposed to “I was in Cambodia, sir” which is what he told Nixon. Or “Kerry was never in Cambodia, it would have been impossible to take a Swift boat into Cambodia”.

I know this is rough for all of you guys. You have invested your entire reputations in promoting this garbage, and you have almost no reputations left. Stick close to your little echo chamber here, for it is one of the last refuges that you have left.

The anti-medal stories are now proven to be all lies. The Cambodia story is also falling apart. The only question that remains is whether any of you place your own integrity or reputations above the task at hand – trying to defeat Kerry. This is your moment – show us all who you really are.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:13 am 14. Jack Okie:

To clarify – not enough direct consumers of news on the internet to make that model, as opposed to the above radio / tv model, a paying proposition.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:15 am 15. Fresh Air:

Tano–

I just showed you who you are: a troll, and not even a very good one. Disappear back under bridge, we’re all out of stale bread today.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:16 am 16. ambisinistral:

I would think two main things would need to be developed before significant amounts of ad revenue will ever be diverted from newspapers to blogs.

1. A workable system of micropayments would need to be in place.

2. There would have to be a way to deliver local ads.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:19 am 17. David Thomson:

ìIMO, the blogosphere needs to take care not to succumb to the same arrogance and hubris that has been a big factor in the decline of the MSMî

The financial structure of the Internet pretty well inoculates the blogs from getting too arrogant. The low cost of entry and the ease of posting criticism deters this sort of misbehavior. Newspapers like the New York Times got so goofy primarily because of the mind boggling investment needed to be competitive. The other newspapers in New York simply lack the deep pockets to really give them the Times serious trouble.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:28 am 18. so it begins:

Uh, Tano’s strategy is the same as the Kerry Campaign – “Keep calling them liars while admitting that their accusations are true.”

http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/article.php?story=20040824130358175

Tano must have received the talking points fax this morning. Too bad the Kerry campaign has already conceded the Cambodia story is untrue and that it is “possible” the first purple heart injury was from an “unintentional self-inflicted” wound. Hmm, I wonder if they are going to call the meltdown an “unintentional self-inflicted” wound.

Tano, flip the rock back over and get some more sleep.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:38 am 19. M. Simon:

John Kerry wrote a book about his ‘Nam experience.

You can read it here:

New Soldier

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:47 am 20. David Thomson:

ìTano must have received the talking points fax this morning.î

Tano may very well be financially compensated for posting his banal utterances. I strongly suspect that George Soros and the other leftist money bags are paying some people to post the party line on high profile blogs. We should never forget that quality of readerships is often far more important than mere quantity. Many of the visitors to Roger Simonís blog are of the tipping point variety. They are the type who usually influence those around them. Some are almost certainly well known, if not even outright famous.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:53 am 21. jedrury:

Tano:

Civility is endemic to Roger’s website.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:54 am 22. Tano:

“The financial structure of the Internet pretty well inoculates the blogs from getting too arrogant. ”

Well that is pretty goofy.

Time for a reality check my friends. The blogosphere, in my humble opinion, seems in the process of living out the worst fears that many have had. That it would come in heavily on the low end of the scale.

Free speech is a wondeful thing, and I enthusiastically support the existence of blogs. But no one in their right mind should see them as anything other than glorified chat rooms. Take this blog for instance. By Roger’s own admission, it makes no pretense whatsoever to aim for ‘objectivity’, and obviously not fairness either. As a result, as we can see in all this Swiftie nonsense, blogs have this tendency to become vehicles for self-reinforcing spin – without the slightest compulsion to approach an issue with any regard for the actual truth. One starts with an opinionated stance – Kerry hatred for instance – and then just descends into a spiral of piling on more and more rumors, anectdotes, lies, anything and everything that serves to reinforce the opinion.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with any notion of journalism. The “fisking” or spin-meistering of the news ends up being nothing more than blatant attempts to explain away inconvenient facts, and to cherry-pick evidence for only those nuggets that could possibly advance the original opinion.

In short, if you take all of the legitimate complaints about the failings of the MSM, then strip away any impulse to do better, and in fact, commit yourself to actually doing far worse – to unabashedly spin the news in your favor, to unabashedly use the most vile and dishonest tactics to promote your cause, and to deny any responsibility to be accountable (after all, we dont pretend to be objective), – then you have your typical blog.

No doubt such blogs will recieve a fair amount of financial support from those who sense that the blog is doing their bidding. They become advocacy organs, without any pretense of fairness, and thus very valuable as arms-length bulldogs.

Can anyone doubt that this blog, for instance, has become a tabloid rallying point for the Kerry haters? Totally destroying the reputation of its founder and its regulars by participating in one of the nastier and dishonest campaigns to have come down the pike in quite some time?

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:54 am 23. M. Simon:

Tano,

For debate purposes I will concede that O’Neill was in Cambodia.

That is no proof Kerry was.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:56 am 24. Warthog:

Blogs cannot compete with MSM in breadth but they seem to do a pretty good job covering single issues or even a few aspects of a single issue. The Swifties issue has generated dozens if not hundreds of individual articles on as many blog sites. There is an awful lot of very bright people out there pounding keyboards and the substantive competition with MSM will become real as more investigative type information becomes digitized. Why shouldn’t the public have access to all the non-classified Congressional reports done by the Library of Congress, for example?

A key to making these individual articles a coherent whole would be a consolidating site that painted the big picture with well written analysis and commentary and still kept available all the hyperlinks. Hugh Hewitt has come close to that with the Swifties. We must first see a way that writers can make a decent living from their work before the concept will take off.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:01 am 25. M. Simon:

Tano,

More egg coming on the Kerry team face.

Every time we get one of these new brilliant talking points it turns out to be:

1. A lie

2. A misquote

3. A quote out of context

4. A discredit of the original story

5. A complete fabrication

6. A non sequitor

I used to worry about them a couple of weeks ago. Now I look forward to them.

BTW even if O’Neil was in Cambodia it is no proof he and Sandusky were there plenty of times.

For debate purposes I will concede that O’Neill was in Cambodia. That is no proof Kerry was. Now about the rabbit up yer sleve. You need some new tricks. The audience knows where to look.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:12 am 26. Tano:

“For debate purposes I will concede that O’Neill was in Cambodia.”

Well that is a good first step. I applaud your honesty.

Now take the second step. Concede that O’Neill is thereby proven to be a liar.

Of course, in the heady moments when y’all believed that you had demonstrated that Kerry lied on the Senate floor, the immediate conclusion was that no sane person should ever believe anything that he ever said subsequently. Of course there exists no evidence whatsoever that Kerry lied – perhaps he got the dates of crossing the border off by a few weeks, but it seems indisputable that he was running up to the border on several occasions (including Christmas eve when he took friendly fire), and it also seems now proven that swift boats on such missions did cross into Cambodia, so there seems no eveidentiary reason to doubt that Kerry crossed in at some point.

Now we have direct refuation of the anti silver-star charges. The anti-bronze star charges are completely riddled with false statements. There remains not one single piece of evidence to back up any of the Swifties charges. And now O’Niell is a proven liar. So tell me why any sane person would accept any of their spin on any topic?

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:15 am 27. M. Simon:

I was misquoted. By myself. The Kerry disease must be catching. Here is what I really said or meant or something. (gotta see a doctor – before it spreads)

BTW even if O’Neil was in Cambodia it is no proof Kerry and Sandusky were there plenty of times. As claimed in todays reports.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:17 am 28. Rick Ballard:

Tano,

This post is not about Cut ‘n Run’s remarkable propensity for self preservation. It’s not about Il Capitano Bragadoccio at all. Try and find an adult to sit down and read it to you – someone who can reduce it to words of one syllable or draw you some nice pictures in crayon.

BTW – It’s customary to provide sources when attempting a rebuttal, otherwise people will think that the only thing on offer is your own willful blindness – or stupidity. Look at Fresh Air’s post for (or, rather, try and have an adult with at least a minimal mental capacity explain to you) the difference.

Was it your turn today to hover in front of the screen to make sure there was someting lame in the first comment? Say hi to wu-ping for us.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:20 am 29. M. Simon:

I have taken to calling Kerry’s Band O Brothers KBOBs. For obvious reasons.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:23 am 30. Dittybopper:

Tano,

Looks like Dubya and Kerry have something in common, neither were in Cambodia.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:28 am 31. thibaud:

Now we just need intelligent aggregation software to combine the output of dozens of blogs into a semi-coherent whole, something that in many ways looks like a newspaper, but isn’t one in the traditional sense and at that point there would be little need for traditional newspapers other then as a source for local news

Right objective, wrong path. “Intelligent aggregation software” doesn’t exist. Everyone’s trying to develop it but it’s a massively difficult problem and there’s no credible solution on the horizon.

Tano may be obnoxious at times but he makes some good points about the dangers of becoming an echo chamber. Nothing annoys me more than to have my (more polite than Tano’s) dissent from a discussion be dismissed as “talking points” or “trollery” by the hardcore partisans.

Such partisanship is the lead in the shoes of our blog movement. It imposes predictability, stifles debate, and turns off that vast majority of potential readers/participants who do not give a flying hoot about the partisan pissing match.

Blogs will grow up, financially and socially, when they come to resemble a clean and welcoming coffeehouse instead of a beercan-strewn frat house full of wonky pre-law majors.

a pox on both your houses

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:31 am 32. M. Simon:

Tano,

I conceded the point temporarily to show that O’Neil’s statement, true or simply quoted out of context is no proof Kerry was in Cambodia. None Zero. Nada. Bupkiss.

You got nothing from quoting O’Neill out of context and missing the part in Kerry’s diary where he states he wishes he knwe what was on the other side of the border.

Is this the best you got?

–==–

John Kerry wrote a book about his ‘Nam experience.

You can read it here:

New Soldier

–==–

There is a big difference between Calley and Kerry. Calley is a proven war criminal. For Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:31 am 33. RogerA:

It seems to me there are some significant differences between (some) blogs and the MSM. First, the blogs clearly do have a point of view and at least you know the biases when and if you participate. Second, (some) blogs have clearly done a better job of fact checking than the MSM reporters. As to Tano’s assertion that somehow my reputation has been destroyed–that seems to be a little over the top.

As to the Swifty thing: I doubt, as Roger and others including the Washington Post have noted, that we will probably never know given the current evidence about what actually happened relative to Kerry’s medals. The only thing that would shed additional light on the medal’s kerfluffle is to see who nominated Kerry for the medals and based on what evidence. But even that is irrelevant, at least to me: The issue is Kerry’s character and even assuming all his medals were fair and square, and I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that absent other evidence–the issue to me is his 1971 testimony that besmirched my service, my honor and my integrity because of my Viet Nam service.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:32 am 34. M. Simon:

So Sandusky is now contadicting Kerry.

Super.

John Kerry wrote a book about his ‘Nam experience.

You can read it here:

New Soldier

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:35 am 35. Stephen:

You knew that the MSM had lost this battle when “Unfit for Command” shot to the top of the bestseller list without having the benefit of a 60 Minute interview, or a week of preview on the Today show, or Good Morning America. The American people are finally fighting back against the MSM with tremendous help and assistance from the bloggers. It is also comforting to know that this fight is being led by battle-worn, tough, independent, fierce Vietnam Veterans. More power to you guys and to the Swift Boat veterans.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:38 am 36. Fresh Air:

Back to the, ahem, discussion…

Reporters have three tools at their dispoal: access to sources, access to news events and analytical powers. Of these three, only their access to sources is superior to that of bloggers.

In the days of pocket digital cameras, video streaming and online transcripts, private access to news events has all but disappeared. Analytical powers are where reporters are weakest. (Witness the heated, detailed and ultimately revalatory discussions at Captain’s Quarters over David Alston’s semi-membership in Kerry’s merry band.) This blog’s 30 or so linear thinkers have an order of magnitude more analytical horsepower than practically any newsroom in the country. (Sorry, Tano.) Ultimately, that is what will make commenting blogs like this one (as opposed to vanity blogs) ascendant.

Will old media die? Not completely. But in my opinion it will devolve into two components: local news and wire service stories. There is no need for us to read the Washington Post’s take on Kerry’s “Kurtz Chronicles” when we can see it and form our own opinions from firsthand information.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:39 am 37. RogerA:

FA: the other significant thing that Blogs dont have is editors, publishers, and owners–I would rather have the free-wheeling “echo chamber” that the editors/owners/publishers with a definite political agenda who masquerade as bastions of journalistic integrity.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:43 am 38. Rick Ballard:

RogerA,

Agree about the medals but the salient point to me is that his decision to high tail it out of Vietnam was a personal choice. If the fellows standing beside him were indeed his “band of brothers” then why did he volontarily abandon them? His lies before Congress were the second betrayal, both of his “band of brothers” and of every soldier, sailor, coastie, airman and marine who served in Vietnam. His lies before Congress also betrayed the traditions that make up the “glue” that holds our officer corps together.

Having John Kerry “at your side” is dangerous business. To paraphrase Lt. Peck, “John, if you get within a thousand yards of me, I’ll show what a Purple Heart wound looks like.”

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:45 am 39. RogerA:

Rick: you are absolutely right and that is part and parcel of the character issue–the true test of ones character is a combat situation is this: would you want that person on your flank or rear? Kerry fails that test for me.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:47 am 40. larry:

Oh My God Tano. Kerry’s journal says he spent Christmas eve, 1968 at home base. Do your dang homework or shut up.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:49 am 41. thibaud:

As this discussion indicates, blogs’ appeal at this point is primarily twofold– call it Altermedia and Hyde Park:

1) Altermedia: providing a window into stories not covered by, and crucial context, corrections and depth for stories that are covered by, the MSM

2) Hyde Park: offering a platform for often but not always highly intelligent people to hold forth, to skewer, and to rant.

Hyde Park diminishes the blogosphere’s appeal beyond the percent of a percent of the population that are political junkies. However, it’s those very passions fueling Hyde Park that give energy, focus, and force to Altermedia.

L’affaire Swift Boat is the perfect example of the above. Without the force and energy of the blogosphere’s ranting partisans, Swift Boat would have been suppressed by the MSM and the complete shoddiness of Kerry’s war hero/war criminal routine would have passed without comment. But the debate has also been degraded by some of the flimsier Swift Boat charges, especially on the medals.

In the end, the fault lies with the MSM. It’s their job to give as many perspectives and as much info as they possibly can. It’s their job to uphold the olbigation to be ruthlessly objective– as objective as humanly possible– in the filtering and selection of news content. They’ve failed, massively, in this function.

The opportunity for the blogosphere is to pick up the responsibility for objective filtering and selecting of news content that the MSM have discarded. So long as blogs remain stuck in Hyde Park mode, however, they will not become anything like a financially-viable or socially significant phenomenon.

Thanks for letting me rant! dodges eggs and Japanese tourists’ cameras and steps down from soapbox

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:50 am 42. RogerA:

thibaud: well said. There is yet another aspect about blogs I have found appealing. During our host’s absence in NYC there was a thread that ran to some 350 comments over a wealth of topics. I was particularly interested in the health care sub thread and found the comments therein insightful, articulate and non-political–In short, don’t overlook the opportunity for personal growth and enrichment on a blog that is absent from other media.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:57 am 43. ambisinistral:

Tano,

My, you certainly have a selectively calibrated sense of indignation when it comes to lies and/or misremembrances. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I myself don’t expect each of the participants in this debate, John Kerry included, to have photographic memories regarding events that happened during the Vietnam War.

If John O’Neil had repeatedly claimed his not being in Cambodia on a particular day led to an epiphany that changed his life — then being in Cambodia on that day would reflect badly on him and I would concede your point.

However, it wasn’t John O’Neil that had the searing memory, it was John Kerry. In short, O’Neils memories of being in, or not being in, Cambodia are irrelevent because he never claimed they were central to his life’s outlook. Kerry did.

Apples and oranges.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:58 am 44. WichitaBoy:

Mike Silverman

Now we just need intelligent aggregation software to combine the output of dozens of blogs into a semi-coherent whole, something that in many ways looks like a newspaper, but isn’t one in the traditional sense and at that point there would be little need for traditional newspapers other then as a source for local news.

A first step in this direction is already available, but not yet ubiquitous. If you are using the Firefox browser, available here, you can get a plugin here called “Sage” (all you have to do is click the button) which aggregates news into a sidebar. Very useful, very slick, and very easy. You can read a bit more here. This works very well for those blogs (Instapundit, LGF) which have an RSS newsfeed already. Unfortunately, certain blogs that we all know and love have not yet provided this service.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:59 am 45. Rick Ballard:

FA,

Returning to the subject at hand, blog viability as a self supporting alternative to the MSM cannot occur until marketing departments in large corporations make significant ad purchases. Accepting, arguendo, your premise that there are 30 logically proficient commenters here, a worthy discussion should involve advancing some hypotheses concerning developing a method to effectively influencing the decision making process at the marketing department level. I have a couple of ideas but I have to run out to a meeting for a bit.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:59 am 46. Charlie (Colorado):

Thibaud, I think you’re making two significant mistakes.

First, the notion that you can have a free and relatively open forum like this without having some over-excitement is, I think, a little naive.

Second, you seem to be under the impression that economic success is the main reason for blogs, or a measure of a blogs success. Now I’ll grant that some estimates suggest Glenn Reynolds is making (gulp) between $70 and $100 grand annually from Instapundit, but I’m certain that wasn’t his plan when he started, and he doesn’t even have comments.

In any cse, though, the real answer to your complaint is that you can got to Blogger and start your own blog, for free, and if you think the current generation of blogs isn’t “mature” enough, they you can start a mature one.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:02 am 47. Rick Ballard:

ambisinistral,

More like apples and elephants.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:02 am 48. Fresh Air:

Thibaud–

I agree except for the not “socially significant” part. This forum is a powerful example of the social aspects of bloggery. For example, when I see your name at the bottom of a post, I instantly think “Ah! There goes the Flaming Moderate from France (Louisiana?) again…”

The social aspect of blogs lends them a certain personality that is vitally important to the assessment of the information. We know who rants, who does his or her homework, and who just pops in with non sequiturs (Hello, Tano).

Of course, I’m sure the media would have no idea what I’m talking about, since to them all blog information is suspect. But until the MSM realizes that people are really moving stories through facts and analysis, not ranting, it will forever be playing catch-up.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:08 am 49. thibaud:

Fresh Air,

only [reporters'] access to sources is superior to that of bloggers. … Private access to news events has all but disappeared. Analytical powers are where reporters are weakest. … This blog’s 30 or so linear thinkers have an order of magnitude more analytical horsepower than practically any newsroom in the country

True but that’s not saying much. It’s apparent to many readers, and certainly to old media insiders like Jeff Jarvis of http://www.buzzmachine.com that MSM’s content is, for the most part, crap.

Your comment about linear thinkers is suggestive. Blogs’ power derives less the elegant analysis of a Wretchard, or the wit and personality of a Roger Simon, than from the power of an intelligent crowd to push a debate into new directions, and at light speed.

An analogy: think of news and debate as like the flow of financial information. MSM today resembles the financial exchanges of Dickens’ era: information’s sparse and tightly controlled by a few insiders. The public has little ability to shape this flow and can only receive glimpses of financial events long after they occur and have been shaped by decisions and actions of market insiders.

Blogs are like online stock trading. Information moves at light speed. Insiders’ edge is mitigated by transparent, real-time pricing and open access. However, most of the info on this exchange is simply noise because few participants have any expertise.

The key is not to limit the flow of information but to highlight the expertise that lurks in obscure or specialty blogs like Captain’s Quarters. To continue the analogy, perhaps an equaivalent of a NASDAQ or NYSE, ie a bloggers’ “exchange” whose “seats” are restricted to a number of high-quality bloggers based on common consent. One could include Wretchard and Roger, certainly also Sullivan and Drezner and a others selected for either deep subject matter expertise OR their clarity, fairmindedness, analytical ability and willingness to challenge both sides’ partisans.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:10 am 50. Fresh Air:

Rick B.–

I have a couple of ideas but I have to run out to a meeting for a bit.

Sure, leave us all hanging. Do you think we have all day?

On second thought, don’t answer that.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:12 am 51. Fresh Air:

Thibaud–

Disagree on the blogger’s exchange, though your analogy about trading is good.

We aggregate here just like the traders gathering under the Buttonwood Tree. No need for limits, rules or “clubbing”; the marketplace determines who is good and who isn’t. (BTW, I have no use for Sullivan anymore, but that’s another story.) That goes for commenters, too. Whatever happened to Lil Joe anyway?

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:17 am 52. thibaud:

Charlie,

Point taken on the value of excitable boys and girls. But it’s at best a two-edged sword. I’m glad that millions of Americans are now getting into politics and are organizing and contributing via the internet, but it sickens me to see most of that energy and money go to scummy, opportunistic little smirk ‘n’ sneer types like Dean and Mikey.

As to financial success, I’m sorry but you’ll never make a real dent in the MSM until you get many millions of not “eyeballs” or “unique visitors” but loyal customers who check in to your site every day. I worked in the internet business logn enough to recognize that “eyeballs”, while nice, are pretty meaningless for the long-term viability of whatever it is you’re offering on the Web.

Financial viability is extremely relevant here. The blogs are up against a MSM whose loyal, daily audience is in the tens of millions. Either people do transactions with or through your site, or else millions of them come to your site, and come back every day or nearly every day to your site. Otherwise, I think it likely that the blogs will have as much impact on the course of history as Mother Jones magazine. Or Pets.com.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:19 am 53. Dittybopper:

Tano,

Dubya and Kerry have one thing in common-neither were in Cambodia.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:20 am 54. bkw:

Tano’s religious fervor is impressive.

Blogs may some day become the primary source of information at some point in the future — but it think it is unlikely to happen for a generation. While the readership of this blog may read several blogs and aggregate news and commentary from a number of different sources — think about your parents. Do they also read blogs?

I know my kids will; my son has started one. He’s ten. The next child (due anyminutenow) will very likely start even younger.

But widespread, displacing the old systems entirely? I think more likely will be an old-style conglomerate taking advantage of the market opportunity and doing the same old thing … but with another slant, viz what Fox News did/is doing/will do to CNN. The “paper of record” may fall from its loft perch, but it will most likely be replaced by another “paper of record” before being replaced by a smattering of blogs.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:22 am 55. thibaud:

Fresh Air,

You’re absolutely right that blogs are mainly about community. I’d guess that most political junkies in this country are starved for company, camaraderie, and debate, if only because politics in this country has become so poisoned that political discussions can jeopardize one’s career and social relations.

My example: The colleagues I deal with are execs and senior managers who have no time for political chat, which in my case would be fatal to my career ascent. My employer’s French; my proximate colleagues are southern Americans; my extended team consists of several northeastern liberals, a big fan of Mikey, several pro-Bush ex-military, and about half a dozen very powerful French executives whose views I can guess.

I wouldn’t even dream of initiating a political conversation with my co-workers! I used to have intense conversations with a military friend who, alas, disappeared outside of Tikrit last year. My parents and siblings are all rabid Bush-haters with whom there’s no point in discussing anything. For political discussion, the blogosphere’s literally all I have left.

sniff… I love you guys

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:35 am 56. M. Simon:

The advent of radio didn’t make newspapers go away. Neither will blogs. Papers will just alter their function.

Radio gave us instant news. TV gave us instant pictures and news. Blogs give us instant commentary with LTEs. It does for newspapers what TV did for news. Everything is going faster.

Plus in the middle of a comment thread you can break in with no editor and post off topic items of possilble interest to those in the discussion and lurkers.

And then back on topic.

I think the biggest thing is that old media no longer controls the agenda. The consumer is king.

–==–

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:37 am 57. Emory:

Tano, could we have a link? Decade old quotes that sound like they were designed for a current debate really need some support.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:41 am 58. M. Simon:

Fresh Air,

I have no use for Sullivan either. If he doesn’t understand that he has more to fear from Osama than Bush then he has drunk the Kool Aid.

For me it is one enemy at a time.

First Kerry – war policy.

Then Bush – domestic policy

–==–

John Kerry wrote a book about his ‘Nam experience.

You can read it here:

New Soldier

–==–

There is a big difference between Calley and Kerry. Calley is a proven war criminal. For Kerry we only have his word as an officer and a gentleman.

What is the War Hero Afraid of?

Form 180. Release ALL the records.

Video link

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:45 am 59. hollywood:

More Smear Boat Vets distortions exposed, including the I was there, no I wasn’t story of a DA who appears in one ad; the Kerry only served 4 months lie, etc.

http://andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/040826.html

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:45 am 60. Godzilla:

If I had any motivation to write what I need, I’d write a browser that dynamically lets a user (henceforth referred to as a reader) add blog links to a “front page”, where each link takes the reader to a blog (page). Metamorphically, the browser is a newspaper of blogs. Initially, there would be a default set of blogs, depending on preference. Users should also be able to add/delete to the blogs. Sooner or later, someone will write one of this browsers. It’s fairly simple to do, and if I hadn’t burnt myself out writing this database program:

http://members.aol.com/spiritualfields/index.htm

I’d write the program myself because I’m tired of weeding through a favorites list, and the disjointed, fractured way that I go from one blog to another. I simply cannot stand programming at the moment however. Blog readers need this type of interface. I do anyway. Maybe in a year or so, or whenever, motivation is as unpredictable as the wind, I’ll write one myself if no one’s come out with one.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:50 am 61. Godzilla:

BTW, if anyone checked the link in my post … that was just to give a little context to my idea, in that I know what I’m talking about. That was not a marketing ploy. I’m the only one who uses my MyAuctionHelper program. I originally was going to sell it on Ebay, then said the hell with it because of the burn out syndrome which hit me like a bullet. I really went to hell and back writing that damn program, and just writing an html tag is like taking a punch to the face. Sorry for this BS.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:53 am 62. thibaud:

Godzilla – I’m interested in your idea. Email me at this address if you’d like to discuss: onlyinmoscow@yahoo.com

rgds,

thibaud

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:55 am 63. geoffg:

Tano @ 8:54,

Sounds more like you’re describing the mainstream media in your screed, than Roger’s blog.

Just changing the pronouns reads:

In short, if WE take all of the legitimate complaints about the failings of the MSM, then strip away any impulse to do better, and in fact, commit THEMSELVES to actually doing far worse – to unabashedly spin the news in your favor, to unabashedly use the most vile and dishonest tactics to promote THEIR cause, and to deny any responsibility to be accountable (after all, we dont pretend to be objective), – then you have your typical NEWSPAPER.

NATURALLY, MSM will receive a fair amount of financial support from those who sense that THEY’RE are doing their bidding. NEWSPAPERS AND TV become advocacy organs, without any pretense of fairness, and thus very valuable as arms-length bulldogs.

Can anyone doubt that MOST OF THE MSM, for instance, has become a tabloid rallying point for the BUSH haters? Totally destroying the reputation of THEIR founderS and its regulars, AND ITS STOCK PRICE by participating in one of the nastier and dishonest campaigns to have come down the pike in quite some time?

Posted by: Tano at August 25, 2004 08:54 AM

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:56 am 64. DennisThePeasant:

Emory-

Atrios was running Tano’s talking points yesterday. If memory serves, he has the link to the transcript in question.

Well, well, well-

Here’s Hollywood’s daily content-free post, complete with obligatory Tobias link.

If ever there were two toadstools sprouting from two cowpies in the very same field…

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:04 am 65. flenser:

Hollywood

Read Rood’s account,

Then read the SwiftBoaters account.

Then read the account in Kerry’s citation.

Rood agrees with the SBVT in all significant respects.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:07 am 66. geoffg:

RogerA @9:32

Don’t be so impatient. That’s the next discussion. ONeill is doing some great lawyering on all our behalves. It’s the most efficient trial in history. And, the least costly route to the objective.

Bush can’t seen as the big, bad, bully. ONeill has stated there are more ads to come, IIRC on this very subject.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:10 am 67. Joanna Smith:

Blogs will never replace MSM any more than teevee replaced radio. They can and should live together in harmony, both profiting from the relationship. The blogs will continue to serve as the MSM’s conscience, prodding it to stay honest, which is a very good purpose indeed.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:18 am 68. hollywood:

flenser,

Rood talks about one side of the river and agrees with Kerry. SBVs talk about the other side of the river and (sometimes) disagree with Kerry when they aren’t contradicting themselves.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:19 am 69. Tano:

“Oh My God Tano. Kerry’s journal says he spent Christmas eve, 1968 at home base. Do your dang homework or shut up.”

What a perfect example of the dangers of relying on blogs for your information.

Dont any of you self-respecting individuals feel angry as hell about how you have been jerked around by the Swift Boat Liars?

For the record, one of the main pieces of “evidence” that Kerry was not in Camboidia on Christmas is just what this sucker refers to – Kerry’s journal entry about sugar-plum faries, writen in the splendid calm of Sa Dec, fifty miles from the border. How may thousands of lines have been written about that, bolstered with all manner of claims about how it was impossible for Kerry to have gone up the river into Cambodia.

Except that if you actually read the VERY SAME SOURCE – i.e. Kerry’s diary of that day – (not just the cherry-picked quotes about the end of that day) you see that he spent the earlier part of the day taking his boat up to the border, taking enemy fire two or three times, and also taking friendly fire, as he referenced later in the Senate. The only question is – did he cross the border that day, or did he actually only cross the border on later trips.

The entire essence of his Senate statements, about the FACT of incursions into Cambodia, about the FACT of his taking friendly fire, about the FACT that the government, including presidents, were denying such incursions – all turn out to be true. All of the searing ironies of the situation seem now to be indisputable. Did he actually cross the border that specific day though? Well, maybe yes, maybe no.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:24 am 70. thibaud:

Joanna,

Blogs will never replace MSM any more than teevee replaced radio. They can and should live together in harmony, both profiting from the relationship.

Never. Live for conflict! Smash the MSM! Death to the running corporatist dogs!

Hey hey ho ho, Pinch Sulzberger’s got to go

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:26 am 71. John Lynch:

Who’s been feeding the trolls? .. again?

Did someone spike the water under the bridge? It seems the energy level of the counter SWBFT crowd is higher. Maybe someone signaled for a counter attack? Maybe there are code words in the NYT, LAT, or Slate that have emboldened them?

If so, I think we may have some entertainment in figuring out whatever it is that they think has ‘discredited’ the Vets, decompose, and analyze.

Are any facts available from Tano or Holly?

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:32 am 72. ambisinistral:

Tano,

Well, then you ought to send an email to Kerry and tell him he screwed up admitting he wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:35 am 73. RattlerGator:

thibaud

“You’re absolutely right that blogs are mainly about community. I’d guess that most political junkies in this country are starved for company, camaraderie, and debate”

Bingo.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:36 am 74. Fresh Air:

Tano–

You are up to your old tricks again. You are trying to derail this thread. We have talked about this stuff ad nauseum for the past two weeks. Go back through the previous threads and count they ways your “critique” has already been discredited. You don’t know what you are talking about.

If your Cambodia story is true, then why has the Kerry camp backed away from it? Why did Kerry not answer the question during his “interview” last night?

Tano, you really don’t want to argue about any of this stuff. I can rattle off the dates of every single one of Kerry’s incidents. I can tell you from memory the names of his crew members on PCF-94. I can tell you when Alston was injured and how, and why it was impossible for his Nightline story to be true. I can tell you who skippered PCF-94 before and after Kerry. I can tell you what types of weapons were employed on Swift Boats. I can tell you why they were singularly unsuited to covert operations. I can tell you why Rood’s story supports rather than discredits O’Neill’s story. I can tell you why the WaPo misread the AAR related the Bronze Star. I can tell you with certainty that Kerry exaggerated the events of the Bronze Star incident. I can also explain to you why Kerry is considered a traitor both in the literal and figurative senses of the word.

There are at least a dozen other people on this blog who can do the same.

All you have is a bunch of empty memes. The rest of us have facts. Please disappear before we really get angry.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:43 am 75. hollywood:

John Lynch,

Don gonyea did what I thought was a balanced report on this controversy yesterday. you could go to NPRs site and listen to it. [Maybe this link works?]

javascript:getMedia(’ATC’, ‘24-Aug-2004′, 2, ‘WM,RM’);

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:43 am 76. Tano:

Hollywood writes,

“Rood talks about one side of the river and agrees with Kerry. SBVs talk about the other side of the river and (sometimes) disagree with Kerry when they aren’t contradicting themselves.”

Well, the sentiment is right, but actually it is far more conclusive than that.

The Swift Boat liars were NOT THERE at all. And though Rood was commanding another boat, he WENT ASHORE with Kerry during the Silver Star event.

From Rood’s account:

“John O’Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry’s Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a “teenager” in a “loincloth.” I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the “lone” attacker at that site, as O’Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker. ”

John O’Neill is a liar. How many times does that need to be demonstrated?

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:44 am 77. devildog:

The foolish spin by people like Tano serve as yet another example why this ilk should never hold executive power.

And speaking of examples — I just watched Cleland and Rassmann doing some ridiculous political theater. Kerry and his crew clearly think people are stupid to do this type of sickening stunt. Just sign the SF180 and end this freakshow.

Everybody, all together, one more time…“WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF HERO?!?”

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:45 am 78. insatty:

Tano and his ilk, in my estimation, do not grasp the real relevance of Kerry’s Cambodia prevarication. Kerry emotionally recounted a fake Cambodia experience to denigrate Reagan’s Nicaragua policy, and then traveled to Nicaragua to embrace the communist dictator. When given the chance, the nicaraguan electorate threw out the communists and installed a democracy. Nicaragua’s current democracy owes everything to Reagan and nothing to Kerry. Kerry’s liberal world view was again proven wrong, as was his nuclear-freeze support. Like his 1971 testimony, Kerry will embellish, if not falsify, any experience to further his policy preferences, which are proven wrong time and again. Despite his Vietnam service, Kerry is simply too liberal and too wrong to be president.

If Kerry and his party were genuine, he and his fellow Democrats would run as the McGovernite liberals that they are, and allow the American people to vote them in on their merits. But instead, Kerry and the dems drape themselves in the flag to campaign as what they are not. When the islamofascists are taking aim at every Jew and every American on this planet, Kerry and the dems are the wrong choice on the merits.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:49 am 79. devildog:

“…we cannot fight terrorism all over the world. We should have learned that by now.”

–John Forbes Kerry, 1971

“DOH!”

–John Forbes Kerry, 1989

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:56 am 80. geoffg:

BKW @ 10:22,

It’s a matter of adoption rate. Because by it’s nature the blogosphere is a network, indivdual newspapers do not/cannot benefit from the ever larger audiences enabled by the web.

At some inflection point, media spending will begin to shift to the best blogs, and the failures of most of the old media will be increasingly apparent to everyone.

I think that the inevitable financial decline will not require another generation of old media, and we’ll soon see roll-ups of major old media properties, with falling viewerships/ readerships/listenships, as well as diminishing profit projections.

When the inflection point becomes obvious to major investors, their investments flow out of old media and into the new at an ever faster pace. Thus, doing double damage to the old media by taking revenue from them and giving it to their competition.

Such a scenario suggests a precipitous fall for old media, from which they will be unable to recover. Milking the cow may stave off a complete collapse, but clearly, they are looking at ever narrower audiences going forward.

Take the eBay phenoma, clearly the newspapers can never regain those classified advertisors who now trade on eBay, reach worldwide and get their payments immediately via Paypal. eBay gets bigger, newspapers’ classifeds shrink. Same for personals; they’re gone to the web, never to be reclaimed, or replaced.

Blogs are another avenue toward demassifying newsprint. Inherently, the Net is cheaper to operate than presses; it allows for collaboration, produces a seemingly lengthless “letters to the editor” column, enables commenting on those in real time, etc. None of which can ever be accomplished by newspapers.

And we’re green; Gutenberg never envisioned the chainsaw.

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:59 am 81. hollywood:

Sen. Bob Kerrey on the Swiftees:

“Seven out of the 10 things they said have already been shown not to be true,” Kerrey said. “So they should call themselves ‘Republican Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry.’ That’s who they are.”

Source: LA Times

Here’s what puzzles me: if you agree that Bush is wrong on health care, if you agree he’s wrong on the economy, if you agree he’s wrong on jobs, if you agree he’s wrong on stem cell research, if you agree he’s wrong on the environment, if you agree he’s wrong on gay rights, if you agree he’s doing nothing about the assault weapons ban, then what for God’s sake makes you think he’s right about the war on terror? In that regard, he, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Cambone, Feith, Rice and Powell were wrong on WMD, wrong on troop strength, wrong on our acceptance as liberators, wrong on Chalabi, wrong on having no reconstruction plan, wrong on not getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan, etc. I guess if you want the wrong candidate, Bush is your dog.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:02 pm 82. devildog:

“The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.”

–John Forbes Kerry, 1969

“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, the troops were not in Cambodia. …I have that memory which is seared–seared–in me.”

–John Forbes Kerry, 1986

His curiosity was never satisfied [about Cambodia], because this entry [on Cambodia from 1969] was from Kerry’s final mission.

–Douglas Brinkley, 2004

“DOH!”

–John Forbes Kerry, 2004

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:16 pm 83. Tano:

“the debate has also been degraded by some of the flimsier Swift Boat charges, especially on the medals.

In the end, the fault lies with the MSM. ”

Huh?

Just who do you think has done the necessary work to reveal how empty and dishonest the medal charges are? And all the other charges as well?

It seems that all the whiners here fervently wish that the MSM would redefine its role – to become non-critical vehicles for right-wing propaganda. If all one had were reliance on this blog, or Instapundit, or others of this ilk, then one might actually conclude that the Swifties were telling the truth!

IF any of you have fantasies of the blogosphere becoming anything other than a circus, you need to start holding it, begining with YOURSELVES, to certain minimal standards of fairness and honesty. But to the contrary. This site in particular has become totally wrapped up in advocacy of an utterly reprehensible set of dishonest charges, and the folks here resist absolutely any attempt to ferret out the truth of the situation.

Except when really pressed, when defense no longer is an option, then it is “oh, never mind THOSE charges, we should all get worked up about THESE new charges”.

I am sorry if there is anger that shows through my comments. I have spent time trying to discuss relevant issues on many blogs, and for a while I spent a fair time here. Despite the ever-present nonsense of the “troll-police”, or the bizarre ritual of having some regulars do an emotional melt-down on my behalf, I generally sensed that their were enough intellegent people here who saw the world differently than I do, such that meaningful discussion might proceed. And a few times, for brief moments, it did.

But I am sorry to say that I sense this site becoming lost in some of the very worst tendencies of the blogosphere. Totally unable to maintain a discussion on facts, or issues. Totally committed to hatred of one candidate, and all the ensuing spew that results. Spiralling endlessly into the black hole of “vast liberal media conspiracy” blather.

I cant believe that any of you seriously believe that this is the model for the news industry of a free society in the 21st century.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:20 pm 84. Jamie Irons:

thibaud, you wrote

sniff… I love you guys

This is very funny and, considered in light of what you wrote just above it, actually moving.

And your analysis is powerful and original, too. (Though I don’t always agree with you.)

Jamie Irons

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:35 pm 85. John Lynch:

Sorry you feel that way Tano.

I was looking for any new assertions that we could answer.

All I’ve seen are: a) repetitions of statements already asked and answered; and b) assertions from or about press pundits who are claiming ‘they’ve been discredited.’

I guess I don’t have any new point to make.

For review of previously stated, analyzed, and answered points please review the past few days’ worth of threads on this subject.

I see a fairly decent review of the status on the first medal dispute at Washington Times.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:39 pm 86. thibaud:

I find the “troll” charge, like all ad hominems, extremely annoying and would like to see its use abandoned on this site.

Tano, here’s my problem with Kerry. First, full disclosure– JFK/Truman Democrat, voted twice for Clinton, voted for Gore, don’t like to hear Bush speak, don’t like his social policies.

That said, it’s clear to me that Kerry’s deeply troubled, emotionally conflicted vet who is still desperately trying to come to grips with and make sense of the wrenching combat experiences of his youth. Which wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if 1) we were not at war and 2) he were not the first presidential candidate in my lifetime to have based his candidacy almost entirely on his experiences as a young man in combat. Plenty of other candidates have served honorably– George McGovern, Bob Dole and George HW Bush, for example– but none has used his war record to the extent that Kerry has. Hence the need to examine that record, not so much as to what he did then but as to what his experience means to the man’s outlook and foreign policy instincts today.

Looking over his record, it seems obvious that his Vietnam experiences convinced Kerry that any US military intervention or major effort to bolster our military capabilities would put us on a slippery slope to another Vietnam. This BTW was the standard view of the party’s (non-Scoop Jackson) elite throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Kerry has consistently supported his peacenik/pro-sandinista stands by reference to his “searing” Vietnam experience.

I find this extremely troubling, for two reasons. First, you expect a mature leader to move beyond his experiences while an angry and emotionally conflicted young man. Second, the security environment today bears next to no resemblance to the world of the late Cold War era. Based on the foregoing I couldn’t care less what Kerry or W or Clinton or Gore or Nader or whoever did in Vietnam; I care deeply about their worldview today.

Kerry appears to be still refighting that war in his mind. George Bush put to bed his troubled youth many years ago, but John Kerry is by all accounts– not least, those of his wife and friends– still a troubled, and probably deeply conflicted old vet.

If you were to cast Kerry and W in Shakespearian roles (bizarre notion, I know, but bear with me), Kerry’s role would be Hamlet and Bush would play Prince Hal. Hamlet vs. Prince Hal? In a time of war, that doesn’t seem like such a tough choice.

Best regards,

thibaud

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:43 pm 87. John Lynch:

Hollywood

I’ll try to get the Don Gonyea thing from my home this evening. Playing speaker/radio here at the office is a bit over the top – even for me.

I will admit that NPR doesn’t stike me as the most balanced of sources, but I’ll listen and get back to you.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:44 pm 88. Roberts:

Ah, same ol’ same ol’. Tano projecting again.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:50 pm 89. WichitaBoy:

P.S. For those of you not paying attention (that would be me) Roger does have an RSS feed as well. It’s way down on the right. I’m adding it to my Sage list as we speak.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:51 pm 90. JBR:

Hollywood: The Democratic Party gave a place of honor at its convention to a man who compared the people in Iraq who are shooting American soldiers to our founding fathers. That is a good enough reason for many people (certainly including me and hopefully including you) to vote for Bush.

Aug 25, 2004 - 12:52 pm 91. Roberts:

Why is it that John Kerry is still so enamored with communism? We know that Kerry spoke his lie about Cambodia in ‘86 to add emotional weight to his support for Nicaragua’s communist regime against President Reagan’s support for its opposition. Captain’s Quarters outlines a recent example of John Kerry demonstrating his affinity for communists – again from North Vietnam.

Tell us, John, when you get done apologizing for your past lies, why you still are so fond of communism?

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:00 pm 92. Mark Poling:

Tano:

It seems that all the whiners here fervently wish that the MSM would redefine its role – to become non-critical vehicles for right-wing propaganda.

Actually, this whiner wants the press to redefine its role to be honest purveyors of data, followed by transparent presentors of honestly-framed opinions.

I have zero problem with press outlets that wear their ideology on the sleeve. I read the Village Voice, I know exactly what I’m getting. Same with The Nation, etc.

I do mind having data filtered for me by the “non-partisan” news desks at, say, the NYT or Washington Post.

The only lie that I’ve seen thoroughly documented is the oft-told tale of Kerry’s Cambodian Christmas. This bullshit about “well, he was near, and even if he wasn’t, the essence of the speech was correct” is just that; bullshit. He made it all up. The only thing missing from that morality play was the spunky crippled kid/dog (pick one or both). In hindsight, his Senate-floor speech was an apalling display of ruthless emotional manipulation (to the benefit, by the way, of the Castro-loving Sandinistas).

Kerry made character the keystone of his acceptance speech. Anything that sheds light on Kerry’s character therefore should be required coverage for a responsible news desk.

Remember Gary Hart? He challenged the press to prove he had a bimbo habit, and the press back then took him up on it. Guess their coverage of Kerry is their way of doing pennance for sinking what might have been a solid campaign against Reagan.

If the Swifties are lying, show me the facts that corroborate. (Clue for the trolls: we’ll take you more seriously if you provide referrences. Second clue: we’ll be more impressed if your references are better argued than “Kerry says they’re lying and that’s good enough for me.”) Otherwise you’re just clicking your heels together and saying “there’s no place like home.”

You can take heart though. Kerry still isn’t Bush, and at least you can take that into the voting booth.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:03 pm 93. sammy small:

My bet is that Tano and Hollywood are here to just liven up the comments section. Otherwise, it might degenerate into just an echo chamber. Maybe one of them is just Roger in disguise playing the spoiler.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:04 pm 94. Matt Evans:

Tano keeps repeating the O’Neil thing.

“John O’Neill is a liar. How many times does that need to be demonstrated?”

Ok, assume for the moment that we can agree on that. What could this possibly have to do with whether or not John Kerry was in Cambodia? You can discredit O’neill all you want to – it doesn’t matter- Kerry’s gross inaccuracies are what’s damning him – the Swifties are simply throwing more fuel on the fire. Are you telling me the ONLY inaccuracies about Kerry are coming from the SWBV’s ?

Not to mention, there’s 200+ swifties making these accusations- its not just O’neil- are every single one of these servicemen liars and schills for the republican party ?

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:13 pm 95. Tano:

“Maybe one of them is just Roger in disguise playing the spoiler.”

Well, that wouldnt be me, I can assure you. Actually the thought ocurred to me several times that most of you might not be real – that you are all fig-newtons of Roger’s literary imagination, and that this entire blog is a satiric take-off on the inanities of the self-righteous sleazy corners of the right.

Wouldnt put it past an ol’ Hollywood marxist with a fertile imagination.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:20 pm 96. Mark Poling:

Tano strike back with the “Jane you ignorant slut” defense.

Take heart: Kerry still isn’t Bush.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:23 pm 97. Charlie (Colorado):

Me: Second, you seem to be under the impression that economic success is the main reason for blogs, or a measure of a blogs success.

Thibaud: As to financial success, I’m sorry but you’ll never make a real dent in the MSM until you get many millions of not “eyeballs” or “unique visitors” but loyal customers who check in to your site every day. I worked in the internet business logn enough to recognize that “eyeballs”, while nice, are pretty meaningless for the long-term viability of whatever it is you’re offering on the Web.

Me: WTF?

Look, thibaud, if you want to argue that financial viability is a major determinant of the success of blogging, I’ll listen, but so far you’re telling me that financial viability is important because without it blogs won’t be financially viable.

And, well, I kinda knew that.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:26 pm 98. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, that wouldnt be me, I can assure you. Actually the thought ocurred to me several times that most of you might not be real – that you are all fig-newtons of Roger’s literary imagination, and that this entire blog is a satiric take-off on the inanities of the self-righteous sleazy corners of the right.

Actually, you are all figments of my imagination.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:28 pm 99. Tano:

Matt,

Just what gross inaccuracies are you referring to?

Kerry claimed to be in Cambodia on Christmas. The Swifities insist that it could not possibly have happened. Turns out that it most certainly could have happened. Turns out that he went up to the border on that very day. Turns out that others, including O’Neill himself went into Cambodia in Swift Boats.

There is question of whether Kerry actually crossed the line on Christmas, or whether that was on a subsequent trip. Thats it – the only possible discrepancy in Kerry’s account. While the Swifties account, that it could not have possibly happened, is totally discredited, by their own words no less.

The points raised in Kerry’s speech to the Senate would not be undermined in the least if it turns out that he crossed the line on Jan 24 (for example) instead of Dec. 24, and that on Dec. 24 he only approached the line. Clearly everything about that set of missions remains undisputed, except the specifics of when exactly he crossed the line.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:30 pm 100. ambisinistral:

I’m just an undigested bit of mustard.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:30 pm 101. Tano:

“Not to mention, there’s 200+ swifties making these accusations- its not just O’neil- are every single one of these servicemen liars and schills for the republican party ?”

That is simply not true. 200+ Swifites did not co-author, or even endorese the book. Most of them signed up because they are very upset about his Senate testimony. They did not thereby endorse all the charges, or even any of the battlefield charges in the book. I have read interviews with a few of them who actually praised Kerry’s service and were unwilling to endorse the charges. They just dont like the testimony.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:36 pm 102. hollywood:

In contrast to the sensationalism of the blogosphere, let’s look at some of the contents of the current issue of Foreign Affairs.

“Misunderestimating” Terrorism

Alan B. Krueger and David D. Laitin

Although terrorism is a top U.S. concern, the State Department’s annual terrorism report was riddled with errors. If Washington wants to win the war, it needs to get its facts straight.

The Neglected Home Front

Stephen E. Flynn

The Bush administration has waged an aggressive war against terrorists abroad, but it has neglected to protect the homeland, even though Americans in the United States are the ones most vulnerable to future attacks. The government must do more to safeguard critical U.S. infrastructure and mobilize the American public to help. For starters, it should create a semi-independent federal agency tapping into private resources that would develop and enforce security standards.

What Went Wrong In Iraq

Larry Diamond

Although the early U.S. blunders in the occupation of Iraq are well known, their consequences are just now becoming clear. The Bush administration was never willing to commit the resources necessary to secure the country and did not make the most of the resources it had. U.S. officials did get a number of things right, but they never understood-or even listened to-the country they were seeking to rebuild. As a result, the democratic future of Iraq now hangs in the balance.

How To Counter WMD

Ashton B. Carter

The Bush administration has done little to contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction, even as undeterrable nonstate actors grow more intent on obtaining and using them. U.S. counterproliferation policy needs an overhaul. Its new goals should be to get nuclear material out of circulation, reinforce nonproliferation agreements, and use new technologies and invasive monitoring to get better and more actionable intelligence.

Riding For A Fall

Peter G. Peterson

Three long-term trends are threatening to bankrupt America: the burgeoning costs of waging the war on terrorism, the U.S. economy’s increasing reliance on foreign capital, and rapid aging throughout the developed world. Washington must understand that committing the United States to a broader global role while ignoring the financial costs of doing so is deeply irresponsible.

In sum, not exactly glowing reviews of the current administration. And these are the folks you want to retain?

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:39 pm 103. Sandy P:

When was O’Neill in Cambodia, Tano?

When we acknowledged we were?

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:43 pm 104. Tim Oren:

Thibaud, your last (12:43) pretty well speaks for me on the political side issue. But back to the main topic:

“Financial viability is extremely relevant here. The blogs are up against a MSM whose loyal, daily audience is in the tens of millions. Either people do transactions with or through your site, or else millions of them come to your site, and come back every day or nearly every day to your site. Otherwise, I think it likely that the blogs will have as much impact on the course of history as Mother Jones magazine. Or Pets.com.”

Maybe not. Nowhere in Schumpeter does it say that ‘creation’ precedes destruction. There are plenty of current examples that Internet-enabled models are quite capable of destroying or seriously damaging incumbent business models before or without enabling equally sized or denominated alternate models. I give you P2P digital music. I give you open source. It’s quite possible that a large enough number of uncompensated (or little compensated) bloggers can take away enough attention and credibility from the MSM to tear bloody strips off their business model, without recreating that cash flow in a monetized form.

And then there’s that umpty billion dollar Google valuation. Based on cash flow primarily driven by contextual advertising placement, in turn based on a page-rank algorithm that’s observably strongly linked to blog activities, and to a minor extent by placement on blogs themselves. So someone is deriving value from all this, it just isn’t appearing at the usual spot in the value chain, too bad for MSM.

Then there are things like Feedster and or this, some of which might in fact find a way to more recognizably reincarnate the old cash flow stream. But my point is that it doesn’t take that for challenge to the MSM to be formidable and credible. (At Apple, we used to call it ‘Being nibbled to death by ducks.’)

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:43 pm 105. Roberts:

I’m very impressed that Tano can make John Kerry’s speech in ‘86 make sense and be truthful by in essence completely rewriting it 18 years later to eliminate the very point Kerry was trying to make.

Bravo. Bravo. Encore.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:51 pm 106. IcePilot:

Getting back to the subject at hand:

Roger,

You said, “The one advantage held by the MSM, the ability to pay for research, would be vitiated. Already blogs, working for nothing or next to nothing, provide information unavailable elsewhere (from Iraq, for one obvious and crucial example). Taken together, they have a raw research capability beyond what any newspaper or television network could conceive. Not only that, they have the potential for more sophisticated and original analysis of those events because there are no gatekeepers between commentators and readers.”

It’s not just the absence of gatekeepers. The successful bloggers; smart, consistent and insightful; will rise to the top, making millions on the way. Capitalism will find a way to pay for a quality product that serves a growing market. Why insightful? Because their backgrounds will come from the real world, not those politically correct, anti-capitalist, extreme left-wing (I say this only because we see the term so rarely in the MSM) so-called “journalism” schools.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:54 pm 107. Mark Poling:

In a word, hollywood, yes.

No set of policies against terrorism is immune from criticism. We should be arguing about correct approaches.

To cherry-pick a bit:

For starters, it should create a semi-independent federal agency tapping into private resources that would develop and enforce security standards.

Hmmm. Yet another new agency. “Semi-independent” meaning what, exactly? “Tapping into private resources.” Pork!

No, I haven’t read the article, but I can definitely see the outlines of a rebuttal.

The Bush administration was never willing to commit the resources necessary to secure the country and did not make the most of the resources it had.

The question that never gets asked, let alone answered, is why the administration would “commit the resources necessary.” Maybe, just maybe, the administration wanted to be sure that if a second front broke out, we’d not be caught with all our resources tied down.

That would require, you know, strategic thinking, though.

Anyway, be that as it may, I don’t think the current Administration has made all the right moves to counter terrorism, but I think they’ve done a more than adequate job. And yes, I could argue it point by point.

But I want to get back to the underlying assumption, which is that Kerry would do it better. Can you give me any reason to think so? Last I heard, the only substantive thing Kerry has said about his Middle East policy is that he has a secret plan. Can you give me any references where he’s actually proposed or endorsed anything that could be debated?

Fact: Kerry missed >70% of the public Senate Intelligence Committe hearings. (He’s stonewalling on his attendance for the secret ones. Come on John, just say how many you attended, and how many you missed.)

Take heart: Kerry still isn’t Bush.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:58 pm 108. Terrye:

Tano and Hollywood:

Shooting the messenger will not help. It did not help when Clinton got cuaght with his pants down and it won’t help now.

Saying on one hand that Rood disputes the vets’ account and then saying that only people on Kerry’s boat have a right to speak is silly when Rood was not on Kerry’s boat. Saying that what Dole said does not matter and then dragging Bob Kerrey into it is silly. Saying that O’Neill was not there during the Bronze Star incident and is therefor a liar is stupid when the man never said he was there. Defending the Cambodia story when Kerry himself has walked away from it is not helpful to your cause.

There are hundreds of these vets. And so far Kerry has had one other officer who served in that division come out and actively support him? What does that tell you?

I agree with the Washington Post: Kerry should sign a form 180 and release the records.

And btw I am more distressed by the treatment of these men by Kerry and people like Tano than I am with their message. I doubt if we will ever know the whole story but these men were vets and for Tano to talk about them with complete disdain is a sign of intolerance and narrow mindedness.

Kerry has one of the best trial lawyers in the country on his ticket, he is married to a billionaire, he is supported by powerful people, let him defend the record he inisted on cramming down our throats.

Kerry is by no stretch of the imagination a victim. He has not been blind sided and he is quite capable of defending himself without some dip shit like Tano calling a man who spent years in the Hanoi Hilton a liar.

I was 19 years old when Kerry went before the Senate and said what he did. I remember grown people crying.

Aug 25, 2004 - 1:59 pm 109. Fresh Air:

Tano–

There is no basis for the claim that Kerry was in Cambodia. Every officer up the chain of his command has said it didn’t happen. Kerry’s own diary refutes it. His former crewmembers–including those now in his “band of brothers”–deny it, too. His campaign has backed away from it and now uses the word “near” to describe his relative position to Cambodia.

It doesn’t make any sense. If you had any logical reasoning ability at all you would see that. Why would the green Lt. Kerry be given such a sensitive job after being in theatre for less than one month? Don’t forget we were in hot water with Prince Sihanouk for a previous accidental incursion by army troops that led to a five-month diplomatic standoff.

It also couldn’t happen. There was no physical way for a Swift Boat to cross the border on the Mekong River. There were pilings in place that prevented egress by everything with a draft greater than a Sampan at high tide. There were also U.S. Navy patrol boats stationed there.

Moreover Swift boats would not have been used for such an incursion in any event as they could literally be heard coming from a mile away. Later, when such drops were made in accordance with official U.S. policy, PBRs were used. You remember Tano, from Apocalypse Now–the same movie Kerry based his fable upon?

Kerry made the whole thing up for rhetorical effect. It was so obvious that even hagiographer Brinkley left it out of his book.

DID. NOT. HAPPEN. Clear?

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:00 pm 110. Matt Evans:

Tano

Gross inaccuracies- to wit:

He was in Cambodia, on a secret mission, for a president who was not in office. Thats 3 in one blanket statement. All of that was seared into his mind, according to him.

His own campaign has admitted his statement that he was in Cambodia was inaccurate. He was ‘near’ Cambodia. Assuming 50 miles constitutes near. This would have little bearing on anything except that Kerry has used this fanciful story to reinforce the idea that the government was operating illegally and he was a part of it.

Ditto the issues involving his purple heart- the campaign is backpeddling on whether said wounds were self-inflicted or were as a result of enemy fire.

Again I ask, what does O’neill’s credibility have to do the story about Cambodia.

Also, 200+ veterans signed an affidavit alleging Kerry should not be CnC- read their affidavit for reasons. Again, are you calling all 200+ vets Republican schills. Not to mention, you’re talking specifically about the book, which seems to have been tacitly approved by the swifties (I havent gotten ahold of a copy so I have no idea whether it was “officially” endorsed) but lets assume for a moment all 200+ did not “officially” endorse it- go back to their affidavit.

You are taking mediamatters talking points and trying to spin them into an argument – unfortunately for Kerry, undermining the credibility of the swift boat veterans does not make the story go away.

Can you explain to me why Kerry will not release all his service records ? Wouldn’t those records provide him with ammunition to refute some of these accusations ?

(Hint: The answer to the above question is not “Well when is Bush going to release all of his records”).

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:03 pm 111. Matthew Cromer:

Here is the rebuttal to Tano’s nonsense:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130048,00.html

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:03 pm 112. Sandy P:

Instapundit says this, and I’m sure Tano will clarify for Glenn and us:

…Why does that matter? Because he was serving (as Kerry was not) during the Cambodia incursion of 1970, which began on April 29 and lasted two months. (Nixon didn’t deny that operation; it was official, and large, and well-publicized, and presumably pre-existing barriers at the border would have been removed.) But Kerry was long gone by then.

As I say, I don’t see how O’Neill’s presence in Cambodia at some later date — and it had to be later because O’Neill wasn’t in the area yet at Christmastime of 1968 — can possibly make a difference regarding Kerry’s Christmas claims, which are reproduced below for convenience. (And go here to see Kerry’s “five miles inside Cambodia” claim.) Especially given that the Kerry campaign has already retreated from the claim that Kerry was in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. But maybe I’m missing something. And O’Neill, of course, should explain what’s going on….

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:04 pm 113. WichitaBoy:

The future may be something like OhMyNews. Take a look:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/jim/discuss/msgReader$558?mode=topic&y=2004&m=4&d=23

http://www.wacc.org.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=176

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:06 pm 114. Terrye:

And as for giving the administration four more years, Hollywood, yes.

I don’t remember the Democrats doing anything to deal with North Korea or Islamofascism and the proliferation of Wmd in any meaningful way.

As for as domestic politics I don’t rmemeber them heading off the crash in the tech sector or stopping Enron and Global Crossing etc. before they got really out of control. Blame Bush all you want but it seems to me that Democrats just bitch and moan.

I have been one all my life and I know how it works. The trick is not to fix a thing, it is to displace blame when the inevitable happens.

Right now there is too much at stake for these silly games.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:13 pm 115. Tano:

thibaud,

Thanks for the first thoughtful response to a dissenter to appear on this blog for a very long time.

I basically disagree with the conclusions that you reach in your psychoanalysis of John Kerry. To me, he is one of the very few prominent politicians who arose from that era who has the courage and honesty to deal with both aspects of what happened in that time. All of us who lived or grew up in that time, no matter what we personally believe about it, we all recognize that there were powerful moral issues at play, and that no person, or no group, or no movement had any monopoly on virtuous insights about those issues.

Those on the left understood a bit earlier than others the extent to which our involvement in Vietnam was a profound mistake – a total misreading of the situation on the ground. We thought it was all simply a move in the great cold war chessgame, but the people doing the fighting understood it as the last chapter in their decades-long fight against colonialism. We were wrong about them, and they were wrong about us. That is why we could win all the battles but never win the war – they would have kept fighting for their independence for decades to come, as they had for decades already. In 1968, the tipping point came for the American public – that was when a majority first began to understand this – which is why even Nixon ran his campaign on a platform of us getting out. The only issue was how quickly, and in what way.

Kerry seems to have had inklings of this before he went. But he also repsonded to the call of his country at war. He could have taken refuge in simplemindedness – the war is a mistake, therefore I avoid it – and he certainly could have done so. Or my country calls me to war, and so I shut down my critical faculties and do what I am told, and never allow a doubt to cross my mind. Kerry was able to transcend the simple minded approach. He had misgivings, but he felt a sense of duty. Once there, he behaved in an examplary fashion. Upon his return, he would not allow himself to avoid the obvious lessons.

So many from that time have never managed the largeness of spirit to acknowledge and internalize the cross-currents. To this day a small minority insists that there was no mistake. And many others to this day cannot deal honestly with those who served. Kerry has dealt with both sides of this in an honest manner. He can articulate pride in the service rendered, and also acknowledge the broader failure in policies, and even the horror of some of the tactics that were ordered.

I think he exemplifies a unique combination of insights, that could transcend the divide that has plagued our generation for nearly 40 years. And as for the current situation – I would gladly welcome a president who can understand the honor and reality of service, as well as the dnagers of committing ourselves militarily in a situation that we do not read properly.

To the extent that Kerry the CiC feels that the country is under attack, he would turn the ship of state into the attack and take it head on. To the extent that he senses ideological undercurrents leading us to engagements that we do not understand, that we have not planned for, he would resist them.

I find that to be a good combination of insights to wish for in a president.

Despite our fervent wishes to the contrary, it really is a complicated world, and the consequences of our actions need to be understood. I respect someone who fearlessly engages both sides of a dispute, rather than one who would seize one side, pretend that all truth lies therein, and lead us, potentially, off a cliff. It may seem indecisive at times, but I think he has shown that when decision is needed, when the bullets start flying, he knows what to do.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:14 pm 116. Terrye:

Wichita Boy:

Thanks for the links.

I think it should also be noted that if people get involved on blogs they tend to make a greater effort to educate themselves on the issues and that means using a lot of different resources.

Just look at Catherine’s reading list. The woman puts me to shame.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:22 pm 117. Fresh Air:

Has anyone noticed that everytime Tano is discredited he just changes the subject?

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:24 pm 118. Terrye:

Tano:

Just think if Kerry had got that deferment to study in France that he asked for we would not be having this conversation.

Kerry is an oppurtunist.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:27 pm 119. Sandy P:

–Saying that what Dole said does not matter and then dragging Bob Kerrey into it is silly.–

And The Capital Times of WI has started in on Dole:

Editorial: Dole’s ugly partisanship

An editorial

August 25, 2004

…That, of course, is the bottom line. Dole is a Republican first, and a veteran second.As such, he is a tragically flawed commentator on issues of military service….

And Kerry’s a Vet first? Before or after he threw his/someone else’s medals over, or met w/the VC or testified or didn’t thoroughly investigate the POWs?

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:30 pm 120. Tano:

Terrye,

“Saying on one hand that Rood disputes the vets’ account and then saying that only people on Kerry’s boat have a right to speak is silly ”

Sorry, you must not have been paying attention. No one has claimed that Rood deserves credibility because he was nearby on another boat. His version is credible because he beached his boat next to Kerry’s and followed him ashore. For the period of time that he addresses, the assault that led to the silver star, he was right there within feet of Kerry.

“so far Kerry has had one other officer who served in that division come out and actively support him? What does that tell you? ”

It tells me that you value the opinion (or at least this years version of the opinions) of other officers in the division over the opinions of those who were at Kerry’s side under fire. Geee, I wonder why.

” I doubt if we will ever know the whole story”

A cowards way of saying that you cannot bring yourself to admit that the charges you have so invested yourself in, are false.

” but these men were vets and for Tano to talk about them with complete disdain is a sign of intolerance and narrow mindedness.”

Oh really. Jim Rassmun is not a vet? Kerry’s crew are not vets? Rood is not a vet? You are effectivly calling all of them liars. And they are clearly the ones who know best. Intolerance and narrow mindedness indeed.

” some dip shit like Tano calling a man who spent years in the Hanoi Hilton a liar.”

Hmmm, I know of one man who spent years in the Hanoi Hilton who considers the Swift Boat Liars to be “dinhonrable and dishonest”. I guess you must be a bit of a dipshit yourself for implying that he is a liar.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:32 pm 121. Matthew Cromer:

Vietnam was a national moral failure because of the draft. The draft is slavery and murder, and people got tired of it killing their sons in Vietnam. Thank God we as a country have mostly figured out that the draft is wrong, and ineffectual to boot.

Other than that point, the cold warriors were right about Vietnam and southeast asia, as the millions slaughtered in Vietnam and Cambodia and millions of desperate refugees prove so amply.

People like Tano who are leftists can gloss over “revolutions” that eat their own population by the bucketful and fancifully imagine that Kerry’s opposition to fighting communism (and later fascism in Kuwait in 1990) is a sign of a wise leader. Those of us who live in the real world recognize that monstrously evil regimes *are* a threat to us in a world of global air travel, widespread nuclear technology proliferation and horrific chem-bio technologies that must not be allowed to pass to the hands of unbalanced dictators and crazed jihadis.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:33 pm 122. Tano:

FreshAir,

Sorry, but John O’Niell seems to beleive that Swift boats, his, were able to make the trip. So sorry, your evidence has evaporated.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:37 pm 123. hollywood:

Mark & Terrye,

What Tano said. Well said, Tano.

“To me, [Kerry] is one of the very few prominent politicians who arose from that era who has the courage and honesty to deal with both aspects of what happened in that time.”

Exactly. As opposed to a posturing demagogue.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:38 pm 124. Sandy P:

Don’t agree, that man actively cast a pall on this country which lasts to this day.

He is a communist sympathizer and an appeaser.

Price is too high to get along with our allies.

—-

There was an appeaser in office in 79, now that same country will have nukes shortly.

I don’t think giving them nuke fuel if the Russians don’t is the way to go.

I do think pulling out of Germany is the right thing to do.

I think the 9/11 commission recommendations must pass The Constitution test – balance of powers, because the Exec branch gives up some, IIRC.

Looking at his record, he’s been pretty consistent. Appeaser. His thinking is stuck in the mid-20th century.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:41 pm 125. Mark Poling:

45% Say Bush More Honest and Trustworthy39% Say That Description Fits Kerry

Pardon the self promotion, but I look more closely at some other implications here.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:46 pm 126. penwil:

This is just too funny . . . from the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web today: http://opinionjournal.com/

Another Seared–Seared–Memory

From a John Kerry speech commemorating Martin Luther King Day, Jan.†20, 2003:

I remember well April 1968–I was serving in Vietnam–a place of violence–when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home–and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen.

In fact, Kerry did not go to Vietnam until November 1968.

——

My God, is there no end to the man’s perfidy?

Actually, this really isn’t funny at all. This man wants to be President of the United States in a time of war and he apparently can’t tell the difference between reality and the movies with himself in the starring role that he’s got going on in his head.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:48 pm 127. Roberts:

It is pretty hilarious to discuss Kerry’s “courage” and “honesty” when he’s been shown to have lied repeatedly about his Vietnam experiences ( his campaign spokesmen having admitted about 2 1/2 lies so far ) and hasn’t the “courage” to answer direct questions about it as shown on his appearance on Jon Stewart’s show.

The second SwiftBoats ad remains irrefutable.

Outside of the SwiftBoats Vets for Truth issues, Kerry has had the “courage” to be on both sides of every critical issue of the last couple of years. He voted for the war powers resolution for the Iraq War, condemned it, and then recently said he would have conducted the war too …

The best description of Kerry remains “Unfit For [Office]“.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:52 pm 128. Matthew Cromer:

Tano,

I notice you paid no attention to O’Neil’s explantion that Kerry’s patrol on the Mekong (where there were barriers in place at the time) was at a completely different place along the border than O’Neil’s (and at a different time, with completely different rules of engagement for border crossings coming into play during O’Neil’s tour). You also didn’t address the fact that O’Neil mentioned he was at the border, as opposed to John Kerry’s “5 miles into Cambodia” trip. The nail in the coffin of your tale is the fact that the Kerry campaign has abandoned the whole notion of the Cambodia incursion and now states that he was “near Cambodia”.

Aug 25, 2004 - 2:59 pm 129. Tano:

Matthew Cromer,

I was all set to write some snarky comment about how you are unable to think for yourself, and just refer me to Hannity for your rebuttal.

But I am just so overwhelmed by what I found there, I will desist. I urge everyone to go follow your linke. I dont think I have laughed so hard in years.

Here we have John O’Neill trying to squirm out of the obvious lie that has been discovered in the Nixon tapes.

All of you who have mocked and ridiculed John kerry, please go read this. Turns out he said he was “in Cambodia”. But he meant “near Cambodia”. Kinda sorta – within 15 miles, or maybe 50, or maybe on the border but not in, but yeah, sort of in, but – it wasnt where kery went in, but somewhere, else, ….but Kerry was there too, but….hey, I voted for Humphry, y’know?

How can anyone read this interview, and not conclude that this guy is complete bottom feeder.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:00 pm 130. Peter G.:

(Not sure if anyone has commented on this before) I saw on C-SPAN the O’Neill-Kerry debate on the Dick Cavett Show from 1971. I can’t say for certain who’s telling the truth about their war experiences, but I can say who had a better grasp of the outcome if North Vietnam took over. Here’s part of the transcript from the show:

MR. CAVETT: No one has said that there’ll be a bloodbath if we pull out, which is a cliche we used to hear a lot. Does either of you still think there would be a -

MR. O’NEILL: I think if we pull out prematurely before a viable South Vietnamese government is established, that the record of the North Vietnamese in the past and the record of the Viet Cong in the area I served in at Operation [unintelligible] clearly indicates that’s precisely what would happen in that country.

MR. CAVETT: That’s a guess, of course.

MR. KERRY: I -

MR. O’NEILL: I’d say that their record at Thua, at Daq Son [phonetic spelling], at a lot of other places, pretty clearly indicate that’s precisely what would happen. Obviously, in Thua, we’ve discovered, how many, 5,700 graves so far, at Daq Son four or five hundred.

MR. KERRY: The true fact of the matter is, Dick, that there’s absolutely no guarantee that there would be a bloodbath. There’s no guarantee that there wouldn’t. One has to, obviously, conjecture on this. However, I think the arguments clearly indicate that there probably wouldn’t be.

First of all, if you read back historically, in 1950 the French made statements – there was a speech made by, I think it was General LeClerc, that if they pulled out, France pulled out, then there would be a bloodbath. That wasn’t a bloodbath. The same for Algeria. There hasn’t been.

I think that it’s really kind of a baiting argument. There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once people have agreed to withdraw. There’s just no pur-

——————–

O’Neill thinks there will be a bloodbath if North Vietman takes over after a pullout. Kerry thinks “the arguments clearly indicate there there probably wouldn’t be.” O’Neill was right, Kerry was wrong.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:01 pm 131. hollywood:

penwil,

I think your confusing the dates of Kerry’s second tour with the fact that he’d already done a 12 month tour.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:03 pm 132. penwil:

And then there’s this classy behavior from the Kerry campaign via Captain’s Quarters:

–A group of Democratic loyalists is compiling incriminating dossiers on the members of the veteran group – and they sent us a preview of what might be in store for Swift Boat activist James Zumwalt, son of illustrious Adm. Elmo Zumwalt – and it isn’t pretty.

Zumwalt “attempted to kill himself with an overdose of prescription drugs,” after the murder of his ex-wife’s fiance, John Kowalczyk, according to the dossier, which is footnoted to news sources, and was “convicted of reckless driving after chasing Kowalczyk at a high speed on the highway.”–

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

———

You see there are smear campaigns and then there are SMEAR campaigns.

Man, if they actually go ahead with this, then the internals in the Kerry camp must show him circling the drain. Because I’d put the potential of this backfiring like a grenade in the face at about 10 to 1.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:05 pm 133. Tano:

Penwil,

Ooops, yet another mistake caused, no doubt, by relying on the blogosphere for your information.

Kerry served in Vietnam aboard the Gridley from Feb. to May of 68, before he became a swiftie.

Guess ya gotta call back that rant.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:06 pm 134. devildog:

Sorry, but John O’Niell seems to beleive that Swift boats, his, were able to make the trip. So sorry, your evidence has evaporated.

Not at all Tano. O’Neill has stated that he was in the southern part of Vietnam where the waterways are far more open, not in the Mekong River area.

Even so, in addition to Naval records, his chain of command, and his own ‘band of brothers,’ Kerry’s own journal entries prove he was not in Cambodia.

In Kerry’s own words:

The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.”

In Tour of Duty Brinkley writes:

“His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry’s final mission.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:08 pm 135. Charlie (Colorado):

I’m just an undigested bit of mustard.

Whoo hoo! A Dickens reference!

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:08 pm 136. Fresh Air:

Tano–

You are truly the most pathetic troll who visits this site. You have (again) hijacked a thread. You have offered a non-sequitur. You have refused to rebut my previous posts point by point. You have failed to distinguish between Kerry’s wholly unambiguous statement on the Senate floor (”seared–seared”) and a completely ambiguous statement by O’Neill, referring to a different territory, in closed quarters.

Even if O’Neill had occupied Prince Sihanouk’s palace it doesn’t prove Kerry was there on December 24, 1968, which is the whole point.

Gawd! You are being a dolt.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:13 pm 137. David Thomson:

ìA group of Democratic loyalists is compiling incriminating dossiers on the members of the veteran group – and they sent us a preview of what might be in store for Swift Boat activist James Zumwalt, son of illustrious Adm. Elmo Zumwalt – and it isn’t pretty.î

This is most certainly a sign of desperation. Anybody with even half a brain would warn you that this sort of smear job is likely to blow up in your face. This is similar to playing with nitroglycerin.

The Kerry people rightfully sense that if the active and inactive members of the U.S. military opt for George W. Bush by a 65% margin—the Democratic campaign will go down in flames. John Kerry probably now has less than a 10% chance of defeating the president.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:20 pm 138. Old Grouch:

Addressing thibaud (and others above):

Financial viability wouldn’t require an advertising-based model if there was a simple, low overhead micropayments system. Yesterday Roger linked to Instapundit’s 260,000 pageview day. Okay, it’s Instapundit. Okay, it’s a record. But if you had a blog that got 1/4 that (65,000 views) and cleared 1¢ per view, that’s $650.00. For one day. Exclusive of any advertising that you might sell. (And that would be “paid circulation,” which to advertisers is a Good Thing.) Not lawyer rates, but I’d take it

Look at it from the consumer end: I currently pay $1.50 every day for two newspapers. If I dropped one of the newspapers and put the money onto the web, at 1.5¢ per site per day, I’d still come out ahead.

Right now there’s no east way for me to send Roger (or Glenn, or Lileks, or Atrios) his daily penny. (Paypal and the like are still too cumbersome and their minimums are too high.) But I’d be willing to bet that there are some really smart people (hello, Google!) out there who are working on it.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:24 pm 139. Tano:

FresAir,

Here is a hint. Maybe you can pick out the pattern. Anyone posting intellegent, or reasonably honest comments directed toward me, almost always gets a response. Fill it up with insults and name-calling, and I only respond if I feel an important point needs to be made. And even then with reluctance – for it only encourages such behavior. Learn to speak civilly, and I might respond more often.

You seem to take the position that Kerry needs to provide unambigous proof that his boat crossed an unmarked border before you believe him. Fine. Personally, my instinct would be to demand contrary proof from anyone claiming he is a liar. Maybe it is just your default is to consider him a liar unless proven otherwise, and my default is the opposite.

All of the evidence that I have seen seems to weigh in Kerry’s favor, though none of it is decisive in either direction. Kerry’s own diaries put him very near the border, thus disputing all the claims about how it would be impossible to cross. Every other detail about his Christmas story seems backed up by those diary entries. Once again, the only question that remains is whether he crossed at a slightly later date. If you would require a satellite photo, imposed on a map of the region, well, then I guess you are pretty secure in your beliefs. But they remain simply beliefs, based on a default position that he must be lying.

As the saying goes, one cant rationally argue someone out of a position that they havent accepted rationally in the first place.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:25 pm 140. Charlie (Colorado):

Here we have John O’Neill trying to squirm out of the obvious lie that has been discovered in the Nixon tapes.

Tano, would you be so kind as to address the objections that several people have posted, to whit:

(1) It was physically impossible to reach Cambodia via the Mekong river at the time Kerry claims to have done so?

(2) Kerry’s campaign no longer claims Kerry was in Cambodia over Christmas, the day that was “seared — seared” into his memory, so why do you continue to do so?

(3) O’Neill was still in Viet Nam when incursions into Cambodia were open, but Kerry was not, thus accounting for O’Neill being “in Cambodia” when Kerry could not have been?

(4) Why Kerry’s own diaries, according to Brinkley, confirm he had not yet been in combat a week after the injury for which he received his third Purple Heart (which was awarded for an injury that preceded the occurrance of the injuries that got him his secnd and third PH.)

(5) Why Kerry’s own diaries, according to Brinkley, claim that he never entered Cambodia?

(6) Why none of the supposed covert operations Kerry supposedly participated in show up in the declassified records of the Special Operations Group?

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:28 pm 141. hollywood:

This is an amazing link. Tano’s right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130048,00.html

If I were a shrink, I’d guess it’s O’Neill who lied (to Nixon, of all people) about being in Cambodia and he wants to superimpose his lie on Kerry.

He even puts out misleading stuff about French, the lying DA. http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=70418

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:29 pm 142. Mark Poling:

Hollywood, you call Tano’s hagiography a rebuttal?

Kerry has dealt with both sides of this in an honest manner. He can articulate pride in the service rendered, and also acknowledge the broader failure in policies, and even the horror of some of the tactics that were ordered. [emphasis added]

From Kerry’s 1971 Congressional testimony:

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this Administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission — to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say “Vietnam” and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

From the New Soldier — Epilogue:

I think that, more than anything, the New Soldier is trying to point out how there are two Americas — the one the speeches are about and the one we really are. Rhetoric has blinded us so much that we are unable to see the realities which exist in this country.

We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But we found instead that we were killing women and children. We knew the saying “War is hell” and we knew also that wars take their toll in civilian casualties. In Vietnam, though, the “greatest soldiers in the world,” better armed and better equipped than the opposition, unleashed the power of the greatest technology in the world against thatch huts and mud paths. In the process we created a nation of refugees, bomb craters, amputees, orphans, widows, and prostitutes, and we gave new meaning to the words of the Roman historian Tacitus: “Where they made a desert they called it peace.”

Two Americas. Can’t the Democrats come up with anything that isn’t recycled ’70s? But anyway, where’s the pride? Where’s the respect for his “band of brothers”?

These quotes of course raise obvious questions for the Senator: Can we now say that America has turned? If so, in what way? If not, how is America today like the America of the Vietnam era.

A responsible journalist would be asking those of the candidate. I would love to hear his answers.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:29 pm 143. Charlie (Colorado):

You seem to take the position that Kerry needs to provide unambigous proof that his boat crossed an unmarked border before you believe him.

Tano, see, this is another one of those places where you simply state a falsehood as a premise and expect us to buy it. The border into Cambodia was not unmarked. In fact, it was not only marked, it was obstructed and guarded from both sides in order to prevent a recurrance of the diplomatic hoorah that happened when Navy personnel crossed the border some months earlier.

Why do you imagine that anyone would take you seriously as anything but a troll when you repeat assertions like this, and never modify them in the face of refutation?

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:33 pm 144. Katherine:

Charlie – a single answer to ALL your questions: It can be all expained by invoking a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:34 pm 145. RogerA:

Tano and Hollywood: Thibaud’s psychoanalysis of Kerry may very well be correct–perhaps he was a fervent patriot in 1969 and became an anti-warrior in 1970. Well and good–and had he undertaken his anti-war campaign without slandering the 2.5 or 3 million men who served in Viet Nam charaterizing them as baby killers and the like, I would have felt a lot better–he slandered ME to make his point–this tells ME he uses people–and he uses people to advance his career. That is not something I want to see in the President. An equally compelling case can be made that he is a crass opportunist who was smart enough to exploit the purple heart loophole to be a hero and also abandon his band of brothers in 4 short months–and he then exploited his band of brothers to further his anti-war credentials among the very fevert anti war crowd–and he exploited that again in 1986–I dont honestly give a rats ass if he was or wasnt in Cambodia–as one who was used to further his career, I reall really dont like him very well–if either you or hollywood have any experience in being used and if you have put either or your respective asses on the line in combat, then by all means I would think a bit more highly of your psychoanalysis or Kerry’s character.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:37 pm 146. devildog:

Good posts David and Fresh Air. Tano’s lame attempt at spin is just one more sign of how nervous the Dems are over the position Kerry has put himself in. That idiotic stunt by Cleland and Rassmann takes the cake.

So attention dimwitted moonbats! This controversy can not be concluded by blaming the president, attacking the character of John O’Neill and other SBVT, silly political theater, or by changing the subject while claiming the high ground. Kerry needs to sign a DD SF180 along with holding a subsequent press conference.

Lastly, my dimwitted moonbat friends, how do you reconcile that your candidate won’t release his records? Unsettling, n’est pas?

Here’s one reason they’re panicking!

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:37 pm 147. devildog:

Oh Charlie (Colorado), how I enjoy your sober prose! No doubt Tano will whither in its light…

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:44 pm 148. RogerA:

Having finished my rant, I would LOVE to talk about Kerry’s plan to get more allied help in Iraq. The only thing wrong with his plan is that the allies, France and Germany especially couldnt even fulfill their dinky commitment to afghanistan–they simply dont have the forces to commit (Hint: check the International Institute for Strategic Studies or Janes to see how many forces they really have that are combat ready)-And given their dependence on arab oil, they arent about to jeopardize their oil supply in ways that would irritate their arab dictators.

I would also love to see how he isnt going to do anything to modify the current social security system–(I will rest a lot easier knowing that you young ‘uns out there will be financing my retirement in 2 and a half years). and we could go on, so yes: lets talk about the issues–BRING IT ON

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:46 pm 149. RogerA:

as long as I am on a rant roll here, I might point out the hero Kerry chooses to send Cleland and Rassman to Texas–seems to me thats using people to do what Kerry isnt willing to do. THATS what I meant in my first rant about using people.

Aug 25, 2004 - 3:52 pm 150. Mark Poling:

And again, I want to know how much money Rassman in particular is getting for his efforts. Who’s paying the bills on this, folks?

(Cleland, oddly enough, seems otherwise hooked up.)

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:02 pm 151. hollywood:

Mark Poling,

“To cherry-pick a bit:

For starters, it should create a semi-independent federal agency tapping into private resources that would develop and enforce security standards.

Hmmm. Yet another new agency. “Semi-independent” meaning what, exactly? “Tapping into private resources.” Pork!

No, I haven’t read the article, but I can definitely see the outlines of a rebuttal.

The Bush administration was never willing to commit the resources necessary to secure the country and did not make the most of the resources it had.

The question that never gets asked, let alone answered, is why the administration would “commit the resources necessary.”

Mark, you should read the pieces. You might get some ideas for your blog.

As for the security agency, the writer proposes a self funding organization somewhat analogous to the Federal Reserve System. He proposes regional and local organization, insurance, and a variety of functions to do what I suspect Homeland Security would presently be incapable of. It’s not a bad proposal if you are serious about securing our country. I’m sure it couldn’t be entirely self funding, but then it sounds like it would create employment opportunities.

The article on Iraq was authored by a man who served for 4 months as a senior advisor to the CPA in Bagdad. He says that Rumsfeld et al. ignored State Dept. plans and good sense in insisting on a vastly reduced force. He estimates we needed between 300,000 and half a million troops on the ground. He writes “one cannot review the political record without underscoring the pervasive security deficit, which undermined everything else the coalition sought to achieve.” In other words, pennywise, pound foolish.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:17 pm 152. Sandy P:

Via vodkaboy:

Google plans to revert to contextual ads powered by its AdSense program, which was launched last June, with a major twist.

“We are going to start paying bloggers. Soon you will be blogging for dollars. That’s right people, chocolate is to peanut butter like AdSense is to blogs. Or is it the other way around? Either way, we’ve got something big here folks,” the company said in a note posted online.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:25 pm 153. PeterUK:

Tano,

If this is true,

“Final Nail in Swift Boat Liars Coffin?”

Then this is not.

“That is simply not true. 200+ Swifites did not co-author, or even endorese the book. Most of them signed up because they are very upset about his Senate testimony”.

Make up your mind.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:28 pm 154. Mark Poling:

Hollywood, just a point: many of us here do know how to put links into our comments. If you don’t know the html, just copy and past the full address of what you want us to look at into the comment. Asking us to Google around to find something you suggest we read is a bit presumptuous.

I blog what I see that interests me and that I don’t feel is covered well (or well noted) elsewhere.

Back at you, if you want to see mostly geopolitical topics covered from a hawkish libertarian perspective, I highly recommend you visit

http://www.windsofchange.net

Smart folks over there.

BTW, still no links or references to anything from Kerry on these topics. But hey, he isn’t Bush.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:29 pm 155. RogerA:

Hollywood: a rather important issue about between 300K and and a half million trooops on the ground in Iraq–Precisely where would these troops have come from? I will leave it as an exercise for you to determine what the American Force Structure is (recognizing of course, the need to continue to maintain existing commitments around the world) and how we would have met that “requirement.”

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:31 pm 156. Fresh Air:

Hollywood–

Your comment on Iraq is way off-topic, but…

Since one of the main criticisms of the occupation of post-war Iraq–namely the decision to disband the Iraqi army–was made by the State Dept., how can you blame Rumsfeld for the security situation? I mean wouldn’t a couple hundred thousand troops who spoke Arabic be a bit more useful than 170,000 more G.I.s with their attendant supply tail getting IED’d?

Not sure where the extra manpower would come from either, but that’s another matter.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:33 pm 157. Erik:

I think the real “power” with blogs is the fact gathering, the links, references and sources. The key to credibility here is to state your case, support your opinion, and show the evidence to back it up. This makes spinning more or less futile, because even if you select your sources carefully, someone else will just factcheck you. Be wrong too many times, and your credibility is gone.

This is actually what impressed me most when I started reading internet discussions (of various kinds). There were people that would not only state an opinion, but would also support it with facts, and give references so others could see for themselfes. There was a lot of things I came to see in a new light as a result.

What’s interesting with the net is that it’s global, and anyone can join a discussion. That means that it’s always possible that there’s someone there that has access to inside information, or first hand knowledge.

When the MSM didn’t write about pro-US demonstrations in Iraq, a local guy with a digital camera reported it on his blog, complete with pictures of the reporters that were there looking at it, but failed to tell the world.

Another example. Some time ago I went to John Moores blog from here. When I was there, I noticed an entry about a courtcase in my part of the world. Since it was close to me, I naturally started to look into it, using local sources, and it took me very short time to find more information about this case, including the complete verdict (in the original language), background information, and a discussion about the legal implications from a local blogger. I then commented on Johns site, giving feedback on what I found out.

Since I’m local, I was in a very good position to investigate it from first hand sources, while I believe John (out of necessity) had to have gotten his information from secondary (i.e. translated) sources. Had there for some reason been some mistake or spin in translation, I would have caught it and corrected it, as it was now I could add further confirmation to the story.

This is what I see as the main advantage of a blog compared to MSM. A blog has access to what amounts to an unlimited number of reporters, all over the world. Anyone reading a blog can become a source for it, and verify and/or correct the information in it. No matter what topic, chances are very good that there will be someone with very good information about it. And people with years of experience of a subject will have background information that the MSM just dont have, going from story to story.

The blogosphere works as a network, so anything interesting that one blogger finds out is often picked up by other blogs, and the word spreads around. Someone else with more knowledge might read it on another blog, and comment on it, and as a result information is gathered, and factchecked, by everyone reading the blogs.

I’ve even seen bloggers ask readers for specific information, and usually they get it within a very short time (if it’s a popular blog).

As a sidenote, the newspapers here now do the same on their websites. If something happens suddenly somewhere in the world, they ask anyone that’s there to mail them and tell them what’s going on from a local view.

I dont think blogs will take over from newspapers. What I do think will happen is that blogs will keep the MSM honest. It will remove the MSM aura of being the only ones “in the know”, and “responsible to informing the common man”. They will have a watchdog over them, watching and factchecking what they write, and if they stray too far from the facts, they will simply loose their readers. In the long run, I think is a really healthy development. It’s certainly been good for papers here to know they cant get away with anything.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:42 pm 158. ambisinistral:

Old Grouch,

Micropayments would seem to be a solution. Back in 1998 Jakob Nielson was arguing for them quite forcefully. He was arguing that web payment schemes being used were charging too much per page view. He used an example of how a lightbulb is metered at such a small sum of money that people rarely even consider the bill they are running up when they turn a light on.

An intriging idea that I’ve followed off and on. The problem has always been in the centralization of collecting money from advertisers (or content providers), and then distributing it in an equitable manner.

The W3C did attempt to put some standards together. Below is a link to their web section on the issue if anybody is interested.

http://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:48 pm 159. Terrye:

Hollywood:

The question is not whether O’Neill was in Cambodia but when, and remember he got there later. And we know Kerry was on another ship before he went in country. The four months refer to in country.

Tano:

The Rood piece does not make the swifties out to be liars, in fact they are very similar accounts. The question is whether Kerry exagerated his bravery, not if a fight took place.

You just want to discount the men even if they were in a boat 70 feet away if you don’t like what they say. If the guy in the boat 70 feet away says something you like to hear then it is ok.

And quit beating that poor dead horse Cambodia

Kerry can get you guys to come to his defence but he could end all this today by releasing his records and he won’t do it. He would rather blame anybody and anyone who dares question him than do what Bush did and release his records.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:54 pm 160. ambisinistral:

Tano,

One of the oldest trolls is too start with a flawed premise and build as convincing an argument as possible out of it. When people hack the troll’s obviously idiotic post to pieces the troll continues to argue from the flawed premise while acting indignant at the jokes and insults bounced off of the heads.

Great fun at first I suppose, but low-ball trolling IMHO. I’ve always much prefered trolls who start from a valid position, and through a series of slighty askew logical steps reach a ridiculous conclusion. If still annoying, at least the troll is much more clever.

If you’re gonna troll, do us a favor and put some effort into it.

Aug 25, 2004 - 4:55 pm 161. Terrye:

It is easy after the fact to say that post war Iraq should have been handled differently. But life is not like that. Whatever course one takes there are consequences, often unintended that arise.

So in regards to the Iraqi army we should remember that it disbanded itself and if the US had made a point of keeping it together what signal would that have sent? What if our troops had shot looters?

It is one thing to be the loyal oppostion it is something else to be a nag. So far Kerry has had an easy time of saying whatever he wants but I still do not know what he would have done differently or what he would do next.

It seems that the only people out there he really thinks of as the enemy are Republicans and veterans who don’t share his inflated opinion of himself.

I heard that Janet Jackson said the fiasco concerning her boob was really Bush’s fault. He was trying to distract the country from Iraq. She said Moore’s movie F/911 just confirms it.

Typical thinking process for a Kerry supporter.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:12 pm 162. Tano:

“The Rood piece does not make the swifties out to be liars, in fact they are very similar accounts”

Terrye,

Get real. Read the Rood piece. He directly charges the Swifties with making charges that are not true. That is why he decided to chime in. He directly contradicts (in the passages that I quoted) O’Neill’s slanders about what went on in the Silver star incident.

And what is this nonsense about people in boats 70 feet away. Do I have to repeat myself? Read Rood’s account. He was not in a boat 70 feet away. He beached his boat next to Kerry’s and followed him ashore. He was right there when it all happened.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:18 pm 163. devildog:

Now this is funny!

…and sadly, true.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:20 pm 164. flenser:

Tano

“The man Kerry chased was not the “lone” attacker at that site, as O’Neill suggests. ”

O’Neill does not suggest any such thing. Perhaps you should read the book before you attempt to comment on it. In fact, read Rood and the citation as well.

This is the relevent excerpt.

“According to Doug Reese, a pro Kerry Army veteran, and many others, what happen that day differs from the retelling in the citation. Far from being alone, the boats were loaded with many soldiers commanded by Reese and two other advisors. When fired at, Reese’s boat, not Kerry’s was the first to beach in the ambush zone. The Reese and others troops and advisors (not Kerry) disembarked, killing a number of Viet Cong and capturing a number of weapons.”

I repeat, Rood’s account is a lot closer to O’Neill’s than it is to Kerry’s Silver Star citation, which reads in part as follows.

“Arriving at the area, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY’s craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his units to charge the enemy positions and summoned Patrol Craft Fast 43 to the area to provide additional firepower. Patrol Craft Fast 94 then beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled.”

It is the citation which makes mention of only one attacker, not O’Neill.

Caught in a lie again, Tano

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:23 pm 165. thibaud:

Tano

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It deserves a considered, lengthy reply in turn. Apologies in advance if this long reply bores the rest of the crew here, but I’m a middle-aged hawkish liberal who very much would like to vote against Bush but finds he cannot vote for Kerry.

If I understand you correctly, Tano, you view Kerry as a bridge of sorts between the right and the left. Essentially, your disagreement with me seems to rest on three perceived Kerry virtues born of his Vietnam experience and refined over decades of public service:

1) “Hamlet”-style intellectualism is actually a desirable trait in one who’d lead the US today (”I respect someone who fearlessly engages both sides of a dispute”): call this virtue flexibility.

2) Vietnam was a mistake, and Kerry deserves great credit for recognizing it as such as early as he did–call this moral courage;

3) Kerry’s heroism in Vietnam, combined with his recognition of our mistakes there, makes him uniquely well-suited to plow forward or throttle back, as circumstances require–call this cunning.

I’m all for flexibility, moral courage and cunning, traits which seem to be in short supply regarding current Bush admin policy toward North Korea and Iran. These and other threats (the impending blowup of the House of Saud, $50/bbl oil, severe vulnerability to chance that Asian bankers will switch out of Treasuries into euro instruments…) are exceptionally complex, demanding a mix of diplomacy, military intervention, and political brilliance that I think is sorely lacking not just in Washington but across the West today. I frankly don’t have a clue as to how Bush will handle Iran, NK or Saudi collapse.

So there’s a good case for voting against Bush. But your case for voting for Kerry is, like the Senator’s campaign, almost entirely based on the issues and lessons of Vietnam, of whose relevance to our situation I’m not persuaded.

I will certainly agree that our Vietnam policy was a mistake. So I’ll overlook the “war criminals” stuff and grant the point about moral courage. But if I examine Kerry’s policy positions from 1978-2001, I fail to see a great deal of cunning or flexibility. Kerry prior to 2001 favored the nuclear freeze, opposed the MX, supported the Sandinistas, opposed Gulf War I and generally behaved like a quiet, junior member of the left-lib Massachusetts establishment. And Kennedy, Ed Markey and others were much more prominent than Kerry– on “point”, if you will. More importantly, where’s the nuance or flexibility in backing a nuclear freeze or supporting a leninist clown like Daniel Ortega? Are these really the stands of a flexible, non-doctrinaire leader?

At least they’re consistent. Since 9/11, the consistency has evaporated. The former pro-sandinista peacenik has had at least four different positions regarding Iraq, with new policy changes now arising nearly every week. Is it not too much to ask the man to state– a simple yea or nay would be nice to hear– whether 1) he thinks we are at war with the jihadists and 2) he thinks we should have invaded Iraq?

My take is that Kerry, like many of his Cold Warrior opponents, simply has no clue how to deal with a baffling new post-Cold War situation in which the old categories of “progressive” national liberation movements and “colonialist” oppressors don’t apply.

Hence the deeply unserious mantra about the “allies.” (Note: France since 1991 has not considered itself our ally, and has in the middle east behaved more like an enemy–certainly no more helpfully than, say, Russia). And a hard right pro-Sharon policy on Israel that makes a mockery of the claim to be sensitive to the perspectives of allies who detest Sharon.

Hence the silliness about aping Dean’s policy re Iraq, then declaring support for the war, and recently lunging even further into pro-war territory than his aides or backers or anyone could have guessed. Isn’t it a bit surreal to hear a Nebraska (?) Republican announce that he would not have supported the war if he’d known we’d not find WMD there while hearing Kerry say he would have supported the war even if he’d known the same?

Perhaps the man’s actually the most cunning guy on earth, but this doesn’t strike me as nuance or flexibility. This is Carterite mush. If Kerry’s got a great deal of moral courage, then how can it be that he hasn’t found his voice regarding dealing with this new challenge?

Even Howard Dean was more coherent and more sensible. I know it’s a complex issue, but could he please just state clearly, once and for all, yea or nay, whether he thought the war was necessary and appropriate? I’d respect him more if he answered in the negative. Anything’s better than the mush we’ve heard these last twelve months.

Kerry is not bridging the gap between left and right; he’s confusing the hell out of everyone and thereby making the divide even worse. Put it this way: Kerry cannot have my vote and Mikey’s vote. This is Sister Souljah time, and Kerry must choose between me and the man who supported Milosevic and Saddam.

My own view is that the man’s one of the last casualties of the Cold War. Kerry would do himself and the nation a big favor if this troubled old soldier would fade back and pass away from the political scene. Wrong era, wrong situation, wrong man. I’m voting ABK in 2004.

respectfully,

thibaud

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:24 pm 166. Tano:

Peter writes,

Tano,

If this is true,

“Final Nail in Swift Boat Liars Coffin?”

Then this is not.

“That is simply not true. 200+ Swifites did not co-author, or even endorese the book. Most of them signed up because they are very upset about his Senate testimony”.

Make up your mind.”

Huh? Is this the best you can do?

200+ Swifties are angry as hell about Kerry’s antiwar activities. I have no problem with that – they are entitled to their opinion, and to express it. But the hard core of the group decided (stupidly) to try to tear down Kerry’s war record with a set of lies and distortions. Their credibility is now in shreds. And they have probably deeply hurt their cause, because now that they finally get around to trying to raise the issues that motivate the wider group, very few reasonable people are willing to listen anymore.

The latter statement of mine that you quote is a simple fact. The former is my judgement regarding the credibility of the core group – the ones involved with the book.

If I were a swiftie angry at Kerry, I would be pretty pissed at O’Neill and the other ringleaders for blowing the opportunity to be heard with credibility on the fundamental points.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:27 pm 167. devildog:

Ah, the Kerry strategy takes a new tack — Susan Turnbull from the DNC is saying “We should not be asking these questions of John Kerry. …the person whose life he saved has already said it best…”

That’s right, nothing here folks. Just keep moving along. There’s nothing to see here.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:28 pm 168. richard mcenroe:

Tano ó The Gridley was never in Vietnam. The Gridley was on plane guard duty to recover downed aviators in the South China Sea, in fact, the crew’s nickname for the ship was “The Galloping Ghost of the China Coast.”

And BTW, the crew of the Gridley also see Kerry as a politically motivated opportunist with a colorful fantasy life. The source for this information is the official Gridley home page.

Service aboard the Gridley qualified Kerry for a service medal (an I-was-there medal) for serving during the Vietnam war. It did not count as service in Vietnam. That’s a whole different medal to throw over the fence.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:33 pm 169. Tano:

flenser,

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You seem to claim that Rood supports the swifties. And yet you begin by calling ME a liar, by pointing not to something that I said, but something that Rood said.

Sorry to waste the bandwith, but here is a slightly longer excerpt from Rood. You tell me who is lying, and whether Rood is supporting the Swifities.

Remeber (you seem to have a problem with this) these are Rood’s words, not mine.

“It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn maneuver, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn’t fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz’s boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch — a thatched hut — maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat’s leading petty officer with whom I’ve checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.

With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O’Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry’s Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a “teenager” in a “loincloth.” I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the “lone” attacker at that site, as O’Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker. “

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:38 pm 170. PeterUK:

Tano,

Your first assertion implies the Swift Boat Veterans are liars.

Your second assertion implies that many of them are not liars but signed up because they are angry.

“The latter statement of mine that you quote is a simple fact”.

Simple yes,fact no.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:41 pm 171. richard mcenroe:

tano ó Look at who signed this letter to John Kerry:

Senator John Kerry

304 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

Thatís why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And thatís why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities ñ and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

Weíre proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You canít have it both ways. You canít build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 ìwe do not need to divide America over who served and how.î Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too ñ and proud to support President Bush. Heís been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. Heís made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 ñ in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And heís praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteranís right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson

Rep. Duke Cunningham

Rep. Duncan Hunter

Rep. Sam Johnson

Lt. General David Palmer

Robert O’Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient

James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

You know those damn Medal of Honor winners. Buncha latrine diggers and wannabes, just like Pat Oliphant said.

I would pay cash money to watch Kerry borrow his pair back from Theresa long enough to attack those men…

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:46 pm 172. Terrye:

Tano:

You are missing the point whatever the reasons Rood gave for finally [days after the fact] coming forward his account does not radically differ from the swifties. There were other ships involved as well as soldiers. The point is did Kerry make himself just a tad bigger and badder than he was? Nor does this change the fact that this is just one of several instances in which Kerry’s accounts do not mesh.

These people have tons of reference material. They are not just making this up as they go along. O’Neil is by all accounts a good lawyer. If there is not any truth to it then Kerry can just release his records and put the controversy to rest, this part of it at least.

But they will still hate his guts and whether you or anybody else likes that is their right.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:47 pm 173. flenser:

Tano

I have excerpted for you what O’Neill actually said. Also, what Kerry’s citation said.

O’Neill did not make the claim that you are saying he made. Period.

You cannot simply hide behind the fact that you are repeating what others have said. A lie repeated second hand is still a lie.

Rood’s account is far closer to the Swifties than it is to Kerry’s citation. He at least makes some mention of the fact the the bulk of the fighting was actually done by an Army unit.

Which of your posts are not a waste of bandwidth?

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:54 pm 174. RogerA:

Thibaud: well said

Tano: I have already said this swift boat stuff is absolute nonsense–it is time to talk about issues, and you steadfastly refuse to do that–I think the rest of the participants on this blog could easily say enough, lets talk about issues. The issue of Kerry’s character is debatable but ultimately a value judgment–as far as I am concerned he is pond scum–you may regard him as the messiah–I dont really care one way or the other–for god sakes, man–lets talk ISSUES. Thibaud has laid out his case and I think the rest of the folks on this blog can rise to the occasion.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:55 pm 175. thibaud:

Old Grouch,

I currently pay $1.50 every day for two newspapers. If I dropped one of the newspapers and put the money onto the web, at 1.5¢ per site per day, I’d still come out ahead.

Two q’s for you:

Assuming one could cobble together a “newspaper,” or maybe a “viewspaper” for you based on aggregation of blog content + wire services stuff, would you pay subscription fees for such a “viewspaper”?

Would you be willing to let such a blog install software on your PC in order to automatically customize that viewspaper based on your previous click-throughs? In other words, “learn” your preferences and serve up appropriate blog commentary, web articles, wire services stuff etc?

if you wish to discuss further, email me at onlyinmoscow@yahoo.com

rgds,

thibaud

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:55 pm 176. Sandy P:

–200+ Swifties are angry as hell about Kerry’s antiwar activities. I have no problem with that – they are entitled to their opinion, and to express it.–

What makes you think only 200+ SBVs are angry?

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:55 pm 177. Sandy P:

thibaud:

–severe vulnerability to chance that Asian bankers will switch out of Treasuries into euro instruments…–

The Sauds lost $200 billion on the Euro, said $ is still king, Euro’s not ready for prime time earlier this year. Springtime, IIRC, in a british paper, maybe the Economist or Telegraph.

Aug 25, 2004 - 5:58 pm 178. Sandy P:

–If I were a swiftie angry at Kerry, I would be pretty pissed at O’Neill and the other ringleaders for blowing the opportunity to be heard with credibility on the fundamental points.–

And how were they going to be heard credibly? CNN? ABC??? NYT???

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:01 pm 179. Sandy P:

–Hmmm, I know of one man who spent years in the Hanoi Hilton who considers the Swift Boat Liars to be “dinhonrable and dishonest”. I guess you must be a bit of a dipshit yourself for implying that he is a liar.—

I hope you’re not talking about McCain.

Because if you are, one of his best buds, who ran his VA(?) presidential campaign, is in the 2nd ad.

He’s been silent on that one.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:04 pm 180. RogerA:

SandyP: exactly–its the other 2.5 million of us who think Kerry slandered all of us.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:04 pm 181. Fresh Air:

Tano–

I would be willing to concede Rood has some details that O’Neill does not. Whether his are more accurate than O’Neill’s I don’t know. But let’s assume they are. This still does not refute O’Neill’s main claim about the incident, which is as follows: John Kerry conspired with the other skippers before the mission to beach his boat in violation of standard operating procedure in an effort to create a medal opportunity. None of that is refuted by Rood; in fact, Rood admits they planned to beach the boats ahead of time. Go re-read it.

The question is, as Elliot put it, whether Kerry deserved “a Silver Star or a court-martial.” Rood’s story doesn’t give us a good handle on that answer since he didn’t see Kerry shoot the man with the rocket-launcher either. Was he a wounded teenager or a dangerous adult? We don’t know, and probably never will know.

But answer this: Why would the captain of a boat that was preceeded by another boat carrying a platoon of Ruff and Puffs leave his vessel (which could not make use of its main guns due to the angle) on foot in search of Charlie? Does that strike you as correct SOP?

O’Neill says it was a stupid thing to do. Sounds like it to me, too. But even if you don’t agree with his conclusion, you can’t somehow declare O’Neill’s evidence invalid.

Now, about that media/Internet discussion we were having…

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:05 pm 182. Navy Mom:

Time on the Gridley was not service IN VietNam. My husband flew out of Utapao, Thailand and never says that he is a VietNam Vet. He is a VietNam ERA vet. I am completely out of patience with the democrats. They simply can not understand why vets and active duty military don’t like their “war hero.” They are just clueless. Their souls are lacking honor, integrity, character, and truthfulness.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:06 pm 183. Sandy P:

Erik,

–This is actually what impressed me most when I started reading internet discussions (of various kinds). There were people that would not only state an opinion, but would also support it with facts, and give references so others could see for themselfes. There was a lot of things I came to see in a new light as a result.–

Could we say we’re Google geeks?

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:14 pm 184. richard mcenroe:

Chalk one more up for the Law of Unintended Democratic Consequences…

I think we can all agree that Tano has pretty much given up on his pose as happy anarchistic bandwidth bandit and revealed himself for the common memebot he is…

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:15 pm 185. Terrye:

TAno:

I am not a coward when I say there are things we will never know. I am a realist, you on the other hand are a deranged partisan.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:22 pm 186. Matthew Cromer:

Tano,

Why won’t Kerry sign the 180?

Why won’t his wife release her tax returns from previous years?

Why are the democrats running around screaming?

Do you think John Kerry’s vote against removing Saddam from Kuwait in Gulf War I will hurt him with the electorate?

Do you think John Kerry’s support of Daniel Ortega, murdering communist dictator of Nicaragua, and his undermining Reagan’s anti-communist policies in the 1980s will go over well with swing voters?

Your guy is in deep shit. You should have put up Howard Dean or Joe Lieberman — either anti-war or pro-war. Instead you nominated a high-carbohydrate griddle-baked breakfast food.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:36 pm 187. Matthew Cromer:

Hollywood,

Assume for a moment that 300,000 troops would have been preferable if Iraq were the only threat we have to deal with (I do not concede that, but for the sake of argument). Then we would be going into Iraq with essentially 100% of our deployable forces. That would leave the other murderous dictators of the world free to cause trouble. Taking down Saddam with a light, fast force makes it crystal clear to other scum that we can knock their lights out with one hand tied behind our back.

Tommy Franks offers some additional reasons why he chose to go in with a light force — to strike before Saddam could hit Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel with his WMD.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:41 pm 188. richard mcenroe:

Mark Steyn We’re only in trouble if the media debate stops…

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:42 pm 189. Rick Ballard:

At 3:28 Charlie (C) posted 6 questions for Tano. He posted them in a polite manner without name calling. Tano has not replied because he cannot. He cannot because he has been consistently distorting reality with the flimsiest of arguments all day long. He has no evidence whatsover to back up his jabbering, he doesn’t link to a single piece of evidence to support the tissue of lies that he’s hawking, hell, John Kerry has higher credibility than this clown.

Thibaud you can object to calling a troll a troll all day long but Tano will still be a troll. Cuddle up to him all you want but not one of his posts today was worth a photon. Don’t expect any pats for tag teaming with him.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:47 pm 190. Rick Ballard:

richard,

He’s really not of the intellectual caliber that one would associate with a memebot. Ambisinistral pegged him correctly at 4:55. DtP must have been skinning a Field Agent today. I think he mentiontioned that he needed a new throw rug for his office.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:57 pm 191. Tano:

thibaud,

You criticize Kerry for favoring the nuclear freeze? Whats wrong with that? Actually, if you scratch beneath the surface of the Reagan myth, you see that Reagan himself had idealistic visions of not only a nuclear freeze but a reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. He almost took the zero-option at Reyjavik, and ended up signing the INF treaty. I see no problem with Kerry’s stand there.

As to the Sandanistas, once again I come down on Kerry’s side. They came to power in a popular revolt against a decades long corrupt dictatorship, supported by us – a prime example of the very worst type of puppet regimes that we long supported in the developing world. I am glad that Ortega et. al. are no longer in charge there, because like many revolutionaries they were far better at deposing the dictator than having any clues about how to govern. But you should remember that they lost power because they set up a system of free and fair elections, and then proceeded to lose those elections, and peacefully hand over power. In other words, modern Nicaraugan democracy is their creation – in the most important sense imaginable – i.e. not just setting up a democracy but actually turning over power when you lose.

The absolute worst way to deal with the need to move beyond the Sandanistas would have been to support a right-wing death squad movement, which many republicans did, – people who carried out all manner of atrocities against innocent peasants as well as “guilty’ sandanistas – guilty in the sense of being political opponents. I greatly cheer Kerry for his principled opposition to that contra ugliness.

As to current events, I dont quite see the confusion that you do. I dont see any reason whatsoever to doubt that Kerry is intent on waging an agressive war against islamist jihadists. As has been mentioned endlessly, this is not a traditional war, and only parts, perhaps small parts will be waged by actual military force. One can distort Kerry’s words, when he speaks of police action, but everyone who is serious about the struggle against the jihadists recognizes that much of the struggle is based on police work, diplomacy, intel gathering and only occasionally standard military force.

As to Iraq, once again, I dont see any confusion. I know the RW fills the air with all manner of obfuscation – since their goal is to paint him as a flip-flopper, but if you actually read his positions they seem quite consistent to me. He believed that Saddam was a potential threat (because he accepted much of the intel) that needed to be dealt with – although not necessarily with war. He voted to authorize the president to go to war, IF NECESSARY, because he felt the president should have that authority to use as leverage (probably thinking ahead to his own possible presidency). He disagrees with how Bush went about using that leverage, since it seems clear that Bush intended to go to war all along, not to use the leverage to solve the situation in another manner, if possible, or to use that leverage to discover whether or not the WMD threat was real or not.

Kerry did not say he would have supported the war absent WMD stockpiles, he said he would have supported the president having authority to go to war, as leverage, to force Saddam to comply fully with all the resolutions, while using the extended time period to bring the rest of the world on board with the process, so that if war would eventually be needed down the road, the rest of the world would have been long on board. And of course, we would have had pleny of time to plan, and plenty of input regarding what we were likely to face when we got there.

Finally, as a side issue, I disagree with your comments about France. The French have been fighting along side us in Afghanistan throughout all of this. They cooperate fully with the war on jihadis. They disagree about the war in Iraq. They have a position that is the same as the overwhelming majority of the worlds population fwiw. Anti-terroist, but anti iraq war. That dosnt make them enemies, to my mind.

Aug 25, 2004 - 6:57 pm 192. Syl:

Meehan (Kerry’s campaign manager) was talking with Colmes tonite. I couldn’t hear over my yells of ‘Oh, Cheney to you!’ at the TV.

“George Bush could get this to stop!”

Well, so could Kerry if he’d release the darn records!

So to balance that out, I guess, they had on McKelvey (sp?), Democratic Mayor of Youngstown, Ohio

Well, pleasant surprise, he’s come out for Bush. Said Terry Mc is a better magician than Houdini. Houdini made an elephant disappear but Terry made Kerry’s entire 19 years in the Senate disappear!

But, surely, that’s no feat of magic. There was nothing there to begin with.

Anyway, I feel like writing to Meehan to tell him I’m a now former Democrat who has fallen in love with John O’Neill and Kerry’s a wimp and a fraidy cat for crying to mama, er Bush, to make them stop.

Hey, maybe we should start a John O’Neill fan club or something. LOL Kinda wish I was one of those organizer types.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:04 pm 193. Jamie Irons:

Rick Ballard writes:

He [Tano] has no evidence whatsover to back up his jabbering, he doesn’t link to a single piece of evidence to support the tissue of lies that he’s hawking, hell, John Kerry has higher credibility than this clown.

Tano [earlier in the thread] has written:

This site in particular has become totally wrapped up in advocacy of an utterly reprehensible set of dishonest charges, and the folks here resist absolutely any attempt to ferret out the truth of the situation.

Now, Tano has of course said one or two things, and little pieces of his arguments make a kind of rough and ready “sense.” But the whole result, such as it is, is tarnished by ridiculous and wholly unsubstantiated broadsides like what I quote above.

The Democrtaic tastic, in this moment of fear and confusion for them, seems to be to induce fear in the hated neo-conservative enemy by setrting the entire forest on fire, a forest which they alone inhabit while the enemy imbibes mint juleps, looking down upon the forest (which will be regenerated after the purifying flames have passed) with amused dispassion.

Jamie Irons

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:05 pm 194. Jamie Irons:

Let me clarify the last paragraph of my post (preview being my friend):

The Democrtaic tactic, in this moment of Democratic fear and confusion, seems to be to induce fear in the hated neo-conservative enemy by setting the entire forest on fire, a forest which the Democrats alone inhabit, while the enemy imbibes mint juleps, looking down upon the forest (which will be regenerated after the purifying flames have passed) with amused dispassion.

Jamie Irons

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:10 pm 195. Jamie Irons:

…Democratic tactic…

I seem to be only half awake. Sorry.

Jamie Irons

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:13 pm 196. devildog:

Hey moonbats (or with permission Richard, memebots), let’s play a game!

Let’s play how many medals, okay? Okay, great.

What medals did President Truman earn?

What medals did President Kennedy earn?

What medals did Bob Dole earn?

What medals did George H.W. Bush earn?

What medals did Bob Kerrey earn?

What medals did Daniel Inouye earn?

What medals did John McCain earn?

What medals did John Kerry earn?

Yep, we only know about the Medal of Honor winners and John “No Sh*t There I Was” Kerry’s.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:22 pm 197. Syl:

Tano

You cannot say what Kerry would do. Nobody knows what Kerry would do. You suspect he will do what you think you want him to do but you don’t KNOW. Even Rubin doesn’t know. There are fopo guys among Democrats, some with good ideas too, who haven’t a clue what KERRY would do.

I don’t think even KERRY knows what he would do. The pro-war Democrats are hoping Kerry does the right thing in Iraq. The anti-war Democrats are hoping Kerry will cut and run.

They can’t both be right.

Kerry’s an empty vessel. A vessel who wears a magic hat and carries a secret plan. You can believe anything you want to about it Kerry, and probably find something to back it up. And just for kicks, you can even argue the opposite position and find something to back that up too!

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:24 pm 198. Rick Ballard:

Jamie,

Privew used to be my friend. Now I know where he went.

This thread reads like the ones we used to see before Typekey. Tano’s initial premise concerns a charge that Kerry and his flacks have been running away from for 10 days. It ain’t exactly news. Tano the Dull managed to suck up half the comments on the thread. Now he’s starting to put up Kerry’s website in Roger’s comments section. How sweet of thibeau to invite this level of non-discourse.

Trolls should be treated precisely like sewer rats in a baby’s crib.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:27 pm 199. devildog:

Richard wrote:

Thibaud you can object to calling a troll a troll all day long but Tano will still be a troll. Cuddle up to him all you want but not one of his posts today was worth a photon. Don’t expect any pats for tag teaming with him.

Richard, I think Tano is a female troll.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:34 pm 200. Tano:

Charlie asks,

(1) It was physically impossible to reach Cambodia via the Mekong river at the time Kerry claims to have done so?

But it wasnt. On whose authority do you claim that it was? Kerry’s diaries speak of going right up to the border region. Gardner, of SBVT, claims there were pilings etc. – but he also claims that Kerry never went north of Sa Dec – which seems clearly false. Admiral Hoffman denies Kerry went in, but admits others did, and that signs were put up to warn boats away – not pilings or other physical impediments. You are simply choosing to believe Gardner because you want to belive him. That aint proof of anything.

(2) Kerry’s campaign no longer claims Kerry was in Cambodia over Christmas, the day that was “seared — seared” into his memory, so why do you continue to do so?

The “seared” meme is so much out there by now, it is so easy to forget the manner in which it was distorted. The usual manner of reporting it is this:

“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me….”

Of course the original looks a bit differnt. The last key sentence is not, as it is always presented, the conclusion of the thought in that paragraph. In fact, that sentence is the beginning of a new paragraph – and the key sentence never seems to be rendered in full.

In the original Senate report:

…the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

End of paragraph.

New paragraph.

I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harms way, we have a responsibility in the US Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid such a conflict.”

Clearly the memory that is seared in him is the overall lesson of how we must not commit to a war in which a president lies to the nation, or that we havent done all to avoid if possible. The searing was not necessarily about the date.

(3) O’Neill was still in Viet Nam when incursions into Cambodia were open, but Kerry was not, thus accounting for O’Neill being “in Cambodia” when Kerry could not have been?

The point Charlie, is that O’Neill lied. He has often claimed never to have been in Cambodia. He was. And the claim that Kerry could not have been there because it wasnt legal misses the whole point – that of course it wasnt legal, which is why the gov’t was denying it was happening. But we know it was happening.

(4) Why Kerry’s own diaries, according to Brinkley, confirm he had not yet been in combat a week after the injury for which he received his third Purple Heart (which was awarded for an injury that preceded the occurrance of the injuries that got him his secnd and third PH.)

Huh?

(5) Why Kerry’s own diaries, according to Brinkley, claim that he never entered Cambodia?

They make no such claim. Having not read them all, they may well not make a positive claim to have being in there, but they do not deny it. It seems unsurpising that a naval officer would not carry around proof of illegal entry into Cambodia in his diary – what would be the result of that diary were captured along with him by the enemy?

(6) Why none of the supposed covert operations Kerry supposedly participated in show up in the declassified records of the Special Operations Group?

I dont know the extent to which all CIA ops would be reported therin, nor do I know if you, or anyone else has access to all of them.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:36 pm 201. Tim Oren:

(Relentlessly and hopelessly on topic)

Ah, yes, microtransactions. I’ve seen a few of those deals (follow the link, I’m in venture capital). Passed every one of them. Haven’t left one cent (virtual or real) on the table yet. Several issues there…

Technology isn’t one of them. Every phone carrier runs a microtransaction system, albeit closed, and with varying quality. There’s plenty of worked out crypto to make it open, and clearing schemes to do the backend, or you can play the iTunes trick and just aggregate the buys up to where clearing via the conventional networks is practical. The problem is elsewhere.

First, economics, in fact, transaction cost economics c.f. Coase and Williamson. A lot of techies overlook that the cost of the transaction includes the human elements of decision making in the face of uncertainty. At some point the cognitive load of ‘is this worth it?’ and the implied time and psychological costs start swamping out the monetary value of the transaction. It’s colloquially called ‘being nickeled and dimed to death.’ The usual reaction is to abandon the proposed transaction. IMO, this is a human invariant. (Note: advertiser side microtransaction schemes – Google is one – don’t suffer equivalently. The humans involved are being otherwise compensated for the hassle of managing it.)

Second, bundling. The MSM deserve derision for abandoning any reality that was once behind an image of depth and impartiality. But they did get one thing right: bundling. Bundling is a way of overcoming the transactions costs issue by making many little ones into a larger one that boils down to “trust me, it’ll be good.” Readers trust me that I’ll deliver informative or entertaining content. Advertisers trust me that I’ll deliver readers that are relevant to you. Break that trust, and the scheme falls apart. Hmmm….

So your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to rebuild the bundling strategy in a new way that takes into account the realities of a distributed, personalized medium, minimizes the human transaction costs, and builds trust among writers, readers and advertisers. You need to get a critical mass of both writers and readers and probably advertisers in some commercially significant market. And by the way, there will be several dozen ventures with schemes that sound similar and/or will also rearrange the value chain into which you wish to insert yourself, all out there making noise. (Feedster, Techorati, bitpass, Google itself, as a few examples). Good luck!

(Does the Google valuation sound somewhat more rational now?)

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:41 pm 202. Matthew Cromer:

Tano,

Just a few more questions.

John Kerry negotiated with the communist Vietnamese in secret meetings while he was an officer in the Naval reserves. Do you think the electorate will think well of this if they find it out?

John Kerry claimed to witness and participate in war crimes. Since Nuremburg “just following orders” is clearly not acceptable. How come John Kerry followed illegal orders to commit war crimes? How come John Kerry did not report these war crimes up the chain of command? Why did he not resist illegal orders?

John Kerry was an officer in the Naval Reserve getting a paycheck from the military when he was an anti-war activist. Doesn’t it show a lack of integrity for him to be the leading anti-war activist, write books portraying his “band of brothers” as a gang of murderous psychopaths, while actually secretly serving in the military?

Did John Kerry throw his medals over the fence or not? Were they medals or ribbons? His or another vets?

Does John Kerry fall down when skiing, or do “asshole” secret service agents knock him down?

Why do John Kerry’s constituents know him as “Do you know who I am” or just DYKWIA?

Is it chance or opportunism that makes John Kerry serially marry centi-millionairs?

Why has John Kerry never held any position of leadership in the Senate despite a long career? Why do so many first-term Senators have better committee assignments? What do his Democrat colleagues know about John Kerry that makes them not trust him as a leader?

Bush has stoically withstood innumerable calumnies over the past year, from Michael Moore to Tom Harkin. How come John Kerry is such a thin-skinned wimp that he goes crying to Bush and the other Republicans when his former “brothers” reveal their disgust for his candidacy?

Why has John Kerry been beating his chest about Vietnam for the past 18 months? Why won’t he just shut up about it, as Bob Dole recommended to him?

John Kerry attended a Vietnam Veterans against the War meeting where the leadership discussed assassination pro-war Senators. To his credit he recommended against the plan which was ultimately defeated in a vote. Why did John Kerry — an officer of the Navy — fail to report this to the authorities or to his chain of command in the Navy? Why did he pretend to have quit VVAW and to have missed this seminal meet. What does it tell you about his judgment then in choosing companions that he was involved with a group considering the planning of assassinations? What does it tell you about his judgement today that two of the top members of his foreign policy team (one of them the prime candidate for the Sec. of State in a potential Kerry administration) had to be canned for lying to the press and for sneaking codeword-secret documents out of the national archives in an apparent attempt to control the outcome of the 9/11 commission investigation?

Why did John Kerry allow Michael Moore to occupy a position of honor in attendance at the Democratic convention, seated with the Carters?

What does it tell you about John Kerry that he chose a fraudulent ambulance chaser who got ridiculously wealthy suing doctors who did nothing wrong using junk science?

How come John Kerry won’t sign the form 180 and let everyone judge his military service for themselves? Why doesn’t he tell his wife to turn over her tax returns for the past 3 years like every other presidential candidate and candidate spouse has done?

Why does John Kerry pretend to eat at Wendy’s for a photo op, then actually go eat catered French cuisine? Doesn’t this tell you he is a phony?

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:57 pm 203. Syl:

Tim

I agree.

People won’t even give their real names to online papers to register to read articles for free. Do you think they’re going to pay?

If you want to kill the blogosphere, start microtransactions. We’d think of it as a reading tax.

Aug 25, 2004 - 7:59 pm 204. Matthew Cromer:

Another question for Tano

How many Swift Boat vets left Vietnam because of the 3 purple heart rule? How many Swift Boat vets had 3 purple hearts with injuries that require no hospitalization time, and no time away from duty? Take a guess.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:03 pm 205. flenser:

Tano

“Admiral Hoffman denies Kerry went in, but admits others did, ”

The officers in Kerry’s chain of command say Kerry did not go to Cambodia. Either Kerry was lying when said he did go (note he no longer says this), or he did in fact go, without authorization, and was AWOL. Take your pick.

“You are simply choosing to believe Gardner because you want to belive him.”

We are chosing to believe the the statements of everyone involved, except for Kerry. Even Kerry’s campaign mates, I mean crew mates, do not support the Christmas in Cambodia story. You are simply chosing to believe Kerry because you want to believe him.

“Clearly the memory that is seared in him is the overall lesson of how we must not commit to a war in which a president lies to the nation, or that we havent done all to avoid if possible. The searing was not necessarily about the date.”

That is a fascinating piece of speculation. But “clearly”, that is all it is. Kerry does not say that the lession was seared into him, but the memory.

“And the claim that Kerry could not have been there because it wasnt legal misses the whole point – that of course it wasnt legal, which is why the gov’t was denying it ”

And what explains why the government is still denying it? Is there one single shred of evidence, other than Kerry’s unsupported word, that he was ever in Cambodia?

Kerry’s diaries – the issue is not whether his diaries mention Cambodia, but whether his authorised biography mentions it. It seems to have been a major event in his life. Supposedly he still carries a hat from a secret mission in Cambodia. This whole thing is, at times, a very big deal to him. Yet, even though his biography goes into exaustive detail on his rather short stay in Vietnam, it never once mentions this incident. Why?

One simple solution to all this would be if some reporter would just ask him. Do we have a press in this counrty or not? All one needs to do is say, “Senator Kerry, were you in Cambodia in Christmas 1968?” How hard is that? It seems inconcievable that none of them will ask him this.

Hwever, Jon Stewart did ask him this on Comedy Central. And Kerry refused to answer. Draw your own conclusions.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:27 pm 206. Mark Poling:

Richard, I think Tano is a female troll.

Posted by: devildog

Trolls are asexual. (Well, in that partners are never involved….)

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:29 pm 207. Roberts:

Another great example above of Tano making John Kerry’s Christmas in Cambodia fabrication “make sense” by simply rewriting it until Tano’s version doesn’t match the content or purpose of the original.

Pretty hilarious.

Aug 25, 2004 - 8:38 pm 208. Rick Ballard:

Mark,

Technically trolls are hermaphroditic. Tou have to bear that in mind when making suggestions to them.

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:03 pm 209. devildog:

Richard, I think Tano is a female troll.

Posted by: devildog

Trolls are asexual. (Well, in that partners are never involved….)

That’s great news Mark, at least they can’t reproduce!

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:04 pm 210. flenser:

Useful fact;

According to my reference on LOTR, troll’s “tough hides make them difficult to kill, but a well placed shot at the softer tissues of the throat or mouth, could, with luck, finds its way through to the tiny brain.”

Aug 25, 2004 - 9:31 pm 211. Charlie (Colorado):

Charlie asks,

(1) It was physically impossible to reach Cambodia via the Mekong river at the time Kerry claims to have done so?

But it wasnt. On whose authority do you claim that it was?

“It was physically, totally, categorically, across-the-board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a swift boat,” says Gardner. “There were concrete pilings that were put in the water…plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 44 boat, it was a physical impossibility to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters.”

Kerry’s diaries speak of going right up to the border region. Gardner, of SBVT, claims there were pilings etc. – but he also claims that Kerry never went north of Sa Dec – which seems clearly false.

On whose authority do you claim so?

(2) Kerry’s campaign no longer claims Kerry was in Cambodia over Christmas, the day that was “seared — seared” into his memory, so why do you continue to do so?

….

I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harms way, we have a responsibility in the US Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid such a conflict.”

Clearly the memory that is seared in him is the overall lesson of how we must not commit to a war in which a president lies to the nation, or that we havent done all to avoid if possible. The searing was not necessarily about the date.

That’s one of the least convincing evasions I’ve ever seen proposed on the net, and I’ve been around the Internet since I was having flame wars with usenet trolls using store and forward.

You’re proposing here that in Kerry’s testimony, he first stated that he had “a memory of being five miles inside Cambodia on Christmas Eve”, and in the next paragraph says it is “that memory which is seared — seared in me….” — but that the phrase “that memory” doesn’t refer to the preceding paragraph’s memory, but to some otherwise unmentioned memory that happens to save him from having said what the whole sequence of his argument proposes.

So your defense for the “seared” line is that while Kerry wasn’t actually, like, telling the truth about the Christmas in Cambodia part — remember, Kerry’s own campaign has admitted that — but that’s okay because he was suffering from some kind of semi-literate fugue state that allowed him to misstate his entire thesis and then not even correct it when given the opportunity using “revise and extend”.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

(3) O’Neill was still in Viet Nam when incursions into Cambodia were open, but Kerry was not, thus accounting for O’Neill being “in Cambodia” when Kerry could not have been?

The point Charlie, is that O’Neill lied. He has often claimed never to have been in Cambodia. He was. And the claim that Kerry could not have been there because it wasnt legal misses the whole point – that of course it wasnt legal, which is why the gov’t was denying it was happening. But we know it was happening.

The point, Tano, is that your whole argument that O’Neill “lied” depends on taking a single sentence of an informal conversation and ripping it screaming from its context — the very next sentence, in which O’Neill said “I was on the border.”

(4) Why Kerry’s own diaries, according to Brinkley, confirm he had not yet been in combat a week after the injury for which he received his third Purple Heart (which was awarded for an injury that preceded the occurrance of the injuries that got him his secnd and third PH.)

Huh?

Absolutely. Huh.

Kerry, who served as commander of a Navy swift boat, has insisted he was wounded by enemy fire Dec. 2, 1968, when he and two other men took a smaller vessel, a Boston Whaler, on a patrol north of his base at Cam Ranh Bay.

But Douglas Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty,” for which Kerry supplied his journals and letters, indicates that as Kerry set out on a subsequent mission, he had not yet been under enemy fire.

While the date of the four-day excursion on PCF-44 [Patrol Craft Fast] is not specified, Brinkley notes it commenced when Kerry “had just turned 25, on Dec. 11, 1968,” which was nine days after the incident in which he claimed he had been wounded by enemy fire. Kerry’s war journal contradicts medal claim? At least 9 bays after Purple Heart, wrote he had not ‘been shot at yet’

(5) Why Kerry’s own diaries, according to Brinkley, claim that he never entered Cambodia?

They make no such claim.

Ah, but they do:

[A]t least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley’s book says: “The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.” His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry’s final mission.

(Washington Post, 23 August.)

Or are you now asserting the Brinkley’s book is not a reliable source?

(6) Why none of the supposed covert operations Kerry supposedly participated in show up in the declassified records of the Special Operations Group?

I dont know the extent to which all CIA ops would be reported therin, nor do I know if you, or anyone else has access to all of them.

There are several aspects to this. First, the SOG’s operations were declassified and are widely available. (See, eg, here.)

A second: while I never had access to those things while classified, I do have extensive experiewnce in intelligence (I’m currently a consultant to DoD on secure computer systems.) Based on that experience, and the fact that I have a lick of common sense, I can tell you that a PCF was about the least likely vehicle possible for a covert riverine insertion. Why? Because these are loud suckers. Ever hear, say, a high-powered cigarette boat?

Covert insertions are done using zodiacs with trolling moters, or canoes with paddles, or from above with a helicopter. (And before you think to bring it up, helicopters, while noisy, have the advantage that they can enter an area from above — a noisy boat leaves a long trail of potential sightings.)

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:39 pm 212. Charlie (Colorado):

At the risk of beating a moribund equine …

Kerry’s diaries – the issue is not whether his diaries mention Cambodia, but whether his authorised biography mentions it. It seems to have been a major event in his life. Supposedly he still carries a hat from a secret mission in Cambodia. This whole thing is, at times, a very big deal to him. Yet, even though his biography goes into exaustive detail on his rather short stay in Vietnam, it never once mentions this incident. Why?

It’s more than that — his diaries, as quoted by Brinkly, specifically contradict this notion, as I quoted above.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:42 pm 213. MeTooThen:

Tano,

OK, I’m kind of late on this thread, and certainly, this is a bit OT since Roger started it, but…

If, as you posit, that John O’Neill is lying, as are all of the SwfitVets, and that their allegations have been “proven” false, all of them were lies in fact, it would follow then that these lies (now, no longer allegations as having been proven false) were done with the knowledge they were lies before having been aired in TV ads, books, and in widely syndicated TV and radio interviews, and were made for the sole purpose of defaming John Forbes Kerry, and to upset his quest for the Presidency, why has Kerry not sued O’Neill for libel?

O’Neill has all but begged to be sued by Kerry.

John O’Neill is an accomplished lawyer, having graduated 1st in his law school class, and following which had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice.

Why would O’Neill subject himself to being sued for libel, knowing that he had lied, knowing that he did so solely for the purpose of libeling Kerry and risk what would most certainly be a devastating judgment against him?

I await your rejoinder.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:45 pm 214. amortiser:

Tano said:

“You seem to take the position that Kerry needs to provide unambigous proof that his boat crossed an unmarked border before you believe him. Fine. Personally, my instinct would be to demand contrary proof from anyone claiming he is a liar. Maybe it is just your default is to consider him a liar unless proven otherwise, and my default is the opposite.”

Tano,

If Kerry makes an assertion he does need to provide proof to support it if he is questioned. That’s the rational nature of debate.

In the example you cite (Kerry in Cambodia)the SBVTs supported their assertions that he was never there with well based argument and Kerry has conceded the point. So accepting Kerry’s assertion by “default” (your words) your judgement is badly misplaced.

If a rational argument is to take place then the onus of proof of any assertions made falls upon the person making them.

In Kerry’s case he made lots of assertions to make a political case before the Senate, from being illegally in Cambodia to making charges of serious war crimes against fellow veterans.

The onus is on him to prove those claims if they are brought into question. In addition he has claimed certain events in his service to bolster his credentials to be POTUS.

If challenged he should produce evidence to support those claims.

On the other hand the SBVTs have asserted that Kerry is a liar. That is a more challenging charge than asking Kerry to provide evidence of his assertions.

Have they produced evidence to support their claims? Their case seems to be well documented and firmly based. The Kerry campaign has already conceded the Xmas in Cambodia seared memory claim to be false. Their main tactic now seems to be to call on the SBVTs to stop making such nasty claims and not dealing with the substance of the evidence proffered.

You seem to take the position that you will believe Kerry’s position by default (whatever he says is true without question).

Rational debate doesn’t work like that. Truth is based on the provision of verifiable evidence not blind assertion or acceptance.

The SBVTs are putting their evidence on the table to support their claims. Kerry seems hellbent in avoiding any opportunity to do so. For example a simple release of his service records would go a long way to support his claims similar to what Bush did.

Aug 25, 2004 - 10:56 pm 215. Rick Ballard:

Charlie (C),

Very nice evisceration. If you decide to have him mounted, please send me a picture.

amortiser,

Very good explanation of rational debate. Considering the troll in question a simpler statement might be “Tano is based on blind assertion and unthinking acceptance.”

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:16 pm 216. devildog:

For reference…

Military history of the last few presidents:

Theodore Roosevelt–Colonel, 1st U.S. Volunteers Calvary Regiment (Rough Riders), 1898

William H. Taft–None

Woodrow Wilson–None

Warren G. Harding–None

Calvin Coolidge–None

Herbert Hoover–None

Franklin D. Roosevelt–None

Harry S. Truman–Captain, Missouri National Guard, Active 1918-19

Dwight D. Eisenhower–General, U.S. Army, Active 1915-51

John F. Kennedy–Lieutenant J.G., U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1941-45

Lyndon B. Johnson–Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, 1941-42

Richard M. Nixon–Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1942-46

Gerald R. Ford–Lt. Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1942-46

James E. Carter–Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy, Active 1946-53

Ronald W. Reagan–Captain, U.S. Army Air Corps, Active 1942-45

George H. W. Bush–Lieutenant, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active 1943-45

William J. Clinton–None

George W. Bush–1st Lieutenant, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-73

Aug 25, 2004 - 11:33 pm 217. Erik:

Sandy P,

Could we say we’re Google geeks?

Of course.

I think it’s more than that though, a lot of people really know their stuff, and can back it up with sources.

It’s those people that impress me most, those that can use multiple sources to make a reasoned argument. Anyone can find a source that agrees with them, and then yell a slogan at the top of their voice. It’s a different thing to find multiple , verifiable, sources and use them for a reasoned and logical argument.

The blogosphere and the net in general excel in that regard, you can supply links so it’s easy for the reader to check for themselfes.

The MSM doesn’t have that advantage. They rely totally on their credibility, and that people trust them to tell the whole truth. If they loose that trust, they have no way to make people believe them again.

Aug 26, 2004 - 4:32 am 218. Charlie (Colorado):

Very nice evisceration. If you decide to have him mounted, please send me a picture.

Thanks, but I wouldn’t let Tano be mounted by my pet hippopotamus.

If I had a pet hippopotamus.

Which I don’t.

But I wouldn’t.

Aug 26, 2004 - 4:58 am 219. Knucklehead:

Geez, go away for a few stinking hours and you can’t catch up here at Roger’s Place.

I don’t know if this thread has run its course or not, and I can’t begin to catch up with it, but it is, IMO, an excellent example of discussion.

It seems to me that it will be a generation or so before we can even begin to assess the impact of the internet as a whole or blogs. So much has been discussed just in this thread… here’s some knuckleheaded observations.

Thibaud, it seems to me, is on to something important re: blogs and the MSM. To get at the revenue that the MSM has requires advertisers to have a solid demographic understanding of the “eyeballs” that are tuned in. That may be geographic or economic or socio-economic or whatever, but so far the only thing, it seems to me, a would be advertiser can get at for particular blogs is some common level of interest among that blogs participants. Blogs like Instapundit overcome this, it seems, by sheer volume of eyeballs. But he’s an aggregator, or a “did you see this” sort of operation rather than an “interest group” sort of operation. What those of us who pop in to Instapundit several times per day go there for is to see if there’s something we might be interested in going to look at. He’s a clearinghouse of sorts. Very valuable, but the demo advertisers can get there is sheer volume. Since quantity has a quality all its own, that’s good enough.

A blog like this here at Roger’s Place, to me, serves an odd sort of function. A “neighborhood” tavern, if you will, where those who comment get to “know” one another over time and trade thoughts and share bits and pieces of expertise. Charlie or somebody else mentioned how much he enjoyed the health care discussion that was a subthread at The Party while Roger was away. I did also. Part of our problem, as a nation, is that none of us can get our minds around the full extent of such issues and the MSM cannot or will not help us. Blogs can help because they draw a wealth of experience and exposure and expertise into the discussion. We’ll get people who know something about providing health care services, people who know about insuring, people who know about the law, malpractice, alternative medicine, and so on. Those who join such discussions with anything approaching an open mind can get at some of the expertise that is beyond their own experience.

Which brings up the “echo chamber” issue. There are a lot of people here who agree on much about the current political situation, but that doesn’t mean that just because folks who disagree get hammered that what we are witnessing is an “echo chamber”. When certain memebots or new participants come in with stuff that makes little or no sense when given something more than cursory levels of thought, or is early in the evolution of the discussion, that is more a reflection on where the “dissenting voice” is than where the “audience” is.

The overall effect of how the internet will change the way people communicate is a fascinating thing to observe. And it is changing how people communicate. Somebody above mentioned that their young child has a blog. Its not only blogs. Watch how today’s yutes use instant messaging and the like. They keep in touch in ways that were impossible when I was their age. It just couldn’t be done or, at least, nobody was going to put the money into that many phone calls or the time into that much snail-mailing. Kids today have some general idea of what many of their former friends are up to even if they haven’t directly communicated with them. They parse “away messages” fercryinoutloud. They pop in and look at the sorts of stuff acquaintences are putting up on their websites. And they do this with a level of “sophistication” that is beyond what even those of us who have watched this thing develop have any hope of matching.

JMO, but I believe it will ultimately have a very good effect. One of our problems, as a society, is that the past couple generations have wrought such enormous change that we haven’t come to grips with how to deal with one another. To paraphrase Dorothy: Oh my, people come and go so quickly here! Well, people may still come and go quickly, but the tools we are seeing develope around the internet are allowing them to stay in touch and aware of what is developing in one another’s lives much more easily. I believe it will be for the good once its shaken out a bit more and stabilizes.

Aug 26, 2004 - 7:35 am 220. thibaud:

Tano – to your points:

You criticize Kerry for favoring the nuclear freeze? …Reagan himself had idealistic visions of not only a nuclear freeze but a reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. He almost took the zero-option at Reyjavik

A half-truth, like each of the points you make. The zero option of 1982-83 was not at all equivalent to a freeze. It was predicated on a tough either-or proposition to Andropov and then Chernenko: either accept a sharp escalation of US nuclear posture in W Ger and UK (Cruise missiles) or scrap your SS-20s. Though you’re right to point out that Reagan had an idealistic vision of an end state with no nuclear weapons, the path to that end state was for the Soviets to back down and remove their aggressive, destabilizing SS-20s from E Ger.

The freeze would have had the exact opposite effect of allowing the Soviets to keep the SS-20s while preventing us from countering and equalizing. The broader lesson from this is one that Scoop Jackson liberals recognize but Kerry-Kennedy-Carter libs do not: diplomatic overtures not buttressed by a real and credible threat of military pressure are useless.

As numerous Soviet officials from the SU’s USA-Canada Institute made clear to me in the early 1990s, the CPSU accepted the capitulation ideas promoted by a hick southern Russian party hack named Gorbachev only because their fear of SDI and what it represented. In their view, they had failed to catch up in the “third industrial revolution” with even the Asian Tigers, much less the US, and were now on the brink, thanks to SDI, of falling so hopelessly far behind the US as to require a truce. Again, I’m merely repeating the prevailing Soviet view, which echoes Peggy Noonan’s remark: “The Soviet Union didn’t ‘fall’; it was pushed.” It’s very unlikely that an accomodationist US policy based on a nuclear freeze would have convinced the politburo to gamble on redneck Gorby’s “New Thinking” (= Soviet capitulation in the arms race in order to stimulate the economy).

I am glad that Ortega et. al. are no longer in charge there, because like many revolutionaries they were far better at deposing the dictator than having any clues about how to govern. But you should remember that they lost power because they set up a system of free and fair elections

Again, you misunderstand the causes of leninist party and leader behavior. yes, the contras were nasty, and of course Central America is a fourth world basket case, but these problems, like the essentially racial civil war that’s lasted several centuries there are secondary to the main point, which was preventing yet another leninist regime from popping up in our back yard. Even Jimmah Carter recognized that this required severe pressure on the Sandinistas, who, like the politburo, would not and did not voluntarily retreat from their leninist doctrines of dictatorship and subversion of neighboring states. They were forced to do so by a combination of factors that, crucially, included US military support for their enemies.

To say that “modern Nicaraugan democracy is the Sandinistas’ creation” is like saying that Microsoft created open source. Well, in a way they were responsible, but only because it was forced down their throats.

One can distort Kerry’s words, when he speaks of police action, but everyone who is serious about the struggle against the jihadists recognizes that much of the struggle is based on police work, diplomacy, intel gathering and only occasionally standard military force.

Of course that’s true, but my entire point is that when you look beyond words to Kerry’s actual behavior over the past several decades, you see a very clear opposition to the application of US military pressure or force. A freeze that ratifies the Soviets’ escalation rather than an either-or proposal that threatens to match it with US escalation. Support for Ortega rather than support for his opponents. Carrots but never any sticks.

Re. Iraq, the notion that granting the president authority to wage war confers only what you characterize as diplomatic “leverage” is simply doublespeak. If you give Bush the authority to wage war, then you give him a green light to, uh, wage war. Kerry is trying desperately to avoid the obvious fact that the threat of war is meaningless unless the president can actually carry out the threat, not just “leverage” it at the negotiating table. Kerry’s position makes as much sense as a mother giving her daughter a diaphragm and then scolding her for actually having sex.

Finally, re inspections and the Franco-Russian charade, by end of 2002 there was utterly no chance that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in. He was already in material breach, and more importantly, he knew that Chirac and Putin were determined to break the sanctions and do business with him. France’s TotalFinaElf, which as Elf Aquitaine acted for thirty years a slush fund for the French political class, signed a deal with Saddam in November 2002 for exclusive rights to develop one-third of Iraq’s entire reserves in the W. Qurna oilfields! That’s 20 billion barrels, ie the deal of the year, bar none. LUKoil of Russia also signed a mnulti-billion $ deal with Saddam in 2002.

Add to this the evidence of oil-for-fraud collusion with Saddam by elements within or tied to the Kremlin and the Elysee and you have a Franco-Russian policy that clearly was designed to thwart not only the overthrow of Saddam but continued pressure on him. Chirac’s policy was identical to Putin’s policy, which was to ignore or talk down the threat posed by Saddam and do business with him.

This is expected and normal behavior from our erstwhile enemy, Russia. But from France? Actually, this is totally consistent with every French strategic paper, every Le Monde editorial, every foreign policy strategy statement I’ve seen. As Hubert Vedrine put it, “France is a mouse forever trying to avoid being crushed by the [US] elephant.”

France since the fall of the Soviet Union has been desperate to find another anti-US pole so as to continue the grand De Gaulle strategy, upheld with great consistency over four decades, of triangulation. Now that there is no other pole, the only way to sustain this policy is for France, with Germany’s help, to assume the role of balancer vis-a-vis l’hyperpuissance. In the middle east, however, France along with Russia can readily find such opportunities by triangulating between the US and Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

These points are obvious to every Frenchman. Why are they so hard for Americans to understand?

Finally, as a side issue, I disagree with your comments about France. The French have been fighting along side us in Afghanistan throughout all of this. They cooperate fully with the war on jihadis.

Hate to disrupt your fantasy with some unpleasant facts, but a few weeks ago Chirac refused– in the face of unanimous support from all other Alliance members including Germany– to allow additional NATO forces to help ensure that elections take place in Afghanistan. As I say, the French game is triangulation weherever possible as a way of keeping some benefits from cooperation with the US while thwarting and countering US power wherever possible. This is no more the behavior of an ally than Clinton’s triangulations in 1994-1998 were the behavior of a Republican president.

Again, the French do not consider themselves our ally. Why do we keep impoing on them a label that they themselves refuse to accept?

Finally, please do think about the absurdity of talking up the need for sensitivity to French and German concerns while fully embracing that Israeli whom most Frenchmen and Germans consider the prince of darkness in the middle east.

rgds,

thibaud

Aug 26, 2004 - 8:03 am 221. RogerA:

Thibaud—excellent post–I fear, however, you have missed the half life of a thread–I hope you saved it, because it merits reposting on some future thread–Thank you particularly for reminding your American readers about deGaulle’s strategy which still constitutes the core of French foreign policy–Also germane is that there are no significant European maneuver forces (or supporting logistical forces) to deploy anywhere in significant numbers. The

Europeans have enjoyed “free rider” status for 50 years under the US deployments–at least deGaulle understood the implications of that.

Aug 26, 2004 - 9:42 am 222. stumbley:

Some perspective on newspapers, and to bring this back to Roger’s original topic, i.e., the possible ascension of the blogosphere.

To those who opine that blogs will succeed when they are financially viable, I say “be careful what you wish for.”

IMHO, one of the biggest problems with the MSM is that it’s a business, more interested in eyeballs on the screen, page views, and space sales than anything else, because ad revenue pays the freight.

For instance, when I worked for the WaPo (mid 90’s) a full-page ad ran about $15,000. “Giant” Supermarkets (one of the Post’s largest advertisers) had about 17 pages *a day*! Presumably, they received a volume discount, but in any event, were spending millions a year in advertising, a sizeable chunk of the Post’s revenue. Does anyone seriously think that a story highly critical of Giant would run in the Post, to the detriment of $$$?

We ran numerous “editorial supplements” to the paper that were really fluff stories designed to feature a theme that would appeal to certain advertising segments, designed to increase revenue and attract advertisers that weren’t regulars. The stories weren’t “news” in the traditional sense, and were often written not by reporters but by PR flacks from the advertisers themselves. This is what you get when advertising revenue becomes more important than actually reporting the news of the day.

Those of us in the advertising department were looked on as “untouchables” by the editorial staff, who still believed that there was a separation of the two sides of the house, but I was aware of editorial slants based on ad revenue on a number of occasions.

If money is bad for political campaigns, it’s equally bad for “news” organizations.

This of course is not to say that I hope Roger, Glenn, Andrew and others don’t do well; I would miss them if they were gone, and I have contributed what small amounts I can to ensure their survival. But I would rather they *not* count on advertising to keep going. It’s the “labor of love” quality, I think, that keeps them all honest.

Aug 26, 2004 - 10:05 am 223. Hepzi:

FWIW, I think Blogs are the 21st Century intellectual Salons, as seen in the 17-19th Centuries. And the moderators (such as Roger) are the equivalent of the “glitterati” hosts and hostesses.

Like a salon host, these blog moderators make sure the discourse is stimulating and civil. If the blog host gets exhausted, spread too thin, or too partisan–things rapidly degrade. And people move onto the latest hot spot.

And like the great intellectual salons, the Blogs really influence the MSM press and “raise the bar” on accuracy and analysis. Not to mention the politicians. What’s cool is its global!!!

Not sure I think the Blogs will replace the MSM. But I do think they could eliminate the Op Ed writers and really dilute the clout of the talking head types. Its no mistake that those guys are getting increasingly histrionic IMO–they are threatened. And they deserve it too–some of em are really quite lazy (from a investigative reporting standpoint) and god knows they all have virtually the same opinions…BORING.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the successful Bloggers are not approached for some sort of business arrangement (similar to Op Ed columnists or talking heads) by the MSM. Perhaps this is already happening, as seen with Andrew Sullivan and the Washington Times?? Maybe they work out exclusive portals for hot blogsites from the MSM internet newslinks??This business strategy would also perhaps open the door for blogger ad revenues too….

Frankly, I would welcome it, because I think the bloggers deserve a fair living for their wonderful analysis and service.

If this should happen, I feel comfortable that the freewheeling competition of the internet will force the MSM editorial staff to be “hands off”–otherwise people will leave and move on to good amateur blog sites.

Aug 26, 2004 - 10:26 am 224. thibaud:

RogerA,

France’s triangulation policy is falling apart now, and the French are seriously despondent. The bestseller lists there are full of titles about France’s decline and overreaching.

The reasons for this are clear. France no longer dominates the EU, the jihadists don’t make for a very appealing or reliable rival pole, and there’s no other rival in sight. China’s not really interested. The French nuclear force de frappe was a good and reliable deterrent vs the Soviets but it doesn’t offer any help vs the jihadists.

All of the above indicate that France’s anti-Americanism actually peaked in the 1990s, when the first wave of hysteria about a unipolar post-Cold War world crested, and that, ironically, France during the Bush presidency is actually moving, slowly and inexorably, toward acceptance of its true place in the world.

So much for the notions that a) anti-Americanism is driven primarily by US foreign policy and b) the Bush foreign policy has increased anti-Americanism in France. Wrong on both counts. France will never be much of a friend but perhaps they’ll cease playing the triangulation game in the middle east. Aside from the Iran issue, I’m not sure we should really care one way or the other.

Aug 26, 2004 - 10:44 am 225. Old Grouch:

Well, now that all the political shouting is starting to die down… Thibaud asked above:

Assuming one could cobble together a “newspaper,” or maybe a “viewspaper” for you based on aggregation of blog content + wire services stuff, would you pay subscription fees for such a “viewspaper”?Would you be willing to let such a blog install software on your PC in order to automatically customize that viewspaper based on your previous click-throughs? In other words, “learn” your preferences and serve up appropriate blog commentary, web articles, wire services stuff etc?

Short answer: More likely than not. Tell me more.Personally, I haven’t used an aggregator yet. (I understand they work best with full-time access, and I’m stuck with a 28.8K dialup.) Having said that…The “viewspaper” idea sounds promising, the devil being in the details of how it handles preferences. No problem for the 10 or so blogs/news sites that I usually visit every day (some multiple times). But I worry that an algorithm-driven aggregator could miss Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns;” the things of interest (or importance) to me that I don’t already know I’m interested in. That’s where sites like Instapundit come in (as knucklehead notes above), and that why I read the New York Times every day; for the interesting stories about topics I didn’t know about before I started. (And preference-based narrowcasting has its social hazards, too: How well-informed can a voter be if he gets all his news from ESPN?)(shift gears) What about something that simply tracks my surfing and gives each site I visit 1¢ per visit per day? That is, I visit Roger’s site today, he gets 1¢. If I come back (even multiple times) within (say) 24 hours (e.g., I’m following this discussion thread), it’s free (I’ve already paid), but anytime after hour 25, he gets another penny. (I’m trying to follow the Jakob Nielson suggestion that “ambisinistral” pointed out above: The incremental cost of visiting one more site should be so low as to be ignorable.)Of course, there are issues: Big aggregators like Instapundit would suddenly get even more power in the blogosphere, as “Instalanches” begin to put cash in bloggers’ pockets, not just numbers on their hit counters. Privacy: Even if it doesn’t require the sort of advertising-related demographic-information extraction that every site registration page seems to feature, do I really want records detailing my daily visits to (say) erosblog, or Indymedia, or LGF becoming part of a court case (or a pre-job investigation)? How can you transfer an enormous (and varying) number of tiny payments from an enormous (and varying) number of surfers to an enormous (and varying) number of web sites without the adminstrative cost eating up everything? And how can it be made secure enough that it’s difficult to cheat? (Steal a penny from 100,000 people and most won’t even notice, but do so and you’ve got $10,000!)All these issues are what the geeks at Slashdot would call “a small matter of programming:” difficult, but probably solvable. And if they’re solved, I’ll buy in. To echo Hepzi above, I’d like to see bloggers get something beyond a warm feeling of self-esteem for all their work.—-And later thought: I see this arrangemet as an answer to some of “stumbley”’s concerns above: A good part of blogger “revenue” would come from the pageviews, not from the advertising the page carried. Successful bloggers might make a good income with no advertising at all. Quite a different model from a newspaper, where the subscription price barely covers the raw printing and distribution costs.

Aug 26, 2004 - 12:01 pm 226. leaddog2:

These are AWESOME BETTER VIDEO clips. They show another phase of the Media Distribution Revolution. Pass it on!

The TOTAL TRUTH about Hanoi John Kerry as told by POW’s who suffered the Hell that resulted from his lies. Send it to every Military Veteran you know.

Watch Film Clips of Stolen Honor. It is The Truth about John Kerry.

Aug 26, 2004 - 12:22 pm 227. RogerA:

Thibaud–thank you for updating me! I have found your contributions to this blog top drawer. And they highlight for me what is understated role of blogs: individual enlightenment.

Aug 26, 2004 - 1:27 pm 228. Doug Reese:

No way any of you are going to read this at such a late date, but . . .

The USS Gridley DID call on the port of Danang, Vietnam, in the spring of 1968.

Rood’s version of the SIlver Star incident agrees with Kerry’s crew’s version, Kerry’s version, and it agrees with my version.

Unfit for Command uses a Silver Star citation that was issued years after the incident. The book uses this citation for a reason — it is inaccurate. The original citation, and the after action report, are quite detailed, and accurate. The agree with the versions Rood, etc, I mentioned above.

The Swift Boat Veterans for “truth”, and their book don’t use lies to make their point(s). They use misrepresentation, omission of pertinent facts, and spin. My mention in the book is a perfect example of this — if you knew what I told them (actually, the private investigator they hired), and then read what is in the book, well, misrepresentation, omission, etc, to the max.

OK, I feel better now . . . .

Doug Reese

May 10, 2005 - 1:21 am

Write a Comment

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