Deference -

I said I'd post again if anything materially changed my views, so here I am.

I've had a chance to review much of the referenced material since my initial reply, almost all of which came via eRiposte.com and, while it was pretty clear from the specific site rebutting the SwiftBoat vets that there was a decided pro-Kerry bias and it was extremely repetitive, there is some very interesting information that raised real doubts in my mind about some of the allegations some of the SwiftBoat vets have made. I decided to check out who/what eRiposte.com is before settling on my opinion, however. The About Us link has a nice little paragraph describing the site as a non-partisan issues-based information repository whose owner claims to be an independent and to be devoted to presenting both sides of relevant issues and to link to additional material which might be not as independent or unbiased in the interest of a full and robust debate, etc. (paraphrasing here). A perusal of eRiposte's home page, however, pretty much tells the story - it's a BushBashing haven of the first order. Every single topic link on the home page speaks for itself - I suggest anyone interested here take a look at it. eRiposte.com simply accepts every allegation against Bush as self-evidently true and seems to unquestioningly accept that the Bush campaign is really behind the whole SwiftBoat vet thing and condones it. Since it is so blatantly a Kerry Organ, I have doubts now about how reliable a source of fact it may be; there is certainly reason to suspect that the facts presented may be highly selective and filtered.

I'm reserving final judgment pending further investigation through more objective sources, but I'll concede that some the stuff in eRiposte.com does score a few points with me, especially about the motives and unflattering backgrounds of some of the major operatives involved. The information about Jerome Corsi is particularly troubling to me. I still maintain that focusing on the messenger is not a completely valid defense, though, and that all of the "he said, she said" quibbling over details tends to obscure larger issues. And the milieu and context in which battlefield citations were awarded in Viet Nam gets somewhat short shrift from eRiposte.com, but that's probably another topic entirely. It's going to be interesting how this brouhaha shakes out but I think it will count for little in the long run.

Why? Because I don't think too many people are really that worked up about what Kerry did or didn't do and did or didn't deserve while he was in Viet Nam. It's what he's done & not done since Viet Nam that concerns me more. Whatever leadership qualities he may have demostrated in Viet Nam, his words and actions subsequently lead me to conclude he has no particular guiding principles save one - getting elected - and that he'll say anything and do anything that he suspects might serve that prinicple. One irony of this whole Viet Nam redux thing is that he has so little record of accomplishment while in the Senate that he chose to make his military experience the centerpiece of his pitch at the convention, opening the door to all this craziness.

On a brighter note, I guess we might be bored out of our skulls about now if he hadn't.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I think you've been doing well here on the boards, Daiwa, and it is important for other sets of eyes to go over these sources. Remind me that I owe you that favour sometime when you need it. The sources from disinfopedia are the real bedrock (they contain foonotes to specific newspapers, etc.), too bad I didn't cite them, eh? I was astonished that there was soo much material regarding this and the people involved. It would have taken me a few weeks just to go through it all and a small book to address the content. Unfortunately, real life gets in the way and I had to take as short a route as possible and the thing basically became a cut'n'paste essay but just enough to shed some light on what the whole thing is - thin soup. When I first saw the Swift Veteran's ad I thought there was some really interesting twisted story behind "Kerry in 'Nam", but no dice. I still like reading about some of the political manuevering, that is good shtuff.

Two things that continue to amaze me:

1) That Democrats claim (inaccurately) that most educated people vote for Democrats even though exit polls show that the majority of people who have gone to college vote for Republicans while most of those who don't go to college vote for Democrats.  Only career students (i.e. people who get PhDs) tend to vote for Democrats and the majority of Phds given out in the US are liberal arts degrees (Psychologists, history, humanities, English, etc.). 

2) And in the same thread, someone talks about John Stewart on comedy central as a "source" for their opinions thus demonstrating what I've written countless times - most liberal debaters, for reasons I can't understand, are intellectually lazy to the point where they won't bother to research the actual data but instead rely on analysis from easily available sources (pop culture, satire documentaries like F9/11, or far left propaganda sites).

You see it over and over.  The Democrat will make broad, unsubstaniated claims and the conservative will respond with specific *precise* facts to bakc up their assertions.  Apparently not too many of those left leaning PhDs are getting their degrees in classes that involve a lot of problem solving or logic.

Getting back to the point, John Kerry is the one who has made his campaign center around his 4 months service in Vietnam.  He has no one to blame but himself for the intense scrutiny he's now receiving.  Perhaps Kerry should have spoken out harshly early on when people were fabricating the "Bush went AWOL" nonsense earlier in the year.  Bush didn't see combat but flying fighter jets isn't exactly the coward's way out either.  Once the left decided it was okay to try to smear Bush's military service, I think it was fair game to look at Kerry's.

John McCain deplores the practice, and he doesn't make any judgments as to the substance of the claims. Sadly, he didn't seem to deplore it when Bush's service was called into question, as you did above. As long as Bush's service is fair game from the money-stuffed Soros machine, I think swift boat vets are well within their rights to do what they are doing.

kerry condemned the moveon.org ad about bush.  i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for bush to do the same.

Perhaps Kerry should have spoken out harshly early on when people were fabricating the "Bush went AWOL" nonsense earlier in the year

the bush campaign should have done the same thing quite a bit earlier--like in 2000--when mccain was the target.

kerry condemned the moveon.org ad about bush.

Which was put out, intentionally including particularly inflammatory allegations, just so Kerry could have something to condemn and thereby pretend to lay claim to the high ground. How convenient. The Bush campaign has been publicly stating and supporting Kerry's case on the allegations all along, every time they've been asked. Kerry has yet to condemn anything prior to this new rebuttal ad. If I'm wrong, please provide the references. It gets us nowhere to play the tit-for-tat game, but after months and months of being smeared with trumped up allegations & inuendo, not to mention being accused of flat lying and treason (betraying his country) by left-wing organizations funded by, gasp... Democrats, and officially by Democrats in public speeches, I'm not too damned upset that Bush himself hasn't trotted out and personally accused all the swiftboaters of lying. Some of them may be, but Kerry's camp can in no way claim clean hands. Quite the contrary, they are caked with mud. And in a long and proud tradition, dating at least to the innocent little girl picking daisy petals in a meadow, fading to a mushroom cloud (ring any bells?). So using prior campaign shenanigans as justification for what's going on now cuts both ways, kingbee.

Las I checked, this race was between Bush and Kerry, and McCain's supporting Bush.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"the bush campaign should have done the same thing quite a bit earlier--like in 2000--when mccain was the target."

I think it is heinous that people like Kingbee say something like this when they KNOW that the Bush campaign wasn't responsible. You said this same thing recently, it was all hashed out, and then here you are again. You know it isn't true, you just don't care. You'll use it for the rhetorical value, regardless of truth, just because it gets you a few nods.

If Bush is responsible for what was said about McCain, then Kerry is responsible for every f*cking word that Soros has funded. IF you are going to make Bush responsible for the actions of every Republican, Kerry is just as easily damned...

Which was put out, intentionally including particularly inflammatory allegations, just so Kerry could have something to condemn and thereby pretend to lay claim to the high ground.

good lawd man.  thats even more dastardly than going to vietnam just so he could be president

You said this same thing recently, it was all hashed out, and then here you are again.

who hashed what out?   why do you think mccain is still upset about it?  what's heinous is that anyone felt the need to stoop that low in the first place.

No , Kingbee, you are still blaming Bush for it when you know Bush didn't have anything to do with it. Pure propaganda value. Next week, you'll do it again, and then pretend it never occured to you to mention that the Bush campaign had nothing to do with it.

Like I say, if Bush is responsible for that, then Kerry is responsible for every word at moveon.org.

then pretend it never occured to you to mention that the Bush campaign had nothing to do with it.

please go back and find one instance of me pretending it never occured to me that the bush campaign wasnt involved in smearing mccain prior to the south carolina primary.  i distinctly and clearly recall being as disgusted with it then as i am today.  ive posted any number of full-on published quotes from witnesses, participants and investigative journalists all of which conclude the bush campaign savaged mccain during that race. 

you dont see anything unusual in the fact that mccain has called for bush to condemn the swiftboatvets ad?  when was the last time you saw a major party figure to try prevailing on his party's nominee on behalf of the opposition candidate?  

for the past three weeks, every mention of the bush campaigns has prompted a demand that kerry decry the moveon.org ads. they put out exactly the type of ad that ive been bitching about and he does the right thing to what end?   it was all a plot?  

Gah, it is like you are blind...

The Bush campaign had nothing to do with smearing McCain, there were no "McCain is a loon" ads. You have rumor and innuendo, and you can call it "witnesses, participants and investigative journalists", but it still adds up to *dick*. The *accusation* that the Bush campaign had anything to do with it was just that, an unproved accusation. To me, McCain publicly called Vietnamese people "gooks" and then had to make up some big smear conspiracy as damage control.

Yet you will still go around saying the Bush campaign smeared McCain, and ignore the soft-money behemoth that Kerry has smearing Bush online and off, around the clock. It servese your purposes, and it is far enough in the past that the truth of the matter is immaterial.

thats even more dastardly than going to vietnam just so he could be president

You've finally admitted it! Woohoo!

What silliness, kingbee. If you can't see the "convenience" of the moveon ad, you are truly blind. You're like a drone, endlessly repeating yourself. How many times do people have to point out that moveon.org is just as much a tool of the Kerry campaign by your standard?

Cheers,
Daiwa

If the people who questioned McCain's sanity were part of the Bush Campaign, then Soros is soundly part of the Kerry Campaign, and Kerry should be directly responsible for MoveOn and any other 527 smear that appears.

You can't have it both ways. Kerry is opening a big can of worms. Even *IF* Swift Boat Vets are lying, their lies are nothing compared to what is being perpetrated by the "anyone but Bush" soft-money machine. If you are going to blame Bush for what third parties say about Kerry, then Kerry has some SERIOUS explaining to do...

It also demonstrates once again the double standard of ethics that the far far far left has. You see it here and elsewhere.

MoveOn and F9/11 put out incredibly insulting savage things, and have been for months.  But oh no, some vets get together and do a little ad and the left freaks out crying foul. 

It's like a neighbor who dumps his trash on his lawn all day, every week, for months bitching about his neighbor who let a candy wrapper fall out of his car.

The swift boat stuff is pretty mild compared to the sewage coming from moveon.org. 

Kerry's actions, especially the ones that pissed off the swift boat vets, are a matter of public record.  Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam and then went home thanks to receiving 3 purple hearts -- all 3 of them for wounds most people wouldn't consider wounds.  He then leads the anti-war vet protesters and fabricates all kinds of stories accusing the US military of wide-spread atrocities and accusing those vets in the ad of having commited atrocities.  Apparently, it's okay for Kerry to make up things about these men but not okay for them to objet to it.

The point being, at least the Swift Boat ads have some basis in fact.  Regardless of whether some left wing kooks can nit-pick some aspect of the background of one or two of them, it's pretty hard to argue that these regular guys all are some how political operatives or something.

But hey, it's okay for DNC party chairman, on ABC's This week to accuse the President of the United States of having gone AWOL. Because hey, there weree rumors  in 2000 about McCain that were mean. Mean things that (amazingly) no one can seem to show -- no ads, no flyers, etc. So mean rumors about McCain in a primary is apparently the same thing as the DNC chairman accusing the President of going AWOl on national TV.

But the left can't manage to see the imbalance there.  Let's see, DNC party chairman on network TV accusing Bush of going AWOL without any real evidence vs. alleged mean things said by someone (but no one knows who) in a primary in North Carolina.  Yea, i can see how those things are equivalent...not.

And some swift boat vets put together an ad refuting things Kerry has said. And then MoveOn.org puts out trash attacking Bush, the same old unsubstantiated AWOL stuff and more and this is somehow..equivalent.

I don't know what the issue here is.  Are left wingers simply so unsophisticated and inexperienced with logic that they are incapable of looking at these issues with any sort of reason or are they so emotionally hateful of Bush and self-righteous that they believe that anything their side does is "good" because it's for a greater good (getting rid of Bush).

You can see the Moveon.org ad for yourself: https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/swiftresponse.html

It starts with smearing Bush and then implies that the President of the United States should go and start forcing independent groups to take their ad off.  And Bush, who has condemned ALL of these kinds of soft money ads, is supposed to personally go after the swift boat ads? Please.  F-9/11 was far more nasty than the swift boat ads and if we're going to start asking public officials to censor people, why not start there?

 

If the people who questioned McCain's sanity were part of the Bush Campaign, then Soros is soundly part of the Kerry Campaign, and Kerry should be directly responsible for MoveOn and any other 527 smear that appears.

You said yourself that McCain supports bush. McCain has also denounced the ads, and said that they are from the same people who attacked him. So what would be your problem with Bush denouncing these ads?

to what is being perpetrated by the "anyone but Bush" soft-money machine

- Would you like to explain more?

Regardless of whether some left wing kooks can nit-pick some aspect of the background of one or two of them,

Brad,

I'm on your side of this issue in the broadest sense, but I must concede there is more than nit-picking when it comes to the background of some of the enablers of the vets, not so much the vets themselves. Worth taking a read through the stuff on Jerome Corsi, at least. Mind you, I don't think that matters all that much, but you/we should be aware & knowledgeable about it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

I agree that these swift boat vets should be scrutinized.  But compare the accuracy of the swift boat ad to F9/11 which Kerry quotes.

The difference between a serious injury and a minor one can be a mere millimeter so the arguement over have "valid" an award is is rediculous. To get an award a who slew of commanders have to APPROVE the request, and if I am not mistaken, others have to put you in for a medal - not yourself - especially for something like a bronze or silver star! The true measure of a good leader is how the men UNDER you feel about your leadership and almost every single man that served under and for Kerry defend him and vowed to follow him anywhere! That says it all!
The whole issue is nothing more than a "sour grapes" right wing smear campaign designed to destroy an individual who does not agree with the right wing agenda. The same tactics worked well against Max Cleland (is loosing 3 limbs good enough for a Purple Heart yo yo?) and was used against McCain. They have no record to run on (Chaney - how many deferments coward?? and Bush - where are your records??). The record speaks for itself - record deficets (by the so called fiscally responsible Republican controlled Congress), net job losses during his four years (not accomplished since Hoover), the most polarized nation since the civil war (brought to you by the man who claimed he was a "uniter not a divider"), no domestic policy, an arrogant and ignorant foreign policy and an ill advised (get rich and get reelected quick) war in Iraq.
The simple facts are that Kerry went when others didn't - as did Bob Dole and McCain by the way - while others did not (Chaney, Bush, Clinton). He served honorably, was properly awarded his medals and was defended by those who matter most - the men who served under him. Find another target or subject for your smear attempts!

Well said burtoo!

I've felt all along that the specific allegations of the swift boat guys had more to do with Kerry's actions and overblown (dare I say, fabricated?) claims made after leaving Viet Nam than what he did or didn't do while there. And I'm not prepared to cast doubt on every Viet Nam medal recipient by suggesting the process for awarding them was tainted, even in Kerry's case.

I will observe, however, that from the perspective of the left (burtoo, pk65) it appears that all such activity critical of their candidate is considered part of a "right wing smear campaign," while any allegations, whether false or unsubstantiated, made by left wing groups are just good-faith efforts by conscientious Americans to get the "truth" out. Drag is still correct - they can & love to dish, but go apeshit when the tables are turned. The trash being put out by moveon.org is no less reprehensible, but appears to bother their conscience nary a whit. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys - give me the references to their apologias. Even after the 9/11 Commission Report contradicted him and showed his main allegation to be unfounded, Roger Moore is still screaming anywhere he can as loudly as he can that Bush is a "liar."

I wish the RNC video was getting more attention than this, actually. That is specific, unchallengeable (it's just Kerry being Kerry, after all) and makes him look the fool he is. Too bad so much vitriol is being focused on this swift boat thing. But Kerry stuck his chin out there when he chose to glorify his military experience as a key credential at the convention.

I'll say it again, just in case - I lay no claim to any road, high or low.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa,
My responses only relate to the BS from the Swift Boat Vets, the attacks against medal recipients and the fact that very similar attacks occured against McCain and Cleland - all during the same time frame Bush and his cronies were in power or slinging mud and money to get there. The attacks against Cleland and McCain were also equally shameful. F 9/11 or Moveon.Org are not discussed much in of this particular thread and maybe if that was discussed I might agree with some of what you have to say about it (although I doubt it...lol). Nevertheless,it will be a moot point in a few months however when Bush goes the same way as all the others who won without the popular vote - one term and out.

The attacks against Cleland and McCain were also equally shameful.

pk65 -

You and I agree on this. Trash is trash now matter who dumps it. But there is a willingness, even eagerness, on the part of too many to see people pulling strings in the background when no such thing is happening. If McCain truly believes Bush had a direct hand in those smear efforts, it would be hard for me to understand his unwavering support for him now (though come to think of it, I suppose politicians have done stranger things... odd breed). After all, from a personal perspective, he has more in common with Kerry than Bush. I personally don't think Kerry or his camp have had any direct hand in moveon.org or any of the other smear efforts against Bush, either. But there is this unfounded conviction out there that absent some behind-the-scenes Wizard of Oz crap, SBVT wouldn't exist. McCain being McCain, I think he'd publicly rebuke Bush on it if he had good reason to think the campaign was behind it. There was some unpaid advisor on a vets affairs advisory committee to Bush's campaign who participated in one of SBVT's ads without warning or telling the campaign & who resigned his position, but I expect that's about as much "conspiracy" as we're going to find. There is so much "kettle calling the pot black" that substantive stuff is getting ignored.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Oh, forgot to add:

Don't misunderestimate him.

And whether Bush or Kerry wins, our problem dealing with terrorism is not going away. There is a scenario that seems to me to be a real possibility if Kerry wins - when we have another 9/11-equivalent (or attempt) after the election, he becomes an even bigger hawk than Bush. Big sensitive hawk.

Cheers,
Daiwa

"I personally don't think Kerry or his camp have had any direct hand in moveon.org or any of the other smear efforts against Bush, either."

Depends on what yu mean by "direct", considering he has hired people from moveon.org as campaign staff. I think the links between Kerry and smear are much more apparant than that between Bush and smear. Isn't Joe WIlson still working for him, even after the Senate Intelligence comittee debunked him? Never saw Kerry condemn those lies...