sure, but what about the dead guy!

[Z]

from the miami herald..

The Kerry campaign has denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, saying none of the men in the ad served on the boat that Kerry commanded. The leader of the group, retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry's boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry's.

Jim Rassmann, an Army veteran who was saved by Kerry, said there were only six crewmates who served with Kerry on his boat. Five support his candidacy and one is deceased.

[kchoya]

Yeah, because if you weren't the same boat as Kerry, you wouldn't be able to see what he was doing or what who he was shooting.

[Z]

you know kc, it's really surprising to me how you have unabashedly thrown your weight behind every unsubstantiated smear about kerry's service record you can't get your hands on. i'm still waiting for some scintilla of evidence supporting the one the other day you suggested about kerry.

sen. john mccain has called the swift boat thing a smear and called on the president to distance himself from it. shouldn't you?

[PushyGuyFanClub]

That Kerry served is honorable. While the movie camera story has not been sufficiently substantiation--IMO and in my knowledge--it is true that Kerry and others have misrepresented his valor. See www.spinsanity.org/. Some excerpts below:

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

Kerry's biography on his campaign website (which Edwards echoed almost directly) promotes this confusion:

In 1968, John Kerry began his second tour of duty, and volunteered to serve on a swift boat, one of the most dangerous assignments of the war. Swift boats patrolled the narrow inlets and canals around the Mekong Delta 'to draw fire and smoke out the enemy,' according to the Boston Globe."

In his convention speech, former President Bill Clinton also obscured what Kerry thought he was volunteering for, saying, "When they sent those swiftboats up the river in Vietnam and they told them their job was to draw hostile fire, to wave the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight, John Kerry said: Send me."

A misrepresentation, but misrepresentations abound in this political cycle. It does, however, illustrate the reality that service records are not untouchable even though McCain, Cleeland, and others would like them to be. To this day, the military remains an opaque organization. Conflicting anecdotes abound. John Kerry shouldn't be smeared, but nor should he be untouchable.

[Z]

well i agree with that sentiment, and i also believe that since kerry has been vocal in trumpeting his military service, it is fair to inquire into its substance. what i can't tolerate are inflammatory smears.

[kchoya]

Z said:

you know kc, it's really surprising to me how you have unabashedly thrown your weight behind every unsubstantiated smear about kerry's service record you can't get your hands on. i'm still waiting for some scintilla of evidence supporting the one the other day you suggested about kerry.

sen. john mccain has called the swift boat thing a smear and called on the president to distance himself from it. shouldn't you?

I don't know if it's a smear or not, and, unless John McCain has read the book, than neither does he. I would just like to see the substance of the allegations get a full and fair airing. After all, it's not like the Convention highlighted any of John Kerry's two-decade Senate career for us to debate.

However, to throw out there some quote from the Miami Herald to disparage those not standing behind Kerry as if that solves this issue is weak.

All I want is a look into the complaints voiced by the Vietnam Vets not for John Kerry, and for the Kerry Campaign and McAuliffe not to shout them down as some sort of right-wing smear campaign.

Will all of this make amount to anything. I'd say probably not. But when all Kerry does is talk about his four months in Vietnam 30+ years ago, he's inviting this sort of criticism.

[Z]

mediamatters.org/items/200408050007

this item notes the ties between the swiftboaters and the GOP. it doesn't seem like a stretch to suggest their charges may have a political impetus.

[kchoya]

I don't deny there's politics involved, and I don't think anyone else would. What we have are swift boat vets on one side who are aligned with Kerry and another group on the otehr who are coming out against Kerry. No surprise there. The Kerry campaign is using one group. The Republicans support the other group.

[Z]

right, but here's the other issue:

the guys that were actually ON kerry's boat, and presumably, got to know him a bit more meaningfully, are in unanimous support of him. not just refraining from heinous accusations, but proactively supporting his campaign. is that not relevant?

i'm not saying its impossible the others couldnt have seen things on their own. but it strikes me as strange that those actually serving within feet of kerry didnt see such problematic behavior, and were not convinced enough by the second hand stories to say "hey, i think im going to refrain from endorsing you," much less get behind the allegations of the other swift boat guys. and in the GOP influence, and this story starts to look quite shaky.

[Z]

from the boston globe:

WASHINGTON -- A week after Senator John F. Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the Democratic convention with his Vietnam ''Band of Brothers," a separate group of veterans has launched a television ad campaign and a book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals.

But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book.

[jerseyhoya34]

This kind of rhetoric from the Bush camp and their supporters does not surprise me. Recent incumbents who have been behind in the polls after the challenger's convention include Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush. This list now includes Dubya.

Karl Rove is smart to recognize that the way to make up this ground is to go negative. Rove is smart enough not just to attack on typical fronts, such as voting record and personal life, but he also attacks using things that are almost so absurd that they are impossible to refute. Take the latest Swift Boat ad as an example. That battle turns into a your word against mine situation because there is a group of veterans calling into question the very truths that Kerry's group of veterans propagates. Perhaps more telling is when Rove planted a bug within his own campaign HQ and said that the office was bugged by his opponent. How does the opponent go about refuting this? Anyway, he's an evil genius, and I give him some credit for dreaming up these strategies.

So, I think the Bush strategy at this point comprises of continued terror alerts/warnings as well as a healthy dose of negative politics. Personally, I don't think it will work given the 2004 political landscape but we shall see.

[jerseyhoya34]

I have been away for the past week, so I was unable to enjoy the de-bunking of this Swiftboats group that apparently took place in the WaPo and NYT.

I did read with great pleasure that, apparently, if Drudge is accurate, that Kerry-Edwards is filing a FEC complaint against the group alleging improper coordination with Bush-Cheney 2004.

The plot thickens with this one, but hopefully Kerry-Edwards has knocked the legs out from under this one so that it does not become a Willie Horton ad in importance and impact.

[Penarol1916]

JerseyHoya34 said:

I have been away for the past week, so I was unable to enjoy the de-bunking of this Swiftboats group that apparently took place in the WaPo and NYT.

I did read with great pleasure that, apparently, if Drudge is accurate, that Kerry-Edwards is filing a FEC complaint against the group alleging improper coordination with Bush-Cheney 2004.

The plot thickens with this one, but hopefully Kerry-Edwards has knocked the legs out from under this one so that it does not become a Willie Horton ad in importance and impact.

Ah, so you missed the first person account in the Chicago Tribune by the metro editor who called the Swift Boat Veterans' account of the Silver Star episode a sham and said the group what the group is doing is a disgrace to Swift Boat Veterans who aren't seeking the limelight or holding a grudge.

[kchoya]

Penarol1916 said:

Ah, so you missed the first person account in the Chicago Tribune by the metro editor who called the Swift Boat Veterans' account of the Silver Star episode a sham and said the group what the group is doing is a disgrace to Swift Boat Veterans who aren't seeking the limelight or holding a grudge.

Holding a grudge? So you woulld say that these Vietnam Vets (and others) have no right to be upset about the testimony and stories that John Kerry gave upon his return to the States? They don't have any right to be upset about Kerry and others throwing back their medals (or ribbons)?

Aside from the rest of the circumstance of this scrum, I would think that some Vietnam vets would have a right to be upset with Kerry.

[jerseyhoya34]

The Swift Boat Vets began by attacking John Kerry's service and valor in combat, not his public statements against the war. I would suggest that such attacks are slimy and contemptuous.

Now, I agree that Kerry's public statements are an important issue, but maybe they should begin by giving them context. Their most recent ad clips Kerry's statement and suggests he accused veterans of ripping off ears etc. when in fact he said that others had told him about ripping off ears etc. There is quite a difference there.

Then, I think the next question one must ask is, "Even if John Kerry accused our soldiers of X, Y, and Z, what is the truth?" Unfamiliar with whether we ripped off ears etc., I can say something with a fair amount of certainty and that is that we committed crimes in Vietnam, and it was the policy of our leaders that engendered/encouraged such crimes. In my estimation, We did fire in free fire zones and did kill civilians without justification or excuse. Surely, these facts are not popular, but they are the truth like it or not.

[Penarol1916]

kchoya said:

Holding a grudge? So you woulld say that these Vietnam Vets (and others) have no right to be upset about the testimony and stories that John Kerry gave upon his return to the States? They don't have any right to be upset about Kerry and others throwing back their medals (or ribbons)?

Aside from the rest of the circumstance of this scrum, I would think that some Vietnam vets would have a right to be upset with Kerry.

They have every right to be upset, but then they should stick with attacking him on what he said and did after he came back, because that is what they care about. The problem is, what they found upsetting, most of the electorate didn't, thus they had to come up with these stories, that have mostly been discredited, many by their own previous statements, in an effort to try to get some attention.