An article well worthy of Maureen Dowd. Really. As a mental exercise, substitute George Bush for John Kerry and flip the Dems/Reps and you just about have her.

Michael,

You frequently show disdain for the Vietnam era. It is one of your blind spots, possibly endearing, but a blind spot nonetheless.

The one useful detail in the article was the McGovernite revolution in the Dem party. Possibly true. What I have been coming away with from the Kerry/SwiftVets issue is that 1971's Winter Soldier was a watershed where a lot of America turned left and your precious true liberalism was severely stricken.

The wound needs healing, and it isn't the vets that need it. Can you guess what group of people in the US most need to revise their world-view and get a better grip on reality? Am I too far afield when I suggest that this class traces its roots to the anti-war protest (though some deeper traces go to the communist love affair of the thirties - though this was a pre-cursor for the elites)?

A fair write up of what's happened so far it you care to catch up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

Posted by: jdwill at August 22, 2004 08:29 PM

The Democrats (according to Feguson) are trying to convince themselves they aren't wimps.

Actually, they're trying to convince swing voters, not themselves. For example, Michael, consider what you wrote the other day about Howard Dean ("He never did strike me as the kind of guy to back down from a fight. He can be both scrappy and ruthless, necessary traits in the confrontation with Islamofascism.") -- the entire Vietnam fetish at the convention, and laying down the gauntlet now over the SBVets, was/is to send the message to people like you that Kerry won't back down from a fight, either.

Posted by: Swopa at August 22, 2004 08:45 PM

(New, improved -- with fixed italics tag!)

The Democrats (according to Feguson) are trying to convince themselves they aren't wimps.

Actually, they're trying to convince swing voters, not themselves. For example, Michael, consider what you wrote the other day about Howard Dean ("He never did strike me as the kind of guy to back down from a fight. He can be both scrappy and ruthless, necessary traits in the confrontation with Islamofascism.").

The entire Vietnam fetish at the convention, and laying down the gauntlet now over the SBVets, was/is to send the message to people like you that Kerry won't back down from a fight, either.

Posted by: Swopa at August 22, 2004 08:46 PM

Swopa,

I suppose you're right. At least you're also right.

Kerry can't convince me by putting on a show. It helps that he knows which show he's supposed to put on, but it isn't enough by itself. I don't know what Kerry would do in a tough spot, and that bothers me. Would he let Iran get nukes to avoid a confrontation? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does either.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 22, 2004 08:53 PM

Michael,

A better stuff to read for your psychological well being:
< href="http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/23">investors.com< /a>

Posted by: marek at August 22, 2004 09:01 PM

Michael,

Just read this:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues.asp?v=8/23

Posted by: marek at August 22, 2004 09:02 PM

From the article:

Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

Given the behavior of the Kerry campaign to date I must be excused for inferring that he is running on his record in Vietnam, not his record in the Senate, or even his plans for the future. The loudest voice in the blogoshpere to my knowledge who is “obsessive” with Swift Vet coverage is Glenn Reynolds – hardly the sort of ideologue conservative which Andrew Ferguson has in mind. Linking to Glenn is ‘coals to Newcastle’ of course but you must read this post which to my mind demonstrates why Ferguson’s psychoanalysis (and projection?) doesn’t explain the obsessive nature of the coverage. Posted by: lewy14 at August 22, 2004 09:13 PM

I would argue that the premise of the article is incorrect. His thesis that "Republican activists have bent themselves to the task of proving that John Kerry, who was awarded five medals during four months of service in the Vietnam war, isn't a war hero" misses the point entirely.

It's not whether or not John Kerry is a war hero or not -- he showed up when he was ordered to, and he didn't leave until he was entitled to.

The issue is how honest he has been about his service and his accomplishments -- his claims about which form the foundation of his entire argument for why he believes he should be the next POTUS.

The truth or baseness of his claims, his personal reaction to the accusations, and the response of the "Kerry Machine" to the charges show what kind of man he is, and what kind of administration he would run.

I'm one of those mythical swing voters, and I'm not impressed with what I'm seeing.

He has already admitted that he has lied about the Cambodia thing (seared what?). His team has released several different explanations. There's no common story that they all agree on. In police shows, different stories usually indicates that someone's lying. ;)

His personal reaction has been to tell Dubya to break the law and violate the Constitution by oppressing the Swifties, and slander his Band of Brothers. ("Bring. It. On." has become "Make them stop!") He has yet to factually refute any of the charges, and those exhuberant reports that one swiftie or another has been discredited turn out to be not-so-discrediting once the facts come out and the spin is removed. I've heard he could put all the he-said/he-said to rest if he would just sign Form 180 like he demanded of Dubya, but for some reason he hasn't. Perhaps he's waiting for the furor to reach a fever-pitch, then pull the mother of all rope-a-dopes, releasing records that completely vindicate him ...

His political machine hasn't countered the threat to his campaign with anything remotely effective, decisive, or dignified. People talk all the time about how stupid and incompetent W's administration is; Kerry's machine can't even deal with a 527 -- how is he supposed to deal with, say, N.Korea, China, Iran, Syria?

Sometimes I feel like we are all Truman Burbanks, being shown a very carefully created caricature of John Kerry -- a facade created specifically to propel his political career.

Cheers, and I don't blame you for being exhaused with the entire circus. I wish we could talk more about what needs to be done the next 4 years, 10 years, 20 years, and what plans each candidate has -- than what was done 35 years ago.

Posted by: bkw at August 22, 2004 09:33 PM

The sad thing is that this is the end result of a but-for: Had it been but for the Dem camp making such a big deal out of Bush's National Guard service, none of this is likely to have come up. The Republicans would be trying to shut this down rather than take the tit-for-tat of examining Bush's record.

The Dems started the debate though, and made the mistake of picking an issue where there wasn't any meat (and had much less legs than the supposed scandals in 2000 about coke and DWI.) That GWB has already come through squeeky clean on the National Gueard issue means that there is no downside for the Republicans on this. They have actual deniablility (thanks to McCain Fiengold) and no way for it to come out badly. The best the Democrats can do, even if it turns out to have no merit (which I doubt) is to shout "VRWC! VRWC!" and have the swing voters say, 'yeah, sure. Whatever.'

Posted by: Phelps at August 22, 2004 09:37 PM

Ferguson gives his take on Democrats and Republicans, but he says nothing about the actual veterans involved.

These guys have a problem with Kerry. Can't they talk about it? Shouldn't they? Wouldn't they be remiss not to?

Posted by: E Rey at August 22, 2004 10:05 PM

E Rey, if their problem with Kerry is that he reported US atrocities in vietnam, they should talk about that. They can either say the atrocities didn't happen or they can say he should have helped cover them up.

Lying about what he did in vietnam because they're upset at him talking about the atrocities is wrong.

Posted by: J Thomas at August 22, 2004 10:16 PM

The loudest voice in the blogoshpere to my knowledge who is “obsessive” with Swift Vet coverage is Glenn Reynolds – hardly the sort of ideologue conservative which Andrew Ferguson has in mind.

No, Reynolds is not an ideological conservative, he's worse: he's a partisan hack.

The problem with being a partisan hack is that you end up convincing yourself that your side winning is more important than any policy issue, and more important than values such as truthfulness, consistency and decency.

Reynolds has clearly reached that stage.

Posted by: Mork at August 22, 2004 10:20 PM

Mork,

Glenn Reynolds voted for Gore in 2000. So did I. I share his bitterness (and Michael's, I believe) about the quality of candidates in this year's election.

Read the very first link in Glenn's post (the one I linked above). Would a "partisan hack" link to an article in Foreign Affairs enumerating a litany of the failures in the Iraq occupation?

There are partisan hacks in this campaign, e.g. Bob Dole, who apparently can't tell the difference between a hatchet and a chainsaw. But Glenn Reynolds isn't one of them.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 22, 2004 10:42 PM

Mork, by making himself un-engageable on almost any issue, Kerry has revealed his achilles heel: the character issue. As it happens, the character problem is the heart of the Swiftvets' brief.

So far, I don't think they can be casually dismissed as liars.

Posted by: E Rey at August 22, 2004 10:48 PM

Seems like the article is overly obsessed itself with masculinity. Maybe the author is trying to puzzle to out with his own anxieties in this vote. But those of us not of the male sex certainly don't have those particular anxieties.

I found the Truth Laid Bear had a more interesting psychological premise for the reason the ads are taking off:

The biggest problem for Kerry is that the Swifties' attacks confirm what we really want to believe about him anyway. He's been so damned annoying about his Vietnam record that we secretly want to think the worst of him, and now the Swifties have provided a rational basis for that gut-level irritation that Kerry inspires when he blathers on about his war record. This isn't just bad for Kerry, it's disasterous: the amorphous negative that normal people have when exposed to Kerry's "leadership, courage, and sacrifice" / "three purple hearts" mantra now has a core of fact -- or at least, alleged fact --- around which to crystalize.

As many people have commented, most memorably JibJab, there's something unsavory and obsessive about the way Kerry keeps stressing his medals. If you want to go with the interpretative metaphor Ferguson introduced, there's a certain level of insecurity there as well in the fact that he keeps pointing it out.

However, what I really wanted to say is that I think the problem resides in Kerry. Despite his bravery, to the extent that he has core values, they lie with the anti-war movement, not the pro war movement. Nothing he has said convinces me he has had a core change.

If Lieberman were running – despite his slightly wimpy appearance – I'd have no problem at all accepting him as President, because he has core values on this war and wants to deal with it resolutely. Kerry would need a panel to make up his mind and would poll every position, like a Clinton redux. And unless he's very different than the way he portrays himself, despite the French, he doesn't appear to have the necessary gravitas on this issue. If he doesn't believe in the war, or in any particular theatre of the war, he'll hardly be able to prosecute it successfully.

So I don't think it is about obsessive masculinity at all. It's the core values in a 9/11 world, stupid.

Posted by: alcibiades at August 22, 2004 10:56 PM

For the record I can't find a reference to back my recollection about Glenn Reynold's vote in the 2000 election. The rest of my rebuttal of Mork's post stands.

Posted by: lewy14 at August 22, 2004 11:26 PM

If Lieberman were running – despite his slightly wimpy appearance – I'd have no problem at all accepting him as President, because he has core values on this war and wants to deal with it resolutely.

Oh, bullshit. If Lieberman were running for President, he'd want to win, so he'd be drawing attention to all of the Administration's screw-ups in Iraq in order to distinuguish himself from Bush. And, of course, the Republican slime machine would be smearing him, too ... and it's not too difficult to imagine what tack that would take.

And all you folks who are so darn worried about Kerry's character would be just as worked up that pernicious Lieberman and worried about the threat that his presidency would pose to the Republic.

Posted by: Mork at August 22, 2004 11:48 PM

"And the Republicans are trying to talk themselves into voting against a war hero in favor of a war dodger instead."

Uh, no, Michael. Is this part of being a war liberal, looking for easy, zero-sum solutions? Can you countenance, just for a second, that there is a substantial number of people who, even though partisan, might be looking for the best man for the job?

I'm looking for a candidate with the credentials and character to successfully lead a superpower at war. There are a lot of other considerations but they pale next to that. Kerry made Vietnam an issue, and he has only himself to blame for forgetting that while media is powerful, it's not powerful enough (or stupid enough) to stop people from asking questions, even if he doesn't have answers.

They've gone from 'Bring it on' to 'Stop that or I'll tell!' in under a week. Must be force of habit...

Why on earth do you think his campaign announced its intention to basically close up shop for five weeks after the convention? In a neck and neck race? They had the ABB crowd arriving in Boston. They managed to get through the four days of preliminary speeches without any fatal moonbattery, and then had Kerry's Patton Speech attempt.

"There, that ought to wrap up the people who get their politics off of TV. Now lets head to the Hamptons for five weeks and let media and our 527's do our job for us....". Attempting to check out of the public forum, and announcing it, appeared to me a powerful statement on how confident they were that they were covered.

Questions...questions....questions.

Michael, it's not the questions, even though they are asked by men who deserve an answer. It's the lack of answers. Believable ones, at least.

I've got a long post on Roger L. Simon's blog that touches on this subject. It started out being focused on the media coverage angle, but you know how I wander.

Have a fine week.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 23, 2004 12:02 AM

Michael,

I respect you greatly, which is why I'm telling you that you're woring about this. The Swiftboats vets aren't a symbol of anything. They are real people who have a real problem with John Kerry. I understand that the whole symbolism thing strikes a deep chord in your literary mind, but this is about literal betrayal.

This is, in fact, a pipe, not a painting of a pipe.

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at August 23, 2004 12:06 AM

Meant to say that you are wrong on this.

Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at August 23, 2004 01:25 AM

I've been in the military for the past 12 years, and I was in Iraq and Kuwait much of the past 2 years, so I thought I'd use my sometimes-useful knowledge and experience to help you Kerry supporters to understand what those "darned swift boat guys" are talking about. You want so badly to believe Kerry's lies, but the truth is slapping you in the face with the harsh hand of reality. You trumpet half-hearted denials in the form of "The NY Times refuted their claims!" I'm sorry- the NY Times (as well as the rest of the liberal media) refuted NOTHING. They simply stated (and let me be clear about this) that the SBVFT guys were funded in part by (are you ready for this? It's gonna shock you) BUSH-SUPPORTERS and (gasp!) REPUBLICANS!!!!! Oh my, I can't believe it!!! You mean to tell me that pro-Kerry people didn't fund ANY of those ads from the SBVFT??? I simply never would have imagined! Yes, that's about the best they could do in their unbelievably weak attempt to "refute" the claims. Read any article out there and tell me where it says anything about the validity of the actual SBVFT claims. There's nothing. But if anyone's curious about where the funds are coming from, then I assure you- all your questions will be answered!

How about this guy in Chicago, William Rood- is he really "refuting" anything of substance? ABSOLUTELY NOT! He simply claims that Kerry made the right call- that his counter-ambush tactics were heroic and successful. OK, good point. Well worth a debate. Some would say it was foolish, some would say it was valorous. I happen to be impartial on this one, because I don't do river counter-ambush operations. Rood DID NOT discount the REAL issue at stake here- that John Kerry shot a wounded VC teenager in the back as he was fleeing. Rood claims it wasn't a teenager, but actually appeared to be a full-grown man. To that, I say "SO WHAT???" In my world, people can be court-marshaled for shooting wounded folks in the back when they're fleeing! Debate this all you want- it's just not the mark of a brave warrior. I've never heard anyone say, "I'm so brave, I shot a guy in the back while he was running away!"

So what about his Bronze Star? Well, here's a quick breakdown of how it works:

1) Soldier does something heroic.
2) Witness (fellow soldier, supervisor, subordinate, anyone present) says "Hey, that was heroic! That man deserves a medal!!"
3) Witness ensures that the officer submitting the after-action report includes the act of bravery and any other supporting information (hostile fire, nearby explosions, etc).
4) Commander reviews the after action report and determines "this is deserving of a medal!"
5) Commander drafts a citation recounting the incident. The citation is usually just a jazzed-up version of the after-action report, which, as I mentioned previously, was submitted by an officer who was at the scene. (example "With little regard for his own safety and taking heavy enemy fire, LT Schmoe charged the hill and killed 238 VC, saving all his men in the process.")
6) Citation gets passed up the chain of command without being scrutinized (trust is everything and officers are busy), and eventually gets to some high-ranking bigwig, who promptly signs it without even looking at it. Trust me when I tell you that if every top General or government official had to scrutinize every award recommendation, there wouldn't be time for anything else. That's why, when we military folks hear people say "it was signed by the SECRETARY OF THE NAVY himself!" we just laugh and laugh. As if that means ANYTHING! The only question of significance is "who submitted the recommendation?" If it turns out that one who recommends it is also the recipient of the award, then...well...it just doesn't look so good (remember this part).

So that's the process. In the case of Kerry's Bronze Star- the ones who were there with him started asking a very reasonable question. "Who recommended us for this? There wasn't any 'enemy fire'! It was a mine blast- pure and simple!" Sorry guys, but there's only one possible explanation for this- it's simple math really. The officers submitted their after-action reports. Kerry's report was the ONLY one that claimed there was enemy fire at the scene. The report that was approved and forwarded up the chain of command clearly stated that there was enemy fire. Therefore, the report HAD to be Kerry's! That's right, folks! Your candidate simply pushed a bogus report right on up the chain. Even the guys who received Bronze Stars for this incident insist that the citation is erroneous. Kerry's big downfall here was that his report inadvertently led to OTHER sailors getting awards, which tipped them off that something wasn't quite right.

So what about Jim Rassmann, the man that Kerry pulled out of the water, and his claim that he heard gunfire? Well, I'm certain he did. It was the guys on the patrol boats laying down suppression fire immediately following the mine blast, a common procedure still used today. ALL who were present verify that, yes, there WAS friendly suppression fire. 99% of those present insist there was NO enemy fire, and they all agree that Kerry HAD to be the one who lied and said there was. So what do you do when everyone begins to suspect you're a self-serving medal-chasing liar? Easy! Round up three quick purple hearts, and head on home! Oh, that reminds me, I should probably cover a common procedure that medal-chasers use for getting purple hearts:

Kerry: "Hey Doc, can you sign this please? It just says that I got hurt yesterday- you see I'm collecting purple hearts so I can go home!"

Doc: "But, John, you're only missing a fingernail. What about all those guys who lost their limbs, their eyes, even their lives? Do you really want to dishonor them by getting their same medal when all you have is a boo-boo?"

Kerry: "If it gets me home pronto, the answer is 'YES SIR!!!!'"

If you don't believe this is possible, ask anyone who's been to combat. It sickens me to see medal-chasers in action, but they exist- and they've existed for quite a while.

Do we even need to get into the whole Cambodia thing? I mean, that was just a flat-out, no-gettin'-outta-this-one, damn-I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that LIE. One of many it seems....

Okay, enough about dubious medals and obvious lies- let's get to the issue that's really steaming people up. John Kerry served more than most and should therefore be honored, right? WRONG! How about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the prisoners in Iraq and took photos for all the world to see? THEY served more than most people. Should THEY be honored? To make a blanket statement along the lines of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain ignorant. There are bad apples in every bunch, and the sad truth is that there is a small minority of soldiers in every American war that did more to hurt the cause than to help. John Kerry is one of those bad apples. "Why" you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get medals. You see, as a leader/officer in wartime, you MUST ensure that soldiers know one thing above all else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will devote EVERY LAST BREATH, DROP OF BLOOD, BEAD OF SWEAT to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3 band-aid wounds, and promptly headed home. Remember- 3 purple hearts gave one the CHOICE to leave- it was not obligatory. What kind of message did that send to his sailors and all the other enlisted sailors in his unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!" Apparently a handful (maybe 12 out of about 300?) of the sailors he served with have forgiven him. Understandable, given the fact that he delivered those troops a national cheering audience that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he did- the officers who served with him. He complicated their efforts, he hurt their unit's morale, he put their lives in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave enough to stay behind and do their duty. Reprehensible in every sense of the word. Say what you want about whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care less. What is NOT debatable is the fact that he got 3 "minor wounds" and promptly abandoned the ones he was sworn to protect. As a leader in the US Military, that's the worst insult. He would have served his country much better by never having gone to Vietnam.

Senator Kerry was recently quoted as saying "...this is a different kind of war from any kind of war we've fought before, and it's because in the last months they have seen me climbing in America's understanding that I know how to fight a smarter and more effective war, that's why they are trying to attack." What America is understanding, I would gladly retort, is that he fled Vietnam in disgrace after receiving 3 band-aids and widespread recognition for looking out for number one. I wouldn't say that's indicative of someone who's going to fight a "smarter and more effective war," but that's just my opinion. In any case, John Kerry (one man) did his 4 months in Vietnam and spoke volumes to the American public about the war during the years that followed. Much of what he said has been shamefully discredited. Now he opines that 200+ veterans shouldn't have the right to present THEIR view of what happened over there? How dare he.

George Bush is no war hero. Nobody (including W himself) is trying to pretend that he is.

John Kerry is the opposite of a hero, and no one claims him to be a hero more than he himself. Ladies and Gentleman, that is just plain disgusting....

Posted by: $lick at August 23, 2004 01:51 AM

I read it.

I found it un-convincing,shallow,and mediocre.
The reason that this story has 'legs; is that Kerry is distasteful on a 'felt'level.
It may be Vietnam itself that is the factor but I don't believe it. I think another person could have done the same things but not dragged everything into the open like this.
As for Bob Dole----- I loved it!!!
I will bet that CNN was shocked that he unloaded on Kerry and EVERY WORD WAS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED. A man who goes around bragging about 3 EXTREMELY MINOR wounds and holding up his 3 purple hearts for admiration while many of his 'band of brothers'have been shot to pieces,gets no respect or sympathy from me.

Posted by: dougf at August 23, 2004 02:37 AM

[Great rant $lick] Mine very different.
Which is morally superior: War – or – Peace AND Genocide?

“A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.”

No. The “moral inferiority” of Kerry comes 1) from exaggerating the US war crimes (as stated): that our boys in Vietnam had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians," and so on, as young John Kerry testified they did.”
2) From LYING to the Senate that he was illegally in Cambodia, Christmas 1968 (why not mentioned here? Easily checked; but Kerry refuses to sign Form 180)

Yet most importantly, 3) choosing the “moral choice” after 1968 between a) more fighting in Vietnam, or b) leaving SE Asia in “peace”, and letting evil commies commit genocide.

Kerry, and the whole anti-War Left, claims “moral superiority” with their choice of peace (and genocide) rather than fighting.

Also remember, the US refused to attack N. Vietnam on the ground, just bombs. My Slovak wife reminded me that the Vietnam war movies don’t mention that the US chose to (basically) never invade, nor really threaten to invade and control, N. Vietnam. Today this is an obvious “mistake” – fighting with no hope of winning. [perilously close to NOT invading Najaf or other holy shrines]. Yes, there are arguments for other actions before Johnson’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the war escalation, but by 1968 and after, the choice was fight or run.

So, there should perhaps be more choices: a2) stop the draft, fight with higher paid volunteer/ mercenaries, and a3) support S. Viet troops attacking North against N. Vietnam; possibly use US troops. – I’m no expert on what the US needed to do to win; I wasn’t comfy with my Grandmother’s advice: mine Hai phong harbor, nuke Hanoi – but following HER advice, and winning, would have been a better result than (b) peace & genocide.

Cambodia’s genocide SHOULD be the moral question in Kerry’s non-wimp psychology. Was peace AND genocide morally superior?

Posted by: Tom Grey at August 23, 2004 02:48 AM

Ferguson engages in some armchair psychology for sure. My question is whether all this mudslinging will actually garner the votes sought: those of the 30 - 40% in the middle, undecided space. Seems more likely to just further energize the partisans.

And to those of you prone to name calling - "Reynolds is a partisan hack!" - I suggest you read Ed Cone who puts it better than I ever could in this piece:

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107946/stories/2004/08/22/dontTalkWhileImInterrupting.html

Posted by: steve at August 23, 2004 03:46 AM

$lick

That, sir, was magnificent.

I hope you get this published, or at least posted to assorted weblogs. Try emailing it to Instapundit (Mork is a fool, a lot of people respect Glenn Reynolds as a balanced commenter) He has taken to this story in a big way.

Posted by: jdwill at August 23, 2004 03:50 AM

Mork: No, Reynolds is not an ideological conservative, he's worse: he's a partisan hack.

Bullshit. He's covering aspects of this story that the media skip over. He also covers damn near everything anyway, very unlike myself.

Glenn is one of the least partisan people in the blogosphere. I'm sure you would know that if you read everything he writes, as I do. Rush Limbaugh is a partisan hack.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at August 23, 2004 04:32 AM

Michael, Ferguson has a point but I think he's not supplying perspective. This whole business of stealing the other side's issues went by the name of "triangulation" during the Clinton years. It was Dick Morris's insight that the best way to beat the Republicans was to take their issues away (crime, welfare). And in the '90s it worked.

The problem is that it can only work if it's executed well and if the one doing the execution isn't being untrue to himself. Kerry didn't execute it well. He's not a convincing military leader. Vietnam was 35 years ago, and Kerry chose to play that up instead of his Senate experience in national security. Yes, I understand that his Senate record leans toward the reflexively anti-military, but he probably could have explained it by supplying context. Give him his due, he does have expertise. But that's not what he put on display.

The whole military macho things isn't true to his character either. The sweep of Kerry's career over the last 20+ years (like his votes against lots of military procurement programs, against the first Gulf War, against (I think) the Pershing missiles in the 80s) indicates that he is loath ever to use American power except in response to a direct attack on the US homeland. Nothing short of Pearl Harbor or 9/11 would suffice as a provocation. That's not a dishonorable position, I suppose (though I regard it as a foolish one) - but that position is not one that is politically salable now. Hence we see this almost mindlessly macho posturing. Clinton could triangulate convincingly because he wasn't an ideologue at heart and because he was a terrific communicator and spinner. Kerry isn't even in the same league.

So what Ferguson is missing is that Kerry's rhetorical machismo is an attempt to use the Clinton playbook, but without Clinton's talent. (This isn't unique to Kerry, either - Bush's first term was an attempt on domestic issues to steal the Democrats' issues, and he didn't do that one too well, either).

Posted by: Stuart at August 23, 2004 06:04 AM

Dork calling Glenn Reynolds a partisan hack is surely the best example I've seen yet on this blog of "The pot calling the kettle black".

Heh.

Posted by: Eric Blair at August 23, 2004 06:07 AM

I am about the same age as your Michael, and I see differently. The Swift Vets have every right to defend their honor. How many movies over the past thirty years have painted all our Vietnam Veterans as baby killing war criminals? "We Were Soldiers", one of the few movies out defending our Veterans, represented the nastiness the American people exhibited towards our returning Veterans and was released only thirty years later.

Michael, you may be tired of the Vietnam thing, but those soldiers who came back to a vicious, hateful America perpetuated by John Kerry Veterans against the War who CLAIMED that our soldiers were basically committing crimes on the level of Genghis Khan are not. They have had to live with the lies their entire lives. They cannot accept the one man who brought such nastiness to their lives. Atrocities in war happen but to paint our entire military in this way was unforgivable. Note, Kerry NEVER actually saw that which he spoke. Reminds me of Michael Moore today, fabricate images in order to attack the opposition by playing on people emotions. It is manipulative and dishonest.

You should care Michael, because for thirty years our Vietnam Veterans have been perceived as something they are not, and if your are not willing to defend their right to voice their dissent towards a man who perpetuated lies against them, you do not deserve to be living free in America. John O'Neill, if you will remember, had said the same thing about John F, Kerry back in 1971 as he is saying today. At least John O'Neill is consistant, the same cannot be said for John F. Kerry.

Have Americans become so completely selfish as to have grown tired from never recognizing their own nastiness in the treatment of our Vietnam Veteran? Nothing should interfere with our MTV, right!!!! Hey man, what is honor anyway.

The Swift Vets are not advocating for Bush, they are defending their honor against a man who wishes to become Commander-in-Chief, an opportunistic man who destroyed their honor with lies and fabrication.

I thought Liberalism would understand this concept. I was wrong.

Continue sweeping it under the rug, that's what John "Boston Strangler" Kerry want's you to do.

Why are you not advocating that Kerry release all his military records?

By the way, saving millions from living in hell, IS the right thing to do whether it disturbs and disrupts your life of luxury or not.

Vietnam apparently disturbed John Kerry's life of luxury so much that his advocation of withdrawing all troops immediately out of Vietnam led to the slaughter of millions. John O'Neill, on the other had, had predicted that John F Kerry's porposal for immediate withdrawal would led to the slaughter. O'Neill was right then and he is right today.

Kerry lied. Millions died. And hundreds of thousands of Vietnam Veterans lives were dishonored and degraded. Is this the ugliness you are tired of?

Posted by: syn at August 23, 2004 06:18 AM

What?

Totten doesn't care about how Kerry is reacting, attempting to CENSOR the Swiftees? A man running for president trying to destroy free speech, and this isn't relevent?

So being a centrist liberal means not giving a crap about, you know, liberalism?

Oh well, the "root cause" is Vietnam, so I guess it isn't relevent that in 2004 a man running for president is trying to shut up working class veterans.

Yet another reason to vote for the GOP this year. The liberal centrist Democrats are deader than dead. And the so-called centralist liberals like Totten say nothing about it.

Posted by: ReluctantRepub at August 23, 2004 06:54 AM

Stuart talks about "politically salable now:" should President Bush forthrightly signal that the next Gulf War will be in Iran, and will be a war requiring him to mobilize 600,000 troops to occupy a country of 60 million ? After all, the "mission accomplished" in Iraq is going so marvellously well in Ramadi, Fallujah, Samarra, and Najaf.
Syn is admirable in his hope that the United States can and should save millions from living in hell. How long would you have left 500,000 Americans in South Vietnam? The GRVN and ARVN were clearly not up to the task of defeating the NVA. Are You ready for Iran, Darfur, or that truly awful regime in Zimbabwe?

Posted by: g-lex at August 23, 2004 07:09 AM

Syn wrote:

Michael, you may be tired of the Vietnam thing, but those soldiers who came back to a vicious, hateful America perpetuated by John Kerry Veterans against the War who CLAIMED that our soldiers were basically committing crimes on the level of Genghis Khan are not. They have had to live with the lies their entire lives. They cannot accept the one man who brought such nastiness to their lives. Atrocities in war happen but to paint our entire military in this way was unforgivable. Note, Kerry NEVER actually saw that which he spoke. Reminds me of Michael Moore today, fabricate images in order to attack the opposition by playing on people emotions. It is manipulative and dishonest.

Moreover, we see the continuation of this trend to this day. For example, the desire on the part of the media, many of which are run by anti-war baby boomers whose political convictions were shaped definitively for them during the Vietnam War, to take the Abu Ghraib story and inflate it into something large enough to knock the Iraq War off course.

And one senses their zeal in this endeavour has a lot to do with the fact that it fits into their own personal narratives – narratives that changed them greatly, that were important to them personally as shaping forces, that have the quality of a spiritual awakening to these people, but otherwise, as in any other personal narrative, are utterly subjective.

Thus the desire on the part of the MSM to read into the story of Abu Ghraib, however unsavory it was for the particular personnel so involved, something of the force that animated and converted them during the Vietnam era. And if they can use that to show the world what a sham the Iraq War was, just as they showed the world that the Vietnam War was a sham, so much the better. Conveniently forgotten and unmourned in this comforting affirmation of self are the millions dead in the aftermath of the American exit from South Vietnam, the blanket of fundamentalist oppression that would fall across the ME; and the fact that in any case the war will go on and need to be fought; only with Iraq lost, it will be that much harder. The Cold War lasted much longer than it had to because of our retreat in South Vietnam.

So as long as men of that era shape the media and cultural discourse with their own pieties, as they have been doing now for the past 30 years, we're all very much effected by it. To say otherwise is naive.

Posted by: alcibiades at August 23, 2004 07:11 AM

Don't have time to write much now. But I'd be interested in feedback from Kerry-bashers reflecting on how they might react if the tables were turned. If a Democratic nominee, a "fortunate son" who used his father's pull to get in the National Guard, was encouraging supporters to question the integrity and honor of a Republican who volunteered for service, asked to go to Vietnam specifically, served a tour in which all controversy aside HE DID HIS JOB, but is also probably guilty of embellishing his record somewhat in order to spruce up his political resume.

If you want to oppose Kerry because of his liberalism, or because you think he'll be weak on foreign policy, or even because you hate him for his 1971 testimony, that's fine.

But this is bullshit.

Posted by: Markus Rose at August 23, 2004 07:20 AM

Markus -

Just as soon as Kerry runs on his policies or senate record, I'll be more than happy to comment on both.

Until then, all we've (anybody not in the ABB demographic) got is his Vietnam experience, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE DEFINED AS HIS CREDENTIALS FOR OFFICE.

As always, you have to be careful for what you wish for...

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 23, 2004 07:42 AM

Alcibiades: A realist named Thucydides showed us all the folly of sailing off(as the real Alcibiade passionately demanded)on a vast, noble expedition to Sicily, into circumstances that turned out to be quite beyond Athenian understanding or control. Disaster followed.
Re Vietnam: would it not have been more logical and less lethal to have sent an ambassador(as the US does today), set up Nike factories in both ends of the country, and save all those deaths suffered by both Americans and Vietnamese? Once Nixon envisiged an exchange of ambassadors with the "People's Republic of China", formally acknowledging its existence, war stopped and trade soon began--billions and billions in value, not millions of deaths. Anything wrong with that?

Posted by: g-lex at August 23, 2004 07:52 AM

$lick,
I would say that you got about 10% right and 90% wrong in your rant.

You are correct that it is blazingly obvious that the Swifties are funded by anti-Kerry people, and that that in itself is a silly way to criticize them. But of course, to the extent that they are funded by Bush friends and operatives, their credibility as independent voices is diminished, and the spectre of illegal collaboration with the campaign is raised. So it is also a legitimate question for journalists to raise.

As to whether the Swiftie charges have been refuted, you seem to be totally out of touch with reality. As far as I can see, just about every specific charge they have made has been refuted or terminally underminded.

You begin with Rood. You claim that the central issue is whether Kerry shot a wounded teenager in the back as he was fleeing. And that in your book, such an act, whether against a teenager or an adult, is worthy of court-martial. With all due respect, I think you are full of shit. It seems uncontested that the VC was not alone. There was plenty of fire being directed at the boat. When Kerry and co. went ashore, this guy retreated into the jungle. Armed with a weapon that could easily take out the boat and kill our men if he could get into position to get off a shot. Kerry persued him and took him out. Are you seriously claiming that you, or any other responible soldier would not have tried to do the same? Are you claiming that when confronted with the enemy in a firefight, that once one of their armed guys turns to retreat, then you are obliged to just let them go? So that what...they could take cover behind a tree and resume their attack? That is so reidiculous a claim, that I find it hard to believe you could bring yourself to write it. In fact, the very idea that the Swifties think that this could be raised as a legitimate claim aginst Kerry undermines thier credibility enormously. If he had NOT persued the enemy and tried to take him out he would have been derelict in his duty to protect him men.

As to the Bronze star - I accept your argument about the medal system, and how it is silly to claim that the Sec. of the Navy's signature means anything. But let us look at the facts of the actual incident. Your argument is absolutely incoherent. First off, lets leave Kerry aside for a moment. Jim Rassmun was a green beret temporarily on the boat - i.e. no particular established relationship with Kerry - no reason to lie for him. Rassmun later went on to a career as a law enforcement officer and a life-long Republican. Rassmun claims that he was taking fire. Why do you accuse him of lying? Why would he lie? WHat is in it for him to lie? You claim that he was just mistaken. It was friendly suppresive fire. How the hell do you know that? It wasnt only Kerry who saw Rassmun in the water - other boats were apparently heading over to rescue him. Is it common practice to lay suppresive fire around the man that you are trying to rescue? I dont think there were any VC in the water with Rassmun - any suppressive fire would be aimed at the banks, not, as Rassmun claims, pinging into the water around him.

The Swifties making the claim that the Bronze Star is illegitimate do not deny that Kerry pulled Rassmun out of the water. They claim that it is not worthy of a medal because there was no enemy around. But Thurlow recieved a medal as well. Even if you claim that he recieved that medal because of Kerry's report, why did he accept the medal? He now claims that he thought his medal was for coming to the rescue of the mined boat, and that he now would consider his medal illegeitmate if it was given for being under fire. But cant you see how this is totally self-contradictory? He has known all along that you dont get a medal for simply coming to the rescue of someone if there is no danger around. That is his entire claim against Kerry. So how can he claim to have thought that his own medal was recieved for coming to the rescue of the mined boat if there was no danger around? THat is clearly a lie. Either he knowingly accepted an illegitemate medal for doing something when there was no danger around (and signing the citation), or he knew damn well that there was fire, or, even more likely, he was busy trying to help with the mined boat in a chaotic situtation, and really had no clue as to what was going on out in the middle of the river. They claimed there were no bullet holes in the boat, but it now turns out there were three. Oh, but that was from the day before....At every point they simply make an outrageous charge, are refuted by the evidence, and then come up with an ad hoc explanation for why the evidence should be discounted. There is NO EVIDENCE that actually supports any of their claims. Just their own assertions.

As to Cambodia, lets look at the facts again. Kerry says he was in Cambodia on Christmas. Swifties say he wasnt EVER there, it would have been impossible. Turns out that it was in fact possible, and that he probably was at least near Cambodia on Christmas (having gone well up the river from his base, in that direction) and that it seems probably that he was actually in Cambodia, although perhaps not on Christmas. As far as I can see, based on the evidence, Kerry seems about 95% correct, perhaps confused on the dates, and the Swifties are about 99% wrong - correct only on the claim that he might not have been in there on that precise date.

Your rants about him being a medal-chaser are all derivative of the baseless charges that turn out to be not true. Once you accept that what the Swifties charge are a pack of lies, which seems to me to be rather obvious, then the conclusions that you draw from those lies melt away.

As to the message that his actions sent to those who served with him, you give us an incoherent rant once again. The "handful" of those who served with him have not "forgiven" him for his actions. They never seem to have had any reason to forgive him - for they never had any complaints about him in the first place. They did not come out to support him simply so that they could get some well deserved public time at a convention - they have been friends and supporters of his for his entire career. They have never wavered in their opinions of him - that he was a brave and wonderful officer that they were proud to serve under. These are the only opinions that count, for they are the men who actually went into battle with him - not the people who "served with him" only in the sense that they were in the same country, or on the same river.

By their own admission, the Swifties are really upset at the fact that Kerry participated in the antiwar movement after his return. That is the real issue that bugs them, and they certainly have a right to express their opinion on that matter. If they had any honor or decency, they would have simply raised that issue and made whatever points they wanted to make, and everyone could have decided what to make of it. But they have totally, and terminally destroyed their own credibility by trying to undermine Kerry's war record as a way to soften him up for the later debate. They have done so in a totally dishonest and dishonorable manner. Everyone of their charges has been shown to be either a blatant lie, a gross distortion, or, at best, a totally unsupported charge.

It is the classic MO of the sleazy political hack to launch into a long string of outrageous attacks with the hope that, even if they are systematically refuted, the net effect will be that "questions are raised", or that the derivative character assessments manage to stick, even though the evidentiary base for them evaporates. Plus you get to put your opponent on the defensive, and get them off their own message.
It is disgusting, dishonest, and you sir, are entirely complicit in that.
Bad show.

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 08:00 AM

I understand the rage that Vietnam Veterans feel against Kerry and fully support their right to express that rage. Rather than defend himself, Kerry has demanded that the President stop the SBVT ads. Aside from the fact that this would be (a) a violation of campaign finance laws which require separation of 527s from campaigns and (b) against both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment, it is stunningly hypocritical. I have yet to hear Kerry say anything to rein in Moveon.org or Michael Moore.

As for the Ferguson piece, the most important point there, IMHO, is civilian control of the military. Both Pres. Bush's National Guard service and Kerry's Vietnam War service are relevant only insofar as they provide insight into how either candidate will act as Commander-in-Chief. As far as I am concerned, Kerry's service as a junior officer in command of a small boat does not give him any special insight into the job of C-in-C. If, however, the charges against Kerry are true (and he has done nothing to counter them), he is unfit for command based upon the character flaws that the charges illuminate. Pres. Bush's National Guard service, OTOH, is less relevant to the debate because we already know how he will act as C-in-C. The National Guard issue tells us nothing useful about the President, whereas the SBVT issue (coupled with Winter Soldier) MAY tell us something useful about Kerry.

Posted by: Ben at August 23, 2004 08:02 AM

As a "Vietnam Era Vet" but not a "Vietnam Vet", I have to say that Kerry's stint in that war means little to me. It is what he did upon returning, and only then after losing a congressional race as a "warrior", that disturbs me and most others who have issue with him. In fact, John O'Neill has made it very clear that this is an issue with Kerry, and Bush has no business getting in between. O'Neill has been after Kerry for many years, so this is nothing new.

Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2004 08:07 AM

Kerry did not fulfill his tour of duty in Vietnam, he left after four months.

Posted by: syn at August 23, 2004 08:13 AM

"Only one of his 23 fellow OICs from Coastal Division 11 supports John Kerry."

To me that says a lot. I think if half of what the swiftvets say about Kerry is true, then Kerry is getting what he deserves. I can't believe so many within the same command would come out against him if there wasnt some meat there.

None of this would be much of an issue if not for the Speilberg production of saving private Johnny at the national convention. The whole damn show was about his days in Nam.

And Tano, I suppose you denounced the Bush AWOL b.s. right?

Chickens welcome to your roost.

Posted by: mnm at August 23, 2004 08:24 AM

Thanks for the sanity Michael. As the vast majority of the comments demonstrate, this is an "issue" that is much more likely to stir up the partisans than help the undecideds decide.

BTW, I don't think Instapundit is a partisan hack. I'm a longtime fan. But he has seemed to me to be reflexively pro-Bush on foreign policy issues ever since 9/11 and often a cheerleader for any and all good news from Iraq. Not that such news is unwelcome, of course. But I don't get the sense that he's especially objective on the 2004 election.

If you stay tuned you'll find that the Swift boat vets real axe to grind regards the winter solider affair, in other words Kerry's post-service anti-war protesting, especially of alleged atrocities. Swiifties do everything they can to cast Kerry's actual Vietnam service in its least favorable light(and they believe what they are saying, to be fair), but the real reason they are mad is that they see Kerry's attempts to expose atrocities in Vietnam as disloyal and bad for morale. And Kerry did not shine in this role. It's likely he was grandstanding at least in part for opportunistic reasons, and it turns out he accepted soldier testimony at face value, and that later some of it turned out to be false. His self-serving eagerness made him credulous.

As a 1964 baby, I'm with you. Let's not try to settle the 2004 election by re-fighting Vietnam.

Posted by: bk at August 23, 2004 08:32 AM

Tano

Quite a long string yourself:

But of course, to the extent that they are funded by Bush friends and operatives, their credibility as independent voices is diminished,

Why? Are the MoveOn ads so diminished? The Swift Vets are standing up, giving affidavits, etc.

Are you claiming that when confronted with the enemy in a firefight, that once one of their armed guys turns to retreat, then you are obliged to just let them go?

I think the claim was that this wasn't all that heroic. Looks like mis-direction on your part.

Rassmun claims that he was taking fire. Why do you accuse him of lying?

More mis-direction, the claim was that Rassman, in the water, was probably confused.

There is NO EVIDENCE that actually supports any of their claims. Just their own assertions.

Just their eye-witness.

As far as I can see, based on the evidence, Kerry seems about 95% correct, perhaps confused on the dates, and the Swifties are about 99% wrong - correct only on the claim that he might not have been in there on that precise date.

Interesting formula, care to share it? The issue is Kerry's repeated insistence of Christmas in Cambodia. Shows that he might be an opportunistic embellisher.

Your rants about him being a medal-chaser are all derivative of the baseless charges that turn out to be not true.

Your reading skills are obviously lacking. The post showed how it could be and stated that such people existed.

These are the only opinions that count, for they are the men who actually went into battle with him - not the people who "served with him" only in the sense that they were in the same country, or on the same river.

See Rood.

Everyone of their charges has been shown to be either a blatant lie, a gross distortion, or, at best, a totally unsupported charge.

We shall see. Form 180. Release the records.

It is the classic MO of the sleazy political hack to launch into a long string of outrageous attacks with the hope that, even if they are systematically refuted,

Yes indeed.

Posted by: jdwill at August 23, 2004 08:32 AM

Ferguson's article makes an interesting point, by which I mean that I want to damn it with faint praise. It's a cute, arresting, somewhat original little thought, but that's it. Once you get outside his little essay, which is coherent and well-written, but over-simplified, you see that it doesn't have that much explanatory power.

Trying to make a broad, pop-psychiatric generalization about a huge, heterogeneous group of people, though it can be fun, and it's a large part of what pundits do, is a dubious enterprise.

In order for Ferguson's cute little piece to make any sense one has to accept completely, which Ferguson seems to, the Kerry campaign's assertion that SBVFT is de facto a part of the Republican party, some group dreamed up by Karl Rove in order to assuage the psychological problem that Ferguson accuses all Republicans of having. That's simply not true. They are a completely independent group. John O'Neill has even said that they will continue doing what their doing even if George Bush tells them to stop and even if it proves to hurt the Republicans.

These men, many of whom I understand are not partisan Republicans, are veterans, so presumably that they don't have to convince themselves of their own bona fides, which contradicts Ferguson's thesis.

As a 31-year-old, my eyes also glaze over when I hear talk about Viet Nam. It's not my generation and it's not my fight (thank God). I also would prefer the election were an argument about the current war. However, now that the ball has gotten rolling on this, I think this is a legitimate issue for the following reasons:

1. These guys represent vast numbers of Viet Nam veterans who, I believe legitimately, feel that John Kerry shamelessly slandered them, calling them "baby killers", "war criminals" etc., and creating the impression that all Viet Nam vets are psychotic losers, leading to their horrible treatment upon returning home etc. If I were in their position and someone like John Kerry were running for president, I would do the exact same thing, and I won't dare imply in any way that they shouldn't be doing this.

2. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, John Kerry has based his entire campaign upon nothing other than his Viet Nam service. He took this way too far. Ferguson was right to compare the DNC to some sort of ceremony for a military junta seizing power. He deserves this pushback.

3. Now that the issue is out there, how he responds to it is instructive. If you belive in the idea that the point of campaigns is not actually the discussion of issues but to place the candidates through a series of ordeals and test their mettle, John Kerry has given an idea as to how he stands up to pressure and it ain't pretty. He whines to George Bush to make it stop, when Bush did nothing of the kind against the mostly baseless attacks of Soros and Michael Moore and his minions. Now he wants to actually, literally have the book banned. His instincts are authoritarian and anti free-speech. And, if he can't stand up to these guys how can he stand up to the Islamo-fascists?

Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 23, 2004 08:49 AM

sigh

Kerry went, he served, I'm grateful. The Swiftboat guys went, they served, I'm grateful. Both did more than I ever have. It's terribly sad that these comrades in arms are having/choosing to go through this fight.

Several thoughts:

1. The truth here is probably unknowable;
2. I think the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused (both for W's AWOL charge and this);
3. Basing a vote for President on this stuff is crazy;
4. Kerry's behavior when he returned from Vietnam was despicable, but that is a seperate issue;
5. Don't we have enough info to judge these two guys on W's three years in office and Kerry's 20 years in the Senate?

This whole episode is simply sad.

Posted by: spc67 at August 23, 2004 09:30 AM

Character counts. As a matter of fact, character (as exemplified by service in Viet Nam) is about the only positive point Kerry runs on. (Everything else seems to be on the order of "I'll do it better than the current Screwup-In-Chief".)

The whole flap over the medals strikes me as either a well-planned or lucky misdirection on the part of Kerry partisans. Slick's excellent rant notwithstanding, the only way to get to the unspun truth of the merits of the medals would be with Mr. Peabody's wayback machine. Not happening. The topic should be dropped.

On the other hand, the Cambodia and the whole CIA taxi service claims are important, because they're subject to verification. And it's clear the Senator has been gilding the lily to the point where it's now an unrecognizable shiny lump.

Equating Kerry's behavior to bragging over beers is at best disingenuous. Telling lies to Congress is another thing entirely.

He did it in 1971 when he claimed that he participated in attrocities. (Or maybe he just was being "over the top"....)

He did it again in 1986, when the memory of being in Cambodia was "seared" into his brain, leading him to believe Nicaragua would become another hotbed of illegal US military intervention.

He's also told these "Heart of Darkness" stories in print over and over, perpetuating the worst stereotypes of American military behavior. Michael, you may be nonplussed over this, but a certain segment of the population was seared by the stories that came out of SE Asia. These people really do believe that the US can never use it's military to good effect. Kerry's words have done their part to feed these fears.

Respect for truth counts.

Has anyone else noticed that documents keep disappearing from Kerry's official site?

I'm not seeing a whole lot of integrity here, folks. (For that matter, I'm not seeing much in the way of competence either.)

BTW part 2: bkw, your observation:

("Bring. It. On." has become "Make them stop!")

Oof, that had to sting.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 09:33 AM

For the record, Kerry HAS denounce some of the MoveOn ads - this is not necessarily the type of story that gets carried by the RW media, but it is true.

Secondly, Kerry is not "whining" to Bush to make them stop. Obviously, given the law, Bush cant make them stop. But he can do what Kerry has done with regard to the MoveOn ads - i.e. denounce them and dissassociate himself from them. As McCain has done for instance. If Bush is unwilling to do that, it lends credibility to the charge that he is trying to have it both ways. Any journalist worth their salt should be intensly investigating whether there can be any definitive links found between BC04 and the Swifties, and some tantalizing links have been found already (the NYT chart, as well as the guy in one of the ads who turned out to be on the campaign staff). At some point Bush will have to stand up and make clear whether he wants all this to be part of his campaign or not.

To claim that O'Niell's statement - that he would keep at it even if Bush asked him to stop - is somehow proof of anything is absurd. Of course O'Nielll has to say that. If he even hinted that he would stop at Bush's request it would be seen as proof positive that he was controlled by the campaign - it would be an admission of felonious behavior. And it would immediatly put Bush on the spot - he would either have to tell them to stop, or accept full responsibility for everything they say. O'Niell is an accomplished trial lawyer - not a fool.

Finally, Kerry has not made this the sole focus of his campaign. I know Republicans might not want to deal with issues such as Iraq, or the economy, jobs, the environment, etc. But Kerry has spoken to all of those issues, and does so everyday on the stump. To claim that all of this Swiftie stuff is in response to the convention themes is absurd - the book was written long before the convention. It is ridiculous to imagine that this line of attack would not have happened if Kerry had been mum about his service. Would that have assuaged all of the Swifties? I thought their complaint was about what he did in 1971. If he now were to say nothing about his war record, would their objections have evaporated? Would they have judged him "fit for command"?

The convention theme was, I think rather clearly, an attempt to preempt the attacks that he knew would be coming, for they had started months before hand.

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 09:50 AM

Tano, the candidate's acceptance speech should set the tone and frame the issues for the rest of the campaign. Bush's was "compassionate conservatism". Clinton's was "it's the economy, stupid." (Gore's was "it's still the economy, stupid, but I'll give you more.") Bush Sr. had "a thousand points of light." Reagan, if I recall, had a "shining city on the hill."

What was Kerry's takeaway? (Hint: 3 sylables and 30+ years old.)

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 10:08 AM

The only reason Viet Nam is an issue is because Kerry made it one. Why? He knew that his honor would be questioned? He knew it would rip open old wounds.

His main issue is his heroism in combat, and it looks like it is a bogus issue. He put the issue on the table, not Bush. He's getting killed on it.

I wonder how often liberals are going to trot out in front of the TV cameras defending men of low integrity - Clinton on his sex scandals, and now Kerry on his trumped up war credentials. Aren't they getting sick of swallowing the Koolaid?

Posted by: thedragonflies at August 23, 2004 10:26 AM

Sigh. I don't know why the Weekly Standard has to publish these silly articles; I guess it's to burnish their centrist credentials.

Most of us Republicans would rather that the medals stories go away. In the end, the only proven fact is that Kerry did receive the medals; almost everything else becomes he said/she said.

But I don't condemn the Swiftees, and I don't blame President Bush for not doing so either. They have their story to tell and they have a right to tell it.

And some of Ferguson's points are just plain bizarre. "Some Republicans, when they drink enough beer, really do wonder whether civilian control of the military is such a great idea." Uh, mind naming a couple for us, Andrew? That's completely absurd.

And "Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing." This is ridiculous; Republicans' support for President Bush is very strong.

Even if I were convinced that Kerry was a war hero (which I largely was before the Swiftees raised significant doubts), I would not support Kerry. This election is not about the past, it is about the future. Kerry would be a disastrous president; that is why I am not voting for him.

Posted by: Brainster at August 23, 2004 11:14 AM

Well, progress is made. Bush statement today:

"That ad and every other ad" run by such groups have no place in the campaign, Bush said when asked about the commercial sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth that has roiled the race for the White House.

Asked directly whether his Democratic rival for the presidency had lied, Bush said, "I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."

So my question to the Bush supporters. Is Bush a disingenuous liar? Does he say this, but actually believe the opposite? Could we trust any president who would lie like that?

Or is he some clueless moron who doesnt know what he is talking about - who just cant see what seems so obvious to so many of you?

Or is it just a case of a professional pol actually having higher moral standards than his own supporters? What would that say about all of you?

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 12:06 PM

I say he sounds like a man with clear opinions of his own --a rare quality in presidential candidates these days.

Posted by: E Rey at August 23, 2004 12:19 PM

Tano:

Please wipe the foam from your mouth before you type dude.

The point is obviously this: If Kerry is going to whine and threaten to censor and sue one little 527 that only has raised 150k ($25 from me included in the total btw. Am I now officially part of VRWC? I was disappointed that I wasn't on any of the charts in the times.) then he better damn well be consistent and do the same for the multiple 527s that have raised hundreds of millions of dollars to do his campaign's "dirty work". Bush is smart to do this. Now that he's taken this step I trust you'll be hitting the sites of all the pro-Kerry partisans and decrying their cretinous immorality for supporting and believing in Moveon.org, and ACT, and Michael Moore etc. etc. and demand that Kerry disassociate himself from these organizations and persons forthwith. Right?

Posted by: Eric Deamer at August 23, 2004 12:20 PM

I would say that the general consensus of this thread is:

This election shouldn't be about this. Why are we talking about this?

Sort of the consensus to that question is:

Because John Kerry brought it up and is running on it, at least until now. But that only begs the question: why did he do that?

My answer to that:

If you poll the american public, I believe you get the result that 60% of the population thinks that the war is in Iraq is going badly. Half of those think that the war should have never been waged and all the troups should come home. The other half think that we entered this war naively and are not fighting it to our full potential - which we should start doing.

Somehow, John Kerry has to get both of these groups to vote for him. How to do that?

Talk about Vietnam! The peace crowd will think this means he has learned his lesson from Vietnam and will pull out of Iraq. The war crowd will see a war hero and vote for him to take the war to the enemy.

This strategy doesn't seem to be working very well. But the next one can't be any more specific as to the current war. Obsfucation must continue. George Bush, by default has captured the "about right" war crowd. Not too much, not too little.
Capturing the two extreme positions simultaneously will require super-human political skills. Bill Clinton isn't running this time.

James

Posted by: James at August 23, 2004 12:26 PM

Tano, false dichotomy here. Kerry may have served admirably, and deserved all the medals he received, and still acted dishonorably afterwards.

(Bush may have, shall we say, perspective on being on the receiving end of attacks on personal integrity.)

That's why the whole medals issue is a red herring. On the other hand, lying to Congress to fit the needs of the current political wind seems pretty damn dishonorable to me.

Kerry's swimming from Cambodia as fast as he can, but it still seems to be gaining on him.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 12:32 PM

How are we all going to feel if shortly after the election we suffer from another 9/11 after we spent an expensive, and protracted election cycle squandering the chance to have a robust national debate on foreign policy and our role in the world for the purposes of resolving whether or not hostile bullets were being fired in the Mekong Delta thirty years ago?

I am originally from Massachusetts and have no illusions about John Kerry. He is a self-promoting political animal who was willing to taint the reputation of Swift Vets for the purposes of attaining national attention. Remember John Kerry claimed that he and others personally participated in various war crimes (all within in four month stint)? He certainly digressed quickly. Unless he was going out by himself in the jungle cutting off ears of the Viet Cong, this implies that other Swift Vets were actively participating in war crimes. So I can understand them being angry and wanting some payback. And I have yet to hear any Swift Vet on either side of John Kerry admit to committing any one of the various crimes he enumerated in front of Congress.

The issue of what happened in Vietnam is a predictable deflection by both political parties from addressing current foreign policy issues. It's much easier to get into a mud-slinging campaign about things happening thirty years ago than to substantively address how we will deal with global security and Islamic fascism. We know that any policy direction of substance will inherently have big risks which are unpleasent to contemplate, so it is much safer to debate the past.

This kind of reminds me of the "character" issues that occurred in 1992. The debate was at the expense of talking about issues which had no easy answer: long term deficit reduction. We were somewhat lucky to have a maverick third party candidate to bring the debate back into focus.

Not this year however.

Posted by: bob at August 23, 2004 12:35 PM

dragonflies is so right: Kerry made this an issue. It wouldn't have even been brought up otherwise.

If I was a Democrat, I'd be so pissed off at the party leadership right now.

I think its time for the "Hillary planned all this" angle again.

Posted by: Eric Blair at August 23, 2004 12:36 PM

The idea that thius would never have been brought up if Kerry hadn't been polishing his medals so hard is absolutely absurd.

First, the swift boat guys have been gadflying Kerry for years. 2nd, campaign finance "reform" has begotten us these 527 attack interest groups. This was going to come out, and to blame Kerry for bringing it on himself is utterly laughable, unless it's PROVEN that he made up the cia mission in cambodia story out of whole cloth, as opposed to marshalling anecdotes and so on that merely suggest the claim is dubious.

Posted by: bk at August 23, 2004 12:52 PM

Yeah, Kerry made this an issue. I still think it's a good one for him, though.

With the Swift Vet attacks, he gets two credible (in the minds of swing voters) and helpful counter attacks that are just teed up for him to knock out of the park:

1) "Bush and his cronies pulled the same stunt on McCain in 2000, questioning his military record. This is a pattern, and a sleazy one at that."

2) Even if Kerry embellished his record somewhat, which the Naval service records do not indicate, at least he served (implication: Bush didn't.)

I think there's a huge chance the Swift Vote ads will backfire. Most Republicans love them, but they don't have to be convinced. It's the swing voters that have to be convinced, and the ultimate swing voter candidate is apparently McCain - who has denounced the ads and has been subject to a similar "smear" (scare quotes to denote smearing is in the eye of the beholder) campaign 4 years ago - both of which Kerry and Edwards will play up when they're in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Minnesota, etc....

If you're looking at less than 10% of the electorate, the discussion shouldn't be targetted towards people who already think Kerry is scum, but people who don't know Kerry that well at all - and I don't think these ads will go over so well with moderates.

Having said that, on the plus side, it takes up a lot of time and energy that Kerry might otherwise be spending highlighting the "failures" (again, scare quotes to note that failures are in the eye of the beholder) in Iraq.

/MJT, thanks for the hat tip.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 23, 2004 12:55 PM

Michael,

It was our buddies at the Boston Globe who brought Bob Dole into this dustup. They made the point, recently, that one of Bob Dole's Purple Hearts was for a superficial wound.

There is a post at Captain's Quarters about this:

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

Towards that end, the Kerry campaign enlisted the hometown Boston Globe to write an editorial denouncing the Swiftvets. The paper, a subsidiary of the New York Times, gladly did so and in the process noted that WWII war hero and former Senator Robert Dole was once given the Purple Heart for a "leg scratch". Dole, whose reputation for political unpleasantness undid more than one bid for the Presidency, came out swinging yesterday -- although not with the arm that was rendered useless in his wartime service to his country, a nuance that the Globe and the Kerry campaign were apparently too stupid to consider:

But at the same time, Bob Dole, the Republican presidential candidate in 1996 and a World War II veteran, called on Mr. Kerry to apologize to Vietnam veterans in a television interview on CNN. He appeared to get behind some of the accusations raised by the group, when its most serious contentions have been undermined by official records and conflicting accounts.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

Posted by: Jim Bender at August 23, 2004 01:02 PM

Secondly, Kerry is not "whining" to Bush to make them stop. Obviously, given the law, Bush cant make them stop. But he can do what Kerry has done with regard to the MoveOn ads - i.e. denounce them and dissassociate himself from them.

Patently not true. You and I know that Bush can't stop the ads. For that matter Kerry and Edwards know this too, but they appear to think that the rest of us are too stupid to keep up.

ROANOKE, Aug. 21 -- John Edwards demanded Saturday that President Bush call for television ads attacking John F. Kerry's military service in Vietnam to be pulled because they are lies funded by Bush allies.

"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," the North Carolina senator told a cheering crowd at a magnet school here, where his campaign stopped for a morning town hall meeting. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. . . . We want to hear from the president of the United States. We don't want to hear rhetoric. We want to hear three words: 'Stop these ads!' "

Saturday night at a fundraiser in the Hamptons, Kerry repeated those sentiments, saying that "they are personally going after me." He declared that "the president needs to stand up and stop that."

While whining is in the eye of the beholder, I think it's pretty plain that Kerry and Edwards are asking for a bit more than a denunciation.

Posted by: Kurt at August 23, 2004 01:08 PM

You and I know that Bush can't stop the ads.

If he can't stop the ads, how can we expect him to stop Iran from getting nukes?

/kidding, really, I am.

Posted by: SoCalJustice at August 23, 2004 01:10 PM

So-Cal, don't be humble.

You just wrote a Kerry Campaign talking point.

Posted by: TmjUtah at August 23, 2004 01:46 PM

Another great article on Kerry/Vietnam and why it matters.

adeimantus.blogspot.com/2004/08/let-it-alone.html

via Roger Simon's blog commenter.

It's all about the character, the leadership and a modicum of political honesty. We should ask and expect more from presidential candidates.

Posted by: marek at August 23, 2004 01:48 PM

The Kerry campaign seems to be the guys who can't shoot straight. They succeeded in bringing Bob Dole, when he would have stayed on the sidelines:

"Maybe Dole's mad because Democrats sneered that his World War II wounds were self-inflicted back during the 1996 campaign. Why didn't Chris Matthews put a stop to that?" (Glenn Reynolds)

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200408230910.asp (Bob Dole's medals)

If Kerry wants this thing, he and his people need to be a lot more intellectually engaged. Right now, bloggers and critics are running roughshod over them. They need to do more than squeal.

Regards,

Jim Bender

http://dreadnought-cruisers.blogspot.com/

http://anglo-dutch-wars.blogspot.com/

http://kentishknock.com/

Posted by: Jim Bender at August 23, 2004 01:56 PM

1) "Bush and his cronies pulled the same stunt on McCain in 2000, questioning his military record. This is a pattern, and a sleazy one at that."

That's B.S., while there may have been hard ball shit going on, neither Bush nor the campaign questioned McCains medals or his service in Nam.

The supposed "smear" was about legislation for veterans, and Mccains record was clear to see for anyone interested.

Nothing at all to do with medals or made up stories.

Posted by: mnm at August 23, 2004 02:20 PM

Mark writes,

" Kerry may have served admirably, and deserved all the medals he received, and still acted dishonorably afterwards."

That is certainly a logical possibility, and is, as I said originally, a legitimate issue. Personally I think Kerry showed great honor and integrity by assuming a leadership role against the VN war - but if the Swifties and the Republicans want to argue the point - they certainly have that right. So why hasnt that been the focus of their attacks?

"That's why the whole medals issue is a red herring."

Oh, so now it is a red herring? Maybe you are an exception, but I seem to recall several weeks of rather insane ranting from every corner of the right on this issue. Now that all the charges have been demonstrated to be fraudulent, all of a sudden it is a red herring, and we should be focussing on other things (the next smear). Classic.

"On the other hand, lying to Congress to fit the needs of the current political wind seems pretty damn dishonorable to me. "

First off, do you really think that claiming to be in Cambodia in December, when in fact it was January rises to the level of a lie?

And since when has lying to Congres been such a problem for you guys? Bush lies to Congress about the cost of his Medicare bill - when it is clear it would not pass if the truth were known, and thats not a problem? Or how about those contra-era convicted liars who have now been appointed to senior WH positions - like Eliot Abrams who now runs our Mideast policy? Compared to that, getting a date wrong by a couple of weeks seems a bit tame to me...

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 02:36 PM

Conservative Bias in the Media.Your laugh for the day courtesy of CBS.

http://tinyurl.com/6sk3v

Posted by: dougf at August 23, 2004 02:37 PM

" "On the other hand, lying to Congress to fit the needs of the current political wind seems pretty damn dishonorable to me. "

First off, do you really think that claiming to be in Cambodia in December, when in fact it was January rises to the level of a lie?

And since when has lying to Congres been such a problem for you guys? "

When it's a totally falsified life turning point. Makes me, the one of the interviewers - so to speak - highly dubious of everything else the job candidate claims.

And, as far as I can tell, Kerry is the only person who is claiming he was in Cambodia (at any time). Every other eyewitness (including those 'on his boat'), or officer in the chain of command, skipper of the shallower-draft boats that did patrol near the border of Cambodia, or SEAL or CIA-knowlegeable person is saying his story is crap.

When everyone else says you're lying, and when for the first time in history a military man's whole chain of command rises up against his run for President, I take notice.

Posted by: ElaineT at August 23, 2004 03:24 PM

Tano, what part of "Character Counts" don't you get?

Have you read Kerry's speech on the Senate floor? If not, here's the link:

http://instapundit.com/archives/017157.php

The whole point of the "Christmas in Cambodia" speech seems to have been to highlight the illegal nature of the operation, contrasting it to the violated sanctity of the day. In the context of supporting the Contras, it was all about the folly of getting involved in other peoples' wars.

Great story. Too bad it wasn't true.

Yep. I'm one of those avidly not piling onto the medals debate. Don't care, haven't cared.

Since personal anecdotes are so useful in making a point, let me tell you a story. One Sunday after Thanksgiving my wife and I came on a recent accident on I-78. I pulled my car over so I could run out and lead a badly concussed kid who was wandering in the middle of the highway off the road and into the median. Before I could turn back to see if anyone else was hurt three other men were helping me with the kid. What we did was dangerous. We may have saved the kid's life. None of us got a medal.

I'm not saying what I did was anything like what Kerry did. What I am saying is even if it were, it wouldn't have any relevance to whether I'd make a good President. I do think it reflects well on those of us who stopped to help, but that's where it ends.

Back on topic, we can keep playing the "well, Bush is worse!" game; I could bring in Sandy Berger and Joe Wilson. Frankly, I'm not interested. I'm voting the devil I know in this one, simply because I do have a feeling where Bush is going, and I trust he's not going to go off half-cocked in an emergency. I emphatically do not have that faith in Kerry.

On the plus side, if Kerry is elected and reports for duty as he did before, past performance indicates he'll resign after 18 months. By then maybe Edwards will have learned enough to make a reasonable Chief Executive.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 03:38 PM

For the 800th time:

Kerry brought it up. He based his whole campaign on it. He ignored his 25 yr Senate record to run on his Vietnam record. Okay, then he is asking to be judged on that record.

That record also includes maligning his fellow soldiers, of whom he now wants to be CinC. There are better ways to address foreign policy mistakes than the grandstanding he did in front of Congress. He has not apologized or even admitted he may have been too tempestuous in his youth.

Also, Kerry thinks Iraq is Vietnam. Bush doesn't. That's important for understanding their foreign policy differences.

Also, the media's bias in all this is worthy of note: endlessly hauling out rumors about Bush's service, while trying to attack the Swiftvets before investigating their charges. two completely different standards.

Posted by: Yehudit at August 23, 2004 03:48 PM

Bullshit. He's covering aspects of this story that the media skip over. He also covers damn near everything anyway, very unlike myself.

Glenn is one of the least partisan people in the blogosphere. I'm sure you would know that if you read everything he writes, as I do.

Garbage. He amplifies every set of GOP talking points that comes down the pike, no matter how trivial, linking prodigiously and approvingly to others who give the complete "red meat" version of unadulterated right wing bile.

When a story favorable to Dems breaks, he either ignores it altogether, or performs his other trick of presenting along the lines of "Here's a story that would be good for the Dems, if it were true, and here are five links to people who say that not only is it not true, but in fact it reveals that Democrats are all morally depraved and unfit to govern."

But, Michael, you've already displayed that you're not very good at distinguishing reporting from propaganda.

Posted by: Mork at August 23, 2004 04:04 PM

Garbage. He amplifies every set of GOP talking points that comes down the pike

Like gay marriage and IP rights...

Sure. Whatever you say.

Posted by: Bill at August 23, 2004 04:37 PM

And for one example...

http://instapundit.com/archives/005100.php

Posted by: Bill at August 23, 2004 04:44 PM

The issue is how honest he has been about his service and his accomplishments -- his claims about which form the foundation of his entire argument for why he believes he should be the next POTUS.
**************************************************
Exactly forget what John Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago forget what he has been saying for the last 30 years about it.

THE TRUTH REMAINS

On his official website and or news releases

The John Kerry campaign took credit for:

A vice chairman ship of the Senate Select Comittee on Intelligence NEVER held by him
by instead by BOB KERREY

Also included in his webiste information since
deleted along with some 20 other pages of military
information was action seen by the man he REPLACED
When confronted by Peck the pertinent pages vanished off the Kerry campaign website.

Notice in the above I do not refer to John Kerry as an individual but instead to the Kerrry Campaign.

Do we want this leader of the Kerry Keystone Klutzes to be POTUS?

I REALLY want my President to be able to remember his first name and how to spell his last name. ;-)

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 23, 2004 04:57 PM

...and for select specifics since he's doing a blanket amen to Green, there is the benefit of a quick Instasearch™

Choice:

http://instapundit.com/archives/003006.php

Gay Marriage and Cloning (a two-fer!) Notice that he's even more Liberal than Kerry on that one!

http://instapundit.com/archives/000965.php

Stem Cells:

http://instapundit.com/archives/017093.php

And whatever you do, don't get him started on IP (either that or he "issues" with UberGOPer Orin Hatch).

http://instapundit.com/archives/017222.php

and much much more...

Posted by: Bill at August 23, 2004 05:00 PM

"Democrats are all morally depraved and unfit to govern"--Mork

Finally a post that reflects the reality on the ground.Congratulations,Mork.I did not think you had it in you.
Isn't personal growth wonderful.

Posted by: dougf at August 23, 2004 05:05 PM

I wouldnt go along with Mork in insulting our host, who I think is generally an interesting and honest guy. But I fear that Mork is absolutely right about Instpundit. He has recently seemed to function solely as an amplifying node to connect to all the crazies, while trying to pretend that he is operating on a higher level. I find him to be a fraud.
And unfortunatly that goes double for MJT's other good friend, Roger Simon - who seems to be on a mission to establish his reputation down at the Ann Coulter-Ted Rall level. What a horror show that site has become.
For all the republican partisans, I would point out that these kind of tactics may be momentarily exhilerating, but they carry a real danger of serious backfiring. I suspect the Bushies understad this, which is why they are trying to increase the distance between the Swifties and the prez. The Swifties seem not to be very bright - as I pointed out earlier, they could have mounted an effective (in a negative, divisive sense) attack on Kerry's post-war record and maybe scored some points. But they chose to go full-bore sleaze on his war record, and as the evidence comes out, I sense they are losing ground. In the end, everyone associated with this effort is going to be emanating a stench and finding their reputation in shreds. Having shot their load in August, they will be sidelined for the real action to come.

Which is good. Maybe we can talk about things with a bit more relevance...

And oh yeah, I love the "he brought this on himself" line - as if raising a subject automatically gives your opponent the moral right to lie about it!!!

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 05:28 PM

And oh yeah, I love the "he brought this on himself" line - as if raising a subject automatically gives your opponent the moral right to lie about it!!!
*************************************************
You mean it really IS Bob Kerrey running for President? ;-)

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 23, 2004 05:38 PM

I wouldnt go along with Mork in insulting our host, who I think is generally an interesting and honest guy.

I wouldn't go along with that either, now that I re-read my comment.

I apologise for the intemperate remark.

Posted by: Mork at August 23, 2004 05:40 PM

Tano and Mork,

Bets regards from Bob from Bagdad. Just keep up your great work.

Posted by: marek at August 23, 2004 05:46 PM

Here is my thing. I also don't care what Kerry did over there. I would not even care if he pushed hard to get his purple heart so as to get out. I'm sure I would have done the same if I was there at all. I do not care that GWB was in the National Guard or Bill CLinton dodged the draft or Dan Quayle served in the guard or Dick Cheney got a deferrment or Howard Dean went skiing or ANYTHING else. That said I care deeply that the Democratic party has turned into the parting of scathing dispicable hypocrites. They are all about the angle. We need to find an angle they say. Well they went after the wrong angle because Kerry is obviously less than meets the eye and he has been a blowhard of his war record while ignoring the lies he told as part of a radical communist supported anti-war movement. It was 30 years ago but where is the evidence that he has changed? And the gall, the absolute gall of that scumbag Terry McCauliffe denigrating 200 plus veterans as liars with NO PROOF. Why do Democrats always believe their own no matter how unbelievable? Does character not matter at all? Does it not matter that Kerry demands Bush disavow the Swift Boat Vets who are clearly and obviously an independent group that took money (a small amount) from Republicans while refusing to disavow in ANY way the disgusting ads aired for his benefit by HIS 527 groups. Will he disavow the dispicable liar Michael Moore? Of course not. But he files a frivilous complaint with the SEC claiming without a shred of evidence that the Bush campaign is behind the Swift Boat Vets. His lawyers write to TV stations threatening them with a liable suit if they air the Swift Boat ad. They write to the publisher and "suggest" that they might not want to publish this book. Did Bush do anything like this? Did he? No. He took it like a man and moved on. If Kerry did not have the big media totally on his side, he would be finished. He refuses to release his records. Did Bush not release his records? He did. Why will Kerry not? Could it be because John O'Neill is telling the truth? Again, I don't care what Kerry did or did not do so long as he has repented any poor brhavior and does not manipulate the truth for his advantage. You know I voted for Gore in 2000 and am a Democrat. But they cannot be allowed to get away with this. I have a funny feeling I'm not the only one who feels this way. How can we trust these people to fight the war on terror. It's inconceivable.

Posted by: Doug at August 23, 2004 05:53 PM

Marek,

Thanks, the single best piece I have read on the Kerry/Vietnam issue.

Let it Alone, by Adeimantus

I had missed this point in the infinite discussions

Yes, it's true that under the strict terms of our long-standing domestic truce, John Kerry was not required to apologize for the things he said thirty years ago, even though he himself had more recently tested that truce with his attacks on George Bush's National Guard service. But then in January of this year, to burnish his credentials as a war president, Kerry's authorized biography reported a story implying that his Swift Boat comrades had fled the scene of an enemy attack while he alone returned to rescue the wounded. Honor being such an insignificant thing to John Kerry, he probably had no idea that--with his biography reviving war crimes accusations and, more specifically, implying cowardice on the part of his fellow swiftees--he had broken the domestic truce.

Posted by: jdwill at August 23, 2004 06:21 PM

...he had broken the domestic truce.

Bullshit again. The Bushies were always going to smear Kerry's war record. That's how they operate. It's in their DNA. Whenever a Bush is in a corner, he looks for the low road out. Just ask John McCain.

Posted by: Mork at August 23, 2004 06:28 PM

Methinks thou dost protest to much (and too quickly - try reading it)

Posted by: jdwill at August 23, 2004 06:31 PM

Doug,
Thanks for sharing your thing with us. Now why not try to get your facts straight?
As I have pointed out several times, as a causal reading of the press these days, or, if you prefer, go to factcheck.org - there is no doubt that the Swifties are LIARS. McCauliffe (who I personally cant stand) is absolutely right about them. And there is plenty of proof.

What there isnt any of is any proof, or any evidence to support the swiftie's claims. So, according to you, they can call Kerry, Rassmun, and Kerry's crew (all vets) liars and need not back it up. Yet when their charges are shown repeatedly to be contradicted by the evidence, then it is wrong for Dems to call them liars????

Furthermore, as mentioned before, Kerry HAS denounced some of the MoveOn ads.
And there certainly is a "shred' of evidence that the Swifties are connected with the Bush campaign - one of the guys in the ad just had to quit his position in the Bush campaign. Arent you paying attention at all?

Yes, character is important. And that includes yours. You make a rant full of false statements and have the noive to criticize others?

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 07:00 PM

Tano
Why won't Kerry release ALL is military records?

Why should I Just simply "take him at his word" when his words have meant nothing over the past year, let alone the past twenty years.

Posted by: syn at August 23, 2004 07:28 PM

Furthermore, as mentioned before, Kerry HAS denounced some of the MoveOn ads.
And there certainly is a "shred' of evidence that the Swifties are connected with the Bush campaign - one of the guys in the ad just had to quit his position in the Bush campaign. Arent you paying attention at all?
************************************************
Sure we are. A tiny 527 with a war chest of about 160K a large portion dontated by a Republican is a cause celebre needs to be publicly denounced by Bush and shut down by the Feds, but the top ten 527s which include Moveon.org with a combined warchest of somewhere around 195 Million dollars is another thing entirely because THEIR hearts are pure? ;-)

That about sum it up?

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 23, 2004 07:33 PM

Tano:

The Swifties seem not to be very bright - as I pointed out earlier, they could have mounted an effective (in a negative, divisive sense) attack on Kerry's post-war record and maybe scored some points. But they chose to go full-bore sleaze on his war record, and as the evidence comes out, I sense they are losing ground.

Actually, my sense is they've used the "Christmas in Cambodia" and the ~250 v. ~10 tactics to start the hand, and the next load of excrement to hit the fan will be Winter Soldier.

You don't open with your strongest card.

To your point:

And oh yeah, I love the "he brought this on himself" line - as if raising a subject automatically gives your opponent the moral right to lie about it!

Lies? References please.

And anyway, this is politics, remember? Kerry has put himself in a position of having to defend himself instead of being able to attack the administration. "Bring it on" followed by "You'd better denounce these clowns" is a cold shower on the campaign, even if the detractors are clowns.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 07:39 PM

Dan,
The issue, at least for me, is not 527s per se. It is false charges. Kerry should denounce false charges made by those who support him. And so should Bush. A 527 making a political argument that is fair is no problem. (Of course being fair doesnt mean you have to agree with it).

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 07:41 PM

MY GOD! I thought I was just being sarcastic by Democratic spokes persons ACTUALLY think like that.

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/08/bush-condemns-swift-boat-vets-for.html

"Out of the top-ten-funded 527 groups, nine are openly pro-Kerry, anti-Bush. A Democratic Congressman said this morning on FoxNews that there was no problem with Democratic 527s because SBVT "are liars and Democratic 527s are honest."

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 23, 2004 07:43 PM

Tano,

I refuse to respond to your unnecessary personal attack on me. I stand by everything I said. John O'Neill is telling the truth. I have seen parsing and nitpicking but I have not seen anything resembling a response. I have not heard one person not a Democratic partisan (and that includes the NY Times obviously) call these men liars. I have heard numerous interviews with O'Neill in friendly and unfriendly forums. He is not lying. He has no connection with the Bush campaign other than the fact that a friend of his knows Karl Rove. The group was started independently for the sole purpose of stopping Kerry. It was given a big boost by a single Republican Bush supporter who gave a fraction what the Democratic moneybags gave. They would be doing this no matter what party Kerry belonged to. If he were a Democrat, they would be doing it (with probably much greater contributions from Dem. supporters I imagine) They hate Kerry. Period. For good reason I think. They are not interested in the issues. They are interested in someone they regard as having the character of a viper not become president of the United States. The weight of the evidence is against Kerry. That is just the way it is. You don't see it because you are a Kerry partisan. O'Neill is a prominent Texas lawyer. If he is lying he is opened up for a libel suit. He has begged Kerry to sue him. Begged him to. It will never happen. Kerry will have to face a deposition and he knows better. Kerry will not release his records? Why not? I think they will show what his commanding officers thought of him. (Not much) Anyway you slice it, the Democratic party has become the party of guttersnipes. When Edwards said "Stop the Ads" he was not implying or practically declaring that these ads were part of Bush's planned operation? That's just not true and you know it. Tonight I saw Elaine Karmack, who I once respected, refuse to concede that Bush has been slimed by Democratic supporting 527s. Is Joe Lieberman the only man of honor left in this party? This is the last thing I have to say on this topic. I think you Dems. are making a fatal mistake. You think the country thinks like you do. I say the Swift Boat Vets are going to prevail in the Court of Public Opinion. I don't know what the ultimate effect on the elction will be but I think Kerry is not highly thought of right now.

Posted by: Doug at August 23, 2004 07:46 PM

Mark, I dont want to bore everyone with endless repetition. The anti-Bronze star charges have been proven to be lies by physical evidence, eyewitnesses (including the guy rescued), paperwork and the pure logic (or lack thereof) of the argument. And the anti-silver star charges are simply absurd, as noted above - but they also entailed distortions (unarmed teenager in loincloth) that can only be considered outright lies.

But you are right - this is politics. At its worst. I wouldnt underestimate the Kerry line though. It is not simply a whining to "please stop". I sense it is a calculated move to pressure Bush to either support the swifties (thus going down with them), or to repudiate them (which would be the most effective slap-down). A smart candidate doesnt stoop to arguing with the hatchetmen himself - he either ignores them, or ties them to his opponent, and argues it at that level. So far it is proving effective - he has forced Bush to address the issue, and Bush is playing it pretty smart too - trying to disassociate himself from them as much as possible to avoid the stench, but hoping to at least keep them credible enough to stay in the news till the convention starts. Then they will be history, cuz Bush does NOT want the buzz during his convention to be about 1969, or '71 for that matter.

Posted by: Tano at August 23, 2004 07:53 PM

Tano:

Bore me.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 08:39 PM

http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/014675.html
Judicial Watch Files Formal Complaint against Kerry
According to their website,

Judicial Watch, Inc. (hereinafter “Judicial Watch”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption. Judicial Watch, in the interests of the American public, hereby files this formal complaint and request for investigation, determination and final disposition of awards granted to Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, U.S. Naval Reserve, (hereinafter “Senator Kerry”) under the provision of Paragraph 116 (Requirement for Honorable Service), SECNAV Instruction 1650.1G (Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual) dated 7 January 2002.
Amongst the complaints are controversial accusations about Senator Kerry’s medals, an issue that has (finally) gotten into the press. But there is a rather less controversial issue, more serious and not reliant on subjective eyewitness accounts. The allegations continue :

According to publicly available records, Senator Kerry was released from Active Duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve (inactive) on 3 January 1970. On 1 July 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve (inactive). While a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry traveled to Paris, France and met with official delegations from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The Vietnamese Communists eagerly met Senator Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious propaganda victory (See Exhibit 2, page 126 - 129).
These acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. ’ 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation’s enemies in wartime (Article III, Section 3). Additionally, as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry was subject to the UCMJ, and likely violated Article 104 (“Aiding the Enemy”) through his actions with the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong delegation.

Senator Kerry returned from his private negotiations with the Vietnamese Communists to Washington, DC and held a press conference. At that press event, Senator Kerry advocated a Vietnamese Communist “peace proposal” calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and payment of war damage reparations to the Communist government. Senator Kerry engaged in this advocacy on behalf of a foreign power with who we were at war while continuing to hold a commission as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at August 23, 2004 09:42 PM

Kerry is a LIEberal! He was never in Vietnam!

Bush will save America from the DEMONcrats!

Posted by: Ralph Gaydar at August 23, 2004 10:32 PM

Thanks Ralph. Go to your room.

Posted by: Mark Poling at August 23, 2004 10:51 PM

Wow, I never imagined that my first attempt at "ranting" would generate so much passionate debate! I'm truly flattered. I was all set to write this fun-filled comeback to my new friend Tano, but