As I’ve mentioned recently, my family and I are traveling, which means not only that I’m not able to blog as often as my addiction demands but also that many mornings I’m greeted with a free copy of USA Today, which I’m happy to say is worth every penny.
Monday, for example, before I’d even made a dent in my first cup of coffee, I saw on the front page a picture of Kerry in casual miltary garb standing next to a rifle-holding William Rood, who as everyone knows has just published in the Chicago Tribune a defense of Kerry’s (and, more emphatically, others’) behavior in the incident that led to Kerry’s silver star. The blurb under the picture, however, says that Rood says the “attacks on Kerry are wrong.” (Emphasis added. I can’t find this picture or caption online.) I read the Rood piece and, even better, Beldar’s long and fair analysis of it, and it is quite evident that Rood, quite consciously, takes unusual care to make it clear that he is responding only to criticisms of Kerry in this one incident, and to no other “attacks.”
It is also noteworthy, as long as I’m here, that USA Today does say without qualification in that front page picture blurb that Rood “served in Vietnam with John Kerry.” Apparently veterans who are thought to support Kerry “served with” him even if they were not on the same boat, but veterans who criticize him are disqualified from comment if they were not Kerry’s crew members.
But wait. There’s more. On page 9A there is a long (by USA Today standards) article under the bold headline, “July job figures decline in six swing states.” The lede:
Twenty-two states reported a drop in payroll jobs last month, double the number for June, according to new Labor Department statistics. Among them were six of the states tht could decide this fall’s presidential election.
One has to read about half of the article before learning that “twenty-eight states reported job gains in July. Eleven were swing states…..”
I think the only thing unclear here is whether this headline writer was biased or incompetent.
I think the only thing unclear here is whether this headline writer was biased or incompetent.
I vote for both.
Headlines, agree with you completely. I suggest incompetence, because it won’t be hard for me to come up with headlines that simplify stories in favor of Bush.
On Rood, I think it’s clear: he’s limiting himself to the incident of which he has first-hand knowledge, and that in that single case, Kerry’s version was more-or-less in agreement with his own. I certainly thought, after reading it, that he was implying that the Smear Boat Veterans are motivated by anti-Kerry animus, that their version of the one incident he was recounting was egregiously false, and that there’s no reason to believe their version of any other incident either.
The Smear Boat guys don’t look as impressive as last week, do they? [Older: 1, 2, 3, 4, and Rood here at 5] Today, two officers listed as “neutral” at Smear Boat’s website state that Kerry served admirably and they have been unable to get their names removed from the web page. They also state that they voted for Bush in 2000, but not again.
FWIW, I don’t think there’s any overwhelming evidence out there to support Kerry’s claims about visiting Cambodia, but on the medals question the Smear Boat guys are, in plain English, lying. Every singlecontemporaneous official record supports Kerry. That alone constitutes the preponderance of the evidence.
Andrew you made an error in your post. You forgot to write BushHitler along with Smear Boat Veterans.
I would suggest that you grow up and make your points in an adult fashion. This is not the DU that you are posting on.
Andrew:
A Kerry campaign spokesman has already admitted that one of the Purple Heart medals was received for a wound that Kerry accidentally inflicted on himself, a circumstance that Max Cleland himself said caused him to decline a Purple Heart for the 3 limbs ripped from his body. And thanks for sliming the SBVT. It is refreshingly honest to see a liberal Democrat (I assume) making sneering remarks about Vietnam vets instead of this false “band of brothers” posture they have lately tried to assume.
You know, one of Dole’s Purple Hearts is from an accidental self-inflcited wound? Cleland can make his own choices. The LA Times reported
The Swift Boat guys are liars. And it’s pretty interesting to see a conservative Republican (I assume) willing to trash genuine heroes with lies in the re-election interests of their drunkard coke-besotted leader.
Every few hours yet another vet comes out in Kerry’s defense. (He voted Bush in 2000, but not 2004.) I’m starting to think JFK’s led you guys into a trap.
John McCain’s VA(?) head of his pres campaign is a liar?
Ohh, this is going to get good. He was in the 2nd commercial, IIRC. He was also in the Hanoi Hilton.
in the re-election interests of their drunkard coke-besotted leader
Well Andrew, it is apparent that you have lost any semblance of civility and rationality. Your true sentiments are coming out loud and clear. Please go back to the DU where such wild rants resonate so well with the rest of the loons there.
If they are liars, Andrew, then why has the Kerry campaign admitted that the Christmas in Cambodia episode, the political turning point in young Kerry’s life, was a fabrication? In fact almost all of the Cambodian incursions stories by Kerry have been disowned by his own SB supporters. It may give Dems a jolly good laugh to see their anti-war hero successfully (for the MSM) parading as a proud Vietnam veteran after maliciously slandering them, but for most who have served and are now fully aware of Kerry’s history, the die has been cast. You and others like you who sneer at the SBVT for defending their honor had better start keeping count of the backtracking and admissions by Kerry and his campaign people before you embarrass yourselves further with screams of “liar”.
Love that Winter Soldier ad! What a great guy to be Commander-in Chief of our (Ghengis Khan??) armed forces.
I almost feel sorry for what Kerry is going to go through over the next two months. So sad when everything falls apart, even if it is your own fault.
To anonymous: when last seen, Kerry’s campaign had most certainly not said he had not been in Cambodia. Indeed, Kerry reiterated that he had. Now, I admit that at the moment there isn’t the same sort of incontrovertable written evidence that there is for his medals.
Kerry’s biographer said that while Kerry was near the border at Christmas, he didn’t actually enter Cambodia until January or February. If that’s the sort of error that you find significant, so be it.
I’m confident that Kerry will be vindicated and your smears will be the final straw in Bush’s re-election failure. (BTW, no I never believed Clinton kept his zipper closed.) I am indeed willing to rise and fall with the accuracy of Kerry’s medal citations. Unlike you guys. When one of your stories falls apart completely (e.g., Thurlow’s own previous statements and his own Bronze Star citation support Kerry’s version, and not his current one), you just make more stuff up.
Frankly, I don’t see why military service should count nearly as much as John Kerry wants it to. I really could care less if John Kerry was an impecable officer during his four months in Vietnam. That really has little bearing on him becoming President.
Bob Dole was in a combat zone for much longer than Kerry, yet he lost in a landslide.
I’m alarmed that a few too many people bought Kerry’s DNC speech rationale that in order to send people to war, you had to have been in one. That would certainly disqualify a great number of people, including past presidents.
When Clinton put troops in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia, nobody asked about his own military service credentials. Perhaps that’s because the extent of his service was fleeing to Canada in order to avoid the draft.
John Kerry should be making an issue out of his record in the Senate, and his proposed policies for his presidency.
I’ve heard way too many Kerry supporters tell me they’re going to vote for Kerry because of his service record. These same people are oblivious to his rejection of his service record upon coming home. When I shift the debate to policies, they tell me that Kerry will “strengthen the middle class” and that he “supports good jobs.”
As if the Republicans don’t support good jobs.
I want to know the means, not the ends.
Only Kerry can shift the debate to more substantive issues than his “mini-tour” in Viet Nam. What has he been doing for the last 35 years, anyway? Besides cheating on his taxes.
As readers here are unlikely to read Atrios, you may have missed that Smear Boat Liar O’Neill, he who today says they all went nowhere near Cambodia, formerly told Richard Nixon he’d been on a Swift Boat in Cambodia.
Is there any one of your new-found heroes who isn’t contradicting his statements of yesteryear?
Milquetoast liberal Alan Colmes is on this story. When even Sean Hannity’s patsy is dudgeoned up, the truth is coming out: and it isn’t from the Swift guys.
“Is there any one of your new-found heroes who isn’t contradicting his statements of yesteryear?”
If this is your standard, why do you support a candidate who clearly violates it? Are we to enforce a higher standard for those who criticize presidential candidates than we should for the candidates themselves?
–of their drunkard coke-besotted leader–
I really don’t understand the Left’s problem with this.
Isn’t that how one begins to earn one’s lefty stripes?
It was the 60s and 70s, wasn’t “everyone” doing it?
At least W had the strength to stop, unlike a certain senator from MA.
I should have that kind of strength to give up caffeine.
–I want to know the means, not the ends.–
He has a secret plan for that, just like Nixon. Only he’ll have to get elected to tell us.
Yesterday Bob Dole said of the Swift Boaters “They can’t all be Republican liars.”
Why not!?
The overnight news is more on O’Neill’s U-turn on whether he was in Cambodia, and more Navy documents support Kerry.
On which charge, exactly, does the preponderance of currently-available evidence support Smear Boat Liars over against Kerry?
There was no O’Neill U-turn. During the time Kerry was there the swift boats did not go to Cambodia. Long after Kerry was gone, O’Neill brushed the border of Cambodia in a Swift Boat, but nowhere near the “deep inside Cambodia” that Kerry claims.
Kerry can’t get his story straight because there’s no there there.
Andrew, your repeated use of the term “Smear Boat Liars” makes me think you are emotionally invested in Kerry’s side of the story. You can do as you please, of course, but I learned a long time ago not to be that way about any controversial issue where I am not in a position to know the truth firsthand. For one thing, that makes it very hard to view the facts objectively as they come out. For another, if your side is wrong, it makes it too painful and difficult to accept the truth.
If it turns out that the SBVT are telling the truth, will you withdraw your support for Kerry? Probably not, right? My vote for Bush didn’t hinge on whether he served out his term in the National Guard. So let the chips fall where they may.
Laura,
When someone responds over and over again to a post with the same ad hominem attacks, there is only one thing that you can conclude. He is a troll. And we have committed the cardinal sin of responding to a troll.
Andrew, you should visit Roger L. Simon’s place and review some of the postings.
Your questions will be answered, if your eyes don’t glaze over from the detail.
Laura,
I would probably vote for Kerry, but with considerable disappointmnent. (I’m sure Bush has told untruths about his TANG service, not to mention the Iraq WMD, and I’m scarcely voting for Nader.)
I’m unable to find just which link at Simon’s site you see as so persuasive, maybe you could hotlink. All I see are repeats of the Swift Boaters charges, taken as gospel. (Yeah, they did such a good job on the Silver Star and Bronze Star stories: completely discredited their versions are.) You’re doing an OK job trying to reconstruct a timeline that vindicates O’Neill (one which has no basis that in O’Neill’s comments), but I think you’ll get stuck on his claim there is no watery border between Vietnam and Cambodia. O’Neill himself is wiggling his way out differently. He’s saying that he was near but not over the border, contradicting his interview with Nixon and contradicting his claim that everyone including Kerry was miles from the border. He should have let you guys write his script!
It’s a little silly to argue with Roger Simon here, but he seems to misunderstand the Bush/Rove campaign M.O. completely when he says that the publication of Kerry’s bio was (ironically) the impetus for the SB campaign. This campaign was started by angels of the Texas Republican Party to salvage GWB’s chances (approval rating under 40%) of re-election. Remember what they did to McCain?
What did they do to McCain?
“They” (Bush? Rove?) made it pretty clear that the good Senator might be something of a warrior, and a laundry list of other things, but that he certainly wasn’t very sucessful and/or efficent as an officer of the U.S. Navy, as a military leader, and as a decision maker.
Compared to his father’s and to his grandfather’s, John McCain’s military achievments are rather poor (to put it mildly). After all, he destroyed more American planes by crashing them accidently and getting shot down than downing MIGs, and his main accomplishment (and reason for fame) was to stay alive as a POW in the “Hanoi Hilton.”
What “they” did in 2000 was to question his ability to lead and to make sensible decisions, and due to his military record that was by no means inappropriate.
“I want to know the means, not the ends.”
Remember the Leftist credo: the ends justify the means. They will do anything, including lies, evasions, falsehoods, inuendo, half-truths, and even violence to achieve power.
Yes, Lazalus is a troll, but he entertains us. As long as the opposition is thus, there is little chance of defeat.
Did the democrats put up Kerry as a joke, to lull the repos to sleep for 2008? It seems so.
I haven’t been defending the SBVT here or elsewhere. As I’ve said, I’m not in a position to know the truth firsthand.
I can accept the “Cambodia at Christmas” thing if he was there in January or February instead. That’s the kind of morphing my memory does, for something that happened that long ago. And the part about remembering hearing about MLK’s assassination while in Vietnam, “a place of violence”, when really he didn’t go to Vietnam until several months after MLK’s assassination, well, that’s more morphing. But that’s the point I would make, were I to jump into the fray. All these details are being scrutinized because he’s bringing them up. Why is he bringing them up? Why does EVERYTHING have to be related to Kerry’s service in Vietnam? Heck, my BIL spent two years there, as a Green Beret, and he doesn’t talk about it unless he’s had a few drinks and you directly ask him. He’d rather talk about politics, what his grown kids are doing, or the latest Frederick Forsyth novel.
It’s like those 4+ months so long ago defined Kerry as a person and he has nothing else to talk about. So I don’t really care whether the SBVT are telling the truth or not. The fact that their story is so central to Kerry’s hopes for the presidency is what’s significant to me.
Again, Andrew, start visiting Roger L. Simon’s place for O’Neill and the rest. The details are there being argued by both sides.
—
And McCain is too volatile to be pres.
Funny how after all this discussion about Kerry’s service, issues like Kerry’s platform, goals, and other seeming issues of substance have been quietly dropped. Same with Bush’s war in Iraq.
My take on this is that there’s not much difference between the two, they both represent the same interests, and we lose either way. It’s a very bad thing when you can’t even choose the lesser of two evils.
I doubt that Kerry will get us out of Iraq any more than Nixon got us out of Vietnam. I doubt that Kerry will do anything to prevent the flight of jobs overseas that Clinton and his predecessors have created. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Can anyone name one thing that Kerry did as a Senator that rates merit? Just wondering, what’s his track record here and now (forget Vietnam).
The anonymous post above is right in their assessment, but he/she should recognize that Kerry framed the debate in this manner. Have you see Kerry make any policy proposals?
Yes, Kerry has identified a lot of problems, but I’m remiss to find any proposed solution.
Wait for the RNC to judge Bush on proposing policy. Indications are that he’ll make specific proposals to solve the problems he identifies, unlike Kerry.
Kerry accomplishments: the POW/MIA commission, and the first BCCI investigation.
Nixon did get us out of Vietnam.
http://www.vietnamwar.com/PeaceWithHonor.htm
But we don’t need to be “got out of” Iraq. Iraq isn’t an unwinnable proxy war between superpowers. It’s a nation liberated from a bloodthirsty tyrant that’s moving toward stability and democracy. Of course there’s some chaos now, that’s to be expected anytime there’s a power vacuum. But as much as some folks don’t want to believe it, real progress is being made. Check out http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to “Boring Stories”. Here’s a bit: “I watch TV and I see hell breaking around me then I go outside and see enough normalcy AND progress to make me believe that the people in the media are not here to report how