Apparently, Kerry’s GPA was lower than Bush’s. Interesting how the coalition of the arrogant managed to spin Bush as the stupid one.
Also, I should point out that I have not read the new recrods released by Kerry, but Kos and the Dems claim it would have silenced the Swift Vets. How dumb were his campaign managers? How dumb was he for going along with them?
Why didn’t he just release these damn records MONTHS before declaring? Hell, why weren’t they release years ago? Talk about self-inflicted wounds…
gratefulcub
Snark Alert
W is the stupid one not because of his grades, but because he says ‘disassemble’, and then defines it for us morons.
This whole line of conversation is a bit trite anyway, sorry I had to add my smart a** comment.
But this line of reasoning is getting out of hand.
Look how W compares to Kerry! Neither compare very well to the intellectual leaders of this country or any other, so who cares which had the most Cs in college.
We may torture, but not as much as Saddam or the turrurists. Yay!!! We aren’t as bad as terrorists.
What ever happened to comparisons that matter. Why don’t we compare our potential leaders’ intelligence to a ‘standard of acceptability.’ Maybe we do, and maybe it has just been lowered. Why don’t we compare our treatment of detainees and interrogation methods to what they should be as ‘the greatest nation on earth’ as ‘the shining city on the hill’ as ‘the country that we all think we are.’
On the other hand, the picture is ridiculous. Petty, but hilarious. i voted for the man (though he wasn’t my first or second choice), but i may still use the photo as my screensaver for a while.
Stormy70
Dear Ohio, all is forgiven for Voinivich. Thank you, Stormy70
M. Scott Eiland
“Excuse me Senator, but I just have to ask–what was it like working with Yvonne De Carlo and Al Lewis?”
gratefulcub
With the release of the grades also came the revelation that the Swifties were in fact…..lying.
They commended him then. They trashed him now. Why? He didn’t support the war in Vietnam, so they lied. He challenged the lord and saviour W, so they lied.
Rick
And to think, this is the *good* picture.
Cordially…
Mr Furious
gratefulcub,
Shhhh. The only thing that matters is Kerry’s dumb too.
KC
The media spin about grades, lets face it, did little for Kerry. He was painted as an intellectual stiff by the press, someone nobody could relate to, while Bush was usually protrayed as the everyman who got C’s. I think Kerry could have actually gotten a boost by the release of his grades if he chose to promote himself–and the press allowed him too–a little differently. Well, there goes his next run for president (yes!).
On the other hand, gratefulclub you pointed out something I overlooked but is more important–the smear was just that, a smear. Now that the election’s over, I wonder if anyone who trafficked in those fairly wicked lies will admit the truth?
Rick
More importantly, if the Swiftees were really lying, justice would demand that Kerry sue them.
Cordially…
gratefulcub
KC
CNN started to apologize this afternoon. Wolf Blitzer was saying, “CNN wants to officially apologize about the Swift Bo……Oh my God, another white woman is missing!!!”
Oh well.
ppgaz
I don’t need a president to be a good student.
What I need is a president who is honest about his intentions. Right now I don’t have a president like that.
As for the military records, while there is no proof that it would have made a difference, I have to rate the decision to sit on them so as not to appear to be “giving in” to the opposition as one of the great dumb moves in the history of presidential campaigns. The press was eager to play the other side of the story; ABC went so far as to send a crew to the actual site of the river combat and interview the locals (pretty much confirming Kerry’s version of the events). But the story got no traction.
However, the Wingnuts are wasting their time chuckling over Kerry’s gaffe on this one. Their problem is that they have a president who is a liar, makes bad decisions for this country, and doesn’t listen to alternative viewpoints. The man is a disaster and his party, completely in control of DC, can’t seem to govern. The campaign is over. Let the political consultants learn their lessons, and move on.
Meanwhile, a big country is in deep shit. Let’s focus on that.
JG
I’m just looking forward to the lies they spread about the next dem candidate. They’ve already started on Hilary. ( If it takes lying republican assholes to keep her from being president this country has major issues, she’ll be defeated on merit, lies aren’t nescessary)
KC
What will be interesting to see happen, is when the GOP smear meisters, who are getting really good at what they do, go too far and smear the wrong person. I’d like to see Frist and co. try and drop the hammer on Hagel or McCain during the primaries. I’ll bet McCain isn’t as nice as he was in 2000 and I’ll bet Hagel won’t stand for it. On the other hand, I bet Democrats will finally grow some spine and throw some dirt at Republicans this next election.
gratefulcub
Bring on the Hillary Lies. They have already started, which is beautiful. The poweline/limbaugh crew will keep her from running, or winning the primary. She would lose the general election on her own. So, they are shooting themselves in the foot smearing her now. They should praise her, love her, promote her……then trash her in the general (consistency isn’t their thing; and I am aware they couldn’t praise her). So thanks Rush.
Stormy70
McCain will never get my vote because he could care less about the constitution, and is complete media whore. Hillary, hah! By all means, nominate her.
KC
Stormy70,
Hillary or Frist (Robertson/Dobson)? Hillary or Frist (Robertson/Dobson)? Hillary or . . .
Bruce
How come no conservatives ever post comments here anymore? Why did they all go away? Only angry lying lefties post here… And I am losong interest too. I wonder why only moonbats come here these days?
gratefulcub
McCain cares about the Constitution. That is what will keep him from winning the primary. All of his willy nilly civil liberties liberal BS. The republicans are only one more ‘mandate’ (anything over 50.1%) from declaring the Constitution a secular piece of propoganda.
Personally I am hoping you nominate Dobson, er, Frist. The middle of this country will tolerate a little religious talk from pols, but when they have to see the real fundies, they will run.
gratefulcub
Bruce,
Because this is a very moderate place. This thread is all fun and snarky games because the original post is not that important. But for the most part, you can read very sensible moderate left and moderate right points. Real live conversations. For Right wing echo chamber, please check powerline, while I visit Chomksy.com.
Kimmitt
Baffling.
Stormy70
Frist is finished. He can’t run the Senate, much less the country. McCain wipes his ass with the 1st Amendment, so he won’t get my vote. I don’t think anyone from the Senate will win the primaries. As for Hillary, she is going to have to work alot harder to cleanse the taint off of her to make it in the South or West. I don’t respect a woman who lets her husband turn her into a joke, and stays with him to further her political career. Also, she’s a socialist.
Bruce – there’s still some conservatives here to poke the libs with sticks every now and then. :)
JG
Disdain for the current crop of rigties does not make me a lefty. I may be left of where the republican party stands now but thats because they moved, not me.
Sojourner
Stormy seems to prefer a candidate with an MD who isn’t sure whether HIV can be spread through tears or sweat. Or maybe it’s the candidate’s amazing ability to diagnose through a few minutes of video.
gratefulcub
Stormy,
I am not aware of McCain and his dislike for the 1st amendment. I come here to see what is on others mind. I say this with all sincerity, what is the issue with McCain? What has he done or said to give that impression? (not a rhetorical defense of McCain, just an honest question)
John Cole
I don’t mean to speak for Stormy, but I personally would start with “McCain-Feingold” when discussing McCain’s apparent aversion to the 1st amendment.
gratefulcub
I’m one of those secular fire breathing liberals that refuses to call myself a progressive, so i am no McCain defender. But wasn’t McCain Feingold more of a bad solution to a real problem, as opposed to an overt attempt at preventing free speech. Granted, the act did not do what it was meant to do. It didn’t keep money out of politics, it just shifted it around.
Again, I am not defending McCain, but there are some factions within the current GOP that have some very authoritarian tendencies. You can look all the way to the top to find people that really have issues with the 1st amendment. I equate a dislike for the 1st amendment with authoritarian, and I just don’t see McCain as THE glaring example. But, he doesn’t have the view of the constitution I would like in a president, but we are looking at it from different vantage points.
arkabee
“How dumb were his campaign managers? How dumb was he for going along with them?”
how dumb were the people who believed the Swift ads? how dumb are the people acting as apologists for their deceit?
Seriously, Mr. Cole, while i agree with you that it seemed to have been political suicide (or perhaps more like smoking, didn’t outright kill him but it sure contributed to his death) not to have released the documentation considerably earlier, what does it say when your reaction is:
“how dumb are they for not disproving lies”
as opposed to
“how could they lie like that and get away with it, have such support for their effort at deceit?”
A man walks into the subway carrying $1000 in twenties, and gets robbed. Was/Is he stupid? That question has nothing to do with the criminal nature of the robber.
willyb
Woulda, coulda, shouda. Nobody cares about the smoke and mirrors that are Kerry’s records, they are irrelevant until there is a chance he will be in a position to make executive decisions for this country. Flip-flop ring a bell.
John Cole
Because they were veterans and they have a right to speak their mind, no matter what motivations they may have.
The left tried the same exact Bush on George Herbert Walker Bush.
gratefulcub
Is that a defense? They did it first, 12 years earlier.
They had every right to speak their mind. They had a right to be motivated by whatever motivated them. The problem is that they were flip-floppers. When they evaluated Kerry’s service, the commended him. After he came back and protested the war, they said he served dishonorably.
I really don’t see the fuzzy area here. They spoke out, which is their right. Now the records are released and they contradict everything that they said.
But again, if the logic aboves holds, we should start beheading insurgents because….THEY DID IT FIRST!!
Sojourner
Nobody has the right to lie about someone else, whether they’re veterans or not. The First Amendment does not give people the right to lie.
How ironic is it that these veterans sold their souls for W while W is selling out the veterans.
ppgaz
“They were veterans ….”
John, I assume you are referring to the Swifties. If not, my comments here are misdirected.
Yes, they had a “right to be heard.” But they did not have a right to essentially make a version of the story that is not congruent with the facts. The public had a right to hear those facts, at least as loudly and as often as the Switfty version was heard. As I said earlier, no proof that this would have made a difference … but that isn’t the point I’m making. I’m not a fan claiming that our team lost because the umpire made a bad call.
I’m saying we might have lost because Kerry got, and took, bad advice, and should have known better. Perhaps he feared that “taking on” the Swifties would make him look too ambitious, too eager to win. Perhaps he is just too proud. Whatever. It’s a judgement call, and in retrospect, it doesn’t look like the Kerry camp made a good call.
Since I despise the Rovian conspiracy in a deep and personal way, I am inclined to think that they pretty much took a rational gamble here, and won the point. I think they calculated that Kerry would either not fight back, or if he did, he would frame the fight in a way that the Rovians were ready for and were — in my imagined view of this — hoping for. I think they wanted exposure of the anti-Vietnam-war stuff and they figured that provoking Kerry with the Swifty shit was the easiest and cheapest way to get that fight. They didn’t get it, but it didn’t matter.
As for the Swifties themselves, their smug dishonesty remains astonishing to this day. But I think they calculated that they had been “wronged” by Kerry 30 years ago, and this was payback. Well, good for them. I happen to disagree, and I happen to think that Kerry’s anti-war efforts were not only admirable, they were admirable in face of arrogant and abusive power, which takes some guts … and that, of course, is what we are supposedly fighting for when we go off and have these wars of choice. If those assholes think that we are fighting for the right to wave flags and say “my country right or wrong,” then they are wrong. That isn’t what the America I believe in is all about. Citizens have a duty to stick a finger in the eye of power when they think power is being abused.
Otherwise, two things are absolutely certain: One, power WILL be abused by the powerful, and two, see number one.
Stormy70
McCain-Feingold wants to limit political speech against candidates 60 days before an election. Wrong. Every citizen should be able to speak up whenever they want, and if it hurts poor McCain’s feelings, then he doesn’t have the spine for politics. Also, read this concerning the consequences of this bill:
http://thekeymonk.blogspot.com/2005/03/john-mccain-hates-free-speech-part-26.html
I would never vote for Frist, either, so I don’t know where that impression is coming from. I don’t like Senators, in general. It is too soon for me to speculate on the 2008 race, and we don’t know who is running, or where the country will be in 3 years. Too soon to speculate intelligently, but when has that ever stopped us?
willyb
“Now the records are released and they contradict everything that they said.”
Please give me a link to the released records that “contradict everything that they said.”
Stormy70
Here in Gen X world, we hate hippies. Kerry was a hippy. Thanks again Ohio. You must have watched Southpark.
John Cole
A.) I never said it was right to lie about someone because someone else tried to lie about someone else. I am just saying that attacking people’s military records is a bipartisan affair.
B.) I was pretty damned fair to Kerry, defending him frequently, as I still believe he is a legitimate hero. My bone of contention was when Democrats tried to smear all the Swift Vets as liars with idiotic memes like “they never served with him” or “they weren;t in the same boat,” which is just stupid, and if you check my archives, I stated as much, and I am pretty sure some long time readers like Kimmitt will back me up when I state that I repeatedly said John Kerry is a hero. I still think he would have been a bad President.
C.) My overall contention is that when people lie about you, the thing to do is to expose the lies and to confront them. The more speech approach.
D.) This is my blog, so I allow myself a few luxuries. One of them is an unreasonable deference to all veterans. Period. I don;t give a shit if you think they are liars or if they are liears. They earnedthe right to say whatever they want whenever they want, and they have a right ot be heard. Personally, I will politely disagree with them and move on, or politely debunk their claims. I will not, however, attempt to silence them, nor will I engage in blanket smears or pretend that they are doing something unprecedented or question their motives.
In other words, they have earned the right to say whatever the hell they want, even if they are liars. And that includes David Hackworth, John Kerry, Markos at the Daily Kos or anyone else who has harsh words for Republicans.
You can disagree with my position on this, but it ain’t changing. Veterans are special to me, and if there is one group I will elevate to a protected class, it is them.
BTW- I never believed Kerry tried to shoot himself, but I could for the life of me not figure out why the hell he kept avoiding his records release. I still don;t know why.
willyb
“I happen to think that Kerry’s anti-war efforts were not only admirable, they were admirable in face of arrogant and abusive power”
Why exactly did Kerry parade most of his Vietnam boat crew on the stage during his convention?
gratefulcub
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/
“The records, which the Navy Personnel Command provided to the Globe, are mostly a duplication of what Kerry released during his 2004 campaign for president, including numerous commendations from commanding officers who later criticized Kerry’s Vietnam service”
“An earlier release of the full record might have helped his campaign because it contains a number of reports lauding his service.”
“But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.”
The same veterans who were criticizing him, the Swifties.
So, let me rephrase, without the rhetoric. SOME of the Swifties made statements at the time of kerry’s service that were glowingly positive. After he protested the war, they came out on every nightly news show to say he served dishonorably. Not real fuzzy.
Additionally, the question of whether he ‘deserved’ his purple hearts or not is laughable. I am sure he didn’t deserve at least one of them. We were losing a war that was increasingly unpopular. The army was giving medals to everyone for PR purposes. They GAVE it to him, he didn’t go asking is commanding officer, “See this scratch, can I have a medal, pretty please?”
And for crying out loud, if I were him, I would have taken my blue blood roots and gone anywhere but Vietnam, but this man signed up and asked to go to war for his country. I have a bunch of problems with Kerry, but this issue is absurd. It would be like saying Bush isn’t arrogant enough to be president.
Stormy70
McCain gets my respect for his service, as does pre-hippy Kerry. But I still would never vote for them.
Nash
I agree with John’s last comment and would add that, without having a direct line to the motivations of the Swift Boat Veterans, many of those who signed on actually either (1) believed the bulk of the claims about Kerry and his record and/or (2) didn’t care about the truth of the claims because they felt his post-service anti-war stance was an abomination.
Am I defending them? Not really. But I am saying I think their motivations are varied, generally sincere and human. Oddly enough, I strongly suspect that John O’Neill, the co-author of the book, was the least sincere and principled.
Slartibartfast
In other places, it’s being claimed that this isn’t the entire record because it doesn’t contain things that would be in the complete record. And that this isn’t the complete record because the Navy wouldn’t in fact HAVE the complete record.
Go read MinuteMan, John, and follow the links. I have no idea if any of it is true, and the only reason I’m even interested is that that tantalizing glimpse at reality has managed to evade us, Form 180 or no.
willyb
Nash:
Underlying your comment is the implied assumption that the Swift Boat Veterans are all lying … “Am I defending them? Not really. But I am saying I think their motivations are varied, generally sincere and human.” Were you there to eyewitness what happened in Vietnam?
gratefulcub
willyb
“Were you there?” We can’t use that standard to develop ideas, thoughts or even facts. The best we as humans can do is look at what evidence we have and make an informed decision. I would hate to see a not guilty verdict on the basis of “I wasn’t at Neverland Ranch, I don’t know what happened.”
Why can we not believe a word Newsweek says because they are anti-military, anti-USA, and liberal? While at the same time, we can’t look at the swifties and not believe a word they say because they are anti-Kerry.
neil
Was I paying attention to a different election than you guys? Kerry’s image of ‘the smart one’ HELPED him?
P.S. Does anyone really think grades have anything to do with intellectualism? Anyone who can’t make the case that Bush is an idiot without referring to his report card isn’t qualified for the VLWC.
Sojourner
John:
I share your view that veterans are special. However, I vehemently disagree that they have a special right to lie. Once that door is opened, then ALL veterans are subject to the statement that they’re liars but it’s okay because they’re veterans. This dishonors my uncle who received just about every flying medal during WWII but wasn’t a liar.
The biggest reason the Swifties should be subject to the disdain of those who support our troops is they put into question the validity of EVERY medal ever awarded. Once again, once that door is opened, it’s pretty damn tough to close it. My uncle was a legitimate hero and the Swifties can go f*ck themselves for trying to take that away (however indirectly) from him.
Shame on them for choosing to lie about Kerry’s record rather than focusing their ire on what they were really pissed off about – Kerry’s anti-war activities. People can legitimately disagree on this, even though I personally think it was an act of tremendous bravery on Kerry’s part. But to lie about his record – NO WAY.
2BrixShy
Gratefulcub:
You cite as your backup for the Swifties “lying” an article from the Glob- a kept mouthpiece from Lurch’s hometown. Believe the Glob is also where we first heard about Lurch’s magic hat and his Christmas eve mission (which was disproven by his own journal and mysteriously disappeared from his website during the campaign). Not very persuasive…. next?
ppgaz
“You can disagree with my position on this, but it ain’t changing. Veterans are special to me, and if there is one group I will elevate to a protected class, it is them.”
Okay, fine. Is Mr. Kerry a member of your protected class?
And, tell us about the selection of the photo that accompanies the original post.
And tell us why you chose the phrase “self inflicted wounds” to spice up the piece? Is that a sideways reference to the charge that Kerry might have inflicted his own wounds? Why even use a phrase like that?
I wasn’t around here during the campaing season. Did GWB’s embarassing service record get plenty of electronic ink around here? Was there a compare-and-contrast between the two Yalies, one who apparently partied and drank to the point of embarassment to his family, and the other who apparently suited up and went overseas? Was there any talk of whether the whole Swifty thing was ginned up to focus the service issues away from GWB and toward Kerry’s anti-war behavior? Was there any credit given for the fact that a hell of a lot people agreed with Kerry in 1972, thought the war was a fiasco being run by dishonest men and were sick of the carnage … and that portraying him, and the rest of us, as some kind of less-patriotic types than the flag wavers is condeming this country to yet another goddam season of jongoistic war-mongering and the horror and cost that goes with it?
Let me put it this way: I wasn’t here to read the blog last fall, but in the few months that I have been, “fairness” to Kerry has not exactly jumped off the page at me.
Feel free to point me to the error of my ways as you see them, because right now, I don’t see them.
Nash
willyb,
Underlying your comment is the explicit demonstration that you are an asshole.
Let’s not look at the underlying, just stick to what I said, not to whatever motivations you wish to impute.
Your logic is circularly absurd. Underlying your reply is the assumption that their claims were accurate, but I’m not going to be a fellow cretin and point that out, now am I? Nor would I stoop to pointing out that in polite society, the burden of proof that a claim was true and not a smear would fall on the the ones doing the claiming. Nor am I going to lower myself to responding to your inevitable witty rejoinder that there is nothing polite about politics. No, I am above all of that and ask you to join me here in my lofty moral perch.
I’m afraid your attempt at a “were you there” imitation of Richard Burton, while well-intentioned, is just a bit too over the top for the judges. But do keep clutching that robe and trying again.
ppgaz
Willyb, I have two words for you:
“Mission accomplished.”
gratefulcub
Wow. The Globe can’t be trusted. No one can be trusted. Everyone in the media is a mouthpiece for someone. Scientists are liberal activists. Preachers are lying conservatives. Network Anchors are trying to bring down the president.
It wasn’t an op/ed. The Globe got the records first. Everyone else will have them tomorrow. If the commendations in the records are not the same people from the Swift Boats, then i apologize for wasting your time. We can check first thing tomorrow. Maybe you are right, the Globe made up facts that are easily checkable. I am sure they just inserted names, changed some dates, made up a few quotes and are sitting around expecting no one else to pick up the story. Not Powerline, not the NYTimes, Not Wapo, Not even the Moony Times. It was a pretty cut and dry peice, here is what the records say. So, let me know, which newspapers are we allowed to link to that will suffice as ‘not liberal liars.’
ppgaz
Willyb, I have two words for you:
“Mission accomplished.”
And on another topic …
The posting thing on this site has been broken forever. I’ll contribute $50 the blog if it goes toward fixing the problem.
Rick
I say again that if the Swift Boat vets were lying (slandering) Sen. Kerry, he very well ought to bring action against the organization.
If truth is on his side, then that’s a lot of protection against poor/bitter loser charges.
Is there some statutory reason why he can’t sue? Something about his stature as a public figure. I wouldn’t suppose the SBVT has the press’s Sullivan protection on its side.
Just wondering why a particular dog isn’t barking. Especially from as lavishly a lawyered up entity as the national Democratic apparatus, and the Kerry/Edwards subset.
Cordially…
gratefulcub
Rick
so, unless he sues he must be hiding something? Why doesn’t he sue, since he is all lawyered up? (There aren’t republican lawyers?)
-Proving slander is next to impossible. you have to prove the accusations are false, and that the perpetrator knew they were false.
-He is a politician, planning on running for president in 3 years. The last thing he wants is to do is prove what a whining liberal crybaby he is by suing people who say things he doesn’t like (my best Rush imitation)
-He doesn’t want to go to court to say ‘those guys’ kept me from being president
He was a lawyer, that doesn’t mean he has to go chasing justice every time there is an opportunity.
You know all this already. It seems you just want to imply that liberals are in bed with the lawyers and we love to sue those we don’t like. Nice fantasy, here in the reality based community it just isn’t so.
Nash
“Something about his stature as a public figure. I wouldn’t suppose the SBVT has the press’s Sullivan protection on its side.
You mean the protection that the mean ol anti-Bushite journalist Kitty Kelley enjoys?
Asked and answered.
“He’s a lawyer, so he’s a liar if he doesn’t sue because he’s a lawyer, no no I mean a liar, so if he doesn’t sue, he must be a lawyer, no I mean a liar.”
Inpenetrable logic you got going for you there, Rick. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
I just love how introducing sarcastic nonsense challenged upthread and then repeating them is seen as an effective rebuttal by you, but do keep trying.
sarcastically,
me
John Cole
Okay, fine. Is Mr. Kerry a member of your protected class?
Yeah- I thought I pretty clearly stated over and over again I thought attempts to paint him as treasonous and not-heroic were out of bounds.
And, tell us about the selection of the photo that accompanies the original post.
Talk to the Boston Globe. I am not sure how posting it impugns his dignity- it is a fugly damned picture. I have some bad ones of me you bastards will never get your hands on. I even have ones of me in net shirts and nut-hugger shorts from the 70’s. If I had my way, I could retroactively charge my parents with child abuse.
And tell us why you chose the phrase “self inflicted wounds” to spice up the piece? Is that a sideways reference to the charge that Kerry might have inflicted his own wounds? Why even use a phrase like that?
I am not that clever, but now that you mention it, it would have been appropriate. Kerry never intentionally shot himself during combat, but not releasing these records was a self-inflicted wound. If I remember correctly, the only time I ever mentioned the incidents were when I felt Chris Matthews was putting words in Malkin;s mouth.
I wasn’t around here during the campaing season.
Archives, man. Archives.
Did GWB’s embarassing service record get plenty of electronic ink around here?
My position on Bush’s records is he has nothing to be embarassed about. Did he serve with the same distinction of Kerry? Of course not. Did he do anything wrong as the loony left would have you believe? Of course not.
Did Bush have special treatment? Absolutely, I believe so. Here is where the rubber hits the road, though. The idiots in my party won’t even fess up that Bush got treated differently, when of course he did. That was just how shit happened back then.
Meanwhile, the idiots on the left seem to think this is somehow an indictment of Bush. He got special treatment because of whose son he was- not because he asked for it or thought he was entitled to it. He may not have even known strings were pulled for him- such is the way with these rick folk.
And the Guard paperwork bullshit- he moved on at the end of his tour, as did millions of other men. The Guard no longer needed him.
I can’t help it if some people are irrational fools and somehow think Bush did something dishonorable or wrong. Likewise, I can’t help the irrational fools on my side of the aisle who refuse to recognize he got special treatment.
Was there a compare-and-contrast between the two Yalies, one who apparently partied and drank to the point of embarassment to his family, and the other who apparently suited up and went overseas?
Like I said, I can’t help it when you get irrational. I was quite the boozer myself as a frat boy and while on active duty and in the guard (I even got a DUI), and I doubt my parents think I am a disgrace to the family. And I didn’t even become President!
And Kerry didn’t ‘apparently’ suit up at all. He suited up an went, but after attempts to himself get special treatment. Such it was back when they were Yale students. Special treatment was and is a way of life for a special few in our society. Doesn’t make it right, but it does make it silly for you have your panties in a bunch about Bush and not, say, Al Gore.
Was there any talk of whether the whole Swifty thing was ginned up to focus the service issues away from GWB and toward Kerry’s anti-war behavior?
Don’t remember. I am sure there was. A lot of talk that many of the Swift Vets may have had something against Kerry for his behavior after the war.
Was there any credit given for the fact that a hell of a lot people agreed with Kerry in 1972, thought the war was a fiasco being run by dishonest men and were sick of the carnage … and that portraying him, and the rest of us, as some kind of less-patriotic types than the flag wavers is condeming this country to yet another goddam season of jongoistic war-mongering and the horror and cost that goes with it?
I don’t know if there was here, but I defended him for attending peace rallies and even defended the idiotic attempts to smear him with the picture of him and Hanoi Jane, a real traitor bitch who can rot in hell for all I care. Even when she tries to rehabilitate her image with a book and tour and new movie.
Let me put it this way: I wasn’t here to read the blog last fall, but in the few months that I have been, “fairness” to Kerry has not exactly jumped off the page at me.
I don’t like Kerry. I think he is condescending, arrogant, has no record of real achievement after his military service, has no core values other than self-promotion, and has a cynical view of the average American. I try to be fair to him, and if I fall short, well, I apologize. I am human, too.
Feel free to point me to the error of my ways as you see them, because right now, I don’t see them.
Did my best.
Nash
Come to think of it, WHY DIDN’T President Bush sue Kelley for calling him a coked up stonehead who lied to the SEC about his stock dealings? That dog is positively mute, ain’t it?
Nash
Not good form, ppgaz , to come on John’s blog and demand that he give you a history of his position because you aren’t willing to do the work yourself.
He was way more measured in his response to you than I ever would be able to be.
ppgaz
Thanks John. Your points are well taken, even if I don’t agree with all of them.
John Cole
I should also point out that a ‘self-inflicted’ wound does not, at least to me, mean what others make it out to be.
I think it is completely possible that Kerry had a self-inflicted wound, and that he still deserved a Purple Heart for it. If, for example, you fire your weapon at the enemy in combat and it ricochets back and hits you, it is self-inflicted.
That does not mean it was intentional as some on my side may have tried to portray it, and it is most certainly worthy of a Purple Heart.
At any rate, the maddening aspect of all this is that rather than just open the damned records, they chose to fight these issues piece by piece, and with their own misrepresentations. They gave the Swift Vets more credibility by denying what actually happened, and letting half stories drib and drab out.
I am still laughing at the idiotic ‘they weren’t in the boat with him’ nonsense. And why not have an open discussion of the amendments to his record. While I think the Swift Vets by and large had their own legitimate personal grievances, the right wing (myself included) siezed upon many of their claims in large part due to the idiotic attempts to smear Bush.
Anderson
Hey, I voted Kerry, but does anyone have the feeling that he thought something would be in these records that wasn’t?
Darrell
Coming late to the game here, but a number of posters have commented that this new report demonstrates that the Swift Boat vets “lied”. Several posters have called them “liars” or worse. Tell us, what specifically were the lies from the Swiftes? I read the Boston globe reports and I see no evidence of Swift Boat “lies” being uncovered…
In fact, seems to me the Swifties have been the ones proven dead on right about Kerry lying his ass off about spending Christmas in Cambodia.. although I have to admit that Kerry’s “magic hat” that he got from a CIA operative is compelling evidence
I hope someone posts Kerry’s entire military record so we don’t have to rely on MSM interpretation/spin of what the records contain. I’m skeptical that Kerry actually did sign the SF 180
Dave
John O’Neill had an interesting response worth contemplating here…
“We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry
Rick
Gratefulclub & Nash
I expect no serving President to launch lawsuits; and certainly the trend of emoting among the bitter-enders is that the SBVTs had an impact on the election. Kitty Kelley? Not.
Maybe there’ll be action in Dubya’s Crawford ranch sunset. Neil Bush’s ex has already called Kitty out on the drug charge.
I’ll gladly stand corrected, but perhaps there’s a major distinction to be made between a book, and paid television advertising by a 527 (if that’s what the Swiftees organized under).
Considering that the Swiftees were alleging things directly contrary to the documentary record, as passed down to us, with the military’s obsessive dating, stamping and signing, a post-election suit is called for if they were/are slandering him.
That they opposed Kerry was altogether unremarkable, but they could’ve done so with some impact without venturing into the tickets of historical disputes.
They knowingly took that plunge, and it indeed resonates we me because of what they tilted at. Truth is either their friend, or their downfall, because JFK’s running mate–shoot, the whole party–was the creature of ATLA.
I fully understood why no tort was undertaken during the campaign. But I do believe that in the unlikely event Kerry is in the right, he should have begun proceedings around November 5. Free speech and political speech are not license to slander. Winners ought to be gracious in letting bygones go, but the defeated can serve the greater good if they can do what they can to clamp down on any abuse of the First Amendment.
If truth is on his side, then that’s a lot of protection against poor/bitter loser charges.
As someone memorably stated: asked and answered.
Cordially…
Darrell
Good post David. John O’Neill cuts straight through the Kerry bullshit as usual with several very good unanswered questions. What I really want to know though, is why the hell are Kerry’s military records being released only to Kerry’s ass-kissing biographer at the Globe, M. Kranish? If Kerry in fact signed the SF 180 as the Globe claims, would not other media outlets have access to Kerry’s records too? this seems strange
Sojourner
Wasn’t O’Neill the one who lied about his ties to the Republican party?
Sojourner
Whoops. Another O’Neill lie.
From the August 24 edition of FOX News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: You claimed at one point you weren’t [in Cambodia], and then you claimed you were. This is very confusing to people.
O’NEILL: Well, it shouldn’t be confused. I was never in Cambodia, and Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia.
COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon you were in Cambodia.
O’NEILL: And it was the turning point of his life.
COLMES: You said to Richard Nixon, “I was in Cambodia, sir.”
HANNITY: On the border.
COLMES: There’s a tape of you saying that to Richard Nixon.
O’NEILL: What’s the next sentence? I was along the Cambodian border. That’s exactly right. What I told Nixon and was trying to tell him in this meeting was I was along the Cambodian border. As Sean clearly read …
COLMES: “I was in Cambodia” — those are your words.
O’NEILL: Yes, but you missed the next sentence. You’re not reading the next sentence, Alan.
COLMES: Yes, along the border. But you’re in Cambodia or you’re not in Cambodia.
O’NEILL: Well, I’m sorry, Alan. I wasn’t — I was talking in a conversation. And the first thing, by the way, I told him in the conversation, as you know, was that I was a Democrat and I voted for Hubert Humphrey.
willyb
Nash:
What was the purpose of your post regarding the Swift Boat Vets, other than to stick you nose so far up John
Nash
Irony is truly dead, willyb, and in your case, a few other things, but since I’m still taking the high moral and rhetorical ground, I’ll refrain from calling you a brainless asshole and just be nice and leave it at asshole. A favor between friends.
Rick, I’m glad you are willing to stand corrected, because your stance needs some correction–you are stepping in the bucket and pulling towards third. The SBVT-ers are every bit as much (or little) slander-chargeable as Kelly. Which fact makes for a beauteous synergy, because they are also as much (or little) “journalists” as Kelly.
Sitting president can’t sue? Not hardly. Sitting president won’t sue? Is he chicken? That’s what all those lawyers you favor are for–it’s not like he has to climb off the mountain bike and go to court or anything. I’m sure Antonin would give him the nod.
The judge threatens you and willyb with a citation for contempt of reason. Something along the lines of: if he was slandered, Kerry has recourse to the courts. As if. But you could pony some cash into the “Save John Kerry’s Reputation” kitty and I’m sure that would get him off that “won’t sue for slander because there’s nothing actionable” pot. But that doesn’t mean the claims were accurate. As willyb says, I wasn’t there, and in spite of what John mocks, in some cases, neither were they.
Did the Bush ex-wife sue for slander? Must have missed the court case, which would have surely followed her myriad McClellanesque “that’s not how I’d characterize it, Les” statements. I missed the retraction by Kelly too. Got words?
Nash
Rick, I apologize for not crediting you with the righteous display of faith-based mirth that begat:
Free speech and political speech are not license to slander. Winners ought to be gracious in letting bygones go, but the defeated can serve the greater good if they can do what they can to clamp down on any abuse of the First Amendment.
that rated more than a [snicker], why it called for a [belly laugh]. I thank you for that, endorphins and all, don’t ya know.
But if there’s actually anything to that, where does Dino sign up?
willyb
Nash:
I have visions of an fat, runny turd when I thing of you on your “high moral and rhetorical ground.” I just can’t seem to get it out of my mind.
Since you can’t seem to grasp the difference, Kitty Kelly was not an eyewitness to GWB’s alleged shortcomings. Whereas, the Swift Boat Vets did eyewitness some of John Kerry’s “meritorious” actions in Vietnam. Happy to help you out with the distinction, just consider it a “favor between friends.”
Nash
That vision thing is a gift, willyb, and you should cherish it.
All 100+ of them then? A steely-eyed bunch of truth tellers if ever there was one. Whereas, the truth, as so often happens, probably lies in between no one saw him and 100+ all saw him shoot himself in the ass while raising his head up over the gun’l and yelling “Hey, who’s in charge here?” But 100+. Yeah, you got numbers on your side there.
And O’Neill is an unreproachable, unimpeachable soul. It’s just his boss who was impeachable, right?
drippingly and bracingly yers, etc.
ppgaz
Kerry’s account of the events in the river are congruent with the official record, and the accounts of locals who were there and saw them happen. The latter were interviewed in a Nightline report last October; prior to the ABC crews showing up, the people there knew virtually nothing about the US campaign, or Swifties. They didn’t know exactly who John Kerry was. But they knew what they saw, and what they saw was what Kerry said happened, and what his friendly mates reported.
Kerry’s account, as I read it, was self-effacing and rather modest. And completely in alignment with other reports of the day.
And then, there’s GWB, whose entire account to the American people, in his own words, about his service was, IIRC:
Hey, I got an honorable discharge.
You can read his, uh, account in the transcript of Meet The Press, March 2004, interviewed by Tim Russert, the bulldog reporter who didn’t even bother to ask a followup question. No followup, either, for the amazing GWB response:
WMD? Well, they might have moved them to another country.
Don’t piss my my leg and tell me it’s raining.
Nash
Careful, ppqaz–willyb is quite suggestible.
He was able to go from my gratuitous use of “asshole” to “runny turd” without pictures and he’s likely to take your “piss my leg” and well, run with it. In any event, the results won’t be pretty.
But your points are well taken, although I don’t think what George did or didn’t do is germane to what John Kerry did or didn’t do.
Parallelism is a logical device, but using it to charge hypocrisy doesn’t advance an argument, because hypocrisy is a rhetorical device, not a logical argument.
Actually, were I a blogger, my first post would be on the egregiousness of the “hypocrisy” charge. From all sides. Makes the sender feel good. Proves nothing.
Nash
More correctly, I should have said
“…because a charge of hypocrisy is a rhetorical device…
willyb
Nash:
You remind me of the typical, elitist, college professor. You have a good command of the words and terms and how things ought to be, but no real concrete idea of how they apply in the real world. It must give you a sense of self-confidence, always being right? It must be nice to live in fantasy land… you should stay there, and cherish it.
As for being suggestible, I am influenced by a logical argument that is supported by more than someone’s belief that it is relevant. Unfortunately, your backhanded opinions are bereft of logic and seem to lack independence. And if you weren’t so busy patting yourself on your back and reveling in your own words, you might see that.
ppgaz
Don’t worry, I always practice safe rhetoric. If my “piss my leg” comment draws an exhibition of untoward behavior, no problemo. I am always wearing my rubbers.
Jon H
He was great in Moonraker.
Darrell
Sojourner wrote: Wasn’t O’Neill the one who lied about his ties to the Republican party?
What ties to the Republican party? You’re a liar Sojourner. O’Neill was a big supporter of Perot and has voted for and supported lots of Dems in his past. He’s no Republican prior to this past election. If O’Neill accepted money from Repubs, despite his Indie/Dem credentials, does this make him “tied” to the Republican party according to jackasses like you?
Sojourner
“Houston lawyer John O’Neill is a Republican — as the Houston Chronicle noted the day after O’Neill’s interview with Blitzer. According to the paper, O’Neill voted in the 1998 Republican state primary. But O’Neill’s ties to the Republican Party extend far beyond party affiliation. During the CNN interview, Blitzer reported that former President Richard Nixon had urged O’Neill to publicly counter Kerry on The Dick Cavett Show, but there is more to the story.
“O’Neill was a creation of the Nixon administration, as Joe Klein detailed in the January 5 issue of The New Yorker. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson told Klein that Kerry was an “articulate” and “credible leader” of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore “an immediate target of the Nixon Administration.” As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to “create a counterfoil” to Kerry. Colson recounted, “We found a vet named John O’Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O’Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group.”
“Articles from the April 21 Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, Boston Globe confirm close ties between O’Neill and the Nixon administration.
“Beyond his role in the Nixon administration’s strategy to undermine Kerry in the 1970s, O’Neill is also connected to Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist (a Nixon appointee) and to former President George H.W. Bush, according to Houston Chronicle articles from March 31 and April 21. In the late 1970s, O’Neill clerked for Rehnquist; in 1990, according to an October 7, 1991, report by Texas Lawyer, the former President Bush considered O’Neill for a federal judgeship vacancy.”
“John E. O’Neill, co-author of the anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, denied having made $7,000 in contributions to Republican candidates and causes — directly contradicting Federal Election Commission (FEC) records detailing his contributions.”
“Thus far, through federal, state, and local records, MMFA has documented $19,650 in contributions O’Neill has made to Republicans and $5,000 to a Democrat.”
scs
Can anybody tell me what people are getting so excited about? What are the details of these Swift Boat Vets supposed praising of Kerry. I didn’t see them on the link John Cole provided.
Which Swift Vets, what did they say, when did they say it? I’d like to know some facts before getting all in a lather about it. I’ll bet half the commentators on here don’t know any more details on this themselves than that little link provided. But that didn’t stop them from hysterically calling out lies and liars.
Darrell
scs, someone at moveon.org blew the whistle that “newly revealed details discredit Swiftvets” and on marching orders, hordes of mindless leftists, without even reading the damn article, parrot this claim while providing NO SPECIFICS whatsoever to support their wild eyed accusations. It takes a special kind of idiot to parrot those claims without basis
Sojourner, again, you are a damn liar to claim John O’Neill is a Republican. He voted for Perot twice, Al Gore in 2000, and had voted for leftist Hubert Humphrey. In his interview with Chris Matthews, O’Neill said prior to Kerry running for President, he hadn’t voted for a Republican Candidate for President SINCE 1988. The fact that the Nixon campaign requested an energetic veteran like O’Neill to debate the likes of Kerry who at the time was smearing his fellow vets as all being murderous butchers like “Genghis Khan”…the fact that the Nixon campaign asked O’Neill to debate Kerry does not show in depth ties to the Repub party, it shows O’Neill’s long time disgust to scum like Kerry who smear their fellow vets. According to the Washington Post, O’Neill says:
“Second, I have donated relatively small amounts of money to Republican candidates but I have donate much greater amounts to Democratic candidates including $20,000 in 2003 to Democratic candidates Bill White and Ron Green. This does not make me a Democrat or a Republican. I tend to vote for the person.
Third, I did and have on occasion voted in Republican and Democratic primaries but most of the time I have not. Sadly Texas has become a one party state and often the only genuine choice is in the republican state. I would much rather prefer for Texas to have a two party system. Understand that my votes are for people and not for parties.”
I realize clueless morons like Sojourner want so desperately to believe that O’Neill was some sort of Republican operative and repeat that lie as if it’s true. That the facts say something completely different means nothing to these people.
Nash
Color Sojourner, me, and about 50 million other voters unconvinced about that O’Neill-is-not-a-partisan-Republican meme. Sadly, we don’t believe a thing the man has to say–not about his motivations now or in the past nor about his political leanings now or in the past. Doubt quoting the evil MSM nor your protestations to know the absolute truth can sway us (as was pointed out, I don’t know it either.)
But, we’re going to consider the source (O’Neill) and his actions, and remain unconvinced.
So, impass. Believe and Worship away.
Darrell
Of course Nash, blind allegiance to dogma in the face of contrary facts is a hallmark of so many on the left
O’Neill’s past documented support of independent and Dem candidatates (Presidential and otherwise) over the years, major contributions to Dems, voting in Dem primaries, etc. mean nothing to people like you. If it makes you happy to lie about the 50 million who supposedly agree with you, who am I to intrude on your fantasy?.. blather on
Rick
You remind me of the typical, elitist, college professor. You have a good command of the words and terms and how things ought to be…
willyb,
You’re way too easily impressed.
The patient’s vocabulary is ordinary, but the sense of self as Great Arbiter is certainly greatly advanced.
The SBVTs lied, and that’s just all there is too it. The Earth remains flat as Kerry’s prose, as well.
Reality-based community. Riiiiight.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Actually, I
Darrell
John O’Neill has contributed to and voted for Dems, Repubs and Independents over the years, he has voted in Dem and Repub primaries, but you dishonestly claim he is “tied” to Republicans.. this is a lie
Stop talking like O
Sojourner
Nash
Interesting. A thread where I stated it was my belief that of the SBVT-ers, the only one I thought an unprincipled liar was John O’Neill, morphs into “the SBVT-ers lied.” Again, typing slowly, D, so you can follow: I think most SBVT-ers signed on for last summer’s campaign for principled reasons, whether one agrees with them or not. But not O’Neill.
You are certainly correct, D, I haven’t asked all 50 million if they agree with me–it’s an opinion. I’m going on a hunch there. But I’m sure some of those 50 million would agree that because he was hired by Nixon’s White House team to smear Kerry, O’Neill is forever tainted as to believability in anything he says going forth. That’s an opinion you obviously do not agree with, but it doesn’t make someone a liar to hold that opinion any more than it makes you a liar to claim something that other people disagree with.
And Rick, I notice your silence on the “sue em if you got em” meme: Any word on Kelly being sued by the Bush ex for the “cokehead stock market felon” claim?
Absent some evidence that she has been sued, I’m forced to assume that the absence of a Kerry v. SVBT suit for slander isn’t an objective admission of anything on the part of Sen. Kerry.
Oh, and you can have that arbiter thingy back, it’s scratchy and hot and has always looked better on you. No tag backs.
Nash
As to something far more important, that my vocabulary is ordinary…don’t I get any credit at all for
egregiousness???
[sniff]
I was so proud of having just learned that one. Ah, well.
Rick
My point, which is either weakly expressed or vigorously evaded, is that if the SBVT were indeed lying, they should be sued.
Should.
Be.
Sued.
And Ketchup kept-man certainly has connection to lawyers. My admitted bias is that Kerry is, well, a scummy doofus, so I was receptive to the Swiftee claim.
But along with that receptiveness was an awareness of what they were tilting against–that is, official records, such as are known.
Perhaps I’ve got the SBVT messages mixed up, and their broadcast ads may have stayed on very safe ground, while the Unfit to Command book, and guest spots on TV and radio, may have been the only instances of stating or suggesting that the officer Kerry gamed the system, etc.
A further “perhaps” is that there are different legal standards for truthfulness in broadcast ads (public airwaves), as opposed to libel via commentary and published material.
Maybe if Ms. Kelly’s book gets to another printing, disputed passages will be excised. That seems to be what happens in such instances. Usually after a lawsuit is contemplated.
If the Swiftees are lying, they should be doing so at some risk. Like risk to O’Neill’s law license. Why isn’t there risk? These guys could’ve effectively opposed Kerry without “going there;” that they chose to do so suggests to receptive old me that they were safe to do so because truth is a defense.
Now, do I understand correctly that you disagree, oh majestic Arbiter?
Cordially…
Darrell
Look, you have the right to believe that Kerry was wrong in trying to stop the war. But you (and the Swift Boat liars) DO NOT have the right to spread lies about Kerry or anyone else because you disagree with him.
Tell me Sojourner, what specific “lies” did I spread aside from quoting Kerry’s own words in context, and specifically, what “lies” did the Swiftboat Vets spread about Kerry?
No one is saying that atrocities never occured during the Vietnam war. What I and others most definitely take issue with is Kerry’s trumped up smear claiming that atrocities were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command”
Day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels?? Now THAT is what a lying smear looks like. And Kerry is a scumbag for doing it
Rick
Darrell,
And Kerry also acknowledged committing one or more “war crimes.” So Kerry is either liar or a war criminal. What to choose?
And to think that was the precise leftwingnut rap against Bush. Oh, ain’t irony ironic?
Cordially…
Sojourner
To the extent that you support everything O’Neill says, you are spreading lies as well if you continue to do so in the face of contradictory facts.
As to the day-to-day occurrence, I doubt that anyone knows for sure exactly everything that went on. I’m sure that Bob Kerrey’s admission suggests that a lot went on that remains undiscussed. As to officer awareness, wasn’t that demonstrated by My Lai (sp?)?
I’m not going to get bogged down in an issue of semantics. The reality is a lot of shit went on over there (as is the case in most, if not all, wars). I think the point Kerry was making was to raise the question of just how much good was the US doing over there. If the intent was to make life better for the South Viet Namese but the reality was a good deal of pain and death, that was an important question to be raised to the American people. At what point does it not make sense to destroy that which you are trying to save?
I suspect that same question will be raised fairly soon in terms of Iraq.
Sojourner
Oh the irony of criticizing somebody for voluntarily serving his country, including taking the heat that accompanied recognizing the reality that the country was mired in a bad war. Oh the irony of having worked with Viet Nam to try to find out the fate of those who never came home. How incredibly unpatriotic indeed.
It would have been so much smarter (and patriotic) to sort of serve in the National Guard, then start a war that he himself would never fight in nor anyone in his family.
Ah, the delicious irony of those war-mongering Repubs. Let somebody else die for their wars, then cut their benefits should they survive.
Irony indeed.
Rick
At what point does it not make sense to destroy that which you are trying to save?
Soj,
From a glass-house dweller, I suppose you meant “…does it make sense…”
It might also be asked at what point does it make sense to abandon an idealistic project?
“Cutting your losses” is a reasonable stance only when all manner of current and future human and material costs are reckoned. Thus the debates.
Cordially…
Nash
Mostly, but not totally in disagreement.
I acknowledge the fine distinctions you are making. Just not sure how boat rocking they need to be.
I’m not a lawyer, I’m assuming you are not one either, because I think there are big holes in your should be sued mantra. Can you tell us authoritatively that such a suit would have a chance of success, or is it all blather on your part? I can’t say, but I *can* say that that ol razor thingy suggests the reason Kerry isn’t suing anyone’s ass isn’t because he’s afraid the lurid truth will out, but because he has reason to think there’s no chance for success or no success worth the chance (and the ketchup money). The former (your) theory requires paranoia as an adjunct, the latter (mine) doesn’t. We don’t know, do we, because we aren’t lawyers, right?
So, assuming “should be sued” isn’t anything but feel good, what’s the point? It’s certainly not a logical argument that Kerry is untruthful and the SVBT-ers are telling the honest truth. So, again, what was the point with that exercise?
On the Kelly thing, I’m more in my element. You forget her publicist’s statement that she stands by every charge in the book, including the one the Bush ex-wife wishes to change her tune on (Kelly stands by her notes of at least one in-person interview and several phone conversations) and doesn’t plan to change a thing (btw, another printing? Heaven forfend. That’s why God created Memory Holes.)
So, once again, where’s that lawsuit? The not by a sitting prez doesn’t cut it for me, all those “a President Clinton isn’t above having his ass hauled into court” decisions clouding my recent memories.
It would be interesting if someone could point to the last 10 or so instances of a public figure recovering successfully (in the US) for slander or libel. The last 5? The last 2? Richard Perle had to threaten to sue for libel in the UK (internet posting and all) because it just wasn’t going to work in the US?
Again, if dog, rabbit. Meaning, I’m going to make the leap that if there isn’t a large risk, but indeed a huge payout, in lying about a public figure in whatever the hell venue you want to name, why would you choose *not* to lie? Goes for Kelly, goes for O’Neill. They both stand up for themselves with gusto.
Again, not a lawyer here, so check me, but I think “libel” and “slander” are just two tort forms (in the US) of defamation, libel being in published form and slander, spoken.
Against all this, does it remain an argument settler to continue to maintain that Kerry is proven to be bad goods because he hasn’t sued someone for calling him mean names? Wasn’t that the intention of your original traipse down this path or have I just gone down the road not taken alone?
And, possibly all appearances to the contrary, this has been an enjoyable thread back and forth (for me). I thank you (and our host) for the opportunity.
Sojourner
It looks like my previous response is lost in the Internet ether. If it eventually surfaces, my apologies for the double posts.
Nope. I meant it as written. The issue comes down to the question of at what point does it no longer make sense to fight a war when it becomes apparent that to win the war would mean destroying the country and its people. The reason for going in in the first place was to save the South Viet Namese people. I think that Kerry was trying to point out that the cost of the war to the Viet Namese was becoming greater than the potential benefits.
It wasn’t a question of cutting our losses, it was a question of whether it made sense to destroy the country to “save” it.
Rick
Nash,
If I were a lawyer, I’d feel obliged to go to some prairie state in order to fellate billygoats until I got back my self respect.
But I suppose lawyers do have some uses, other than as a credential to elective office.
Pardon me for not parsing your lengthy response. Or just return the favor. But…
Lawsuits and the threats thereof are a plague in which I can usually be found decrying.
However, if Kerry was well and truly smeared–and his “public stock” certainly was damaged–he has a case. He doesn’t need the money, but he could use a symbolic victory, and slanderers/libellers should face some music. Pour encourager les autres.
I really don’t believe I’m suggesting he throw himself over a grenade or anything. Just that if he has a case, he should pursue it to punish the conspiring evildoers. I emphatically don’t admire or respect him, but this would give me cause to acclaim him as a stand-up guy on something. So he should do it for my own dear sake, if nothing else. ;)
Especially, in a point I’ve made a few times, when it’s a broadcast campaign.
Bush photoshopped as Hitler was a fine, yuk-yuk streaming video @ move.org. I don’t want to see that stuff, or comparable right-wing lies/hyperbole, as a new “negative advertising” standard.
I’ve said I believe O’Neill et al, based on my biases, the dog-not-barking circumstances we’re arguing about, my own (admittedly neither deep nor important) experiences with Navy documentation and observation of wardroom types & their ethos, and an opinion formed over the years since Winter Soldier about the jr. senator from Massachusetts.
But, like a broken record, I’ve said that the Swiftee’s asses should be pulled through a knothole if they conspired to lie. Goodness knows, there was more–and more current–stuff on which to criticize and oppose Kerry.
You may not have had exposure to us rightwingers at web play, but 9 or 10 months ago, there was some grumbling about the Swiftees here on the starboard side because the Cambodia/medals, etc. stuff was minor stuff. The big news being meeting with the VC in Paris while still a reserve officer, and the war crimes charges made to Congress.
So the SBVT emphasis–it being either their eyewitness experience, or their conspiracy of slander and libel– wasn’t acclaimed by all digital brownshirts as a Magic Bullet. More of a squeak-toy that got a good chew.
Clinton’s experience in the Paula Jones suit is not applicable. I said I don’t believe sitting Presidents should *launch* lawsuits while in office. Talk about your power imbalance.
And when it comes to balances, I wonder how to calculate the publics’ esteem for one Kitty Kelly, with her numerous controversial bios (no such thing as bad publicity), vs. the SBVT.
Not going anywhere with the point, but that Dubya suffered not demonstrable harm (since he had Diebold locking up all Ohio votes, I gather). As for bro Neil’s ex, a she-said/she-said lawsuit has less chance then the finger in Wendy’s chili. Which Teresa Heinz pretended to enjoy last year, IIRC.
Jeeperes, I AM *NOT* THAT INTERESTED IN THIS STUFF. But I remain–
Cordially…