Tsk, Tsk
Dean
I have been mildly amused to watch the Bush-hating left's reaction to the Swift Vet's story. First it was shock. Then it was angry denunciation and ridicule. Then it became an increasingly frenzied panic, while the mainstream press--whose reporters and editors vote overwhelmingly Democratic in every election--have maintained almost complete silence except to sneer at the Swifties.
The latest attempt has been by the increasingly laughingstock New York Times, which today finally broke its silence on the story with the shocking, stunning revelation that some of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth have long hated John Kerry (oooh! aaaah!) and that after the Democratic Convention was over, some big-money Republicans gave them money to fund an ad.
Which anyone who's actually read the Swift Boat Vets for Truth web site already knows.
What's been most stunning about the Vets' story, however, is not their allegations, but the fact that this group has been able to completely bypass the mainstream media. Even more stunning, when Kerry-friendly newspapers have launched attacks on them, they have been able to attack back, answering charges, pointing out where they feel they've been misquoted or misrepresented, and answering their accusers point-by-point--and they have not had to rely on sympathetic reporters and editors to get their message out. Just a web page, and a host of citizen journalists (i.e. "webloggers") to point their message out.
What's even more laughable is those in the press (like the amazingly pompous and inane New York Times) who are now tut-tutting about how awful it is that these independently funded groups are allowed to be heard. Oh, what is it you're afraid of, Mr. News Editor Man? That you don't get to be the gatekeeper of what people are allowed to hear about anymore?
The Kerry campaign has been in an absolute frenzy this week, and it's reached its fever pitch with this advertisement attacking the Swift Boat Vets. The funny part being, it doesn't actually answer most of their charges, or even identify who they are, but it lets us know that people who've given Bush money have also given the Swifties money. Oh My GOD! People who like Bush are willing to give money to a group that opposes Kerry? CALL THE FBI!!! WHAT AN OUTRAGE!!!
The most hilarious thing has been watching John Kerry suddenly come out and demand that George W. Bush condemn the Swift Boat Vets. Even though, since he helped pass the campaign finance laws that made the Swift Boat Vets for Truth possible, he knows perfectly well that it would be illegal for Bush to coordinate with them. Furthermore, John Kerry has stood silently or even applauded when independent groups like Michael Moore and the utterly vicious MoveOn.org have said some of the most horrible things imaginable about President Bush over the last year.
But now suddenly, a completely independent group has just smacked Senator Kerry in the toe with a hammer, and he's howling for Bush to make it stop!
In the meantime, the Swift Vets have strongly answered the more recent press assaults on them, as well as other charges against them.
You can smell the fear in the Kerry camp: a huge collection of John Kerry's band of brothers hates his guts, including men who served on his Swift Boat, the commanders of the boats that served alongside his, several people who were in combat with him, and every single officer in his chain of command during Vietnam. More and more people are learning of this, and the best Kerry can do is ask Bush to make them shut up!
Meanwhile, the Swifties are showing up on more and more television and radio shows. Furthermore, as Instapundit notes, it appears that a growing number of very well-known reporters are meeting with the Swifties behind the scenes and finding them far more credible than they expected.
But here's the bigger story: The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe are no longer the arbiters of what's important and what's not, of whose criticisms of our politicians will be heard and whose will be ignored.
The Internet has detected the mainstream media as a form of censorship and simply routed around them.
To hide this fact from themselves, newspaper people create elaborate myths about who they are, their role in a democracy, and the difficulty of fulfilling their responsibilities. They have high hiring standards [in terms of education and experience] but they forget the work doesn't require it.
Meanwhile, these highly educated folks see the college classmates go into law, medicine, engineering, business and the like and make bundles of money. This creates resentment, which actually turns them left. Only an unfair system, you see, would fail to reward them with the money and power they feel is their due. They become social critics. And they don't like what they see. The problem is they don't understand how often they're really talking about themselves.
Blogs are a good thing in that they act as a check and a balance against the press -- a power that was unchecked for far too long. Stories like the Cambodia/Kerry thing thus can force the mainstream press's hand -- and dilute their voice. Which is good.
The downside of blogs, I see, is twofold:
1. Increased stridency in the national debate, as more and more angry and shrill voices are heard.
2. The destruction of spelling and grammar, and a subsequent loss of linguistic precision.
The Kerry camp calls on Bush to "take the ads off," when they know full well he didn't put them on. Fine. Kerry then says Bush should at least, in the interest of fair play, condemn the unauthorized ads.
HOWEVER!
Did Kerry criticize Moveon when they attacked Bush's Vietnam-era military record? Nuh-uh. Should Bush attack Moveon, then tell Kerry to "take the ads off"?
You can't have it both ways, JK.
N.B., the Bush Air Guard story is over. It played out too early to have much of an effect on the election, whereas if it had been deployed now, it would have been far, far more effective. When you unlimber the heavy artillery is actually more important than what your heavy artillery is.
But for the Vets there is good news and bad news.
The good news is that they can fling all the mud they want. And although none of it will stick, it still leaves a huge stain behind. That's really what they, and their moneymen, wanted all along.
The bad news is that the Vets' reputations are ruined for life. They don't have the support infrastructure that a John Kerry has to fight back against the counter-allegations that the Swiftboat Vets can't keep their story straight for more than a couple of days at a time. Of course their moneymen know this and, it seems, they don't care. They don't care who gets hurt in the process — they just want to take down Kerry. If the Swiftboat Vets go down in the process, who cares?
After all, politics ain't beanbag.
AMBUSH JOURNALISM...OR MY EVENING WITH CAVEMAN CHRIS MATTHEWS by Michelle Malkin
Of course, what the media tried not to let us know was that their "AWOL witness" is suffering from Alzheimers, and said as much as why he couldn't remember Bush, or even himself, being on station.
Ha! I love that!
Very slightly OT:
CNN just announced on air that they will be carrying the new Swifties ad shortly.
I think 'shamefull' is more apropos.
Seems like there are two main prongs:
1. Any and all attacks on the Swiftvets themselves, on any basis, using whatever dirt they can find, whether relevant to the issues at hand or not.
2. Addressing the Switftvets specific points. They're not *ignoring* them any more, as such, but the strategy is to hammer away at the weakest, or hardest to prove, arguments (i.e., "Kerry didn't deserve his medals") while belittling the ironclad arguments (Cambodia and the magic hat.) Classic example in the Washington Post today:
Well, case closed, then, right?
Criticize all you want, Mr. Kerry, but release your records and let us see who's telling the truth.
Now the story is that these men, all of them combat veterans in their 50s and 60s, have somehow been snookered and fooled by a bunch of "money men." So these decorated combat vets, enlisted men as well as fellow officers, are suddenly a bunch of naifs in the woods, fooled by big evil Republican donors. Big evil fatcats who have fooled, fooled them into denouncing John Kerry as unfit for command and a man who betrayed his band of brothers?
Is this "payback?" Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to see it that way. I'm sure you and some of your moonbat hate-freak Michael Moore loving friends all want to see it that way.
Tell it to Joseph Ponder. Tell it to Van Odell. Tell it to Jack Chenoweth. Tell it to Al French. Tell it to Ralph Dobson.
Tell it to my stepfather.
They served, they were decorated, and sometimes they were condemned and shamed for it, while John Kerry said they were war criminals and liars.
But you think it's all George W. Bush's fault, because some people who like George Bush think Kerry's a scumbag and gave them a few hundred thousand bucks? Okay. Maybe you're right.
Here's my piece of advice: this is what happens when hating the incumbent matters more to you than the truth. Or when party affiliation matters more to you than the actual ideas you believe in. You nominate a guy who looks electable and you don't think real hard about looking too hard at him? Whose fault is that?
By the way: If after all of this the American people choose to make John Kerry their Commander In Chief--including if he should lose the popular vote and win the electoral college vote--I will be the very first to stand in line and say that it is time to move on and welcome our new President and wish him the best, and to tell his obsessive right-wing critics to shut the fuck up.
Quote me on that.
"Well, case closed, then, right?"
The newest version seems to be that it wasn't Christmas 1968 but in January 1969. But..wait..how could that be ...they were singing christmas songs?
In January ?
"The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'..."
Drudge
A little while ago, I had a discussion - short, but it was there, where he said, you couldn't really get quotes right, it was too hard. Remember that IB?
As a working journalist today, what you describe above is nothing like I see. You've got a fantasy, your own record of events - just like the Swift Boat Veterans.
I still can't believe Dean's outrage over this trainwreck of a story. They are now wiling to trash the reputation of anyone that earned a medal apparently. And their own reputations.
The news media has given it enough coverage - and guess what it is timely; not like the aniemic coverage of Bush's drug and drinking past in 2000. "I'm not going to talk about it." National Media: OK, sir. Sorry sir.
Remember for a lot of this shit, it's all based on memories.
you say the SVBFT have provided proof?????????? They told a lot of things that got put down in a book - written by two scuzs. My, people do hate them some Kerry.
Full court media press today trying to spin the Swifties as republican dupes or liars or the direct creation of the republican attack machine. ABC was all over the spin. Fox however boiled it down pretty well "all of the charges (Kerry charges) amount to guilt by association and are irrelevent. What matters is the truth about Kerry's record."
After watching the closely for weeks, this morning I was struck that the media stone walling has probably given the story much stronger "legs" than if they'd provided it more initial air time. Fox had reps from a survey firm on. In the battle ground states where the Swift ad aired 60% of voters had seen and were familar with the ad. Also 27% of voters who classed themselves as either undecided or leaning to Kerry found the ad troubling and were not sure that they could vote for Kerry.
Assuming I heard the comments correctly I find the word "could" in that statement very interesting. I suspect it reveals a much greater impact.
In our system, eyewitness testimony is evidence. The Swiftees have provided lots of evidence. A common mistake (which John Irving made) is to confuse evidence with proof.
The Swiftees themselves aren't confused. I've seen John O'Neil and heard Larry Thurow. They sound very credible, and both were quite careful about the difference between evidence and proof. John O'Neill, in particular, is very clear that he believes John Kerry was a brave man and a good soldier. Larry Thurow did engage in some speculation about why Kerry might have stretched the truth. It was clear to me from his words that he was speculating and that he knew he was speculating. We know from the Christmas in Cambodia story that Kerry does tell stretchers, and Larry's speculations made sense. Just to be sure I'm clear, his testimony was evidence, not proof. His speculations were neither, but in legal terms they certainly concern motive. Kerry had motive, means and opportunity to stretch things in the Bronze Star/third Purple heart action.
Kerry's incorrect, inflamatory and irresponsible Senate testimony has come back to haunt him. He deserves this scrutiny.
Yours,
Wince
Which one would that be, by chance, Andrew?
the Swift Boat Vets have provided proof.
You say this...and then you imply that certain facts are "missing."
It's up to Kerry now to debunk it. Y'know, kinda like when Bush released his entire military record
You can't have it both ways. Either the record is now complete re: the Swiftboaters claims, or it's not.
Which is it?
As a working journalist today, what you describe above is nothing like I see. You've got a fantasy, your own record of events - just like the Swift Boat Veterans.
Now that's a bollixed construction. Good thing we're both working journalists; otherwise, your first sentence would make no sense. Second sentence is Tu Quoque, so my response is, "right back atcha."
IB Bill - you are a hack and you were a hack. this is not a direct personal attack friends.
As a professional writer, I understand the need for not giving an eff about grammar and capitalization when you're not getting paid, but holy shit. Dude, gimme a comma so I know what the hell you're talking about. Are you saying your statement is not a personal attack on me? Or are you talking about the Swiftboats. Who are the friends? How can you say that's not a personal attack when it's a personal attack?
As for the larger Swiftboat issue, if you head over to my blog you'll see I don't care one way or the other about whole Kerry / Swiftboat thing. He thought he was in Cambodia, something happened to him, I don't think it's worth sorting out.
For God's sake, man. Do you believe in your party first, or your country first?
Fuck me if I'm wrong. I swear I'll vote for Kerry, I really will, if this all turns out to be a smear campaign. But what does it take to convince you that there's a problem here?!?!?!?
When does winning become more important that what you actually believe in?
Think of it more like a court case where the case for the prosecution is complete, however it seems the defendant has locked himself in his car refusing to enter court.
It's rather rich for a Kerry supporter to accuse someone of wanting it both ways.
If there's one thing the 'Kevin Bacon' game showed - everybody is connected via very short chains. It would be interesting to see what the chart for, say, 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War' would look like.
I thought Chris Matthews was going to have a strok last night on Hardball.
My how the tables have turned.
Payback is a beyotch!
Actually, I thought Michelle Malkin's eyeballs were going to pop right out of their eye-sockets, but that's just my opinion.
Re: Moore's work — it differs from the Swiftboaters in that it is not a political ad, but rather a movie. Or as you might say, a "movie."
It is quite clear to me that Matthews was not interested in an actual debate, but rather a shouting match in which he would not allow Ms. Malkin to answer his questions.
I used to be a fan of Matthews. I like the fire in his belly and his passion for politics. I have been the same way since the age of 6. However, I will no longer watch his show because of the display of absolute insanity last night.
In this case, the fact of the slander is less interesting than the source.
This is just a reminder: not all the people slandering military service are from the 527s.
(Via Don Sensing.)
The Swift Boat Veterans claims have already shown to stand up to scrutiny. No one has successfully debunked a single claim they document, and their claims are already being confirmed by other sources. Kerry has provided no evidence to counter them, and in fact refuses to do so in direct contradiction to the stance he took over Bush's military records in the phony Bush-AWOL story. I referred to proof in the scientific method, where as you have observable and repeatable behavior. The weight of the evidence indicates that Kerry is at least a liar, and very likely, as the SBVFT insists, Unfit for Command.
Nice dodge Ara, but one of these days reality is going to slap you full in the head. Looking forward to reading your columns ten years from now when you talk about how young and foolish you were these days. Because then you'll be joining the vast majority of former Democrats who woke up.
Moore's called his work a documentary movie, which is differnet than just a plain old movie. A documentary movie, as defined by Wikipedia, is "A broad category of cinematic expression, traditionally the only characteristic common to all documentary films is that they are meant to be factual.".
If you're trying to say that a movie cannot be a political ad and a political ad cannot be a movie, where is this written? I beleive either could be either OR both.
In the case of the Moore film, it was respresented to the masses as a documentery. However, the filmakers knew that portions of the film were innacurtate, and hence knew it's portrayal as a documentary was deceptive, at best.
I've seen a lot of political ads in my day, and one thing you can say about most of them is they are deceptive, at best.
So, I ask, why is a documentary movie which was not a documentary movie and whose makers knew was not a documentary movie, and whose purpose for said documentary movie was to influence peoples opinions towards a particular political persuasion, not a political ad?
I have the answer, and it is this: The same reason why a moonbat is different than a left wing nut.
Very well said!
I would really like to see Dean's World as I have seen it at it's best. You know I am a fan.
There are ways to defend the Swift Vet's, and ways not to. Let them say what they want to say. They served in Viet Nam. Kerry served.
Ara, I give you so much credit for hanging in here. I have seen some people leave and you have been faithful. You are very passionate in your views and that is good. My Mother was a very passionate Democrat and I loved that about her. She was over in Okinawa during the Viet Nam war. Before her mental breakdown in 1963, I would hear her with my Dad and would think *they* were mad at one another! I would walk down the hall to their bedroom to, *peek*. Dad going on and on about what he thought and vice-versa. He too was very passionate. They had enough respect for each other and realized you just cant change one another but LISTEN and think about it before blowing up. My Mom got sick and in those days, early 60's not enough was understood or known about, mental illness. It was a closet thing.
Bare with me, I really do have a point in even bringing that up. Things were *secret* and that was how it was in the early 60's. There was a song, *I fought the Law, and the Law Won*, and *I'm a havin' a nervous breakdown*. It was a rebel time in those early 60's. Elvis Presley made the media GO NUTS because he did his Hound Dog pelvic moves!!!! Can you imagine at all why Ed Sullivan, the REALLY BIG SHOW back then got nervous and cameras were moved up?
Most people in their 50's and some in their 40's remember this era. We were there. Kennedy, the Cuban Missle crisis. I am so serious how fightened we were. School classes were let out and we had to go home! It was scarey. Our country was going to get hit! Our mainland! We were only told over the radio and some in the news. Do you know the sound that comes from a disaster horn blarring? Children were sent home, depending on which coast you were on, otherwise you were asked to get under your chairs.
Kennedy is then shot! The ENTIRE country went into schock, schock! We saw it on television at the 5:00 news and 10:00 and then more bits and pieces. The NATION mourned. Johnson getting sworn in, that was very scarey. A president shot-a vice president getting sworn in!
I was a young Mother, very young...16 during the Viet Nam war! My mother after her mental breakdown years earlier and subsequent alcohol problems and turmoil all of, well not all went through as teens shaped us quite a bit. She went over to Okinawa and took my sister with her after my parents, DIVORCE. That too was a BIG THING, a hush hush.
My Mother was in Okinawa and she knew heartbreak after heartbreak of OUR US TROOPS over there. She went to live with my Grandmother and slowly got better and off the booze. She got help due to my Grandmother's high position over there and got a decent job and started working hard as a budget analyst.
A very smart Grandmother and my Mom getting her health together saw so much. The letters to me about what my mother saw made me feel so bad for her and I missed her so much but...from the eyes of her superiors in cival service and my grandmothers job as an ass't under some high ranking generals, I would say I got a pretty good grasp on it.
Our troops came home to a country so divided. The war protests were horrible. They were I would say, revolting! REVOLTING TO OUR SERVICEMEN! That is who mattered...THE SOLDIERS RETURNING HOME!!!
Not the protesters in the beginning. IN THE BEGINNING! IT GOT HORRIBLY OUT OF HAND!!!
I do remeber Jane Fonda, not John Kerry. Most people would AGREE on that. She was a very very young SEXY movie STAR!...Look back at a movie she made...BARBRAELLA!!! That was considered, bordering naughty, not sure how to rate it. Ratings back then. When she protested and went overseas and cameras followed her. You would have to understand why it hurt so many families of soldiers here. Their sons and daughters were over there. I am talking about the parents of our soldiers. The wives, the sisters, the grandmothers.
Now we are in a war again and history is repeating.
I am so sorry to see this name calling and anger and profanity reach such a high level.
I can absolutely say each and every word in profanity that any of you men can.(and women). I have heard it throughout my life and I too in anger have dispensed it. It is allowed here in Dean's World. I think there is better way to conduct your writings because offensive is offensive and soon you lose credit because you sound like a clanging bell and people turn from you.
Kerry is running rather you like it or NOT. He and his supporters WILL ATTACK!
Bush is the POTUS and he is running again, like it or NOT! He and his supporters WILL ATTACK!
Sort through what you have to sort through. There is a soldier I like that is serving our country on the homefront. He talks about his wandering ways and wondering if he should even go off to become a minister. He said once he joined the army, he grew up fast! He was put onto BOOT CAMP! He hated the disipline in the beginning and then accepted it like a man. He did his tour of duty overseas and met his wife. He has stories I would love to read of his travels. I encouraged him to submit a story or two. He hasn't. I look for him like I do Paul, Arnold, Steven, Mark,Catch22, Ara, Moe, JaneM., Allison, Lucy, Dani and more.
Some people I miss that have gone and I understand. I do not respond like I did.
If you are a writer, a journalist, a blogger...Get over IT if someone says something you do not like. Let it be. Write your article. Check the comments LATER!
ONE LAST THING...WHY IS IT WE CAN HEAR JUST ONE BAD WORD AGAINST US...TWENTY NICE THINGS!!!! NICE THINGS!!!!
WHAT STICKS OUT IN OUR HEAD!?!
Dean, try posting this as submitted by our one O'le LADY who is CRAZY!!!!
Tempers fly but come on!
I am a woman that did love a US Veteran from Viet Nam. I was here when our Vets came home. The uproar was awful around this country. It was.
A lot of people out there do not know what blogs are yet and they still listen to television news, talk radio, some do read blogs but hang in there. More and more soon will so work at your craft and enjoy writing. It is a gift for some people. It is the love of the written word. You really will get more attention when you show respect and try not to let everything hang out, so to speak. Look how many magazines are sold. People still hang out in their familiar ways through books and good journalism.
In January ?"
Kery is apparently Armenian (the name was originally Kerrian)
:)
Uh huh — which Moore presumes to call a "documentary" and which the Left unabashedly embraces (see "Michael Moore at Democratic National Convention" for more here) as Holy Writ. Ara, please — no more arrant nonsense. "It is not a political ad" my ass; it was never intended as anything else. Calling a skunk a rose doesn't confer petals and a pleasant aroma, no matter how hard some would wish it. We have an expression out here in flyover country:
[gaptoothed unlettered oaf mode]
"That dawg ain't gonna hunt."
[/gaptoothed unlettered oaf mode]
Sorry Bubba; calling "bullshit" here.
Then later:
Yep – that plays pretty fast and loose with the, you know, actual facts. About as clever and subtle as a sledgehammer. ‘Minds me of a Ted Rall ‘toon. As in Loonie.
Candidate Kerry has campaigned on very little more than his Viet Nam record thus far; somewhat more thorough scrutiny of same is certainly not without merit. MSM, until very recently, hasn't thought it important enough to do its job on this issue, which I think was Dean's entire point. Nearly all of what little coverage there has been has had little or nothing to do with anything other than the character and veracity of the Swiftboaters themselves, which misses the mark — so far. We're not voting for or against them; if they have cogent concerns to extend with respect to Kerry's behavior and character (and it certainly appears they do), the Fourth Estate ought to start doing a little spadework from the other end of the tunnel. Thus far, that's been sorely lacking. This elephant in the corner isn't simply going to evaporate. The "It was all over 30 years ago — can't we just move on?" defense won’t work here; Kerry himself midwifed the issue.
Again, if (and I stress this is a VERY large if) all or a significant preponderance of the Swiftboaters turn out to be lying or at the very least manufacturing evidence in colluding to smear the candidate, I'll eat my next statement. Such a conspiracy seems unlikely in the extreme; too many people involved to keep it hanging together for long enough to achieve its intent. Iceberg's Razor bets against.
That Kerry's campaign won't release his records in their entirety certainly leaves a very large hole in what the electorate should know about that episode in his life, especially since he himself has made it pretty much the central theme of his campaign. "Sauce for the goose . . . "
'Berg
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.