August 21, 2004
At Long Last, They Have No Sense of Decency
In Sunday's Chicago Tribune -- a notoriously conservative publication, even by the U.S. media's standards -- you will find compelling testimony by William Rood, an editor at the Trib who has broken his silence on what he witnessed while fighting in Viet Nam on the same mission that Bush surrogates are claiming John Kerry exaggerated for personal gain. In his story titled "Anti-Kerry vets not there that day," Rood writes:
Many of us wanted to put it all behind us—the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service—even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.
But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.
I'm sure the GOP machine is already busy trying to find skeletons in Mr. Rood's closet. But until Joseph Welch climbs up out of his grave, he'll do nicely.
Maureen Dowd has a fine Sunday column, as well, on the Bush family's sleazy stable of "wet" operatives, from Atwater to Rove and beyond.
Posted by Vernam at August 21, 2004 11:28 PM | TrackBackThe people vote every day. Its called ratings.
Posted by: Olamdom at August 23, 2004 08:56 PMSince when do "The People" get to vote on what's newsworthy? I thought that was the "mandate" of publishers, editors and network news managers.
Posted by: Jim at August 23, 2004 08:19 PMThe american people have a strange way of deciding for themselves what is newsworthy and valid. From what I have seen, they seem to think it's both.
Posted by: Olamdom at August 23, 2004 08:09 PMPerhaps you didn't understand, Olam. I am calling the SBVFT to task for trying to distort the facts, to fit their agenda. I wasn't saying you were doing that. Nothing personal - don't misunderestimate me.
And I am rather pleased you agree the Kerry defenders are presenting facts, as opposed to prejudiced opinions! However the "fact" that there are a dozen bitter old vets, shouldn't be newsworthy; let alone a valid reason for anyone to consider Kerry unfit.
Posted by: deano at August 23, 2004 07:24 PMLook up "stipulate."
Posted by: Olamdom at August 23, 2004 04:52 PMPoint of order on my last comment: Thurlow may, or may not, have been involved in the battle in question. There are conflicting reports where he was, relative to the action.
I try to remain objective.
Posted by: deano at August 23, 2004 04:42 PMIt's one thing to have an opinion. But it's entirely another matter to intentionally distort the truth and lie, in an attempt to camouflage the opinion as fact. Defamation of character? Perjury? Plain old mean-spirited BS?
And in case anyone missed it, yet another vet, who was actually at the battle on Bay Hap River, was quoted in the Washington Post yesterday, concurring with Rassmann, Kerry and all the other real evidence.
Which just keeps begging the question: why haven't *any* of the actual participants in the battle, sided with the Swifties? And..."where was George?"
Posted by: deano at August 23, 2004 04:33 PMFor the sake of this argument only, I’ll stipulate that everything you said in your post is true. That being said, it is also true that twelve of Kerry’s peers from Vietnam think he is unfit to be Commander in Chief. Only one supports him. The voters will decide if that “fact” is relevant.
Posted by: Olamdom at August 23, 2004 12:28 PMWhy make voting decisions based on distortions and outright lies? If you don't like Kerry's politics, that's one thing; but lets stick to the facts here. Vernam wants to hear a fact or two about why dubya deserves a second term. I know that will remain an unrequited request.
Here are some Facts you need to know about this Swift BS:
At the Dem Convention, Kerry's crew members, those still alive, joined him on the podium.
John O’Neill never even met Kerry in Vietnam.
No one quoted in the book served on John Kerry’s boat when he earned his combat medals.
On Aug. 22, William B. Rood went on record endorsing Kerry's war record. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during *the same* operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
George Elliott, one of the swifties, has recounted his affidavit: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. . . . I knew it was wrong . . . In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
In a second affidavit, Elliott also said: "I do not claim to have personal knowledge as to how Kerry shot the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong."
Former Sec. of the Navy and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner said that John Kerry deserved the Silver Star.
Former Gen. Tommy Franks called the attacks on Kerry “vitriolic” and “hyperbole.”
Senator McCain calls the ad dishonest and dishonorable. He's requested Bush condemn the ad. Bush has refused.
The same public relations firm that attacked McCain in 2000 is handling the attacks against Sen. Kerry.
Top Texas GOP donor Bob Perry and longtime Bush supporter is funding the Swift Boat attacks.
Two of the veterans attacking Kerry now have praised Kerry in the past. George Elliot said Kerry was “unsurpassed” and Grant Hibbard wrote in a fitness report that Kerry was a “top sailor.”
The Swift Boat Veterans attack John Kerry for his Bronze Star, but offer no proof of their attacks. The Navy documented John Kerry’s heroism and awarded him the Bronze Star.
One attacker, Larry Thurlow, won the Bronze Star on the same day Kerry did. Thurlow, in their book, falsely claimed that they were not under fire. In fact, the Washington Post (8/19/04) reports that Thurlow’s own Bronze star certificate confirms “all units” of the five boat flotilla were under "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire.”
---
These are the same attack tactics used against McCain in 2000. Deflect and distort, so the public doesn't look too carefully at Bush's lack of an honorable Vietnam record.
The swifties agenda is partly this diversionary tactic and partly old bad-blood, from Kerry's anti-Vietnam war stance, after he returned from active duty. The Vietnam Vets Against the War were an extremely significant and controversial voice. Many vets didn't like what they had to say then and some still don't.
People who have served their country honorably, can and do condemn war (It's a safe bet, in the coming months and years, we're going to be hearing a lot of that from Desert Freedom vets). You can be a patriot of the highest order and still denounce unjust wars and atrocities. It's allowed in America. Some of the Swifties still don't get that. But the others - and Bush's WH cadre - are only in this debate for their own political interests. And that is truly dishonest and dishonorable.
Posted by: deano at August 23, 2004 08:53 AMTOF, you have the floor. Our breath is bated in anticipation of your compelling defense of why No-op George should be retained.
Posted by: VC at August 23, 2004 12:30 AMThe linked photo was used in a Kerry campaign ad. The picture shows 20 Coastal Division 11 Swift Boat commanders: John Kerry and his peers. Of the 19, only one supports Kerry. Four are neutral. Two are deceased. Twelve say that he is unfit to be Commander in Chief. Would you say the use of this photo was misleading?
All of these officers know what Bush did or didn't do during Vietnam, yet they still think he is a better choice than Kerry (another case where a Bush negative becomes a positive).
These guys are not Bush operatives. They hated Kerry long before they ever heard of George Bush ... and they have good reason to. Whether they are truthful or relevant is for the voters to decide. Please join me in agreeing that they have a right to be heard.
http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=SwiftPhoto
Posted by: TOF at August 22, 2004 06:47 PMBTW, i'm not kidding about talking to cows:
"There's a couple of cows waiting for me. You know, when I first got back home from Washington, it seemed like the cows were talking back. But now that I've spent some time in Crawford, they're just cows." - George W(eird) Bush, at Town Hall Forum, CA, Jan '02.
Time to send the boy home, so he can figure out those cows.
Posted by: deano at August 22, 2004 04:04 PMHow about everyone who were actually on the boat with Kerry? We're supposed to believe 17 bullshitters over them?
We're supposed to accept innuendos which magically (if you consider Crow/Perry cash 'magic') materialize 35 years later, over documented accounts, which have been part of the public record for all that time? Even some of the 17 misfits are on record, quoted in earlier times, as agreeing Kerry was a hero. See Kerry's Fact Check page on his website.
None of this would fly anywhere, except in the sordid world of neo-con logic. Swiftian ads aren't evidence of anything other than desperation running rampant in the bush campaign. Call up more rovian smear tactics, when your candidate looks pathetic, when compared to a real war hero.
Fortunately, the swift tactics are backfiring. Bush is back on the ranch, trying to talk to the cows, because he's feeling the pressure. He's going down and he knows it.
Kerry served, led and saw action. Bush won't account for months of his cushy reservist duty. We paid 250K$ to train him - aren't we entitled to know what he did and didn't do?
If he was such a patriot, you think he'd want us to know more about that, rather than his DUI and his cocaine arrest.
Posted by: deano at August 22, 2004 03:15 PMThanks for remindining me that you're not the slackjawed faction. You may have to keep reminiding me if the quality of the posts don't improve.
I believe the Swift Boat Vets for Truth are being more truthful than Kerry.
I'm happy to have a debate on any topic you want. I'll bring Bush's Gubernatorial and Presidential records. You bring Kerry's Senatorial record. In fact, give me a major issue and I'll show you Kerry on both sides of it.
Bring it on.
Posted by: TOF at August 22, 2004 03:10 PMMo Dowd is hot in a weird, supercilious way. Her inability or refusal to smile is very sexy. MRW, you know Michael Douglas dated her before settling on his current spouse?
Re: Cordier, TOF may have identified one Bush supporter who is not a scumbag. Of course, it makes sense that Bush just kicked him off his campaign committee -- a queer display of attempted scruples -- because Cordier was so clearly the odd man out, maybe?
TOF, please remember you're not speaking to the slackjawed faction of the electorate being targeted by these baldfaced lies that Bush hides behind. (Or do you really claim the "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" aren't lying?) If you want a real debate, we're game. But quit hiding behind the BS superpatriot mask. We're all adults here. Do you have any Bush successes to report in the disaster areas I listed? Foreign affairs? Economy? Health care? Anything? Give people a reason to vote for your guy. Just one.
Posted by: VC at August 22, 2004 02:30 PMApropos of little, am I the only one who finds Maureen Dowd disturbingly hot as she's been making the talk show rounds pimping her new book? Yeah? I was afraid of that.
Posted by: mrw at August 22, 2004 09:16 AMI forgot. Where are we with "in the boat" or "out of the boat" being relevant? Rood wasn’t in the boat. If that doesn't matter, then let's remember that 17 of the 23 officers that served with/alongside/kittycorner from/adjacent to John Kerry have condemned him. They have the right to speak. Don’t you agree?
Any comment on that “scumbag” Ken Cordier who spent 6 years as a POW just so he could slime Kerry thirty-something years later. He has a right to speak. Don’t you agree?
Navy Trivia: What’s the difference between a boat and a ship.