Deinonychus antirrhopus

I might buy the argument that the Swift Boat people are a Republican front.

IF the Dems had been willing to admit that Moveon.org was a Democratic front.

But apparently, not all 527 Organizations are born equal.

Posted by: Dean on August 19, 2004 11:50 AM

What, you mean Kerry's military records, which he's made publicly available? Really, if you right-wingers are going to make up lies, you might as well try and go for ones that aren't *demonstrably* false...

Posted by: john b on August 19, 2004 12:01 PM

john b:

Are those ALL of John Kerry's military records?

Frex, what was his military status between 1969 and 1972? Careful how you answer that one.

What exactly were his orders during his four months in country? In particular, did his Swift boat have orders to enter Cambodia? When? Are those in his records?

What are his Purple Heart medical records? Who wrote the recommendations for his other decorations?

Let me reiterate: Personally, I think that Vietnam was not, and should not be, the centerpiece of a 2004 Presidential campaign. But if you decide to make that the centerpiece, then expect to get lots of flak over it.

Posted by: Dean on August 19, 2004 12:28 PM

Dean nailed it. Last I heard the complete set was NOT available for public scrutiny and neither are his personal journals. We have no way of corroborating any of his claims.

Posted by: Steve on August 19, 2004 12:30 PM

I've been arguing at Drum's again, this stuff is common.

Posted by: Ron on August 19, 2004 12:32 PM

Yeah me too (arguing at Drum's site). However it is on the topic of statistics and a little hard to start calling somebody a Right Wing Nut because they are a Bayesian (or Frequentist). Still that hasn't some of the commenters there from trying to drag that kind of language in tho'.

Posted by: Steve on August 19, 2004 12:43 PM

Kerry can't seem to decide if he wants to be BJ Hunicutt, waging a more sensitive war, or a Col. Flagg, participating in secret missions while covered in blood and guts.

"You turn your boat to face the fire" is what he said today. I'm not sure what armament Kerry's Swift Boats carried, but seems to me that plan seems takes the rear .50s out of the action and deprives of half of your firepower. Classic.

Posted by: Dan on August 19, 2004 12:52 PM

Gee, the military records that are on John Kerry's website are fascinating. That is where Kerry's people actually posting the after action report for PCF 94 from before Kerry took command - in effect taking credit for the actions of a man named Peck who was wounded and then replaced by Kerry. Good job john b.

Yes, John Kerry's military records are seared, seared into my mind.

Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 19, 2004 12:58 PM

Really, if you right-wingers are going to make up lies, you might as well try and go for ones that aren't *demonstrably* false....

Thus sayeth johnb, w/o, evidently, checking to see whether the LEFT wingers are going for records that aren't *demonstrably* lacking.

Oops, that's John Kerry, not LEFT wingers.

Posted by: Standing in for on August 19, 2004 01:04 PM

Has any one else read this Slate correspondence between a Swift Boat Vets Defender and a Detractor on the ad controversy?

Posted by: TangoMan on August 19, 2004 02:10 PM

Steve, OT

You may want to close off your comments sections after a while to avoid this type of garbage. (look towards the bottom of the comments)

Posted by: TangoMan on August 19, 2004 02:26 PM

TangoMan, there is no Swift Boats Vets "defender" in that exchange. And the more rabidly pro-Kerry commenter amusingly misrepresents the issues and his defense of the false attacks on President Bush's national guard service are laughable.

Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 19, 2004 02:26 PM

I haven't read the Slate exchanges in quite a while (nothing ideological, just haven't had the time, and many of their topics hadn't interested me).

But once upon a time, a few years ago when I did read it regularly, it seemed that they usually had folks who WEREN'T members of Slate doing the writing. (It was something like "Breakfast Exchange" or somesuch.)

Having just cursorily glanced at some of the exchange, what I see is two members of Slate's staff talking about the ads. What would have been much more interesting (and something Slate would've probably done a few years back) would've been to have, say, a SBVFT and a Moveon.org person debating whether their ads were any different.

Or maybe two political commentators (Carville and Coulter?) talking about the impact of the ads.

Posted by: Dean on August 19, 2004 02:35 PM

Robin and Dean,

I agree that it would have been more fruitful to read a more partisan exchange in Slate.

Having been acutely aware of the McCain Sliming Tactic back in 2000 I haven't been paying too much attention to the charges against Kerry by the Swift Boat Vets because I assume that it is more of the same type of slime. McCain called for a disavowal and none has been forthcoming.

So, in all candor, I haven't been following the debate as much as I suspect you guys have, and I'm asking if you could point out to me the errors you see in the Slate and FactCheck articles.

Dean, I agree that the Vietnam experience shouldn't be front and center in the election, Kerry made it so and fully deserves scrutiny on it. I completely see why he did it though: to counter the false Bush aura of strong leadership in times of war which helped the party quite a bit in 2002. Also, it becomes a character issue which the Republicans were starting to dominate and claim as their own.

What bothers me is the sliming of Heros. I wonder if any of you saw the hack job by Phil Hartmann on SNL of Perot's VP candidate, Admiral James Stockdale. I almost popped a blood vessel at the disrespect shown to the man. Dennis Miller had a good rejoinder:

Dennis Miller had the following to say about the "public crucifixion of James Stockdale" who had a difficult time of it debating two media savvy men - Dan Quayle and Al Gore:

"Now I know (Stockdale's name has) become a buzzword in this culture for doddering old man, but let's look at the record, folks. The guy was the first guy in and the last guy out of Vietnam, a war that many Americans, including our present President, did not want to dirty their hands with. The reason he had to turn his hearing aid on at that debate is because those f***ing animals knocked his eardrums out when he wouldn't spill his guts. He teaches philosophy at Stanford University, he's a brilliant, sensitive, courageous man. And yet he committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television.

"Somewhere out there Paddy Chayefsky must be laughing his ass off. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Could he have been our Vice President? Of course he could've been our Vice President. You think Al Gore is a charismatic visionary? His favorite film is Tron, for Christ's sake.

"And how tough can this job be, look who did it for the last four years. Dan Quayle ... shouldn't have been second in command of the Hekawi tribe from "F Troop," much less the ... most powerful nation on the face of the planet ...

"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong."

Then the tactics against McCain. Now against Kerry. Kerry earned those medals. There is plenty about to Kerry to provide fodder for attacks but because Kerry was decorated in a war that has to be attacked and denigrated in order to lessen his advantage against a President who didn't earn the same honors. I know that politics is war and there is little place in war for personal honor, and you shouldn't leave your opponent with an advantage over you, but to attack a man's proven valor, despite his other character flaws, strikes me as the lowest of tactics, and more a reflection on the President's honor (for not disavowing the attacks) than an indictment of Kerry's.

My bias, yes it is a bias, is to ignore this sliming tactic which I've seen before, and mourn the diminishment of the respect medal winners deserve.

Kerry is fair game for his post-Vietnam politics and his feet should be held to the fire, same too with his Senate record, and his public statements over the years.

Posted by: TangoMan on August 19, 2004 03:41 PM

Why not attack Kerry for having a film crew in Vietnam where he re-enacted events for the crew. Clearly, even back then he was constructing a resume for later political advantage. Seems kind of calculating don't you think.

Perhaps he even set out to win those medals for future political benefit. Not the purest of motives. But he did earn those medals. He did put his life in jeopardy even if for possible future political gain.

I don't think he went to Vietnam for honor and country, but probably for personal aggrandizement. Bottom line, though, is that he did volunteer, put his life in jeopardy, and he did win the medals, despite what I think were his self-serving motives.

Posted by: TangoMan on August 19, 2004 03:49 PM

What's everybody's reaction to this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html

As for Kerry's military records, all of them need to be released, as soon as possible. I'm not familiar with the confidentiality rules regarding these things for someone in John Kerry's position, but I'd have to guess that there must be something blocking some reporter from filing a FIR and getting to the bottom of it.

Posted by: Brian on August 19, 2004 04:25 PM

T-man:

You do realize that Hartmann is (was) a comedian, right? But I take it making fun of people is somehow sliming as well? Geez, I guess Chevy Chase was sliming Gerald Ford w/ his repeated clumsiness on-stage?

BTW, did Dennis Miller (who I think was the same SNL class as Hartmann) say anything against that sketch? Or is this ex post facto commentary?

I'm not going to debate you (again) over the issues of "aura of strong leadership" etc. Clearly we don't see eye-to-eye on this.

That being said, however, is it an attack on Kerry's valor? Are you familiar w/ the book "Stolen Valor"? The question is there as to whether he deserved the medals he won. Just as whether Tom Harkin actually flew combat missions against the Vietnamese, or whether ADM Boorda deserved all the medals HE worse (or David Hackworth deserved the Ranger patch he wore).

It's a question of his valor ONLY if he is shown to have deserved them---and apparently, nobody's asked that question all along---a dereliction of duty to begin with.

As I said earlier---I don't personally have that big a beef w/ Kerry on his medals. But if you wanna make your Vietnam service your centerpiece, it would help to have your duckies lined up.

Personally, I'm MUCH more curious about his visits to Vietnam---while he was still a naval reservist.

Posted by: Dean on August 19, 2004 04:29 PM

"Has any one else read this Slate correspondence between a Swift Boat Vets Defender and a Detractor on the ad controversy?"

ROFL. Saletan is going to sue your ass for slander.

I think Bush is taking the right tack. Simply distance himself from it. I don't see how he can condemn it: if they're liars he should condemn them but how can he know that? It certainly would be politically expedient to do so, as Kerry did on the MoveOn.org rebuttal ad even as his campaign was holding a press conference that included language similar to the MoveOn.org ad (granted once his campaign calls a press conference and puts a mic in front of someone he can't control what will happen next).

I was with Dean (issue has no impact on my vote) but I'm starting to drift, not because of Kerry's response (all of us ex-military folks embelish a little - Kerry can't say that for political reasons so he's just hoping it will die) though. It's the Big Media's silence on the issue, except to fire a shot at the SBVs. I don't see how it can be anything other than an attempt to manipulate the public. So that's the issue for me. Not Kerry's service, but the attempt to report only stories favorable to Kerry on the topic.

Posted by: Matthew Ryan on August 19, 2004 04:33 PM

BTW, T-man:

Part of Kerry's claimed valor (specifically referenced as the basis for his political stands) was his being in Cambodia at Christmastime, 1968.

THAT part of his story has collapsed. Remember that Korean War "veteran" who claimed that he had personally participated in atrocities at a railway tunnel in Korea? I don't recall if he had medals, but he was certainly THERE, until investigations showed that he hadn't been. Suddenly, all his other claims to fame were under question as well.

That Kerry could say that he was opposed to our Nicaraguan policy based on his experience in Cambodia, December 1968, only to then be shown not to have been there at the time (and possibly not at all) raises the question of his exact level of valor and just how earned his medals were.

No, I'm not saying that they WEREN'T earned, but the onus now shifts to him, as to what is real and what isn't.

Posted by: Dean on August 19, 2004 04:42 PM

I'm predicting that the Kerry response will be on another tack, be more substantive, and more damaging to President Bush's credibility:

Kerry's record in the BCCI affair, of course, contrasts sharply with Bush's. The current president's career as an oilman was always marked by the kind of insider cronyism that Kerry resisted. Even more startling, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy, Bush himself did business with BCCI-connected institutions almost at the same time Kerry was fighting the bank. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991, there was a "mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding [Harken] since George W. Bush came on board." In 1987, Bush secured a critical $25 million-loan from a bank the Kerry Commission would later reveal to be a BCCI joint venture. Certainly, Bush did not suspect BCCI had such questionable connections at the time. But still, the president's history suggests his attacks on Kerry's national-security credentials come from a position of little authority.

As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."

Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations."

Posted by: TangoMan on August 19, 2004 05:52 PM

T-man,

Regarding comment spam, I'm going to be upgrading to MT 2.661 tomorrow (knock on wood) and then installing MT Blacklist. Then I'll try to clean out some of that gunk.

Posted by: Steve on August 19, 2004 10:44 PM

The Swiftvets' allegations are deliberately blurred. Their ad starts with John Edwards urging people to talk to "the men who served with" Kerry. Several Swiftvets then appear on the screen, saying they "served with" Kerry. This is a semantic trick. Edwards is talking about crewmates who, at one time or another, accompanied Kerry on his six-man boat. The Swiftvets served with Kerry only in the sense that they manned other boats in Vietnam. It's a bit like saying you spent the night with Bill Clinton because you were on Martha's Vineyard, too.

Heh. Conversely, it's like saying Mike Alstott and Simeon Rice don't play on the same team, because one plays offense and the other plays defense. These guys barracked together and ran missions together. Is Saletan really suggesting that none of them except the guys that happened to be on his boat served with Kerry? I can practically guarantee you that if this were a Bush/AWOL story, any person that had even been in the same room with Bush at any time during his service in the ANG that had something unkind to say about Bush would get quoted in print without question.

Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 20, 2004 06:20 AM

"You turn your boat to face the fire" is what he said today. I'm not sure what armament Kerry's Swift Boats carried, but seems to me that plan seems takes the rear .50s out of the action and deprives of half of your firepower. Classic.

IIRC, a gun bucket on the top and a rear gun in the back. The only way it makes tactical sense to turn around to bring more fire-power to the enemy is if the ship was running away in the first place, and needed to unmask the machine gun above the pilot house to provide two fields of fire.

Which begs the question, what is Kerry running away from?

Posted by: Gator on August 20, 2004 06:38 AM

It makes just as much sense if he was going the other way, Gator.

Posted by: Slartibartfast on August 20, 2004 07:03 AM

"Why isn't Kerry releasing his military record and his personal journal to help clear this issue up?"

He would be unwise to lower his defenses.

Posted by: vader on August 20, 2004 08:45 AM

But vader, they're just Swift-boats. I think you overestimate their chances!

Posted by: Dean on August 20, 2004 08:49 AM

BCCI? It would be hilarious if Kerry tried to dredge that up, given the extensive Democratic connections in that scandal.

Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 20, 2004 08:53 AM

Latest Swift Boats Vets ad is devastating and irrefutable:

"John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and many of my comrades in the North Vietnamese prison camps took torture to avoid saying.” Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 20, 2004 01:36 PM

Today's talking point: "Aha! The SBVT have been decisively disproven on their first ad attacking his war record, so now they have to move on to his post-war behavior!"

Sheesh

Posted by: Dave on August 20, 2004 01:50 PM

President Bush has been the target of tens of millions of dollars of ads from 527's like MoveOn.org that John Kerry has not disavowed - why should Bush disavow a few hundred thousand dollars worth of ads ?

That's the kind of gall we see substitutes for integrity with John Kerry.

Posted by: Robin Roberts on August 20, 2004 06:04 PM

BCCI? It would be hilarious if Kerry tried to dredge that up, given the extensive Democratic connections in that scandal.

It took a little bit of digging to find some news coverage from the period, but here is a TIME article from 1991. The scandal is already in full bloom when this was reported.

How much did it hurt the democrats in 1992? I seem to recall that a Democratic President was elected.

This time around, we can compare what Senator Kerry was doing at the time, plugging away at this rat's nest against pressure from special interests, and look at what President Bush was doing at that time, benefiting from BCCI loans.

If the game that is afoot is to be character assassination, then why wage it via proxies. Here is a compare and contrast situation pitting a crusading Senator against a daddy's boy businessman with little business talent of his own who was benefiting from BCCI affiliated loans.

I'm sure a release of loan documents from BCCI controlled subsidiaries detailing loans to George W. Bush's company, Harken Energy, will make many marginal Bush supporters question the President's integrity, and to score bonus points, most of these people have held Moore's F9/11 in low regard, and they may now wonder if there is something nebulous there. LOL. You know, it's close enough to the fire to produce some smoke. How could it be a set-up on President Bush? Senator Kerry investigated his involvement 8-10 years before President Bush was elected.

- Bush '41 White Hoouse involvement while the scandal was erupting.
- President Carter's library accepted donations after he left office.
-Then Congressman Schumer was pursuing BCCI.
-Clark Clifford: dead.
-Robert Mueller: Current FBI director
-John Connally: dead
-Andrew Young: faded from the scene.
-James Baker: Told of BCCI crimes in 1985 while Tres. Sec. and did nothing.
-Ron Brown: dead
-Justice Dept. blocking, NY DA Morgenthau being aggressive.

-Remind people of Bush '41, state of economy that led to Clinton election, S&L bailouts from lack of oversight, how BCCI stole $12 Billion, drug money laundering and how Kerry was trying to shut down this illegal network while Bush '43 was benefiting from it. Compare all to current President Bush's Administration.

The frustration has spread to the ranks of federal law enforcement. In October a U.S. Customs officer wrote to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, ( chairman of the Senate subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics and international operations, and complained that "tons of documents were not reviewed . . . and the CIA put a halt to certain investigative leads" in a 1988 Florida inquiry that eventually led to the indictment of five mid-level B.C.C.I. officers. "We had drug traffickers, money launderers, foreign government involvement, Noriega and allegations of payoffs by B.C.C.I. to U.S. government political figures. I will not elaborate on who these U.S. government figures were alleged to be, but I can advise you that you don't have all of the documents. Some were destroyed or misplaced."

Similar reports, coupled with the Justice Department's heavy censoring of B.C.C.I.-related documents subpoenaed by the Senate, have angered Kerry, who claims that the Justice Department is stonewalling his investigation. Kerry, who has held several hearings into the B.C.C.I. affair, is battling a Justice Department decision to prohibit him from taking testimony from former U.S. Customs Service agent Robert Mazur.

Mazur, who led the undercover sting operation that produced the first indictments of B.C.C.I. in 1988, quit the agency to work for the Drug Enforcement Administration. He reportedly was disgusted over the government's failure to pursue leads concerning secret B.C.C.I. ownership of U.S. banks and alleged payoffs to U.S. politicians. Although Kerry has declined to release correspondence from Mazur, sources who have seen Mazur's allegations about a cover-up say they are political dynamite.

"There is a feeling that somebody in Washington is trying to cut a deal on B.C.C.I.," says a senior official, "that they really don't want the U.S. Attorney's offices to actually return indictments because that would muck up their ability to do some kind of an overall package deal, where we cut off the hands of a few Pakistanis and paint it as if they were really all the big folks. They'll get out charts and graphs to absolve the Sheik (Sheik Zayed, the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who oversees the shuttered B.C.C.I. empire) and then let the bank reopen overseas" to repay its foreign debts.

Who was it that said "bring it on?"

Posted by: TangoMan on August 21, 2004 01:18 AM

Tango Man, I'm with you on the merits of that examination of the record, but the Democrats can't do that, just as they had to back off from making the S&L debacle just bursting open a campaign issue in the '88 race. Dukakis was told by Lloyd Bentsen (his VP pick, for the younger set), that the S&L issue wouldn't work for Democrats.

Why? Because the deregulation bill carried Ferdinand St. Germaine's name (as the Democratic chairman of the House banking committee), and "Lord" Bentsen, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, had done many things for the lobbyists participating in his $10,000 a plate 'have breakfast with the chairman!' tawdry fundraising, including certainly 'constituent service' for the Texas banks where the S&L frauds were most prevalent.

Same thing with BCCI. The Democrats were as much in bed with the BCCI as the Republicans, with Carter's Director of OMB, Bert Lance, getting money for them to avoid the collapse of his banks, Carter related in other ways, and Clark Clifford as great an insider, eminence grise, and wise man as anyone ever among the Democrats this side of W. Averill Harriman.

Posted by: sofla on August 21, 2004 11:59 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?