|
|
September 1, 2004
Independence From the Press Rocks the Gatekeeper's WorldThere is a smear campaign launched against John Kerry. But that is not the only thing going on with the Swift Boat Veterans. The press may have knocked down the most serious charges. But the idea of the press as the great adjudicator has also been knocked down.Madison Square Garden, Sep 1. It’s more of an impression gathered, not something easily witnessed in the behavior of reporters and editors here at the Republican convention; but I think the political press has been stunned by the attack on John Kerry’s military record, and by the events since August 5, when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began running their ads. That is the word I would use: stunned. Here and there it is spoken of outright: “I spotted the headline in the Sunday Tribune’s first edition early Saturday afternoon,” wrote Michael Miner in the Chicago Reader. He is referring to William Rood’s first person account of Kerry’s courageous actions as a Swift Boat commander, published Aug. 22. Rood, a Chicago Tribune editor, was a Swift Boat skipper himself. Miner, a journalist, recalls his reaction: “That’s it,” I thought, naively, after reading the first few paragraphs. “The issue’s off the table.” And he was stunned to discover it wasn’t. The same feeling was there when Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe, appearing Aug. 19 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, told John O’Neill, author of Unfit for Command and one of the veterans making the charges, “You haven’t come within a country mile of meeting first-grade journalistic standards for accuracy.” That’s what “keeps this story in the tabloids,” said Oliphant, but of course he was saying this not in the tabloids, but on the very respectable Newshour . I don’t mean to say that I know exactly what happened that day. I believe that Mr. O’Neill, like anybody making a personal attack in politics, has to shoulder the burden of proof. It never leaves his shoulders until he satisfies it. And on this story, they haven’t even gotten to first base. Note: They haven’t even gotten to first base and yet the Swift Boat Veterans were the big story in the weeks before the convention. There was a revealing moment at the end of that Newshour exchange. John O’Neill urged viewers to check out the Swift Vets’ website. Host Jim Lehrer, always mindful to make a show of balance, struggled for the name of a site rebutting the charges: “Is there a website that’s comparable to that?” Yes there is, Oliphant replied. But instead of naming Media Matters he said: “it’s called the daily press, which is the most difficult thing for these guys to deal with.” But in fact it hasn’t been difficult at all, and that is what’s so stunning to Oliphant and company. “For the moment, this story has consumed the news cycle,” wrote David Folkenflik in the Baltimore Sun on Aug. 25. “In an election where voters are eager for a sense of vision from each of the candidates, the swift-boat flap has drowned out discussion of current policy issues,” said Linda Feldmann of the Christian Science Monitor. It’s the daily press that’s found the Swift Boat Veterans difficult to deal with— not the other way around. Thus Alison Mitchell, deputy national editor for The New York Times, told Editor & Publisher. “I’m not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it.” She sounded stunned in addition to being disdainful. “Against their will,” wrote Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard, “the best-funded and most prestigious journalists in America have been forced to cover a story they want no part of—or at the very least, they’ve been compelled to explain why they aren’t covering it.” Eric Bohlert writes in Salon today: “By the time the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times did deploy reporters to knock down the Swift Boat Vets’ rickety charges, they’d taken on a life of their own in the anti-Kerry netherworld of talk radio, right-wing bloggers and Fox News.” “Knock down” suggests a world where political actors let charges fly, and journalists rule on them— in or out of order. The general conclusion in the press (and Bohlert’s view as well) is that the knock down ocurred in three news stories that appeared within days of each other:
Each of these stories is based on extensive reporting; and each throws serious doubt on some of the charges and motivations of Kerry’s attackers. But the very idea of the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times as adjudicators has itself been knocked down. “There are too many places for people to get information,” James O’Shea told Editor & Publisher. He’s the managing editor of the Chicago Tribune, which joined in the knock down by publishing Rood’s story of what he saw in Vietnam. (See PressThink about that one). “I don’t think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore— to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why.” Jonathan Last put it this way: “The combination of talk radio, a publishing house, blogs, and Fox News has given conservatives a voice independent of the old media.” Independence from the press is not an easy thing for the press to appreciate, but this is exactly what the Swift Boat Veterans have, I think, demonstrated. While they do benefit from news coverage of their campaign—and from lazy, he said/she said journalism—the Swift Vets are capable of telling their own story on their website, publishing their own book and selling it to lots of people without benefit of good reviews, finding their own allies in the blog world (some of whom have large audiences), raising their own money, and of course running their own ads aimed at voters. Yesterday, they even began negotiating with John Kerry: admit your crimes and we’ll pull our ads, said the group in a letter to the candidate. There is nothing this group needs Tom Oliphant for, except perhaps as foil in TV interviews. John Podhoretz, columnist for the New York Post, made that point this week. “The democratization of news,” to him a good thing, “isn’t a good thing if you’re a proud part of an Establishment whose authority is being eroded and whose control of the marketplace is being successfully challenged.” I think he’s mostly right about that. (See Jeff Jarvis on it.) Podhoretz describes how it worked in the period from August 5 to 23. “Because there was new information coming out every day, there was more and more to discuss on talk radio and cable news channels. And the story just wouldn’t go away, because millions of people were interested in it.” In fact, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, nerve center for the Swift Boat story online, reported record traffic during this stretch. Much of what Reynolds did was link to other anti-Kerry weblogs and information they dug up, connections they made, or inconsistencies they pointed out. It was therefore a group effort. And many of the bloggers involved—Power Line, Captain’s Quarters, Hugh Hewitt, Roger L. Simon being a few—are credentialed by the Party to cover the RNC. But the excitement, as these players saw it, was not the sensational charges in the first ad— that Kerry didn’t deserve his medals and lied to get them. Rather, they were trying to show how often and how openly Kerry had lied or misstated the facts when at various times he talked about being in Cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968. (See this and this, for example.) They also pointed out how Kerry had changed his story. They reacted with gleeful derision when the campaign began to issue “clarifications” about Kerry in Cambodia. In a posting from Aug. 21, John Hinderaker of Power Line observed that “what powers the blogosphere” is a core audience “that is engaged, passionate, and above all, well-informed.” But equally significant is the way participants in this world talk to each other and build on one another’s efforts. In a word— the links among them. Here’s how Hinderaker, a lawyer, put it: A bunch of amateurs, no matter how smart and enthusiastic, could never outperform professional neurosurgeons… But what qualifications, exactly, does it take to be a journalist? What can they do that we can’t? Nothing. Generally speaking, they don’t know any more about primary data and raw sources of information than we do—often less… And we bloggers are not dependent on our own resources or those of a few amateurs. We can get information from tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom have exactly the knowledge that journalists could (but usually don’t) expend great effort to track down—to take just one recent example, the passability of the Mekong River at the Vietnam/Cambodian border during the late 1960s. I can hear the chucking this sort of thing causes in professional newsrooms and J-schools. But the basic point Hinderaker makes is the same one Dan Gillmor, a journalist, develops at length in his new and essential book, We the Media. “My readers know more than I do,” Gillmor is famous for saying. That’s readers, in the plural. Bloggers are putting that insight to work because they aren’t as threatened by it. The press can laugh at all these claims, and some will do that. But the political press should not be laughing. Reporters at the Republican Convention this week confront a changed race— altered in their own minds by the Swift Boat Vets and the charges they have broadcast. Two weeks before the convention, the common perception was: very close, edge is to Kerry. As Andrew Sullivan wrote on Aug. 28, “I crunched the numbers and found that, from the polling so far, this race was John Kerry’s to lose unless the dynamic of the election suddenly changed.” Other journalists who knew the numbers held the same view. But that shifted in the final week of August, and on the day the convention opened political journalists had a gut feeling that the landscape was different— even though “the story,” as they call it, had been knocked down in the press and the people telling it stood “exposed for multiple lies and distortions,” as William Greider wrote in The Nation. “They hate the Swift-boat story,” Podhoretz wrote. “Hate it with a passion. Some of it’s based in genuine conviction. Some of it’s patently ideological. And some of it’s based in fear.” To me, it’s quite proper for journalists to hate the campaign launched by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. About the merits of the charges, I hold the same view Sullivan holds: the original ad is a classic smear job— ugly, brutal, demagogic, paranoid, cynical, dishonest in the extreme. And—a point that has not been stressed enough—it dishonors and degrades everyone who comes into contact with it. Take this episode, for example. “It’s a smear because it mentions no facts,” Sullivan writes. “It cannot therefore be rebutted.” But it’s more than that. The ad is also an example of what author Douglas Rushkoff calls a “media virus.” The host is the news media, which in its weakness reacts to sensational charges and thereby aids in their spread. Kerry didn’t deserve his medals because he lied to get them and other veterans know it. He’s no hero. Nor is he an ordinary liar. He’s a monster of deceit, and a master of concealment. It says a lot that George W. Bush will not criticize that ad, that people associated with Bush have helped the Swift Vets circulate it, and that tactics like this have been tried before against Bush’s opponents. It says a lot, I think, when intelligent people write things like “the medals are a distraction,” as Reynolds did. There he’s trying to avoid the degradation, but it is not that simple. For those in the press who want to understand what’s going on, I recommend the Aug. 24th blog post by Matt Wretchard at Belmont Club: The undercard in the Kerry vs Swiftvets bout is Mainstream Media vs. Kid Internet, two distinctly different fights, but both over information. The first is really the struggle over the way Vietnam will be remembered by posterity; whether its amanuensis will be John Kerry for the antiwar movement or those who felt betrayed by them. The victor in that struggle will get to inscribe the authoritative account of that mythical conflict in Southeast Asia: not in its events, but in its meaning. The fight will be as bitter as men for whom only memory remains can be bitter. But the undercard holds a fascination of its own. The reigning champion, the Mainstream Media, has been forced against all odds to accept the challenge of an upstart over the coverage of the Swiftvets controversy. To say, “I don’t think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore,” as James O’Shea did, is to recognize an historic shift in the politics of information. It’s the sort of thing that can leave you stunned, angry, confused and depressed, if you have always thought of yourself as keeper of the gate. On the other hand, “My readers know more than I do” is a more hopeful statement. Maybe journalists who realize they are ex-gatekeepers will find their own way to Gillmor’s wisdom. For purposes of contemplation, I leave you with this exchange, overheard on CNN, Aug. 20: JILL DOUGHERTY And they’re also, apparently, according to the campaign — will be trying to depict John Kerry as out of the mainstream. Kyra… After Matter: Notes, reactions and links… Also see, on all these themes, Godzilla vs. the ‘Blogosphere’ by Glenn Reynolds, Wall Street Journal, Sep. 1. Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times, Aug. 24: There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.
Posted by Jay Rosen at September 1, 2004 10:45 PM
Comments
Jay: At billingsgazette.com there is an interesting story today that farther "defames" the swift boat ads. Posted by: Chuck Rightmire at September 1, 2004 10:52 PM | Permalink Are plowing through all the blather, it comes down to this: Do you believe the thirteen Swift Boat Vets on Senator Kerry's side; or the 254 opposed to him? If you're the loony left-wing media, you believe the thirteen, the blogosphere believes the 254. Bye, Bye, Mainstream Media, you brought this state of affairs on yourself. Oliphant nailed him to the wall, but the seductiveness of lies when many deranged vets think a candidate for president, one of their own, is a traitor, just won't let the truth matter. Rove did the same thing to Mark Shields today. Shields nailed him to the wall, but these people are so dimwitted they believe their lines. It's hard to put that on. The question is this: are the American people as dim as Karl Rove? I would add that he has no college degree. Posted by: Jeremiah Jewett at September 1, 2004 11:34 PM | Permalink So the ones on the boat, the eye witnesses, are the loons? How do you expect this scenario would work out in a court of law? Patch Adams? This is a joke right? Posted by: Jeremiah Jewett at September 1, 2004 11:37 PM | Permalink Jeremiah appears to reflect the general impression held by those who have followed the story in the press, but not on the blogs: that the only real "eyewitnesses" were the ones on the Kerry's boat. Not so. One of the members of the Swift Boat Vets group served on Kerry's boat -- contrary to a false assertion made in the Los Angeles Times. (The false assertion was in an article co-written by one of the authors of the L.A. Times piece cited by Jay in the post. The Times ultimately had to correct its statement, after being called on it by a blogger -- who was, as it happens, me.) Moreover, these were boats that traveled in close proximity, and there are many eyewitnesses from adjoining boats to various of the incidents. Those who have followed the story on the blogs know that Jay's allegation that all the charges have been decisively smacked down by the press is a questionable assertion. Just to take one example, entries in Kerry's own journal support allegations made by the Swift Vets regarding the validity of certain of Kerry's citations. If you have been reading the Captain's Quarters blog, you know what I mean. If you haven't, then you probably don't. Meanwhile, when a newspaper editor (William Rood) publishes an account of the incident, and declares he will be subject to no further interviews on the subject, his account is treated as gospel by the mainstream media (and was praised by Jay). I have no problem with the account itself, which was well-written and convincing, but there is no way that any Swift Boat Vet could issue a single written pronouncement on the incident, declare himself immune from further interviews, and emerge with his credibility intact among the press (or even the public). I guess a newspaper editor is a member of the club and gets special treatment. Incidentally, Rood didn't serve on Kerry's boat either -- but his status as an eyewitness, and as a man who "served with" Kerry, has never been questioned by the same folks who mock the Swift Vets for not being on Kerry's boat. Furthermore, the reporting on the so-called "web of connections" between the Swift Vets and the Bush campaign is a joke. The New York Times drew up a Mafia-style chart that mainly made the point that a successful Houston lawyer knew some people who knew Bush. Meanwhile, that same man voted for Gore (and therefore against Bush) in 2000, has called Bush an "empty suit," and has made documented contributions to Democrats -- again contrary to implications in the mainstream media. Yet folks like Dan Gillmor call the Swift Vets "surrogates" of the Bush campaign, evidently because they shared a lawyer with the Bush campaign -- even as more than one lawyer has worked with the Kerry campaign and/or the DNC, on one hand, and a pro-Democrat 527 group, on the other. Yet that receives virtually no coverage in the mainstream media as well. I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that those who are following the story only in the mainstream media are seeing a very different picture from those who are also reading blogs. And the blog commentary I have read has been, in many instances, better documented with references to actual evidence (rather than implications and bald assertions). It's not quite as simple as many of you seem to think. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 12:45 AM | Permalink Also, if you can handle the shock of my praising a piece in the mainstream media -- in the L.A. Times, no less -- dig up Scott Gold's portrait of John O'Neill. No puff piece, it is a fair look at a man who has truly been "smeared" by the "web of connections" nonsense in polemical pieces like the hit job that appeared in the New York Times. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 12:55 AM | Permalink I'm one of the bloggers who've been writing about the SwiftVets vs. Kerry controversy in considerable detail. I may undertake a more thorough response to this post on my own blog, but just off the top of my head: Anyone who'd like a dissenting views from within the mainstream media would be well advised to read the August 17 op-ed by Houston Chronicle special projects editor Lee Cearnal. It's no longer on the Chronicle's website, but for the moment, at least, a cached view is available here. Unlike Mr. Rosen (if I'm correct in presuming he's the author of this original post), Mr. Cearnal has actually bothered to figure out what the factual issues are that are in dispute before rendering any judgments about how well the press has "knocked them down." Of the three sources you linked as the "knock down" articles from the mainstream media, the only one that contains any significant independent reporting — something other than regurgitating the Kerry Campaign's talking points — is the Michael Dobbs piece from WaPo. It sorta helps to read past the headline of that piece. If you do, for instance, you'll find this interesting bit: Some of the mystery surrounding exactly what happened on the Bay Hap River in March 1969 could be resolved by the full release of all relevant records and personal diaries. Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary. Hello! Earth to mainstream media! Aren't you guys supposed to get excited when a presidential candidate is engaged in a systematic cover-up? When someone's stonewalling you, hiding documents that could resolve a debate one way or the other, or at least shed considerable light on it, and he could release those records with the stroke of a pen, but he won't — isn't that supposed to set off your alarm bells? Also from the WaPo, last weekend: The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control. His own hagiographer admits that Kerry's telling tall tales, and that Kerry's stonewalling a huge mound of source documents with a bogus argument that it's Brinkley's fault. You guys can't smell the smoke yet? If the mainstream media had been as energetic in pursuing the Watergate break-in as they have been in actually looking into the merits of the SwiftVets' claims, Richard Nixon would have finished his second term. I also should have mentioned that I've previously blogged about each of the three "knock down" articles you linked (LAT, NYT, and WaPo). WaPo's Howard Kurtz has also noted, about one of the Kerry camp's counter-ads: There is no evidence that the Bush campaign "supports a front group" that produced the attack ad. There are numerous ties between Bush aides and the veterans' backers, but there are similar ties between Kerry and some liberal groups running anti-Bush ads. Bush and his top strategists, however, have passed up numerous opportunities to condemn the Swift boat ad, calling instead for a moratorium on all advertising by outside groups. That one paragraph is more accurate than all the blather in the NYT and LAT stories you linked. The problem with the blogosphere taking over from the MSM is that there are no standards for blogging as news. Many can and do offer opinion over facts. Just because someone thinks something is so and they say it (blog it) over and over again, does not make it Truth. It concerns me that people think they are getting some sort of inside scoop on the Press from the Internet which is a wildly unreliable place. Posted by: CER at September 2, 2004 8:24 AM | Permalink Oh and here's a link to the article Chuck mentioned above. Posted by: CER at September 2, 2004 8:56 AM | Permalink CER, I think you make your judgments about whom to trust, but more importantly, you look at their evidence and make a judgment based on that. Newspapers are run by people too, and make mistakes of all sorts (and distort facts of all sorts) all the time. And if you don't think that the mainstream media offers opinion as fact on a daily basis, then you and I see things so differently that there is nothing I can say to change your mind. It concerns me that people think that, because the press supposedly has "standards" for reporting news, that everything you read there is good as gold. Their "standards" often get tossed out the window when there's a story they really like. I could give you literally dozens of examples, but I don't want to completely hijack the thread. Read Beldar's posts -- take the time to really read them -- and tell me that he uses no actual evidence to back up his assertions. This is a guy who has gotten inside the Swift Vets story in a way virtually no mainstream media journalists have. Question: of the reporters who have reported on the Swift Vets, how many of them do you think have actually read the Vets' book, cover to cover? Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 9:08 AM | Permalink My answer: I bet Michael Dobbs has. I doubt many others have. There are plenty who definitely haven't -- including the bloviators writing editorials for the L.A. Times. CER, to take one very recent example, what "standards" do you think allowed the L.A. Times editorial writers to overlook the existence of the 12th Amendment, when they expounded yesterday about their belief that the U.S. Constitution "doesn't seem to" prevent Arnold Schwarzenegger from becoming Vice-President? The press makes mistakes, folks. Big mistakes, at times. They are people like you and me, and their "standards" don't always save them. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 9:13 AM | Permalink Last comment for now: Michael Dobbs, who (as Beldar notes) has done the best reporting on the Swift Vets among the reporters mentioned, appears to be the only one of them who seems at all troubled by John Kerry's refusal to sign a standard Form 180 and allow unfettered access to his complete military records. Everyone else in the mainstream media couldn't care less. Does it set off any alarms that the guy who knows the most about the facts is the one who is most troubled by this? Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 9:18 AM | Permalink It appears that the news cycle has moved past the veracity of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth allegations to the damage done to the Kerry campaign. I'm left asking why the press has not pushed for Kerry to release more of his military record? I understand that Kerry's campaign has selectively posted documents on his campaign web site, but he has not allowed the press to independently request the records and a significant portions seem to be missing from the web site. Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages. Where are the after-action reports from December 1968 (including Dec 2, 1968 - Kerry's first Purple Heart "hostile" fire incident - and his Christmas in Cambodia mission), January 1969, and after March 13, 1969 (including his March 18-19, 1969, operation burning structures and destroying bunkers)? In addition to his official Navy records, there is also his journal. Beldar, Capt Ed. and Tom Maguire have been great on this story. Next up, Kerry's anti-war activities as a Naval Reserve LT in France and with the VVAW (Fliers and New Soldier). Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 9:35 AM | Permalink The Color Purple At some point, however, perhaps during the cable talk show commercials, perhaps in the interstices between blog posts, the debate over Kerry's war record transformed into a debate over whether President Bush should denounce the debate over Kerry's war record. And this was when, it seemed, the various factual claims the anti-Kerry Swifties made against the Massachusetts senator fell to the wayside, where, dismissed and forlorn, news outlets pronounced that they were wholly "unsubstantiated." Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 10:25 AM | Permalink Patterico, Of course I agree that mistakes can be made in the MSM and that biases do affect stories. However, there still are standards and there still is accountability. Do you see that in the blogosphere? What happens when a blogger posts something that isn't true? Or just half the truth? Not much, if anything. Further, how do you know whether the "evidence" posted by a right wing blogger is any better than the "evidence" posted by a left wing blogger? Is the driving force behind bloggers Truth or is it a desire to bring people to their side, to agree with their opinion? Question: What is the criteria for credibility in a blogger? Posted by: CER at September 2, 2004 10:39 AM | Permalink Paterico: I think it's pretty safe to say that not many people logging onto this site (or blogging at all, for that matter) believe the MSM is infallible or anywhere near perfect. The MSM has a lot to answer for -- laziness, unwillingness to "rock the boat," poor reporting in general -- but it does have one very important thing going for it that bloggers don't: Resources. How many blogs have the financial ability to send a reporter to Afghanistan or Iraq? The fact is that, at least for now, bloggers are heavily dependent on the MSM that they so eagerly blast. Posted by: Alejo at September 2, 2004 10:41 AM | Permalink I think people are missing the real "root cause" motivation of the Swifties in debates like this. Vietnam Vets feel slandered and libeled by Kerry and his ilk in the VVAW. Frankly, anyone that served honorably in Vietnam has an absolute right to be upset with Kerry. He branded them as war criminals as a group, in toto, top to bottom end to end. They've been made to feel shame for decades over their honorable service in a nasty war. All the talk of specifics of this or that medal, or where Kerry was and when he was there is smoke. Absent some release of records - which Kerry clearly is not going to allow - they will never be proven to anyone's satisfaction. We do know this though at least SOME of what Kerry has said has been untrue as evidenced by his campaign's retraction and revision of his epiphany in Cambodia in Christmas of '68. That is indisputable. So in light of all that how anyone can come out and call it a "smear campaign" is beyond me. These guys are furious with Kerry and they aren't going to go away. And as honorably discharged veterans former POW's etc they have an absolute right to have their say and clear their names. Posted by: Calliope at September 2, 2004 11:15 AM | Permalink But using the names of those who did not agree to have their names used casts a great deal of doubt on the facts of the case. That's the way it works in a court of law. Posted by: Chuck Rightmire at September 2, 2004 11:26 AM | Permalink A pox on both houses! It is prejudicial to declare the Swift Boats Vet's campaign a smear. It is prejudicial to declare the campaign (as NYT is wont to do) unsubstantiated. It is prejudicial to declare the campaign discredited. It is prejudicial in that there has been insufficient examination and subsequent discovery. In some ways, the bloggers have pursued this vigorously and demonstrated investigative capabilities impressive in reach and in the ability to discard chaff. They have demonstrated a willingness and ability to look at printed, reported, testified, and eye-witness accounts; reconcile and pursue further lines of questions reaching across country, across years, and across political and military spectrums. However, the bloggers expose their glee in the twists and turns of the investigation, often expressing opinions before the facts have been reconciled to a reasonable degree. The "Kerry is toast!" declaratives (and their ilk) should await the completion of the investigation. The same is true of the “deranged vets” comments. The traditional media have demonstrated latency on this account that sets an interesting counterpoint to the accounts of Bush AWOL and Kerry 527 activities. When finally engaged, good reporters provided well-written pieces - using less research than the reasoning and the facts had already taken the bloggers. Further the media provided conclusions that, at the least, are difficult to draw from the facts provided. Both the bloggers and the traditional media have so far failed to reconcile a mass of conflicting reports, facts, and have so far failed to get access to known data. Both are declaring victories where none exist. Yes, there have been a number of Kerry assertions which are now discredited. Yes, there are numerous inconsistencies in the accounting of 200+ people and their accounts and records. Yes, this is a damaging thing to examine for the current candidate. Not examining it in its fullness will leave it as an exploitable question mark, and as something that will dog the candidate. Examining it fully may exonerate, or destroy the candidate. I for one do not know where this might lead. But, I do observe role of the bloggers, and that of the traditional media. The new kid on the block has shown impressive capabilities. The grey advisors of truth are showing something else. Posted by: John Lynch at September 2, 2004 11:38 AM | Permalink I disagree with this concept of independence from the Press. It is the political press, or more accurately, the political press' piss poor performance, that motivates much of the best political blogging. The SBVT were effectively shut out from May to August - in fact for about as long as Kerry served in Vietnam with the Swift Boats. The SBVT crossed a media threshold in August by combining a demagogic commercial (mimicing the guerrilla tactics used by VVAW) and publishing a well documented and non-hyperbolic book. The gatekeepers could no longer deny the story which had previously consisted of a single press conference. Ads were being played in swing state markets and having an impact. Commentators were reading and commenting on the book. Tour of Duty was being compared to Unfit for Command. The "independent" media began examining why the political press ignored the story. They went past the initial dismissal by the press based on guilt by association and ad hominem to examine the veterans actual service: who served on Kerry's boat, when and for how long; who served "with" Kerry as a peer, supervisor and subordinate; how many boats patrolled together and how close; ... All facts that the press ignored. Each fact uncovered adding momentum to both the story NOT being told by the political press, feeding the frenzy of proving - once again - the piss poor performance of press "pros", and energizing the information consumers via email, WWW, phone and backyard conversations to challenge the gatekeepers to open the gate. But that's where it ends back up. Challenging the MSM. It's a cycle. I do wonder if Jay has read the books, or whether he finds the VVAW guerrilla tactics as dishonorable today as he finds the SBVT when similar tactics are used to GAIN MEDIA ATTENTION? The media had the Jacksonian narrative of the campaign when Democrats began comparing their "chest full of medals" "war hero" to the "AWOL" "deserter" Bush. They knew Kerry's war stories and his leadership of a guerrilla anti-war group. These stories made it past the gatekeepers because the gatekeepers were shamed into covering it. Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 11:39 AM | Permalink I agree with virtually everything John Lynch said. CER, What happens when a *credible* blogger prints something that is not true, in whole or in part, is that they correct it. Quickly, transparently, without a lot of delay and equivocation. I've had to do it, Glenn Reynolds has had to do it, and so has anyone else who has blogged for any significant period of time. Like I said, we're all people, and we all make mistakes. When the mainstream media makes a major mistake, even if it's on a Page One story, and even if it undercuts the thesis of the story, they correct it -- if at all -- in a little box on Page A2 that nobody reads, save fanatics like myself. They tend to do a good job with online corrections, placing them smack-dab in the middle of the story, but I'd like to see more prominence for the critical corrections on the front-page stories. Placing such corrections on Page A1 would get more respect from me, and many others as well. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 12:06 PM | Permalink CER wrote, Many [bloggers] can and do offer opinion over facts. Just because someone thinks something is so and they say it (blog it) over and over again, does not make it Truth. It concerns me that people think they are getting some sort of inside scoop on the Press from the Internet which is a wildly unreliable place. I agree with this in large part. Certainly there are bloggers — from both sides of the political aisle — who mostly just repeat their snarky observations and opinions. There may be legitimate value to that — it's punditry, some of it thought-provoking and some of it not. But yes, there are raving lunatics and crackpots on the internet. (And in newsrooms.) But good bloggers build, maintain, and protect their credibility with their readers by trying to distinguish carefully between punditry and fact. Particularly if they have their comments sections open, they get feedback — pro and con — and further tips. And whether he's engaging in punditry or fact reporting, a blogger who doesn't cite his sources — with working hyperlinks — doesn't gain credibility with his readers. If I post something on my blog that just asserts, in general terms, that Sen. Kerry's telling inconsistent tales about his Vietnam service, without anything more, then I may have some ditto-heads nodding along with me, but I'd agree that by itself, that's just opinion mongering — and not very persuasive opinion mongering at that. But let me offer you a counter-example that's just now, finally, breaking into the mainstream media — the "Belodeau Eulogy." If, by contrast, acting on a emailed tip from a reader, I discover and write that on January 28, 1998, Sen. Kerry entered into the Congressional Record a version of how Jim Rassmann fell off Kerry's Swift Boat that is completely and mutually inconsistent with what Sen. Kerry and all his supporters, including Jim Rassmann, have said everywhere else about that topic — including, most recently, during the "no man left behind" saga on the final night of the DNC — and I provide hyperlinks to a .pdf file of the relevant pages from the Congressional Record to document my factual assertion, that does add something useful to the debate. When I find and write that Kerry biographer Doug Brinkley has quoted from another part of that same document in his book Tour of Duty, yet ignored the inconsistent version told by Sen. Kerry in it about how Rassmann went overboard, and that Brinkley has mysteriously omitted to list that document in his "Notes" section at the end of ToD, that too is factual. I have indeed offered some opinions to explain Brinkley's peculiar omission of this embarrassing but unimpeachable source — viz, he's either a very sloppy historian or completely in the bag for Kerry and part of his cover-up — but they're inferences rather than facts, and I've been careful to label them as such. The Belodeau Eulogy wasn't mentioned in O'Neill's Unfit for Command or any of the SwiftVets' materials until August 31, but I first posted about it on August 17. Hopefully, at a press conference (if Kerry will ever submit himself to press questioning on Swift Boat matters), some mainstream media reporter like Brit Hume — who I'm told has mentioned the Belodeau Eulogy a couple of times on Fox News, but no I don't have a link for that yet — or WaPo's Michael Dodd will ask Sen. Kerry, "How do you explain that at the DNC, you told the world that Jim Rassmann needed rescuing because he went overboard from your boat when a mine exploded nearby, whereas at Tommy Belodeau's funeral, in your eulogy to him that you had inserted into the Congressional Record, you said that Rassmann went overboard when your boat made a sharp turn? Was it a mine or was it a sharp turn, and why have you personally told those two different versions, Sen. Kerry?" I'm pretty sure it won't be a reporter from the NYT or the LAT who asks that question. Shame on them. Something in the Congressional Record ought not become beneath their notice just because it first came to widespread attention from my humble blog. CER, what kind of "accountability" do you think the mainstream media has? No one will - or can - sue the L.A. Times for falsely claiming that the Constitution "seems" to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to be Vice President. They may issue a correction, or they may not. CNN made a very similar gaffe back in June, or perhaps earlier, claiming on their web site that Bill Clinton is eligible to be Vice-President. Despite massive ridicule, not just from me but from Drudge, CNN's false "news" remains on their site, uncorrected, to this day - despite the page itself having been updated when Edwards was selected. And the Times's overall track record on this front is no better. In mid-July, in an editorial arguing for the renewal of the "assault" weapon ban, the Times falsely claimed that if it was not renewed, there would be "no bar" to Californians circumventing the state ban by purchasing their weapons in neighboring states. I didn't just mock them on my blog; I also contacted the so-called "Readers Representative" four times to request a correction, each time citing the specific federal statute that makes it a felony, for both the buyer and the seller, if a resident of State A purchases a long gun in State B that he cannot lawfully possess in State A (interstate handgun sales are prohibited outright). The first three telephone and email inquiries went unanswered. The fourth got a smarmy, hair-splitting definition of what the meaning of the word "bar" is. No correction was ever issued. So what is "accountability" thing you are talking about, again? Real credentials and facts that add up using standards. As Oliphant said, "you haven't even scratched the surface of journalistic credibility." And this group of right-wing bloggers, (and one RW groupie) are the only ones who don't see it. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 12:41 PM | Permalink "Was it a mine or was it a sharp turn, and why have you personally told those two different versions, Sen. Kerry?" This is the sort of divining hidden meaning that renders such pseudo-faux journalists worthless. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 12:45 PM | Permalink Reuben, Here's a challenge to you: rather than "smear" the right-wing bloggers with generalities, how about responding to some of Beldar's hard facts. I issue this challenge because I have every confidence that you will not be able to meet it, and therefore won't even try. When you ignore my challenge, or issue some smarmy explanation of why you shouldn't be required to stoop to debating the actual facts, that will tell us quite a bit about who is debating facts and who is engaging in smears. Let the excuses fly! Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 12:59 PM | Permalink Patterico refers to "Jay's allegation that all the charges have been decisively smacked down by the press." I made no such point. Here's what I did write: "The press may have knocked down the most serious charges," which Patterico, the accuracy hound, translates into "all the charges have been decisively smacked down by the press." Does it make a difference? Well, in this thread and at this weblog no. But things like that--a little trimming here, rounding off there, a re-arranging of words just so, ignoring this while playing up that--do, in the wider arena of political debate, end up having a big difference. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 2, 2004 1:19 PM | Permalink The Swift Boat story seems to be a very important one to both sides, and it seems by some accounts that the Bush supporters have found the Achilles heel they were looking for. Kerry may indeed have lied, in which case he's a complete idiot for having made it the cornerstone of his campaign. So be it. My question is, is Truth the issue of both campaigns? If so, neither side has much ammo. We went to war with Iraq because Bush "thought" there were WMD's. Sure, we can't prove whether Bush thought or didn't think it was true, but we can certainly catch Bush in one lie: He said he wouldn't use the 9/11 tragedy as part of his re-election campaign. Posted by: Alejo at September 2, 2004 1:22 PM | Permalink Beldar and Patterico... before you drag me further into your endless war against the enemies of truth and accuracy in the Swift Vets case, please try to realize that I was primarily writing about the perception journalists have that "all" the charges have been knocked down; and I was primarily arguing that this attitude simply doesn't cut it; and I was primarily observing how clueless and wrong-headed the press was being in dismissing the matter so easily. If you persist in incorporating me into your Struggle For Truth by paraphrasing my argument as "Rosen says all charges shot down by three articles in the press," or by implying such, then you are simply adding further to the pile of distortions. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 2, 2004 1:37 PM | Permalink Let's not split too many hairs here. Yes, there is a difference between falsely claiming that the mainstream press has knocked down "all" of the SwiftVets' charges, on the one hand, and "only" falsely claiming that they have knocked down the most serious ones, on the other. The similarities between the two false claims outweigh the differences by a long shot. Beldar, Patterico, Captain Ed and countless other bloggers have, for the most part, focused on the more serious charges, the ones you claimed (or at least strongly implied) had been thoroughly discredited. Jay, ... I was primarily writing about the perception journalists have that "all" the charges have been knocked down; It appears that there are two journalistic camps: 1) enough discovery has taken place concerning enough of the allegations to adjudicate in favor of Kerry or against the SBVT, 2) except for one or two allegations (Xmas '68, Peck not Kerry, ...) most cannot be "proven" 35 years later and would have no bearing (perhaps should have no bearing) on the campaign if Kerry and the Democrats had not decided to use military service as a way to counter Bush's war-time President status. ... and I was primarily arguing that this attitude simply doesn't cut it; I agree, but I'm not sure we're in agreement. Gillmore's acknowledgement that his readers are a valuable resource for navigating and adjudicating across the broad spectrum of issues that make, or are in the news, is an important quality missing in "the press" that has chosen detachment - above (as in the fray or in judgement) from "indivisible from". ... and I was primarily observing how clueless and wrong-headed the press was being in dismissing the matter so easily. By doing so, they are guaranteeing its resurrection. Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 2:25 PM | Permalink Patterico and Beldar, I think we’re basically agreeing here. There are responsible bloggers out there who provide facts and back up to their posted opinions. These are the people who hold the MSM accountable for their reporting. They are the vocal readers who pay attention, the watchdogs, if you will, who have found a medium to be heard. However, what I’m trying to emphasize is that there are definitely those out there that aren’t responsible. There simply are no standards. I hope we can all agree that ethics are an essential part of j-school and that journalists are held accountable by losing their jobs for major mistakes in judgment. And yet, a blogger can be anyone, my next door neighbor who has discourse with her pug could be a blogger. Why not? She has Internet access. And with Internet access available at your local library, there truly is no cost of entry into blogging. And so, all I’m saying is that I distrust notion that the blogosphere can and should take over the Press as our source for information. As Alejo said, "The fact is that, at least for now, bloggers are heavily dependent on the MSM that they so eagerly blast." And thus back to the original post, are the ex-gatekeepers really ex? Or have they just been forced to move back the gates? In regards to the SBVT – which I’ve tried to divorce my above argument from – I totally agree with John Lynch, especially when he says, "Both the bloggers and the traditional media have so far failed to reconcile a mass of conflicting reports, facts, and have so far failed to get access to known data. Both are declaring victories where none exist." Posted by: CER at September 2, 2004 2:49 PM | Permalink The mainstream press did it's usual job of coming to the party late and unprepared. The Swift Boat guys announced in advance what they were going to do and say; no one covered it when they announced it and everyone did a rotten job of covering it once the ads hit. It's the sort of story that would have made a good investigative piece for a reporter willing to spend the weeks necessary to look at the claims, the claimants and the available records. It would have been relatively easy to track down the likes of Alfred French in Oregon, the prosecutor whose affadavit for the group is under fire. It would have been relatively easy to find the connections between the Bush campaign - and they're not casual; people were actually working for the campaign, not just associated with people who worked for it - but it took Digby, a blogger, to point out that one participant in the attacks on Kerry, Ken Cordier, was on the steering committee of Veterans for Bush, an official campaign adjunct, and it took the press two months to notice that Ben Ginsberg was doing double duty as an attorney for the Swift Boat group and the Bush-Cheney campaign. I believe Jay that people he spoke with were stunned, but they're always stunned. They were stunned at the terrible job they did covering the 2000 campaign. They were stunned at the terrible job they did covering the runup to the Iraq invasion. In fact, at the end of every single goddamned year, the press goes through a massive orgy of self-criticism followed by a cigarette and a promise to respect their customers in the morning. So I'm not buying this "gatekeeper" crap. The only time the mainstream press aren't the gatekeepers is when they leave the gate open. It's not an external phenomenon. When they do their jobs well, which is increasingly less often - and TV and cable news have pretty much given up the battle altogether - the press can get ahead of anyone else because they have the resources to do so. Even in the rare instances when someone else breaks a story, the press have the resources to jump on it and catch up in a hurry. What's happened to us is that the press have succumbed to a particularly odious brand of relativism, and it's undermining our democracy. How could an election so significant as this one get turned into a personality contest? Bloggers aren't driving this. It's the press and their abject failure to do good work and stand behind it. So, Jay, next time a member of the press seems stunned, you might want to suggest that it's because he or she has been taking stupid pills for too many years. Posted by: weldon berger at September 2, 2004 2:54 PM | Permalink Excellent post, Mr. Berger. Bullseye. Can you expand on this statement? Posted by: Alejo at September 2, 2004 3:01 PM | Permalink Thomas Lipscomb is in the camp that doesn't think "all" the charges have been knocked down, or at least is pursuing his own: At the time, Mr. Kerry told the Boston Globe that Boorda’s conduct was “sufficient to question [Boorda’s] leadership position.…If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.” Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 3:08 PM | Permalink What are these "facts" as you call them? That your new witness wasn't on the boat, but could see anyway? I question your ability to detect a pertinent fact from the smear soup of your own creation. What were the other points? Where did he say the swiftboat commanded by Kerry dropped anchor Christmas day? How did he know where he was? Answer that challenge Mr. Tracy. Read the damn citation. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 3:25 PM | Permalink Alejo, I'm referring to what I think is the practice of refusing to make judgements even when facts favor one side or the other of a debate. Reporters, to an extent, and editors to a greater extent treat opposing stands on issues as if they were equivalent opinions, and all too rarely delve into the actual facts. Every argument is treated as equally valid. It's the journalistic equivalent of that "Tastes great!" "Less filling!" Miller beer ad. And they treat their failures as equivalent too. I will guarantee that when self-criticism time rolls around at the end of this year or the beginning of next, Howie Kurtz and the boys will be criticizing themselves equally for giving too much coverage to Scott Peterson, covering the campaign as "he said-she said" and blowing the coverage of the administration's handling of Iraq and other vital issues. They won't take responsibility for misleading or poorly informing the public, but rather for a failure of process that isn't any more significant in the case of too little responsible Iraq coverage than it is in the case of too much Peterson coverage. Washington Post editor Len Downie has come up with a couple of mind-bending statements lately. He told Jim Lehrer in relation to the case for invading Iraq and the post-invasion ebullience that "we took our eye off that particular ball at the particular moment, but I think we've been pretty tough since then." (I don't know if that's word-for-word, but it's very close). It's as if he thinks the good reporting during the past several months balances out the bad reporting and bad editorial decisions that helped get us into the mess. I don't have the quote in front of me, but Downie also echoed New York Times ace propagandist Judith Miller's sentiment that newspapers are in the business of stenography, not investigation or judgement. It's an Orwellian press, or a press that has placed themselves at the mercy of Orwellian archetypes. You can probably tell I'm a bit ticked off about it, but I hope that clarifies what I said. Posted by: weldon berger at September 2, 2004 3:26 PM | Permalink What are these "facts" as you call them? That your new witness wasn't on the boat, but could see anyway? I question your ability to detect a pertinent fact from the smear soup of your own creation. What were the other points? Where did he say the swiftboat commanded by Kerry dropped anchor Christmas day? How did he know where he was? Answer that challenge Mr. Tracy. Read the damn citation. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 3:30 PM | Permalink Well Miller was a duped propagandist for the administration if that's your case. I don't think that's what you mean though. Chalabi snowed everyone. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 3:33 PM | Permalink Thanks for the insight, Mr. Berger. I heartily agree with your sentiment and thank you for bringing the focus back to the discussion. Posted by: Alejo at September 2, 2004 3:47 PM | Permalink Reuben, Chalabi didn't snow everyone; he snowed people who wanted to be snowed. Most of what he and his sources said, and virtually all of what the administration said, had been discredited or at least cast into serious doubt before the invasion. As for Miller, she explicitly said that her job wasn't to analyze what the administration told her, but simply to report it. That's not being duped, that's willingly placing one's self at the service of people whose statements are meant to be the object of scrutiny, not repetition. Posted by: weldon berger at September 2, 2004 3:48 PM | Permalink Jay, I do not put quotation marks around my statement that you have alleged that all the charges have been decisively smacked down by the press. My statement is obviously my characterization of what I feel you are saying in the post. When I read your entire post, in full context, it seems to me that my characterization is a fair one. Perhaps you mean to be making it clear that you are describing only what journalists' perceptions are. But both Beldar and I received the strong impression -- from your tone, from your seemingly approving quotations of the journalists, from the way you word your characterizations of the "knock down," and from the whole tenor of your post -- that you agree with the journalists. If you really mean to say only that this is what journalists believe -- not what Jay Rosen believes -- all I can say is that it was not clear to me, and I was not the only one. In any event, readers need only scroll up to your actual post to decide for themselves what it says, and whether my characterization is accurate. I wonder if you would answer a question: which Swift Boat ads are not, in your opinion, a smear? And if you don't think the press has "knocked down" the Swiftvets' allegations in their entirety, I'd like to know that, too -- and I'd be especially interested in which ones you still consider viable. Perhaps you don't wish to take a position on such matters, given your purpose at the weblog. If that's your position, I'll respect it and won't mock it. But I take your comments directed at me as a suggestion that I am distorting what you are saying. I don't think I am -- and I assure you that I am not doing so consciously. Can we all be more careful with language? Sure. Can Jay Rosen be guilty of selective quotation? I think you can. For example, when I claimed on my weblog that you had "branded the Swift Boat Vets' ads as a 'smear'" you responded: Not quite accurate, Pat. I said the first ad was a smear job: "the original ad is a classic smear job-- ugly, brutal, demagogic, paranoid, cynical, dishonest in the extreme. And--a point that has not been stressed enough--it dishonors and degrades everyone who comes into contact with it."You chose not to quote the first sentence of your post above, in which you said: There is a smear campaign launched against John Kerry.Nor was your use of this phrase an accident. At my weblog, Tim has collected numerous quotes of yours labeling the Swift Vets' campaign as a "smear campaign." In light of this language, I don't think it was fair to me to characterize as "[n]ot quite accurate" my statement that you had"branded the Swift Boat Vets' ads as a 'smear.'" My point here is not to pick a fight with you. I'm feeling a little defensive, I suppose -- my impression being that you think I am out there mischaracterizing what you are saying. I hope you don't take it as an attack if I suggest that some of the fault in the communication could be yours in the expression, as well as with mine in the interpretation. My last example was offered merely to illustrate that point with a specific example. My suggestion would be that we all cut each other a little slack, try to point out inaccuracies when we see them, try to make sure that our various responses take into account everything we have said, and not allege a plan by others to systematically distort facts without evidence -- clearly set forth -- of a pattern showing an intent to distort. I don't think you'll find such a pattern in my writings. Preemptive comment: I know that your response to the last would be that this is exactly what I do with the mainstream media: allege a pattern of intentional distortion where none exists. I'll bet that if you tried, you could find all sorts of examples from my writing to support your argument. Two points: 1) I think I have documented a clear pattern over time; and 2) even in light of point #1, your presumptive point is noted and may have some merit. Hope I have caused no offense with any of this. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 3:56 PM | Permalink That's stenography not reporting. I condemn it and Miller's work on those pieces. Are you suggesting that this administration accepts he was playing them on the weapons then and now? The adminstration wanted to be snowed, were snowed and still are neck-deep in drifts of crap of their own making as we speak. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 4:01 PM | Permalink "My statement is obviously my characterization of what I feel you are saying in the post." From reading your slanted blog I'd say this applies to everything you see and write. Feeling is not reasoning. Writers and real Journalists know the difference. Posted by: Reuben at September 2, 2004 4:06 PM | Permalink Jay, Let me say much the same thing, much shorter. You say you were "primarily observing how clueless and wrong-headed the press was being in dismissing the matter so easily." I say you are doing the same thing by repeatedly calling the Vets' campaign a "smear campaign" based on what you know to date. And I wonder how you could reach such a conclusion if you have an in-depth knowledge of the research done by William Dyer (Beldar), Tom Maguire, Ed Morrisey (Captain Ed), and the like. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 4:09 PM | Permalink Reuben, I don't want to get too far off track here, but yes, I think much of the administration know Chalabi was lying, and I think a good many of them knew it at the time. They may have believed his happy crap about the welcome we'd get, but his primary purpose, and it was mutual to the administration, was to lobby Congress and the press in favor of an invasion that was on the table for what became this administration long before they took power. Posted by: weldon berger at September 2, 2004 4:21 PM | Permalink Patterico and others: Christmas in Cambodia seems to me a very dubious story. I don't know if Kerry made the entire thing up, mis-remembered something that happened, or exaggerated fatally from a real life incident. It matters a great deal that no one on his boat can recall ever being in Cambodia. There may be an explanation, but Kerry hasn't given it. Therefore if this is one of the charges, the press has not "knocked it down." Another example: When the Kerry campaign says it cannot release records because it has an exclusive deal with historian Douglas Brinkley, and Brinkley says, "huh? I don't mind if they release that information," that says to me: the Kerry campaign does not want to release the records and the operatives just made up a reason. This does not reflect well on them. The charge that matters the most, in my view; the charge that "made" the Swift Boat Veterans as an attack machine; the charge that lends "pop" to their attack; the charge that is doing whatever damage their campaign has done... is that Kerry didn't deserve his medals, lied to get them, and showed no courage in Vietnam. In my view, this charge is an ugly smear, and I think it's essentially false, which does not mean that every statement Kerry made about the matter is true. Kerry is a politician and I think he was probably an aspiring politician in college. Did he have an "eye" on his future in the 1960s and 70s? I would say he did, yes. I further believe that the Swift Boat Vets wanted to "expose" Kerry for his anti-war activities and statements before Congress. They felt slandered by what he said then, and still do. They wanted a debate about that and they wanted him to answer for the accusations they feel he made about all Vietnam vets. They could have made their campaign about that issue and those days, it would have been possible, but--and this is the part of the story where I would like to see some reporting--they decided they needed more "pop," something more sensational, a real grabber, an allegation with a wow factor in it, something with a kick: The war hero is a fraud. He didn't deserve his medals. He's actually a coward, morally unfit. The medals became this attention-grabbing device; they provided the wow factor, the means for showing that Kerry is not an ordinary truth-shader and self-promoter (i.e., a politician) but a moral monster, unfit for command. Once the decision was made to challenge his medals, an evidentiary (and moral) Rubicon was crossed. The smear began right there. The ad about the medals is shameless, cynical, demagogic; and it trades in paranoia, but there is a "thrill" factor to it. People who have experienced such a thrill have to ward off their feelings of guilt. They do this by seeing themselves as totally innocent and the person they've tried to blow away as totally guilty, and thus wholly deserving of his fate. I believe that psychology is driving events in the Swift Vets case. They have to suppress a lot of knowledge they have as veterans, such as the fact that almost no one's medals could fully withstand the kind of scrutiny Kerry's have received. Total innocence (on our side) and total guilt (on his, on theirs) become the means to do that. Under these circumstances, doubt becomes one's psychic enemy. Anyone who is not 100% on board is a threat to survival. Anyone who raises questions is a potential enemy. The charge that Kerry doesn't deserve his medals and lied to get them; that he is not a hero but a coward and a moral monster-- this actually has nothing to do with his anti-war stance and the statements about American soldiers that he made before Congress. The Swift Vets didn't have to challenge his medals and his standing as war hero in order to condemn Kerry for what he did and said after returning from Vietnam. But for some reason (and this to me is the unexplained factor in these events) they decided to go for it. Once they crossed that line, which required falsehoods to be aired, it became a psychological war, not just a political fight. This war, which is very complicated, is partly internal to the Swift Vets and their supporters. I don't agree with the view--expressed by some journalists and accepted by almost all pro-Kerry Democrats--that the Swift Vets are just a front group for the Bush campaign. At some point, however, they became influenced by pro-Bush operatives, and I feel they have been used by forces loyal to the President. John O'Neill's anger at Bush for saying things like "Kerry served honorably" seems to me very real-- genuine rage. This is one part of the story that remains untold. If Karl Rove is as smart as people say, then I think he's rather worried about the Swift Vets-- precisely because they are not just a front group. Finally, I repeat what I said in my original post. The Swift Vets smear (Kerry didn't deserve his medals and lied to get them) dishonors and degrades everyone who signs on with it. It is a toxic charge. I think lots of people supporting the Swift Vets intuitively know this. That's why they say things like, "the medals are a distraction" (Glenn Reynolds at his weblog) or "Gee, I don't know why they focused on the medals" (John Moore at mine.) I observe with great interest the way supporters of the Swift Vets step carefully around this part of the case, or speak as if it didn't exist. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 2, 2004 6:25 PM | Permalink Tom Oliphant is quoted approvingly: "I don't mean to say that I know exactly what happened that day. I believe that Mr. O'Neill, like anybody making a personal attack in politics, has to shoulder the burden of proof. It never leaves his shoulders until he satisfies it. And on this story, they haven't even gotten to first base." This is completely wrong. Mr. Kerry has asked us to vote for him based largely on his record in Vietnam. Now the Swifties have introduced substantial testimony and pointed out inconsistencies in Kerry's own materials (website, campaign book by Brinkley) that draw Kerry's assertions and the validity of his awards into question. Kerry refuses to release records. He has conceded on Christmas in Cambodia and on his previous assertions that all boats fled on March 13, when he alone initially fled, and other stayed to succor the No. 3 boat. There is also the fact he carried a movie camera to "reenact" combat scenes for later political use, which strongly implies he was out to inflate his record. The burden of proof is on Kerry to convince us to entrust him with the presidency. It is not on the Swifties to prove that Kerry has lied beyond a reasonable doubt. This not a criminal case. Posted by: thucydides at September 2, 2004 6:42 PM | Permalink Tom Oliphant is not quoted approvingly. You are simply wrong about that. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 2, 2004 6:44 PM | Permalink Jay, The Swift Vets didn't have to challenge his medals and his standing as war hero in order to condemn Kerry for what he did and said after returning from Vietnam. But for some reason (and this to me is the unexplained factor in these events) they decided to go for it. Yes, they did. And it had to be phase one. This debate has been played over 30 years and Kerry's defense to criticisms about what he said when he returned is that he had EARNED the right to speak out against the war (and smear those still fighting it) BECAUSE he was a bemedaled war hero. He EARNED those medals (or ribbons) that he tossed away as symbols for what he went through. His medals and hero status was the teflon coating that needed to be pierced before transitioning to phase two (post-war activities). Back on the topic of the "independent" media, I would describe blogs as dependent on the press but outside pressthink's pack mentality that too often is compliant with perceived conventional wisdom. There is an independence to explore, ask and mature a story in public among ideological friends and foes without risking profit or professional credibility. Some blogs are an individual's (or like minded group's) echo chamber where "the truth" very much favors their political ideology; and political opponents can be smeared, unchallenged, as evil, uniquely corrupt, sinister and undemocratic. Headlines aren't as much summaries as statements, like Ashcroft: the drama queen of the War on Terra®. Some blogs shame the gatekeepers into doing a better job, other blogs are held out by the gatekeepers as their raison d'être. Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 6:57 PM | Permalink Jay, what exactly is a "smear" in your book? A false or unsubstantiated charge, or a charge that deals with a topic you don't think should be dealt with? Some of the charges surrounding the medals may have been called into question, but I don't see any evidence even those charges were brought in bad faith. Meanwhile, at least some of the challenges to the medals appear to have legs. For example, less than a week had passed since Chris Matthews hardballed Michelle Malkin over Kerry's allegedly self-inflicted wounds, before even a Kerry spokeman admitted the allegation may have been true. That does not sound like a "smear" job to me, unless "smear" is just a code-word for "merits, schmerits - I don't want people talking about this issue, period." Jay, I would be very grateful if you could expound more on why you think this: They have to suppress a lot of knowledge they have as veterans, such as the fact that almost no one's medals could fully withstand the kind of scrutiny Kerry's have received. Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 7:03 PM | Permalink Jay, My own personal feelings are that the Vets have raised substantial questions; that they have made some telling points; that many (but not all) of them had their credibility seriously damaged by comparisons of what they said in the past versus what they say now; that they are an independent group that would push this issue even if polls showed that the issue was decisively hurting Bush; that, though I have read much of the detail regarding the medals, I still don't feel that I have a handle on what really happened; that we may never know what really happened; and, most fundamentally, that Kerry is getting kid-glove treatment from the media, which has rushed to conclude the allegations are all Bush-sponsored falsehoods, and which has shown very little curiosity at the fact that Kerry won't provide access to his full military records. I guess my feelings are well reflected in what John Lynch said above: Both the bloggers and the traditional media have so far failed to reconcile a mass of conflicting reports, facts, and have so far failed to get access to known data. Both are declaring victories where none exist.I certainly haven't concluded that the first ad or the charges in it are "dishonest in the extreme." I suspect that many people rushed to conclude that the charges were false because they simply didn't like the nature of the charges -- because, as Ron Brownstein called them, they were the political equivalent of a "snuff film." Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 7:09 PM | Permalink Tim, I think I supported the "drama queen" characterization fairly well. When an incident devolves from the capture of three men with foreknowledge of 911 to tossing out the convictions amid allegations of prosecutorial and justice department misconduct, I think one has to admit that the import of the case was enormously exaggerated, and it isn't by any means the only instance; you may recall the press conference from Moscow announcing the arrest of Jose Padilla, and the bizarre handling of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. I am a flaming leftie, no question about it, and a sarcastic one to boot, but I don't make any effort to hide my political predilections or to pretend that I'm a news source. I do my best to keep my facts straight - and I think it's a good best - and I'm certainly not going to apologize for expressing an opinion about the facts I comment upon, since that's why I'm commenting upon them. And of course I do have a comments feature on the blog, which you or any of my other three readers are welcome to use at your convenience. Cheers, Posted by: weldon berger at September 2, 2004 7:23 PM | Permalink wb, I enjoyed reading your blog and your latest at Democratic Underground. If I may be so bold, I would not have used "drama queen", choosing instead perhaps Harland Bassett. Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 7:56 PM | Permalink Tim, I can see how that would fit better than "Booty when she doesn't want to look at my gold ipod." Thanks for the kind words. I'm going to be quiet now and let these other guys argue, although I still think it's monstrously bad journalism that's to blame in the whole contretemps. Posted by: weldon berger at September 2, 2004 8:25 PM | Permalink Now the Pentagon IG is in on the "smear" (deserves scare quotes, don'tcha think)? How should Kerry respond? Posted by: Tim at September 2, 2004 9:29 PM | Permalink There is a parallel discussion going on at my own blog, where I noted this post and comment thread. At my blog, Jay posted (I believe) the same comment he posted above, but is eliciting different reactions. You might want to check it out here, and in particular mikem's comment here. Posted by: Patterico at September 2, 2004 10:06 PM | Permalink It appears that Dan Gillmor thinks that Jay thinks the whole campaign is a smear. And Gillmor heartily agrees. I wish you folks would tell us whether you've actually read Beldar, Captain Ed, Tom Maguire, etc. -- and truly considered their arguments. Or if you've even read the Swifties' book. Or whether you all just automatically decided this was a "smear" from the very second you first heard about the accusations. I am sensing a real reluctance to get dirty with the facts about the medals. True, a real engagement with the facts may mean that the Vets don't come out 100% in the clear -- but neither would Kerry, I suspect. Yet the word "smear" is freely used by Gillmor, Rosen, and the like against the Vets -- while McCain's angry attack on the Vets (based on zero personal knowledge) is cause to stand up and applaud. Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 2:12 AM | Permalink Of course no one's discussing the real issues. Instead this election may be determined by what people say happened over 30 years ago. Anyone who knows anything about witness testimony knows that people's memories of events that long ago aren't reliable. We don't know what happened back then and we aren't going to know beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I find it amusing that Kerry, who no one doubts actually volunteered for Vietnam and did see combat, is being raked over the coals for this. In a sane world people would say, "yeah, it seems some dubious things may have occured, but at least he served and didn't use his influence to get out of the way of danger the way many others did. Now, why don't we discuss the present war and domestic issues rather than a war that ended almost thirty years ago?" I'm not fond of Kerry and he was my last choice for Dem candidate amongst the big four, but watching the lack of perspective amongst both principles and onlookers on this issue, is deeply saddening. Tear down those who served, in service of those who used connections to escape service. Posted by: Ian Welsh at September 3, 2004 2:27 AM | Permalink Jay, nice of you to mention Christmas in Cambodia. The media was not only stunned, it was blinded. By Bush-hate; blinded by so much Bush-hate that the May 4 Open Letter to Kerry got NO attention from you or the many Leftists who hate this story. Why do Leftist, anti-War folk hate the story? Because Kerry's Lies about American soldiers made them support peace in SE Asia, peace AND genocide -- the alternative to war AND eventual freedom for S Vietnam. And the Left claims peace (AND genocide) is morally superior. It's not. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 3, 2004 8:07 AM | Permalink Mr. Gray says: "And the Left claims peace (AND genocide) is morally superior. It's not." The Left claims genocide is morally superior? Isn't that like saying the Right loves to kill people in the name of Christ? Come on. Posted by: Alejo at September 3, 2004 8:32 AM | Permalink Jay, I enjoyed your post and thought you made some interesting and valuable points. But this statement -- "The press may have knocked down the most serious charges" -- raised some questions for me. 1. Who gets to decide whether charges have been "knocked down"? If the answer is "every individual gets to decide for himself" instead of "the New York Times gets to decide for everyone," I think that's an improvement. Posted by: Ed Jordan at September 3, 2004 10:46 AM | Permalink Ian Welsh, What hurts Kerry the most is that Kerry; Terry McAuliffe and the DNC; and surrogate Democrats like Micheal Moore and MoveOn; made Vietnam the centerpiece of this election season. The purpose was to counter-balance Bush's war-time President status. The narrative was two-fold: 1) President Bush did not serve honorably during Vietnam. Basically, the smear Jay describes: The war president is a fraud. He didn't deserve his honorable discharge 30 years ago. He's actually a coward, morally unfit. 2) Compare our "chest full of medals" "war hero" Navy LT Kerry with the "AWOL" "deserter" Bush - from 30 years ago. Kerry had the choice of not putting the political spotlight on events 30 years ago, or using his embellishments of only half of what happened to define himself as a candidate and cast his opponent in a negative light. We're here because Kerry and Bush-hating Democrats put us here. I'm not sure if it is irony or karmic justice listening to Democrats complain now that we're not talking about issues and instead watching Kerry's character, and the character of his service, questioned. Kerry's actions, then and today, make me doubt that he sees his time in the Navy as a service performed for others. This was his greatest mistake: I think Kerry should run on many things, but in the degree that it's his Vietnam record, it has to include both-- see John fight in the war, see John fight against it, and I don't care if reconciling those two is tough without alienating swing voters in Ohio. He's running for President of the United States. The challenge of doing just that--reconciling his roles in the Vietnam War chapter of our history--might have been breathed life into the campaign, tested the candidate's skills, and deepened our knowledge of Kerry. Also: it's more honest. Posted by: Tim at September 3, 2004 11:02 AM | Permalink The meat of the story reflects how blogs enhance the media bubbble of isolation for the hardcore news consumer. If a person is interested in having their news colored specifically to their view, the blog sphere provides a bottomless market of news to the consumers taste. Further the blogsphere has no ultimate agreed arbitrator of truth. If Swift Boaters were not a transparent front for the Bush Campaign, as demonstrated by the Washington Post and other reporting, the break out of the story would not be a concern. However what bothers most proffessional media people is how effectively the right wing media machine was able to hijack the national discourse. Further of concern is how quickly that machine can invoke its consumers into unquestioning Zell Millerish blood lusting rages. Traditionally stories from the loony-left or the loony-right could be discredited convincingly in public national forums, via TV and key front page articles. Suddenly there are new places of consumer media attention to which rational discourse may never arrive. Since everyone now gets a printing press, and soon everyone will get their own Video pulpit this will be a fact of life that everyone must deal with. Scary but exciting. What's the solution? A meta google like monitoring of the national discourse that identifies ALL memes and their influence. Editors will become more like fireman than idea leaders even if traditional media can establish a foot hold in these spheres of discourse. There will have to be continual addressing of every issue all the time. Some exciting changes are ahead! Posted by: patience at September 3, 2004 11:16 AM | Permalink Ed The points you raise on "who gets to decide?" are important to me as well. This I think gets to the heart of the matter, and ties directly back to the point Jay was raising to begin with. The 'gatekeeper' functions are not what they used to be. Decisions that affect coverage are less enforceable than in the past. It is one part of the 'under-card' battle between traditional media and blogging. Another part of the battle is investigative capabilities. I believe, and so posted above, that Bloggers have demonstrated some impressive capabilities that the traditional media would be, and are, hard-pressed to show. Excepting those case where a large, well-resourced, and budgeted-with-time investigative team is put together, the traditional media find it difficult to dig through the complexities of military procedures, the meanings of battle formations, the kinds of injuries rifles verses grenades inflict, etc. As a result, the traditional media find it difficult to make the connections, raising new lines of questions, which the bloggers have been able to do. I do not know if this capability can be generalized, or if it is just that this particular story is such that these strengths came into play, but it is notable. Posted by: John Lynch at September 3, 2004 11:23 AM | Permalink Rightwing bloggers have fastened onto to this topic not because they have facts per se but because they smell blood and the larger picture confirms their suspiscions. And they become Swiftboat cheerleaders. I'm intrigued by Rosen's point and I'm stunned I tell you, stunned in a searing way, that the rightwing bloggers have pounced on Rosen for committing the cardinal sin of not signing-on to the anti-Kerry camp. And this whole thread is part and parcel of the point that there is a growing independence from the mainstream media. It just so happens to have a studly rightwing cast. Whatever the consequences are (I think horrible) or whatever the truth is about Kerry and Vietnam is beyond the point. But true to the internet, true to discussion threads, true to blogging, it gets derailed, distorted and dis yucky. The anti-Kerry bloggers are, however, on the high ground regarding Kerry's actions. The media ought to have followed-up when questions were raised last year, last winter, this past summer. Standards and resources would have been useful in sifting through the conflicting accounts, conflicting motives. Now we're left with bloggers who will blogged to death the minutest inconsistency and magnify it into the most heinous offense. Look at how Beldar frames it: systematic cover-up, stonewalling. But the bombastic bloggers can't seem to fathom why others - media consumers and media producers might discount the whole story. I'm apt to dismiss their claims, and risk dismissing relevant facts, because the swifties and their blogger buddies are all over the place and everything fits their conclusion. I'd find more relevance in this is Atrios did some digging about Kerry's account, the Washington Post started tracking down this s0-called 250 against Kerry, and Beldar and ilk started to ponder how thousands of American soldiers have become casaulties for a war that was waged on faulty pretenses. For now I'll just wait for the tooth fairy. Posted by: DeWayne at September 3, 2004 11:33 AM | Permalink patience, You say: If Swift Boaters were not a transparent front for the Bush Campaign, as demonstrated by the Washington Post and other reporting, the break out of the story would not be a concern.But Spinsanity disagrees: While news outlets including the New York Times have documented various connections between Bush and the so-called 527 group, there's no evidence that the President is behind the ads.What's your evidence? Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 12:07 PM | Permalink DeWayne, I can't speak for all right-wing bloggers, but for me it's nowhere near as black and white as you portray it. I am not a Swiftboat "cheerleader" -- just someone who thinks their allegations shouldn't be dismissed so easily as a "smear." Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 12:25 PM | Permalink Never mind the press's role. O'Neill has some potential legal problems if Kerry actually decided to fight this depiction of him. John Dean's article (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040831.html) on this suggest Unfit to Command to be a rare case of libel, since it has demonstrably false assertions printed that are contradicted by the author's own statements.
Posted by: bill s at September 3, 2004 1:03 PM | Permalink Well, if John Dean said it, it must be true. Bill, O'Neill has all but begged Kerry to sue him. I guarantee you that Kerry never will. This is one can of worms he's trying like the devil to keep closed. Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 1:15 PM | Permalink bill s, I hope Kerry takes Dean's advice. O'Neill has dared him, Baer previously raised it, and Dyer addressed it here. My advice, careful what you wish for. Posted by: Tim at September 3, 2004 2:04 PM | Permalink Patterico- By not talking about the substance of the issue Dean raises, you are here doing the same thing you object to in others on this thread. Instead of using logic as your argument, you resort to ad hominem sarcasm about John Dean as a person. It just goes to show what someone else on the thread wrote about logic only being as good as the emotion behind it. Tim- Dyer doesn't address Dean's example that O'Neill highlighted a quote that Kerry was a baby-killer in the book, and in the same book, O'Neill interviewed someone with much detailed knowledge of the incident who said it wasn't so. That's the combination of factual assertion and malicious intent that one rarely sees in libel prosecutions. The time for Kerry to file a lawsuit is past. He should have done it when the ad first aired, because things like that break through the he-said, she-said screen of the press to tell real people that, whoa, he's really serious. Kerry also should have accompanied that with a statement that unless Bush repudiates this ad, his own record is subject to scrutiny. Instead, Bush is suing, the press is confused, and Kerry is pissed for letting his aides talk him into the high road. As for O'Neill's claim that he wants to be sued, his phrasing is priceless, strung like a Christmas tree with "if's." Having seen him speak, I don't doubt his sincerity, but he does have a tendency to use words in a very inexact, uncautious, and extremely aggressive way. People like that get chewed up in court, IMHO Posted by: bill s at September 3, 2004 2:53 PM | Permalink In response to the challenge to Jay Rosen's comment that: "They have to suppress a lot of knowledge they have as veterans, such as the fact that almost no one's medals could fully withstand the kind of scrutiny Kerry's have received." Jay can answer for himself. But his point is valid that the sliming of Kerry’s valor in combat has the effect of calling to question the sacrifices of other military personnel. The accusations of the Swifties, contradictory and errorneous as they are, continue to resonate through the media and the blogs. Through innuendo, half-truths and lies, we’re told that Kerry fabricated his wounds and exaggerated his courage under fire. His wounds weren’t serious enough, we’re told. His wounds weren’t serious enough, we’re told. Acts of heroism in Vietnam were routinely hyped up, we’re told. The complexities and confusion of a few terrifying moments under fire on a Vietnamese river are now compressed three decades later into implausibility because of ‘the inconsistencies.’ There is little consistent or well-reasoned about what happens in combat. But it’s more than that. Thurlow stands by his story that Kerry couldn’t possibly have legitimately earned a Bronze Star because there was no enemy fire on the An Hop that day – despite his own citation for Bronze Star during the same engagement. It didn't happen and he didn't deserve a medal, he says, simultaneously devaluing his own bravery and that of other members of his crew and those of other boats that fought that day. This story is not just one of the Swifties versus John Kerry. There are other voices out there. If we believe the Swifties and their supports that heroic acts were routinely inflated up the command to boost the medal cout, by extensionn other acts of heroism in Vietnam are under suspicion. If duration in a combat zone or severity of wounds is the standard, than everyone’s Purple Hearts are up for question. It’s not a far journey from the Swift Boat vets’ complaints to the execrable wearing of Purple Heart Band-Aids at the Republican convention. It mocks the blood and pain of more veterans than just John Kerry. Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 3, 2004 2:55 PM | Permalink One of the things that has confused me is that no one from the Swift Boat group has said, as far as I know, whom Kerry's angel was supposed to have been. And after reporting the denial in The Billings Gazette of yesterday, the same paper is reporting today that the group sent faxes of supposed e.mails that the group received from the two men. Both men still deny that they said yes to being included in the list. It looks as if both of them read the e.mail they got in a hurry, misinterpreted it and thought it was asking if they were Swift Boat veterans. Then they forgot about it. They were proud of their service. But I agree that the ones angry at Kerry might as well dump their own medals in the nearest file 13. By claiming it was easy to get medals in Vietnam, they have just devalued their medals and demeaned themselves for accepting them. Posted by: Chuck Rightmire at September 3, 2004 3:47 PM | Permalink bill s, Obviously, Kerry's not serious or knows that the book contains mostly embarassing corrections to his record and stories. O'Neill is a trial lawyer, apparently a good one. Dave In Texas and Chuck Rightmire, Are either of you combat veterans from Vietnam or another war? If so, do you feel that any of your medals have been cheapened? Posted by: Tim at September 3, 2004 4:24 PM | Permalink Bill S: "People like that get chewed up in court, IMHO" Only _after_ Discovery. _I_ wouldn't say things that qualify as slander or libel deliberately unless I had access to something incontrovertible. Copies of the letters requesting medals, a scathing review or two - that's the sort of thing _I_ would require before exposing myself to a lawsuit from a billionaire. _Releasing_ them would probably be a crime for someone - but just knowing what is on them would give one a clear headsup. Posted by: Al at September 3, 2004 4:28 PM | Permalink Bill S., I don't think your comment is fair. With Dean, we have the word of a convicted felon that the Swifties' book says what Dean says it says. You'd have a field day with me if I came on here and said that, according to convicted felon Ollie North, Doug Brinkley's book shows that Kerry lied about x, y, and z. I just don't trust John Dean to tell the truth about what's in the book. I'll freely admit that I haven't read the Swifties' book, as I am not quite interested enough in the minute details of the various controversies. I have followed some of the ins and outs on the various blogs, and may read the book some day, but I'm not sure it's worth my time to read it. My guess: you haven't read it either. If I'm wrong, tell me -- and then put your own name (rather than Dean's tarnished name) behind the substance of Dean's claims. And I did deal with the substance of the idea that a lawsuit might get filed: O'Neill has said, in essence: "Bring it on!" Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 4:56 PM | Permalink Patterico I'm surprised you haven't read the book. The book has more than enough substance to as they say: "make a credible case." Cross posted from Patterico's blog: Jay, and I think others, have some outrage at the Medals charges. It is attributed that the medals part of the discussion was just a gimmick in order to get attention, but not the real meat of the Swift Boat charges. While I think it best for the Swifties to answer for themselves the intent of the medals charge, I do not believe the charges a "gimmick." I for one am waiting on more serious investigation of these charges. These charges have already stimulated: Kerry campaign "clarifications" that the wounds "may have been self-inflicted;" DoD statements that there is no such thing as a Combat "V" for Silver Star (which Kerry has;) Judicial Watch filings for investigation; and now a request from the Pentagon AG to the Secretary of the Navy to investigate irregularities. There seems enough substance here to not be a "gimmick." A libel suit would indeed be interesting. Posted by: John Lynch at September 3, 2004 5:16 PM | Permalink Tim Nope. No combat medals. Though I have a Good Conduct Medal that wouldn't bear much scrutiny. Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 3, 2004 5:23 PM | Permalink John Lynch, Maybe I will read it. I just have not mustered the energy to do so, and as busy as I am, I feel that I have gotten an accurate enough picture of the highlights from the blogs I cited earlier. Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 5:39 PM | Permalink Tim - It's clear you know the motivations of O'Neill and Kerry, but I can't be so sure. All I know is that O'Neill has shown a willingness to lie in just about every TV appearance he has made in the past two months. On CNN on 8/11 he said SBVT had no partisan ties, even though the former POW featured on his ads was a member of the BushCheney Veteran's Steering Committee! On 8/12 he claimed he wasn't a Republican from Texas, even though he has given more than $14,000 to Republicans, none to Democrats since 1990, and when he was asked about this on FOX news, he claimed half the money in his name came from a law partner Edward J. O'Neill, which turned out to be false. Then, on Crossfire he claimed he had never himself been in Cambodia, and then it turned out he said he had been on the Cambodian border to no less than Richard Nixon himself in 1971. I could go on and on, but the point is why should we believe this guy? His own PR director has called him a "crazed extremist" and, personally, I think any attorney who has had so many changing stories and writes like the excerpts of the book I've seen who says he would welcome a lawsuit is either crazy, lying, has friends in very high places (or maybe a combination of the three). Al- you sure you want a discovery that includes peeking into the files of Clements, O'Neill, Pierce, Wilson & Fulkerson? Patterico- so you won't even listen to anything from John Dean, but yet you express amazement that others don't take the statements of John O'Neill at face value? Did you at least trust John Dean told the truth about Watergate? John Dean knows more about the law than I do, and he makes an interesting argument, which is why I brought it up. Posted by: bill s at September 3, 2004 5:50 PM | Permalink The smell of sour grapes in this thread makes me dizzy. Folks are mistaking vinegar for wine. Its not a hangover but a headache from the fumes. Partisan bloggers, especially the rightwingers seem to harbor a grudge that the mainstream media fails their "attention must be paid" obligation to the conservative topics and interests. And so if the big newspapers or networks ignore or dismiss a story, the big media must not be worth it. Or biased. But for all their complaints about the media they will be the first to cite mainstream media validation when the press picks up their story(line). Bloggers ultimately want validation and ultimately want to see their names (or stories) in big lights and that can only be accomplished if the New York Times, for example, covers it. The independence of the alternative media is a second-best solution. True success comes from having the legitimacy and credibility - precisely the gatekeeping function - of the media sanctioning the story. Bloggers and other forms of new media require a gatekeeping press precisely because only the press can anoint stories as facts and make other stories as marginal or false or suspect. The right is trying to create an alternative mainstream - Fox as straight news gathering, Fox as straight news analysis and the Wash Times clearly seek to be gatekeepers. And other kinds of rightwing media - the monthlies, the online sites like Newsmax, talk radio, blogging seek to create a parallel universe for the news-hungry reactionary. So the battle, the undercard?, involves more than kid internet. But copying the form of news gathering and analsysi isn't the same substantively and the ever-present defensiveness (often displayed as the knee-jerk attack on the mainstream media) in their product suggest that their own discomfort at playing the arbiter. What they really want to get the respect of those organizations they disdain. What I read as Rosen's exploration of changes in the media as displayed in the Swiftboat-Kerry dispute quickly detoured into a discussion over the Swiftboat vets claims. And its a discussion that seems curiously unable to acknowledge any sense of proportion or context. I'm beginning to see the process of the claims-making activities of bloggers fascinating - far more so than whatever it is their blogging about. But I'm not too sanguine about the press' role as gatekeeper. In the end and after all the postings and linkings and ponderings and counting the hits - after it all we all looke to see if our picture is in the paper. Posted by: nedserb at September 3, 2004 6:47 PM | Permalink The swifties holler holy hell - Stever Gardiner kinda hinted he'd shoot the first reporter to dig around his biography - but there's a real story about the alleged 250 vets against Kerry. The grand contradictions, inconsistencies, changing accounts, etc are only the tip of an iceberg. This organization and effort just smells too much like a story. The vindictiveness is strking but there's also a Keystone Cop quality in their chase of the Kerry. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar and where's there's smoke... Or sometimes it does matter who is the messenger and what kind of messages do they have? Posted by: nedserb at September 3, 2004 6:57 PM | Permalink nedserb Good post. I think there are some sour grapes, and some ink-envy going on in the complaints. Partisans, or other interest groups, from whatever is left, right, center - each have complaints about coverage of their interests. I have posted on Jay's blog before on this subject, and the subject is actually the subject of Jay's next thread. My position is that as a given news producer becomes more biased in coverage, that producer loses audience. Bias in the form of gate-keeping, slant, erroneous facts, unsupported conclusions, word choices, etc. all speak clearly enough of the position of the writer. If the given news producer converges on a meta-narrative, or outright bias, article after article, that excludes the positions of its readers/viewers, then the producer also excludes the readers/viewers over time. I have heard this somewhat haughty description of a tendency of people seeking to be "self-reinforced." This is a bit too condescending a concept for me to subscribe. I believe the readership/viewership trends we are witnessing illustrate the trend, but I do not think that we have analyzed or acknowledged the causes. BTW, right-wing bloggers are people; as are left-wing nutcases, etc. To paraphrase an earlier post: “Who gets to decide?”
Posted by: John Lynch at September 3, 2004 7:34 PM | Permalink bill s, Tim - It's clear you know the motivations of O'Neill and Kerry, but I can't be so sure. Uhhh, no, I was answering what you wrote here that the time had past for Kerry to file a lawsuit and that filing one would have shown people he was serious. All I know is that O'Neill has shown a willingness to lie in just about every TV appearance he has made in the past two months. That establishes the bar of what qualifies as a lie. Recognize this? On CNN on 8/11 he said SBVT had no partisan ties, even though the former POW featured on his ads was a member of the BushCheney Veteran's Steering Committee! I'm not sure when, or if, Ken Cordier joined the Swift Boat vets as an Air Force POW. He did appear in their second commercial released more than a week, iirc, after O'Neill made that statement. I'd say Cordier is a partisan, but it seems like he kept his involvement with the two organizations hidden from each other. Either way, he has left the Veteran/POW Steering Committees. On 8/12 he claimed he wasn't a Republican from Texas, even though he has given more than $14,000 to Republicans, none to Democrats since 1990, and when he was asked about this on FOX news, he claimed half the money in his name came from a law partner Edward J. O'Neill, which turned out to be false. The interview. Patterico here. Media Matters says "none to Democrats" isn't true. Then, on Crossfire he claimed he had never himself been in Cambodia, and then it turned out he said he had been on the Cambodian border to no less than Richard Nixon himself in 1971. This actually intrigues me because we never get to see what O'Neill was responding to when he says he was on the Cambodian border. I don't understand why only that segment of the tape has been released. Where's the rest? What's the context for O'Neill volunteering that to Nixon? O'Neill continues to deny he was in Cambodia. That statement alone doesn't prove he was or wasn't. Also the timeline of when and where Kerry operated Swift Boats in Vietnam and when/where O'Neill operated Swift Boats supports O'Neill. I could go on and on, but the point is why should we believe this guy? His own PR director has called him a "crazed extremist" and, personally, I think any attorney who has had so many changing stories and writes like the excerpts of the book I've seen who says he would welcome a lawsuit is either crazy, lying, has friends in very high places (or maybe a combination of the three). Maybe, maybe not. Posted by: Tim at September 3, 2004 7:40 PM | Permalink The relevance of a given medium is directly proportional to its readership. While I will continue to be a critic of the media, I do so with much less fire than in the past. My realization that it does not really matter has given me more perspective on the issue. The ability of the reader to find alternative sources of information is real and is durable. The more voices the better. As big ideas come, are incorporated in the public consciousness, or are discredited and die - a given media producer either changes, or does not. Other media producers are formed. It is sort a Darwinian process. It is amusing; to me at least, to hear the media pundits speak of their outrage that their readership "just doesn't get it." Also amusing: to hear them speak of a demographic consisting of more than 40% of the country as "dummies" because they do not agree with a position that the paper has taken.
Posted by: John Lynch at September 3, 2004 7:52 PM | Permalink Bill S., You got links for any of that sputtering about O'Neill? Posted by: Patterico at September 3, 2004 8:00 PM | Permalink Revision to earlier post: The relevance of a given medium is directly proportional to its readership. Should read: The relevance of a given medium is directly proportional to its exclusive readership. This allows for any given medium to be deemed irrelevant (by the newsmaker) if there are alternative paths to its readership. Posted by: John Lynch at September 3, 2004 8:23 PM | Permalink Tim- I'm sorry I'm not a scholar of this issue. I did spend a few minutes on google to find support for what I foolishly thought should be obvious to anyone, that O'Neill is a true believer who doesn't let facts get in the way of the horror of it all. I actually admire your attempts to comb the hair on that corpse in so many new and intriguing ways, but the talk of timelines? I couldn't do a timeline for what I did last week, much less 35 years ago. Anyway, here is a cite for the Cambodia quote, not the one I saw before. be nice Posted by: bill s at September 3, 2004 10:50 PM | Permalink bill s, ... for what I foolishly thought should be obvious to anyone, that O'Neill is a true believer who doesn't let facts get in the way ... I'm not sure what you mean by "true believer"? Do you mean that he truly believes in his cause, or what he says? Do you mean it in a dogmatic sense? Do you mean it as a slur? Is it a knock on being faithful or loyal? From what I've seen, this has become a groupthink cliche on the Left: "true believer". At first I thought it was a modern form of "Yellow Dog Democrat" for Republican loyalists. But it seems to have many meanings. I couldn't do a timeline for what I did last week, much less 35 years ago. Fortunately, the SEALORDS campaign was something of more historical interest than what you did last week. Posted by: Tim at September 3, 2004 11:26 PM | Permalink Tim: I'm only a veteran of 3+ years (riffed just before Vietnam started) of the Air Force. And I'm not saying that any other Vietnam veterans should feel their medals cheapened, just those who were with the Swift Boats where apparently all you had to do was write up your own citation or have a medic certify that you got your scratch in combat, not by dropping your dinner fork. I guess I was just a dumb recruit from Montana who really believed that you had to do something special to get medals; that they had to be confirmed and that they had to be approved up the line. Who did this for Kerry? And I repeat, after what they've said about how easy Kerry got his medals, then their own have to be suspect, because he was a lt j.g., as I understand that and some of them were higher rankers. So who was his angel? Posted by: Chuck Rightmire at September 3, 2004 11:42 PM | Permalink I guess I was just a dumb recruit from Montana who really believed that you had to do something special to get medals; that they had to be confirmed and that they had to be approved up the line. Who did this for Kerry? I think that's a missing part of the story. I don't know that Kerry had an angel, or really needed one. But I am interested in how Kerry's unit at the time awarded medals to know if Kerry was unique, accumulating 4 of the nation's combat medals (Silver Star, Bronze Star w/ V and 2 Purple Hearts) in 3 weeks, or if the medals were flowing to others with the same rank, or on the same boat. Posted by: Tim at September 4, 2004 11:50 AM | Permalink I think that's a missing part of the story. I don't know that Kerry had an angel, or really needed one. But I am interested in how Kerry's unit at the time awarded medals to know if Kerry was unique, accumulating 4 of the nation's combat medals (Silver Star, Bronze Star w/ V and 2 Purple Hearts) in 3 weeks, or if the medals were flowing to others with the same rank, or on the same boat. I wonder if the Ryan family felt themselves unique in losing several sons to warfare during WW11? War does not make sense and you cannot reason with it or rationalize why certain things happen. Posted by: Webster Hubble Telescope at September 4, 2004 10:13 PM | Permalink War does not make sense and you cannot reason with it or rationalize why certain things happen. Well, I guess we can do away with the Uniformed Code of Military Justice during combat operations and the Law of Armed Combat as well then. Geneva and Hague Conventions/Protocols too? We can also shut down all those investigations into Abu Ghraib now. I would think it also makes sense to shut down the military academies, service schools and professional studies. Boy, I'm glad we cleared that up. Posted by: Tim at September 4, 2004 10:25 PM | Permalink I want to ask those of you with the multple post a simple question? Where do you get the time to do all the research and write and continually monitor this board? Who is funding this considerable effort? What is the "intent" to carry on a true debate or to sort of chaff the radar so to speak? The Three originators of the smear, yes gentlemen it is a smear, have no, I repeat no, proof only bitter memories of that time. Posted by: Larkinsjapn at September 5, 2004 12:09 AM | Permalink I can answer that bizarre question, regarding myself. Nobody is funding me. I make the time because I think it's interesting. I'm sure you won't believe me, but that's how it is. Posted by: Patterico at September 5, 2004 12:25 AM | Permalink Long thread... General comments: I found the press handling of the Swiftie charges related to the medals to be pathetic. We have the false premise that if someone wasn't in the boat with Kerry, they knew nothing. We have a number of articles reporting that everyone who was in the boat supports Kerry, which ignores the person who spent the longest time with him - Gardner, the gunner. We have the analyses where if the Navy record contradicted the statement of a Swiftie witness, the record was automatically taken to be the truth, even though the charges included the creation of bogus records; We have decisionmaking that assumes Kerry is right if any witness supports him - the example is the bronze star incident, no shown to be false by Kerry's own journals. Was Rassman underfire? He says so. I believe he believes so. The circumstances were such that a guy in the water would come to that concluion. We have the conclusion that Kerry did earn his first purple heart because the doctor who made the charges (never mind that he wasn't the only witness) didn't sign the paper. There were press reports talking about the "doctor" who really signed the reports, with a definite "Gotcha" mentality. You would think that someone in the press might have have noticed the "HM1" next to the signature and asked a Navy Veteran about it, at which point they would have realized that the second "doctor" was a corpsman (Hospitalman First Class) acting as the doctor's assistant. We have Jay's psychic mind reading of the Swifties about how they decided to go after the medals and cross the line into lies and smears. In fact, O'Neil had expressed doubt about all of the medals months ago. We are also informed by reporters who have never worn a uniform that this was out of bounds because it denigrated the value of the medals. Get a clue! It was Kerry's acquiring of medals he didn't earn that devalued the medals, and that is one reason the Swifties went after him. Let those of us who have worn a uniform decide what the medals issue means. Don't tell us that they devalue all medals. That's absurd. We know how the bureaucracies work, and how all sorts of strange things. That's how we know that Kerry's first purple heart was fraudulent, which makes him, in military parlance, a shirker. We have the utter nonsense about SBVT being a Republican front group, with no credible evidence, and a law prohibiting any coordination (which I never saw mentioned in the news). When it turned out that a guy they used in an ad worked for the government, it was clear the newsies were overjoyed at this "connection." During all the reporting on this, did anyone do a comparison with pro-Kerry groups? I didn't see any. This was reported in a vacuum so that people didn't know about the huge, rich Pro-Kerry groups. We had a couple of cases (as was predictable) of problems with witnesses, which led the press to conclude that there was nothing to the Swiftboat charges. Also, I watched Chris Wallace on Fox use the conflict with Navy paperwork to shoot down everything the Swifties said. I found the media to be as expected- biased, lazy, quick to jump on anti-Swifty stuff and slow to consider anti-Kerry results. I expected, and was right, that the big media would put out nothing until they had negative information to smear the SBVT with. It left this gap - 8 days I think - where NYT, WAPO and LAT had nothing to say. Then they put out highly unbalanced articles, casting the SBVT in the worst possible light. There was also a long standing failure to research Kerry's claims. For example, has anyone in the media yet checked out the relationship between Kerry and his "band of brothers." Did they get anything for their faithfulness - say, a trip to France last year? Doid anyone report that the ones who spoke at the Convention had an aggregate of six days experience with Kerry? What is happening here is simple. The Swifties are out to expose the truth about John Kerry. They are very angry with him, both for his medals and shirking, and for his inexcusable anti-war behavior. I label the latter inexcusable because it was so far beyond normal demonstrators, of whom I knew plenty. Kerry smeared the US. He smeared all of us who served. He made statements that appear to have been fed him by the North Vietnamese, with whom he had contact and his organization had a liason person. His organization was involved in shaking down the families of POWs, offering them communication with their loved ones in exchange for denouncing the war. This sort of despicable behavior can only be done in close cooperation with the enemy, and is probably treasonous. Did Kerry do that? Has the press checked? I guarantee you that O'Neill has. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at September 5, 2004 3:15 AM | Permalink Mr. Gray says: "And the Left claims peace (AND genocide) is morally superior. It's not." The Left claims genocide is morally superior? Isn't that like saying the Right loves to kill people in the name of Christ? Come on. Would you be happier with "peace even at the cost of genocide is morally superior"? Given the history of Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and the Balkans, I think a pretty strong case could be made. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at September 5, 2004 12:57 PM | Permalink It's certainly a puzzle to read this thread. Jay thinks the whole swift boat vets thing a "smear" -- or maybe he just thinks the first ad was a smear because the suggestion that some of the medals weren't warranted has been "disproven" -- except, I suppose, for the first Purple Heart, the citation for which is contradicted by Brinkley's book and has now been recanted by the Kerry campaign. But it's still all a smear and unworthy of attention. Bill S and others apparently think "partisan ties" means "members of the group are also members of a political party" -- and beyond the little issue of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, they don't notice that the same charge of partisan ties, on equally strong if not stronger evidence, could be made of MoveOn.org, Media Matters, every newspaper and news magazine of any consequence in any subset of the ideological universe, the Rotary, Kiwanis, and Odd Fellows, the Catholic Church, and the city of Oswego. And to top it all off, we've discovered that Wretchard's first name is "Matt". Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at September 5, 2004 1:23 PM | Permalink Wow. John Moore lays out a damn compelling case. Posted by: Patterico at September 5, 2004 1:24 PM | Permalink Patterico, ref: John Moore's case. He's been prescient so far. Posted by: Tim at September 5, 2004 4:40 PM | Permalink I will repeat something I have said before. Not only are the Swift Vets smearing Kerry, in my view, but the smear will--in my view--degrade and dishonor everyone who joins in it, supports it, defends it, and rationalizes it. And it is doing so now, even on this board. It's toxic. Oh, and John Moore: You began your recent comment by saying there's a "puzzle" in this thread. But you don't seem puzzled at all. You seem quite certain about everything-- so where's the puzzle? Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 5, 2004 10:44 PM | Permalink Behind Kerry's medals we have the combined testimony of the entire U.S. army command chain from *the time the incident happened*. Behind the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" and their blogging allies, who appeared on the scene 35 years later, we have a bunch of people who were already on record as being violent political and personal opponents of Kerry for reasons that have nothing to do with his Vietnam medals. This is a smear, through and through, and nothing but that. Those who engage in it are doing their bit to corrupt the free political debate that actually makes this country strong. Side note on Cambodia: there is overwhelming evidence that kerry was engaged in a secret mission to drop off special forces troops somewhere near the Cambodian border around the time he says he was in Cambodia. Who cares where exactly he was? What I am curious about from Jay Rosen is: you have consistently celebrated the democratic and decentralized nature of the web and blogs, as against traditional media. Does this incident make you rethink in any way the relatively uncritical nature of your celebration? How do you think it can or should affect the role of the "establishment" media in the future? Posted by: MQ at September 6, 2004 1:58 AM | Permalink Jay, I assume you mean my question that you imported. I have solved that puzzle. In any case, you are right, I am much more sure at this point. Kerry's medals are fair game. At least one is clearly false - his first purple heart. The others are worth challenging. You have declared an attack on his medals to be dishonorable. I challenge you to defend your characterization. And then I would ask you whether the Bush was AWOL attack was fair. Or the "Bush was a Deserter." Or the implication from the left that Bush's service was cowardly or "the easy way out". What should the Swifties do with their knowledge that Kerry was a fabulator, specifically related to the Vietnam experience which is the center of his command? Or do you still believe that all of their charges from all of those people are false? Is there a reason that the press didn't discover Kerry's lies? Now you can consider me to be degraded and dihonored if you wish. I really don't care. I am a Navy Vietnam Veteran, I have perhaps a different attitude than you are used to, and certainly some additional knowledge. Certainly any Vietnam Vet who paid attention has no reason to consider the press anything other than deeply dishonored in 1968-1973, and I haven't see the slightest indication that it has gotten any better. Kerry is a liar. He lied a number of times about his Vietnam service. That should be an important issue. MQ says that the SBVT appeared 35 years later. No sir, they were in Vietnam getting shot at and then came back (often to problems caused by Kerry), and they have held that knowledge all those years. By the way, MQ, the US army has nothing to do with this. Are you a journalist, or just someone who is cluless about this whole affair? Kerry was in the Navy. Kerry's entire command chain are members of SBVT, and they unanimously condemn him. None of these people has been violent or personal opponents. The closest is John O'Neill who debated Kerry in 1971. But he didn't spend the next 30 odd years worrying about Kerry - he went off and had a normal civilian life. If you are going to discredit SBVT, you are going to have to do a much better job. SBVT are participating in the debate, as private citizens who served their country in combat. In their position, I would do the same thing. But since I was never in their position, what we share is Vietnam Service and being slandered by John Kerry. Frankly, MQ, your attitude disgusts me. Side note on Cambodia - not keeping up with things, are you? Kerry was in a location from which he cculd not get to Cambodia. Capt Larry Bailey (Ret), a friend, a former SEAL in 'Nam and former head of the SEAL school has said that nobody would insert special operators from a Swift Boat because they are way too noisy. So we know for sure that Kerry fabricated his Cambodian Christmas and his first purple heart. Other bloggers have information on the other incidents (and if you pick the right ones, they are more accurate than the press). Finally, if anyone is damaging political debate it is the press. When only one side is available to the public, there can be no debate. And that is the behavior of the press. How someone giving their information in an advertisement corrupts the free political debate is beyond me. The good news is that the internet allows debate to bypass the press, and a surprising number of people are starting to get their information that way. And as far as "blogging allies" - they have consistently been ahead of the press and used much better logic in making their determination. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools blog) at September 6, 2004 3:09 AM | Permalink John M., It almost sounds like knowledge and approval of war crimes up and down the chain of command, doesn't it? How dare John Kerry have the balls to state the truth before the world like that? Poor Hoffman, forced to be held accountable for his unAmerican actions while disgracing the uniform of the US in Vietnam. Imagine the horror of being "smeared" with an accurate description of your actions by Kerry's testimony in the Senate. Your fundamental problem is your historical revisionist denial of the truth about Vietnam. Whining about John Kerry does not help your long lost cause. Hoffman is the man with an Un-American past to coverup that made N. Vietnamese propaganda come true. If Hoffman wasn't so busy ordering, committing, and approving war crimes, movement propagandists like you wouldn't have to work so hard to put media-bias lipstick on this pig we call Vietnam. Whether you and John O'Neill hatched this hatchet job at the American Enterpise Institute or in your back yard is as irrelevant as where George Bush was when he made his idiot decision to send us in to Iraq to not fight Al Quaeda. They were both tragically misguided decisions wherever they may have been made and regardless of what motivated them. Grow a pair and check in to planet earth now and then. This righteous war in Vietnam you're defending wasn't fought by the US on this earth. You should be sending your SBVT posts to your local fiction workshop. When Joe McCarthy or John Moore tell me I'm a traitor I know I must be doing something right and I know it must be good for the country. Your battle hymn to American war criminals disgraces the nation and the uniform you wore. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 3:20 AM | Permalink John M., Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 3:24 AM | Permalink So, Ben Franklin, did you cooperate with the enemy in time of war, aiding their cause? It sounds like it from what you say... I mean why else would you expect to be called a traitor. Or maybe you haven't read that section of the constitution. You mischaracterize my argument badly, of course. And you even have the pathetically poor taste to bring in McCarthy, and no doubt you have no idea that McCarthy (who was a bad guy) only attacked government employees. As to arguing the Vietnam War, I'm not going to bother. As to knowing that Kerry committed numerous slanders against America and those who served in Vietnam, the evidence is clear. You just have to read the original transcript. The atrocities was only one of many clearly incorrect charges. Since you feel like defending him, please advise which weapons we used on the Vietnamese that we would never use on Europeans. That is one of his charges. Kerry was a liar then. He was supplying the propaganda line of the North Vietnamese. He was good at it, although both the FBI and the VVAW concluded that he was doing it strictly as an opportunist to improve his future political odds. As to Vietnam, perhaps if you read a book or two you would understand that there were circumstances where winning was possible. Otherwise, since you insist of viciously insulting me, I protest to Jay that your posting goes way past the line. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools blog) at September 6, 2004 3:56 AM | Permalink MQ Umm. A couple of points: 1) Those who engage in it are doing their bit to corrupt the free political debate that actually makes this country strong. Actually, the character of a Presidential candidate has long been known as one, if not the leading, selection criteria considered. Who is "corrupting" political debate when stifling character testimonials from 200+ veterans who served in the same theater, at the same time, in the same units, and in many cases the same events as the candidate? 2) Side note on Cambodia: there is overwhelming evidence that Kerry was engaged in a secret mission to drop off special forces troops somewhere near the Cambodian border around the time he says he was in Cambodia. Who cares where exactly he was? This candidate used his Cambodian experiences in moving political rhetoric, on multiple occasions, to drive his points that the government is corrupt and could not be trusted: in the press, in congressional testimony, and in Senatorial debate. Specifically, he drew outrage from his supporters through the assertion that the government lied: because he has "seared" in his memory Nixon telling the American public that there were no troops in Cambodia while he was there Christmas of '68. There are at least three character issues here: one is the outright lie itself; one is the manufacturing of a lie to make political hay; and one his need to inflate his record. Each of these goes to character. While these offenses may seem mild to you, they speak of an uneasy acquaintance with principles and honesty. Many do not treat such offenses as "minor," but as quite telling. Finally, where is this "overwhelming evidence?" His comments to a reporter about his hat in the briefcase? This is overwhelming?
Posted by: John Lynch at September 6, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink John M., You make my argument for me. Thanks for all your support and encouragement. Somehow, its surprisingly hard to feel sympathy for the leader of the "liar, traitor" charge when he gets some of his own medicine based on the facts of the case. Good luck, pleading character asassination, or libel, or slander. I haven't defended everything Kerry said. Nice try. But it sure applies to Hoffman. Check the Atrios post and address the charge against Hoffman or YOU are transparently moving to ad hominem attacks because that's all of you've got. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 12:17 PM | Permalink Ben Franklin, Thanks for the point to the Atrios story. A couple quick corrections to your characterization of the story and in the story itself. Check Atrios today for two Swift boat officers who refused to follow SBVT organizer Hoffman's direct orders to committ war-crimes: shooting unarmed Vietnamese fisherman in the act of fishing. - Means was not an officer, he was enlisted. - McCall was the officer, an ensign at the time, in command of the boat. From the articl: Means, a 55-year-old investigator for several Bakersfield law firms, was particularly annoyed by the words of one retired admiral. Roy F. "Latch" Hoffman, one of the co-founders of the pro-George W. Bush group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, had publicly criticized Kerry, a former Swift boat commander, for having brought back stories about alleged war crimes by U.S. forces -- often carried out, Kerry said in 1971, "with the full awareness of officers at all levels." - Kerry had not brought back stories from Vietnma. Kerry had no stories to tell until the Winter Soldiers Tribunal. In fact, Kerry gave hearsay testimony and in a way that smeared all servicemembers as war criminals. That hearsay testimony turned out in many, if not most, cases to be from frauds and in all cases from cowards unwilling to give legal testimony to investigators. Kerry himself begrudgingly admitted to participating in "free fire" zones and such that he found out later were war crimes. But that statement by Kerry itself is actually misleading in that the policies he described were not war crimes. "Free fire" zones, for example, were not civilian killing fields by policy. - SBVT is anti-Kerry, not pro-Bush. Perhaps a fine point, but they are clearly hostile to Kerry rather than singing praises of Bush. I thought it was interesting that Duncan left off this paragraph: It bothered him, seeing Vietnam brought back into play as a political game piece. The left had done it to war veterans three decades ago. Returning servicemen had been vilified -- spat upon, in fact, as if they'd been the architects of U.S. foreign policy rather than just the young men and women obligated by law and duty to carry it out. So, here's the meat of the war crime that didn't happen because McCall did what he was supposed to do: Then Hoffman set his attention on a small cluster of fishing boats, four small vessels with perhaps 10 fishermen, about 1,000 yards offshore. "We had seen them in the water there many, many times," McCall said. "They were fishing at a good fishing place ... in traditional fishing waters. 'Another patrol is coming up behind us soon,' I told him. 'We're taking you for a ride, not patrolling.'" But Hoffman ordered a crewman to hail the fishing boats on a bullhorn. The fishermen didn't respond. So Hoffman ordered a crewman to fire his M-16 in their direction, splashing the water around them. The fishermen, perhaps not understanding what they were supposed to do, still didn't respond. "Shoot closer," McCall remembers Hoffman saying. "I can't shoot closer, sir, I'll hit them," the crewman said. "Well, do it," Hoffman said. The meaning of those words were clear to everyone aboard PCF 88, McCall said. Hoffman was ordering the fishing party destroyed, the fishermen killed. The officers argued policy; McCall realized it was ultimately his call. He ordered his men to stand down, leave the fishermen alone and move on. He sent Hoffman below deck, and the captain, cursing, complied.I would point out that that is the alleged scenario of Kerry's 2 Dec 1968, first Purple Heart, mission. Except Kerry did light up the fisherman in a sampan. I also want to touch on Jay's warning about the SBVT being toxic. I think the VVAW was toxic, what Jane Fonda did was toxic, and the people who associated themselves with the VVAW were degraded and dishonored by it. As well as everyone who joins in it, supports it, defends it, and rationalizes it today. And it is doing so now, even on this board. It's toxic. Notice that one of Kerry's "band of brothers" isn't Al Hubbard or anyone from the VVAW. Remember the immediate outcry by Democrats against conflating Jane Fonda and John Kerry, even though the VVAW provides stronger ties - a single degree of seperation - than the supposed ties between Bush and the SBVT that justify the "for Bush" or "pro-Bush" descriptors. Anyway, I think Jay's warning is wise. There is a good chance that the SBVT campaign will have a lasting effect on its members and supporters. I would say more comparable to those that attacked Boorda over his medals than what I see as the much larger, and more damaging, smear by Kerry. Posted by: Tim at September 6, 2004 12:20 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 12:25 PM | Permalink Tim, You say Kerry ordered fishermen in a similar context shot. I'll take your word for it for the moment. That means Kerry ordered a war crime that was carried out. That means Hoffman ordered a war crime that was not carried out due to no positive input from Hoffman himself. You have two officers in Vietnam ordering war crimes, an absolute moral equivalence. So how does Hoffman get off feigning moral insult and injury for being accused of what he in fact did? This makes my consistent and larger point that guerilla wars are an invitation to war crimes. The odds of their contributing to liberation of anything beyond souls from bodies is pretty remote. My core concern goes beyond the election. I am most concerned about the way in which the SBVT is posing as a means to rehabilitate the atrocity that was Vietnam. Historical revisionism in the name of patriotism is a vice. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 1:02 PM | Permalink Not only are the Swift Vets smearing Kerry, in my view, but the smear will--in my view--degrade and dishonor everyone who joins in it, supports it, defends it, and rationalizes it. I hope this is not pointing out the obvious, but this analysis assumes (it seems to me) that all of the Vets' claims about the medals are dishonest. Imagine that they're telling the truth about everything, and Kerry is lying. Does it still dishonor their supporters to defend the claims? Which gets me back to my basic point on the entire medal controversy: I don't know whether the medal charges are true. I completely agree with John Lynch's analysis of the issue as expressed here numerous times: there is enough evidence supporting their claims to warrant further investigation, rather than simply dismissing the whole thing as a "smear." I'm not sure that Jay has (or could) reconcile his positions that 1) the press should not have dismissed the Swift Vets so glibly; and 2) the medals controversy is a "smear campaign." I don't know if Jay includes people like me and John Lynch -- who are not defenders of the Vets per se, but simply think that they have raised substantive issues that should be looked into more thoroughly -- among the people who have been "dishonored" by their "support" of the Vets. But when someone like Michael Dobbs terms one of the events leading to a Kerry medal a "mystery," I wonder how people like Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gillmor and Jay Rosen conclude with such certainty that the Vets are engaged in a "smear." And I wonder whether their usual support of citizen journalism is going to waver -- now that they realize that bloggers like Captain Ed, Tom Maguire, and Beldar are doing such dogged and thorough research on the Vets' accusations. After all, Messrs. Rosen and Co. would apparently have preferred that these accusations have garnered no support whatsoever, regardless of the incomplete state of knowledge as to their truth. The best evidence of this is their seeming reluctance to acknowledge that the Vets have made a single telling point regarding the medals -- despite the fact that many such telling points have been made. Posted by: Patterico at September 6, 2004 1:12 PM | Permalink This makes my consistent and larger point that guerilla wars are an invitation to war crimes. The odds of their contributing to liberation of anything beyond souls from bodies is pretty remote. There is a difficult dichotomy in a guerrilla war that the international community and scholars have (unsuccessfully) tried to address for more than 30 years. Your second sentence about guerrilla warfare as a means to liberation is historically inaccurate and misleading. My core concern goes beyond the election. I am most concerned about the way in which the SBVT is posing as a means to rehabilitate the atrocity that was Vietnam. Historical revisionism in the name of patriotism is a vice. The SBVT's message is not that Vietnam was a "good war" or that there were no war crimes committed in Vietnam. There are, I think, some people on the extremes that want to shift the focus from the personal character issues about Kerry to re-ignite the passions from 1968 and re-open the debate about the morality of the war in Vietnam as foreign policy and tactics (as opposed to Korea, for example). But, that's not the SBVT's goal that I perceive. Posted by: Tim at September 6, 2004 1:23 PM | Permalink Since mere Vietnam Combat Veterans are dishonored by their charges against Kerry, apparently, how about John McCain's room mate in Hanoi? For those contemplating press coverage, a number of POWs are coming forth. I wonder if the public will ever hear about it, or perhaps they are dishonorable Republican shills too. I went through SERE school training on how to be a POW, which included mild versions of the torture and mistreatment. Ever since then, I have had the greatest respect for those who survived, although I often disagree with McCain. Reportedly the POWs have produced a long documentary about Kerry. I don't know the details. Perhaps the press will report on it fairly (and perhaps John Kerry found sugar plums in Cambodia on Christmas, 1968). BTW... I'm going to DC this weekend for a truth rally. We have been planning it for months, just a group of us who are offended by Kerry's anti-war activities. We are a little, bitty group (maybe 8 of us) and our 527 has received almost $100,000 all in small donations. Don't expect to see our rally except on CSPAN (Sep 12, 2PM EDT). Posted by: John Moore at September 6, 2004 3:07 PM | Permalink I thought I would shed a bit of light on SBVT. Not all members have first hand information on Kerry - they were not there at the same time - the most obvious being John O'Neill, who is working essentially as a lawyer, gathering and presenting evidence. As best I can tell, SBVT has about 60 witnesses who have given affidavits. The rest joined because their reputation was also tarnished by Kerry's lies. Unfortunately, the next state of the debate may involve the war itself. This is because the left will (and has) attempt to justify Kerry's testimony by asserting, among other things, that the war was wrong. How far down that road things go I don't know. The rightness or wrongness of the war is not a relevant argument in my opinion, but I think it will enter the debate. Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools Blog) at September 6, 2004 3:17 PM | Permalink John M., If the war was unjustified EVERY death was inexcusable whether it followed the Geneva conventions or not (which it frequently and consistently did not). Not always, not everyone, but often. The fact that it consistently violated Geneva means it did produce hundreds if not thousands of war crimes. How dare you be offended by the truth. It is the SBVT's self-righteousness at the AUDACITY that war crime might justifiably be associated with Vietnam that has made the justice and conduct of the war THE HEART of the issue. Hence your outrage at Kerry's statement of truisms about US conduct of the war. Mislead and distract to your heart's content, but there it is. Sorry, John. When you can think of a real argument, please share. The Left didn't kill unarmed civilians in Vietnam, hundreds of uniformed US soldiers did and their commanders did not punish them in the manner their own regulations required, tacitly covering up if not endorsing the behavior. Until you can process that simple fact, whining about the Left and treason and Ho Chi-Minh is a waste of bandwidth and reflects poorly on your cause of revising the history of Vietnam. If prisoners were tortured because of claims the US committed war crimes, maybe, just maybe, we should point a finger at THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIMES AND MADE THIS PROPAGANDA POINT TRUE! Every time you claim outrage (which is EVERY TIME you post) you are claiming the war did not involve war crimes and was just. YOU and SBVT are the ones who dredged up the issue of Vietnam's legitimacy. You are whining about getting just what you militantly demanded. And now addressing your historical revisionist charges is changing the subject? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 5:04 PM | Permalink Tim, Perhaps the fundamental strategic flaw of the Bush administration and those who support them is the refusal to strategically distinguish traditional military conflict and guerilla wars. The Powell doctrine recognized that guerilla wars can only be won POLITICALLY in the theater of conflict and in the home country. Killing all the Muslim Arabs in the Middle East who are pissed off about US support for Likud thugs like Sharon does not offer much likelihood of the political victory that would be required to win this guerilla war. Changing our stupid policy so that we stop brutalizing Muslim Arabs and propping up those who do just might. PNAC nuts like Wolfowitz and Feith and Perle and Rumsfeld think carrying a big stick and hitting people is the only strategy that allows them to respect themselves in the locker room. It is an implicit rejection of the fact that guerilla wars can only be won politically. Hence this administration's utter strategic failure and the bleak prospects for our nation until this catastrophically ignorant and misguided adminstration is relieved of command. Why are we allied with Pakistan again? Was it their unparalleled contribution to nuclear proliferation we are policing the world to oppose? Of course, guerilla resistance by local populations as in colonial America and Algeria and French-Indochina, has liberated countries. Your point is? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 5:26 PM | Permalink See, Ben, as I said, the left would bring up the whole conduct of the war. Contrary to your absurd logic, an unjust war does not make actions in that war into war crimes. This is especially true when there is a very strong case justifying the war. You make the assertion that there were large numbers of violations of the Geneva Convention. I assume you were discussing the VC, who had a policy of using terror to control the countryside. Are you aware of this VC practice? It is one of the reasons that Vietnamization of the cities was so successful. They didn't want to have anything to do with the brutal communists. But somehow I suspect you mean we did it, in which case you have no clue about the war, which is hardly surprising based on your level of rhetoric so far. You insult me and every soldier with your assertions. You also seem to think we are lacking intelligence when we attack John Kerry's post-war behavior. While it has not occurred to you, whether the war was justified or not, Kerry's actions were harmful to Americans and South Vietnamese. He aided the enemy's primary strategy, and he met with them three times. In another place, he lied about war crimes, taking the testimony of the frauds at Winter Soldier (whose testimony he coached) and painting their claims as typical. Of course, we now know that not a single one of those charges could be substantiated, and that many of those "testifying" exaggerate about their service, or had never been to Viet Nam or used the identities of others. This dubious group is where is claims of baby killing and other atrocities arose. It may also have not occurred to you that there were anti-war protesters who were not like John Kerry, and whom I don't condemn. It might also surprise you to know that I went to protests when I got back, including one where the VVAW was present, and they were lots of fun, and some of the people, while wrong, were reasonable. Now Kerry made a number of absurd charges. I challenge you to validate this charge: that we used weapons against "the oriental individuals" that we would never use against Europeans. Want to try that one again? Oh, and Kerry's list of war crimes that he personally committed is amusing because none of the things he mentions is a war crime. Now regardless of whether the war was valid, the soldiers went the and risked their lives, and many died. Our honor isn't tied to some historical revisionist's view of the war, it is tied to what we did or didn't do. And Kerry challenged that with lies, and created myths that we were psychologically damaged from "what we had to do" and that we were baby killers. So you can take your opinion about the war and set it aside, because it is utterly irrelevant. If you are a member of the press, you want to dig a deep hole and put the history of the press behavior at Tet 1968 and bury it, because that behavior cost at least 10,000 American lives. One thing I have noticed about anti-war people: an utter lack of balance. We hear all sorts of evils we supposedly did. We never hear about the enemy, who in this case ultimately slaughtered millions, and have left Vietnam as a totalitarian dictatorship (with a current genocide campaign against the Hmong) to this day. Posted by: John Moore at September 6, 2004 5:49 PM | Permalink Correction: VVAW were not fun. They were grumpy and unpleasant. It was the demonstrations that were fun. Posted by: John Moore at September 6, 2004 5:51 PM | Permalink Ben, When colonial occupying powers fight guerilla wars in foreign countries against the populace of the country they claim to be liberating, THOSE SORTS of guerilla wars show little prospect of liberating the resistant population from anything but their souls. Almost every anti-colonial war of the twentieth century falls into this category. The foreign power was defeated. Do you have a counter-example? Guerrilla warfare is a tactic. As a tactic, it violates the Law of War to conduce war crimes by the strategically superior force: Guerrilla warfare has at its very fond et origo an overarching strategy of turning any attempts on the part of opposing forces to adhere to the Law of War against them by using nominal civilians including women, the elderly, and even children, whom they know their enemy is legally and morally bound to treat as innocents, as un-uniformed irregulars....I know of no cases in which insurgents, or their superiors or governments, have been brought up on charges for this act, though perhaps we should start doing so, because it is by virtue of this deliberate blurring of the distinction between combatants and noncombatants that guerrilla warfare conduces to further war crimes against innocents.You asked if I had a counter-example. Does the Malayan Emergency count? We never did finish that discussion, did we? Killing all the Muslim Arabs in the Middle East who are pissed off about US support for Likud thugs like Sharon does not offer much likelihood of the political victory that would be required to win this guerilla war. Changing our stupid policy so that we stop brutalizing Muslim Arabs and propping up those who do just might. OK, but we're not killing all the Muslim Arabs in the Middle East, and it is not our policy to brutalize Muslim Arabs. Propping up those who do becomes problematic. For example, Egypt? Your hyperbole really isn't a serious approach to policy. Why are we allied with Pakistan again? Because of our effort in Afghanistan, again. Was it their unparalleled contribution to nuclear proliferation we are policing the world to oppose? No? Posted by: Tim at September 6, 2004 6:42 PM | Permalink John M., I'm not saying you are a war criminal. I'm saying you prevaricate and argue like one and not only defend, but celebrate one in Roy Hoffmann. If you are proud of advancing and defending the reputation of someone like Roy Hoffman, you are bringing such associations on yourself. Welcome to the consequences of your actions. Again, you express self-righteous indignation over the fact that the US committed hundreds of war crimes in Vietnam. Your outrage is a dark cosmic joke. You are revising history and demanding an apology for the truth over the tortured bodies of Vietnamese victims. If you joined me in condemning US soldiers who committed war crimes, like Roy Hoffman and John Kerry, and recognized the fact that our government's decision to fight against guerilla resistance in Vietnam made their war crimes a statistical inevitability, I might have a little sympathy for your honor. Your current course of action suggests to the contrary that you might not have any. You think a war that produced hundreds of unpunished and unprosecuted war crimes by our side was a good idea. And you are outraged by the restatement of these facts about the situation. Where's the honor in that? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 7:05 PM | Permalink The Left didn't kill unarmed civilians in Vietnam, hundreds of uniformed US soldiers did and their commanders did not punish them in the manner their own regulations required, tacitly covering up if not endorsing the behavior. That seems exceptionally hypocritical, unless, of course, John F. Kennedy, LBJ and the Democrats/Left that got us into Vietnam and prosecuted the war were not members of "The Left". So, if you're going to make your argument, as you have Ben, the Left and Right need to share responsibility for what happened during the war and what happened to SE Asia after we left. Posted by: Tim at September 6, 2004 7:07 PM | Permalink Ben, I looked back up the thread a little bit. I didn't see such a reference. Now, you have created a straw man argument (asserting that I claim there were no war crimes). That's dishonest. Of course there were war crimes in Vietnam, as in every way. It is also true that there were orders of magnitude more war crimes by the enemy, which is relevant in that it shows the hypocrisy of the left, which made a huge deal of US war crimes (I know of TWO major incidents) and utterly ignored enemy war crimes. There is a huge moral difference between a policy of war crimes (VC) and a policy against war crimes. But that always seems to be lost by the left. Furthermore, the way you characterize war crimes is as offensive as Kerry. War crimes were rare and prohibitted. Some still took place. There were 2,500,000 people who went there. Don't you think there might have been a few bad apples in the bunh? The army prosecuted over 200 of them. I happen to hold the view that the war was justified and winnable, and was lost by a combination of enormous ineptitude (LBJ) and the press and anti-war movement starting with Tet 1968. The justification of the war is easy to see now, when we look at what happened to people in the area after we abandoned our allies and cut off most supplies. Your story about the Admiral, by the way, has something wrong with it. If the Admiral wanted to take out the fishermen, he wouldn't have ordered closer M-16 shots, he would have ordered the use of the machine guns, which the Swift boats had 3 of. Dual .50s would have killed the group very quickly. One M-16 would not. The behavior of the skipper, assuming that report is correct, shows the way Americans fought a war - by not killing civilians when it was possible not to. But of course this is a report from a left wing blogger reputedly of a single swift boat skipper. Which journalism standard should I apply? Ben, it is people like you who make it hard to defend our country. You are so determined to see complex events as simple morality plays, with our soldiers being the bad guy, that nobody knows what you might say. I find you boring. I am not slightly concerned about your opinion of "my honor" because you aren't qualified to understand the concept. You are an idiological juke box, spitting out ancientt leftist myths on demand. Posted by: John Moore ( Useful Fools) at September 6, 2004 9:13 PM | Permalink John M. A little bit of confession in the guise of attack once again. If you ever get curious about the "clean" war we fought, for the fourth time: The htmls are on the SBVT Sad Chord threat in the event you care. I have nothing to say to you. But I am forced to comment each time you lie about the war and try to rehabilitate it with your "outrage" on behalf of disgraces like Roy Hoffman being called what they are. You're a professionally trained propagandaist by your own admission. I take your characterization of me as an expression of your professional opinion. Ouch. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 6, 2004 10:32 PM | Permalink I thought I'd pull this back out, dust it off, and stick it here, FWIW. Posted by: Tim at September 6, 2004 11:05 PM | Permalink MQ: I am always re-thinking things, including whatever I support, and certainly the Swift Vets episode sheds new light on the complicated changes underway involving traditional journalism, the Internet, the self-publishing revolution (weblogs) and participatory politics. The Swift Vets are not primarily a "blogging" development, although a lot of bloggers have participated. John Moore: I do not say this lightly or without a certain regret, but when I read what you write on this issue I have the feeling I am listening to a hardened and bitter propagandist who is coming here (to PressThink) to score whatever points he can. Frankly, I can no longer tell the difference between what you might honestly believe, what you say "for effect" (which is an extremely polite way of putting it), what you stick in there to provide a veneer of civility and rationality, and what you throw in just to sow confusion or waste the time of people who disagree with you. I no longer have the desire to expend mental effort trying to figure out which tactic is which. I have no doubt whatsoever of your deep intelligence. Nor do I doubt the depth of your rage. It's there in every word you write. And you don't have to remind me (again) that you don't care what I think. You have told me that more than once-- rather insistently, in fact. When I said the Swift Vets smear degrades and dishonors everyone who supports it, part of what I meant is that it tempts people to become propagandists. To me that is very sad. To others it is just part of the game. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 6, 2004 11:41 PM | Permalink jay, When I posted my view of how the press handled the SBVT stories, that was my honest view. In fact, it is not my style to lie or even contemplate it. I am not a propagandist unless you mean that someone who states views significantly at odds is a de-facto propagandist. Regarding whether backing or agreeing with the SBVT, you made an outright assertion that it was wrong, low, somehow just wrong.How does it turn people into propaganda? It causes discussion of the issues it raises. Is there something so bad about that? Is any analysis of the facts as known at a time propaganda? You also assumed a motivation with no evidence. Isn't it fair to take exception to that? Or is it propaganda? I care what you think on that, but I totally disagree, and to the extent that your judgement is based on devaluing medals or other service, I consider the opinion of anyone who has not been in the service to be irrelevant on this one narrow issu. In general, past service doesn't grant much special. Does that mean overall I don't care what you think? No. I have learned some interesting facts here, from you and others. Somehow this particular issue has dug deep under your skin. Why, I don't know. Hardened and bitter propagandist? I don't think so. How would I get hardened in this area? I used to be somewhat bitter, but with modern changes, that has backed up to anger - the anger of confronting unfairness. I would be a pretty lousy propagandist, as I have contributed information that might be used against my viewpoint. Furthermore, I spend little time at this except sometimes on Roger's blog. I am surprised that you think you are encountering lies (which is my translation of what you described). When I write something, it is what I think. I am not a game player who is going to mix facts, lies and window dressing. That goes strongly against my nature. I say what I believe to be correct. Always I am not a liar and I don't like the implication. This is not a game. It is a discussion. You don't need to expend mental effort figuring out my tactics. I write it, and you can read it assuming I believe it to be the truth. It isn't going to have some subtle trap in it. It is inevitale that discussions reach a point where I disagree with someone. Then I may "parachute in" and put out contradictory information. I told you early on that I am a Vietnam Vet and anti-Kerry. I know some of the swiftvets, which may partly explain the exception I take to some of the attacks on them. Frankly, I see their tactic as the start of a new wave - a way to bypass the mass media - something the right has wanted for a long time. From a personal standpoint, it is nice, after the Bush National Guard frenzy, to see our side able to score one.jay, When I posted my view of how the press handled the SBVT stories, that was my honest view. In fact, it is not my style to lie or even contemplate it. I am not a propagandist unless you mean that someone who states views significantly at odds is a de-facto propagandist. Regarding whether backing or agreeing with the SBVT, you made an outright assertion that it was wrong, low, somehow just wrong.How does it turn people into propaganda? It causes discussion of the issues it raises. Is there something so bad about that? Is any analysis of the facts as known at a time propaganda? You also assumed a motivation with no evidence. Isn't it fair to take exception to that? Or is it propaganda? I care what you think on that, but I totally disagree, and to the extent that your judgement is based on devaluing medals or other service, I consider the opinion of anyone who has not been in the service to be irrelevant on this one narrow issu. In general, past service doesn't grant much special. Does that mean overall I don't care what you think? No. I have learned some interesting facts here, from you and others. Somehow this particular issue has dug deep under your skin. Why, I don't know. Hardened and bitter propagandist? I don't think so. How would I get hardened in this area? I used to be somewhat bitter, but with modern changes, that has backed up to anger - the anger of confronting unfairness. I would be a pretty lousy propagandist, as I have contributed information that might be used against my viewpoint. Furthermore, I spend little time at this except sometimes on Roger's blog. I am surprised that you think you are encountering lies (which is my translation of what you described). When I write something, it is what I think. I am not a game player who is going to mix facts, lies and window dressing. That goes strongly against my nature. I say what I believe to be correct. Always I am not a liar and I don't like the implication. This is not a game. It is a discussion. You don't need to expend mental effort figuring out my tactics. I write it, and you can read it assuming I believe it to be the truth. It isn't going to have some subtle trap in it. It is inevitale that discussions reach a point where I disagree with someone. Then I may "parachute in" and put out contradictory information. I told you early on that I am a Vietnam Vet and anti-Kerry. I know some of the swiftvets, which may partly explain the exception I take to some of the attacks on them. Frankly, I see their tactic as the start of a new wave - a way to bypass the mass media - something the right has wanted for a long time. From a personal standpoint, it is nice, after the Bush National Guard frenzy, to see our side able to score one. Posted by: John Moore at September 7, 2004 2:12 AM | Permalink This election will come, and be over. The partisanship focused on B v. K will find something else to focus on. In the meantime, will we be celebrating our multiple voices, or will we be angry at voices speaking their truths? Will we have a new mix of those who inform our public consciousness, dethroning those who could not change? Will new consensus form on the big ideas of our times? Or, will we continue to avoid reconciling what appear to be hard lessons with well-meaning 60s revolutions and 90s complacencies? The dialog is so loud that most can't hear it. I think we are having meaningful introduction of new ideas; meaningful examination of unhealed and unresolved issues past but not gone; and some attempt to fit ideas old, new, and current together. I further feel that some ideas are dying hard, and perhaps will not die but must be recast in today's setting before they can be fit into an acceptable tapestry. As usual, not all will agree. As usual, camps on left, and on right, will be dissatisfied. Will we, can we celebrate all of the voices, or must we condemn credible voices for the truths they have to say? Traditional Media could have two roles to play: channeling and adding context to all credible voices; and the examination of the views that are coming, going, enduring, and being reshaped. So far, TM has avoided playing as fully as it could, and the gap has been filled by strange new players. The new players may find themselves the unintended holders of bigger responsibilities than they are prepared to hold. Sorry: an odd flight of fancy. Posted by: John Lynch at September 7, 2004 10:24 AM | Permalink When I said the Swift Vets smear degrades and dishonors everyone who supports it, part of what I meant is that it tempts people to become propagandists. To me that is very sad. To others it is just part of the game. (emphasis added) Yup: "We have yet to see the full venom, wrath, bile [Harsh language alert! - Ed.] and dirty tricks of the Kerry camp unleashed." AUTHOR KITTY KELLEY PREPARES 'COUP DE GRACE' FOR GEORGE BUSH DYNASTY Wouldn't want any propaganda during an election campaign. Sheeeesh! Posted by: Tim at September 7, 2004 12:19 PM | Permalink Tim Relax. Buy a bag of popcorn. Watch the show. It will get a lot crazier before it is over. As the parade passes, enjoy the clowns, cry with the firemen, smile at the pretty ladies, laugh with the children, applaud the veterans, and stand as the flag passes. Some of what happens means something, some doesn't. Enjoy. Posted by: John Lynch at September 7, 2004 12:31 PM | Permalink Tim, It is a mark of the stark difference in our world views that this strange form of miscommunication occurs on a regular basis. Does the term "Left" really retain any intelligible meaning when it applies to tax-cutting militarist Kennedys AND militarist welfare-state expanding Johnsons AND anti-Vietnam war activists AND communist revolutionaries? It seems to blur more than it clarifies for me. What do these groups have in common that makes it useful to throw them all into one basket full of apples and oranges? Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 7, 2004 2:15 PM | Permalink Ben Not much. Suffice it to say there are multiple world-views, big ideas, and differing subscribers to the big ideas. Some are labeled, some are not. There is a vague usefulness to left, right, and center - but the usefulness disappears when specifics enter. Posted by: John Lynch at September 7, 2004 2:30 PM | Permalink Ben, I'm in agreement with you and John. The partisan disconnect in dialogue has created many blocks to communicating ideas by either hijacking, co-opting, or overloading labels and phrases, resulting in what I termed previously as a "failing of label literacy". Of course, there are other, more coarse methods and labels that are even less useful (wingnut, freeper, liar, ...). Posted by: Tim at September 7, 2004 2:55 PM | Permalink Tim, what exactly do the UCMJ and Abu Gehreib investigations have to do with the irrationality of war? One is the military legal code and the others are inquiries into how prisoners were abused. My point, such as it was, involved the fallacy of attempting to impose reason and logic into the the chaos of combat, as some critics of Kerry's combat have done. Not everything 'makes sense' when the shooting starts. (No. I did not see combat while serving in the Army in 1969. Yes, I did encounter a episode of violence and gunfire while covering the drug wars in Mexico. Once was enough.) That said, why is Kerry held to a higher standard of veracity than his critics? Some of the Swifties now contradict the things they said about Kerry's bravery in combat a decade or so ago. Others acknowledge they aren't speaking out of direct knowledge, only on what heard from others. And some, like Thurlow, are contradicted by some of their crew about the events on the An Hop River. Those crewmembers, like Kerry (and Thurlow) won medals for heroism that day. Are we to question their valor too? Or the severity of their wounds? This is why I feel the Swift Boat vets' line of attack dishonors veterans. They're welcome to question his actions after he came home. They don't have to like Kerry. Or vote for him. But they don't need to malign his bravery and that of other vets through half-truths, innuendo and lies. With that, I'll leave the conversation. It has become a tar baby of ever-finely parsed points and counterpoints. The Vietnam war is over. I'd rather know down what road Iraq is taking us. Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 7, 2004 8:36 PM | Permalink Dave, Tim, what exactly do the UCMJ and Abu Gehreib investigations have to do with the irrationality of war? One is the military legal code and the others are inquiries into how prisoners were abused. I guess because I do not accept the irrationality of warfare, or combat. There is not a defense in the UCMJ that excuses illegal behavior (often an irrational or immoral act) because it occurred during combat - and war is irrational and we "cannot reason with it or rationalize why certain things happen." I think I understand you seperate Abu Ghraib (and I appreciate your transliteration). I do not, and I think it is important to be able to reason about why and how events occur during warfare. My point, such as it was, involved the fallacy of attempting to impose reason and logic into the the chaos of combat, as some critics of Kerry's combat have done. Not everything 'makes sense' when the shooting starts. There is, I think, a "fog of war" that explains why witnesses might have different recollections of combat events. I've been involved in after-action reports where there was strong disagreement about what happened. But a disagreement about the facts is different than trying to make sense of an event. That said, why is Kerry held to a higher standard of veracity than his critics? I guess I have two answers to that. 1. He should not be held to a lower standard, except that the burden of proof might normally rest with the accuser. 2. He is a presidential candidate and his accusers are not. Historically, and as recently as this campaign, accusations have been made about presidential candidates and the press has been unreasonably unpredictable about the standard of veracity required of either party. This is why I feel the Swift Boat vets' line of attack dishonors veterans....But they don't need to malign his bravery and that of other vets through half-truths, innuendo and lies. I would agree with you except for two undeniable facts: 1. Kerry has his enemies because they honestly believe they were maligned by Kerry's half-truths, innuendo and lies recounted before the Senate in 1971 and in his campaign biography, "Tour of Duty". 2. Kerry's campaign has been based on his biography as "war hero" and belittling his opponent's service. John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."So, I find it more than hypocritical that Kerry (and his supporters, especially the surrogates that enjoyed belittling GW. Bush, Dole, GHW Bush) now are crying about how unfair it is. And, just to maintain some bipartisanship, Gore, Kerrey, McCain, and many others - all the way back to Franklin Pierce - have had their service challenged. So with less than 60 days to go: The Vietnam war is over. I'd rather know down what road Iraq is taking us. OK, but did you know Kerry was in Vietnam? Better yet, do you know why that's a joke? Posted by: Tim at September 7, 2004 9:54 PM | Permalink I'd also add here Kerry's comments about Boorda. Posted by: Tim at September 7, 2004 10:18 PM | Permalink Well, John Moore, if you are truly interested in why I decided you are a hardened propagandist, you might want to reflect on some of these statements--which are only a sampling from the comments thread for one post at PressThink. (Italics are mine.) * The risk to life and limb that George Bush faced by serving in the Air National Guard in Texas and Alabama was “probably greater” than the risk to life and limb that Kerry faced by serving in Vietnam. * The Swift Vets “mess was started by people attacking Bush,” but the Swift Vets are a bi-partisan group. * After leaving Vietnam, Kerry had his subordinates “transferred to safe postings” and this is the reason they are now his band of brothers, but the press refuses to look into it because the press is pro-Kerry. * John Moore, who knows many of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has absolutely no idea why the Swift Vets went after Kerry's medals. It “is a mystery to me,” he says. * Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all must admit that to this day (the day was Aug. 23, 2004) Bush’s National Guard Service has been subject to far greater scrutiny than Kerry’s service in Vietnam. * “There are many veterans watching all of this. Unlike civilians, we are not happy with someone who has won an honor improperly.” * “I think Rassman sincerely believes he was being shot at when all the evidence indicates otherwise.” * Kerry in his 1971 testimony before Congress “speaks as an enemy representative,” urging that “we immediately accept the enemy's negotiating points,” a conclusion he came to after meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris. Was John Kerry therefore guilty of treason against the United States? Indeed, he may well have been, says Moore, “depending on the degree of cooperation with the enemy.” * In speaking before Congress in 1971, Kerry assumed a position as “spokesman for all veterans.” * It is only a small portion of the county—the left—that feels Vietnam was a mistake or the wrong war. “Almost all Vietnam Veterans (myself included) have said they would do it again if called.” So that's the sort of thing I have in mind. Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 8, 2004 12:52 AM | Permalink Jay, You do not quote me with anywhere close to context, in one place conflate two different things, and in general don't give a real good idea of what I wrote and why. As I look at all of it, I see little I would change. In context, which they were, these are correct statements (with slight exceptions) For example, your last choice implies that "Almost all" is incorrect, and yet the thread it comes from has a survey (from Tim, I think) which validates it. The swift vets comment (your #2) is distorted beyond recognition. I don't know if your problem is that I discuss these subjects, or if you think my assertions are incorrect. Assuming the later: #1 is probably true. It's a matter of high risk over a very short period of time vs moderate risk over a much longer period. As an engineer, I think about things that way. #2 - ignoring your distortion. The Swift Vets are nonpartisan (or multipartisan). That is a simple fact. You can choose to not believe it but you will be wrong. #3 - several things run together. It is my understanding that Kerry had his boat people moved to safe postings. I have seen this in his words. #4 Initially I didn't know why they went after the medals, when his post war behavior was so rich with negative material. Having looked at released info, I now know why they went after his medals. O'Neill told me that all were questionable - not that all were wrong, but that they were questionable. I know a few swifties, not a number of them. #5 Bush's service was subject to scrutiny when he ran for governor, in 2000 and this year. There was a feeding frenzy by the press looking for errors by bush. No such scrutiny was applied to Kerry until the Swifties forced some. #6 Sloppy if I really said it. Obviously, civilians can care about medals. #7 Rassman - there is some evidence to indicate he was shot at. My analysis of the evidence so far is that there was no significant amount of incoming fire in that incident, and a large amount of outgoing fire. The critical information is the lack of bullet holds in the boats (3 on one boat that had been in an engagement the day before) and the fact that they were able to work on the #3 boat, rescue its crew and salvage the boat - a lengthy process that would not have taken place under significant incoming fire. #8 I stand by that. The "speaking as an enemy representative" is when he says what the enemy will do. At one point he effectively grants safe passage. Was it treason. Perhaps. Many vets think so, but there are specific criteria in the constitution that treason must meet. Pursuing it now is moot anyway. #9 Your point? #10 Vietnam veteran preferences are given in a poll in the thread you harvested. So... why does this make me a hardened propagandist? What is a propagandist by your definition? That particular thread, whether it should or not, had turned into a debate about the swift boat issues. Posted by: John Moore at September 8, 2004 4:18 AM | Permalink Tom Maguire has A Reprise Of The Kerry Controversies or, you know, propaganda. Glenn Reynolds wonders, "if part of Karl Rove's strategy isn't aimed at eviscerating media credibility -- or, more accurately, encouraging media folks to eviscerate their own credibility -- so as to give Bush a freer hand in the second term. If so, the press is certainly cooperating." I tend to agree. For example, I think the press has handled this topic, the SBVT, very poorly (and NO, that's not "message speak"). It's not just their gatekeeper role in some feudalistic information society, but their fickle and often illogical arguments in reporting. Should the media take a position on a "smear" with a "we said"? Can we apply a Clinton Test? Did the media handle Clinton's accusers and war room "nuts and sluts" campaign effectively? I'm thinking not. Posted by: Tim at September 8, 2004 12:38 PM | Permalink Well. I think _I_ deserve a medal for having read the entire thread. Now what have I gained from the experience? Journalism is like gardening -- nurturing some growth and pruning other growth to produce a fair specimen. It is an ongoing process over time because you can't guarantee where the new growth will blossom. This thread has turned into a particularly unruly and unfruitful bush because, for having read it, I'm not particularly better informed about the reporters (traditional press and blog) or about the subject (the campaign). That's okay. Another opportunity will come. I recently heard Charlotte Grimes, journalism professor at Syracuse, remind us of the distinction that separates "the press" as a subset of "the media." As press, I think it is part of our job to encourage the public to appreciate the value of being able to distinguish and label those instances, as Grimes says, that contain speculation, gossip, opinion, and very few facts -- be they newspapers, blogs, tv or radio. She said that a lot of campaign reporting is boring reporting on the mechanics – strategy and tactics of the campaign. It focuses on the trivial. Why should the ordinary person care? The question to decide coverage ought to be, “What would affect the American public if the candidate were elected.” She quoted someone who said politics is WHO gets WHAT WHEN and HOW. Politics is how we make our choices. She advised those who would earn the label of the press to live and work the old newsroom axiom, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” Check the facts. Stop the spin. Even sometimes call a lie a lie. This, she believes, may help preserve part of our franchise. Jay wrote: And also... as far as why is this a big smear campaign but stories in the press about Bush being AWOL aren't? Use your imagination. If, right this minute, there was "out there" in the media and campaign sea a group of Air National Guard veterans swearing they saw very little of George Bush when he was supposed to be serving and training; if they had say $500,000 to spend on advertisements saying just that--Bush? We never saw him--in battleground states, and if a known author like Joe Conason was in the stores with a best selling book, Bush Never Showed, and all the talk shows were featuring members of the Air National Guardsmen for Accuracy group, who are passionate in their insistence: "he shirked his duty," and it all came together like that, in between the conventions... in that event, Bush supporters might well be saying, "this is a smear campaign."They're heeeeeerrrrre: Most tedious of all will be the Bush National Guard stuff, which is already blaring on the front pages of the Boston Globe, will be on 60 Minutes II, and will be the focus of an ad campaign of a new group called Texans for Truth. With a fair and impartial press, we might expect an examination of Texans for Truth and what they are all about. Perhaps a chart and five page hit piece from the NY Times. Of course, that won't happen, so I will make the organizational chart for you.I asked this in a previous thread, figure I'll give it another go: Do candidates with a military background have a civic responsibility in how they portray themselves as veterans and use their service against their opponents? Do their opponents have a responsibility in how they question or stipulate that service? Should candidate's military records be public domain along with their financial records? Or will we be fighting over characterizations of a veteran's service, no longer willing to accept all acts as honorable, all war stories as accurate and all medals as untarnished? Posted by: Tim at September 8, 2004 8:56 PM | Permalink Get credible voices out, covered, investigated, analyzed, chewed over, and let the public (each individual) decide. The usual tests apply: who - are they credible; what - is it at least prima facie reasonable; and why - are the motivations acceptable. In the acceptable category: it is OK to examine a candidate's character. In all, the balance should not be in the hands of the press as to whether they "like" the story, its effects, or consequences to a political candidate. The balance when it comes to public safety issues is another story. If the examination of Bush AWOL meets the criteria, cover it. I personally have not seen enough to believe it meets the standards already surpassed by the Swift Boat Vets. However, if those who have examined it believe it can withstand the same scrutiny, which was laughably inept, then have at it. It remains with the public to decide. If there is malfeasance in standards, most intelligent readers/viewers will see it and will dismiss both the content and the reporter/media. From a political standpoint, Kitty Kelly, Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg, and other "voices" have first failed the "who" test, and secondly failed in making a positive impression on the voters. The Vets have been received by non-partisans sufficiently well to move the polls. We will see if people resonate to the AWOL stories. We will also see the press treatment. Any bets on differing standards? I am already seeing press assertions as to how "aggressively" they covered the SWBT story. Hah! Posted by: John Lynch at September 8, 2004 10:45 PM | Permalink A consideration that, in the real world, will not be made is this: do we learn anything about George Bush assuming the allegations are true. I would argue that we do not. We have had 3 1/2 years to learn how Bush behaves in all sorts of situations. What will some moldy charges tell us? One could argue for symmetry with Kerry. However, we do learn about Kerry from his Vietnam and post Vietnam behavior, because he has little record to go on. Now some will say that my viewpoint is convenient for a Bush supporter. My answers are (1)yep and (2) that doesn't change the logic I put forth. Is there anyone, perhaps sitting in an outhouse with a moon cut in the door, who doesn't know that Bush was a not terribly responsible character back then and up until his 40th birthday? What is most hilarious is the Boston Globe asserting that the timing was determined by when the research was done. The 60 minutes witness would never have made it if he were a swifty, but only because he is going after Bush. The guy may require the definition of a new species of Croatalis. His personal biography is, shall we say, old fashioned Texas wheeler-dealer, and still makes his money as a Democrat mover and shaker. So now we will go through a cycle of National Guard nonsense. McCauliffe, who never wore a uniform, will say offensive things again. Folks will tussle over misc facts. My guess - the guy who claimed to have gotten Bush into the National Guard will melt down (take a look at the time line) and some missed drills will turn out to be correct, resulting in braying from folks who on any other day of the week would prefer we had no military at all. Once this dies down, we can go on to the fun stuff: Kerry explaining his behavior after the war - the lies, the trips to Paris, the actions by his organization to trade letters from POWs for denounciations of the war by the POW's family. Posted by: John Moore at September 8, 2004 11:27 PM | Permalink John Moore I, like you, believe Bush AWOL does not have legs, for some of the reasons you cite. If it does, then it may play out as some sort of "symmetry." I doubt it. I think this is more relevant in what has been termed the "undercard" battle having to do with the activist role that the media is taking in this race. I believe it is becoming more visible to more people. Even my 12-year old is asking about the coverage. Posted by: John at September 9, 2004 7:08 AM | Permalink What symmetry? While the Swift Boat issue and the National Guard issue both involve questions of military service, happened 30-plus years ago and resonate with the unhealed wounds of Vietnam, there is a glaring difference: In the Swift Boat controversy, the eyewitness accounts are contradictory, to be kind, while virtually every bit of the documentary evidence supports Kerry. In the National Guard story, however, the documentary evidence supports the contention that Once the facts - not the innuendos - are assessed, how are the media supposed to treat these as equivalent stories? The facts will speak for themselves. Sadly, the partisan rationalizations as evidenced here, speak far more loudly. Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 9, 2004 11:47 AM | Permalink Apparently not all Texans are crazy like the Bushes and their fervent worshippers, as Dave in Texas shines light on reason. You see reasoning has to be applied to these assertions. Only one side passes and it ain't the conservos here. Damn shame they're too blind to see it. Posted by: Obidiah Hurlong at September 9, 2004 12:36 PM | Permalink Dave, In the Swift Boat controversy, the eyewitness accounts are contradictory, to be kind, while virtually every bit of the documentary evidence supports Kerry. Interesting. The "eyewitness" accounts are contradictory in both accounts - kind or not. Kerry has stonewalled and refused to release documentary evidence including his military records, journal and medical records - contrary to Bush - who has authorized the release of both his military and medical records. These National Guard documents are dripping out of the Pentagon based on FOIA requests because Bush has authorized the release of all his military records. The documentary evidence on his web site claimed combat action that was Peck's, not his, and had to be removed. The documentary evidence does NOT support Kerry on his first Purple Heart. His multiple Silver Star citations and unauthorized "combat V" are documentary evidence of possible fraud. In fact, the documentary evidence is under investigation by the Pentagon IG. Neither does documentary evidence or witness accounts support his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia trip. What I really find interesting is the asymetric treatment and lack of interest in the strengths and weaknesses of both men's service. "Texans for Truth" group features another Alabama Guardsman who doesn't recall seeing Bush in 1972. Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 1:04 PM | Permalink I have no reason to trust this source, The American Daily blog. I found it by swinging through links. I am interested in its explanation of the mechanics of National Guard service back in the 1970s which could explain why it might appear to some that George Bush did not complete his service when, in fact he may have fulfilled necessary requirements. As such, some credible verification by blogging or printed press might take a large load of crap off the table. From a different tack, it is fascinating that the Swift/National Guard fetish has elbowed off the table the point that a governorship is an executive office and a senator is legislative. The managerial requirements are singularly different. I haven't seen Kerry's managerial experience expounded on and his current campaign certainly isn't a good example. Bush was elected to consecutive There's an interesting debate over at Power Line on the bogosity of the new Bush documents. What's interesting, even more than whether the documents are authentic or not, is the transparency of the discussion and the possibility that this might have been overlooked by the White House and press. Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 2:52 PM | Permalink The Swift/NG is now a game of gotcha. Contrary to Dave in Texas, the Swift charges have stood up pretty well. He needs to read some of the bloggers above who have kept closer track. If the documentation is enough for him, he is a sucker - where does he think that documentation comes from - handed down on stone? Kerry was involved in writing it, and one thing that offended the Swifties was discovering that events had been written in a way that contradicted their memories. Two of the charges are solidly substantiated now: Christmas in Cambodia (Seared into Kerry's memory) and the fraudulent nature of Kerry's first purple heart. For a soldier, the latter is itself enough to judge his character as dishonorable, but then so is his leaving early, which that allowed. As to the other charges, I'll leave them to the bloggers who have been keeping track. The Texas stuff, if in fact it shows a problem, leads to the obvious question: why didn't someone do something? People say "the powerful Bush family" but I believe Texas was solidly Democratic at the time, which meant the National Guard reported to a Democrat. But the other issue is: who cares? Given that Bush was a party boy and at some point an alcoholic, then this might be a manifestation of those character flaws. But what is unusual about Bush is that he changed his character at age 40. I don't know of any president who did something like that. So, we already know he was a flake, although flying 300+ hours in that aircraft (which didn't have a 0/0 ejection seat, by the way) indicated the ability to be a highly skilled and focussed individual. Few people are able to learn to fly fighter planes, then and now. We have the largest F-16 training base here, and sometimes it seems to rain F-16s. And they are much safer than F-102s. Bush demonstrated substantial physical bravery to fly that plane - especially since the TANG was getting old junkers of an obsolete aircraft, and a simple engine failure on takeoff was fatal, because of the lack of 0/0 ejection seat. As a former military aviator, I thought those guys were crazy (but I was working on a ride with my friend's F-100 squadron when my friend was killed. I had the flight phyiology qual card, but I don't know if they had 2 seat F-100s, not being an Air Force zoomie.) So first, let me assert something that few understand: Bush was brave (or foolish). He had a lot of hours in a deadly obsolete aircraft. He did things like fly that aircraft out over the ocean at night, not an easy thing to do, and a forced bailout probably would have been fatal. As I said before, the ejection seat was not 0/0, meaning it couldn't be used close to the ground - for example an engine failure during takeoff which was a high likelihood accident, and likewise on landing. As we aviators (I'm also a pilot) say, those things glide like a brick. Second, at some point he became a flake - drinking too much to the point, apparently, of alcoholism. He has stated this, and he also corrected the problem when he was 40. Anyone who can make that kind of transformation, religious or otherwise, impresses me. Is there anything else we need to know about young Bush? He was brave and became a flake, and he solved the flake problem, Given that we have had years to watch this guy, the most important information - how he would perform in office - is known to all. So what is the reason for the National Guard stuff. Could it be a smear? Propaganda? If not, why is it coordinated? What is the message the propagandists wish to get across? I think the answer is favoritism (those rich shrubs) and maybe some lame attempt to show draft dodging (flying F-102s is hardly draft dodging), Or maybe this is straight news. Right... and I have Dan Rather's income. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at September 9, 2004 2:52 PM | Permalink sbw, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 2:57 PM | Permalink John M., You're already doing standup. Take it on stage! Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 3:00 PM | Permalink John M., Giving me an F-ing break with the three mile deep double standard bull----. You're whining about Bush tactics! Grow up. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 3:08 PM | Permalink John M., He did stop drinking. He also talks about God more. But he's still the same idiot asshole he always was. Have you seen the picture from his senior yearbook at Yale of him punching an opponent in the face while leaving his feet for a tackle (also against the rules) in a rugby game? That tells you all you need to know about George W. Bush's character then and NOW. A self-important, punk-ass backstabber. Just the kind of leadership qualities our country is crying out for today according to you. This dry drunk asshole must be defeated in November for the sake of the country and the future of humanity. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 3:42 PM | Permalink Don't know what it's like in your states, guys, but in Texas, lobbyists and business-folk carry more weight than party affiliation. Power, not not politics, is the currency of choice. From city council upward, Democrat or Republican, you learn quickly that you get along with the powerful to get along. In Texas, the house speaker is a much more powerful figure than the governor. The governor can propose all the legislation he or she wants. But it ain't happening unless the speaker wants it to happen. Which means a lot of back-scratching goes on in the state capital. Which leads us to the National Guard.... What I recall from 1968-196, the guard and reserve units had L-O-N-G waiting lists. To get in, you had to know someone. If you didn't know someone, you took your chances with the draft or you enlisted. Whether Bush had help getting a guard slot - and I think he did - is irrelevant. Once in, he was a less-than-stellar soldier. Didn't go to drills. Blew off his fighter training. Gamed the system. Frankly, I don't care. Just like I don't care if Kerry was in Cambodia in December or January. What I find fascinating is the escalation of partisanship. Kerry, a child of privilege, enlisted and sought a combat role in Vietnam and gets pilloried for the audacity of getting shot at and saving lives. Bush, a child of privilege, found safe harbor in the guard and blew it off. And is hailed for his heroism - by John M, anyway, who can conflate fighter training as a more dangerous occupation than running a swift boat in a place were people regularly shoot at you. With such mental gymnastics, I hope he doesn't hurt himself. Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 9, 2004 3:57 PM | Permalink So, after the yorking by Ben Franklin above, I'm reminded of this: I do not say this lightly or without a certain regret, but when I read what you write on this issue I have the feeling I am listening to a hardened and bitter propagandist who is coming here (to PressThink) to score whatever points he can. Frankly, I can no longer tell the difference between what you might honestly believe, what you say "for effect" (which is an extremely polite way of putting it), what you stick in there to provide a veneer of civility and rationality, and what you throw in just to sow confusion or waste the time of people who disagree with you. I no longer have the desire to expend mental effort trying to figure out which tactic is which. Who was that about again? John Moore? Puh-leeze! Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 3:57 PM | Permalink >>>Kerry has stonewalled and refused to release documentary evidence including his military records, journal and medical records - contrary to Bush - who has authorized the release of both his military and medical records. Well, Tim, you say 'stonewalled' and I say Kerry didn't have to prove anything. The burden is on his accusers, who seem to have trouble keeping their stories straight. As for Bush's release of papers, the White House announced in February they had released all available documents relating to Bush's NG service. The four documents aired by CBS - which the White House has not disputed - were not among those released earlier. Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 9, 2004 4:07 PM | Permalink Dave, I'm sure you've seen the Mother Jones timeline comparing Kerry and Bush service records. (Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush, but not toooooo partisan). I thought this timeline on Kerry was pretty good also. As for the documents, Bush authorized and requested the release of all documents from his files. The AP has submitted FOIA requests for additional documents. I'm not sure which documents recently released you are referring to, but if they are the ones supposedly from Killian's file, then blaming Bush is ... ignorant? I'd also point out that defending Kerry's non-release of records to date while attempting to criticize Bush's release is transparently wrong-headed. Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 4:33 PM | Permalink >>As for the documents, Bush authorized and requested the release of all documents from his files. I don't recall disputing this. I said that in February, the White House said all documents relating to Bush's guard service had been released. The Killian documents suggest strongly that wasn't true. It's even more interesting that the White House hasn't disputed the validity of the Killian documents. So, I'm neither 'defending' Kerry for not releasing documents nor criticizing Bush for releasing his. Just noting that because he said all the documents had been released doesn't make it so. (And, yes, I noticed you referred to them as 'supposedly'from Killian. I'm not sure I'd base much of anything on what I read at Powerline.) Posted by: Dave In Texas at September 9, 2004 4:59 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 5:30 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 5:36 PM | Permalink Dave, I said that in February, the White House said all documents relating to Bush's guard service had been released. Let's split that hair. I believe you mean at this press conference with the relevant segment: Q Scott, could you just tell us, are these all the documents you got, you received, here at the White House, from Colorado, or have you kept some in reserve? And also -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, these -- Q -- do you expect any additional documents from St. Louis or from Colorado? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as always, I said that we would -- if there is additional information that comes to our attention, we will make sure to get you that information. This is the information that we understand is available from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. Q And that's all that they sent you, this is the extent of all the documents? MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, this is what they sent us. And we just put it in our own email and sent it out for you all. Q Scott, Dan Bartlett told the Associated Press, in June of 2000, that he traveled to the Air Reserve Personnel Center and reviewed President Bush's military file. He said, "I've read it, and there is nothing earth-shattering." Did he see these documents when he reviewed the file? Did he see any other documents when he reviewed the file? And was there anything in the file -- MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a broad question about other documents. All the relevant documents relating to his service have been released -- Q So has Dan Bartlett ever seen these documents? MR. McCLELLAN: -- as we said. And as I said yesterday, everything that we had we released in 2004 -- I mean, 2000, at the time, or during the 2000 campaign. It might have been '99. Q There may be documents that were in that file -- MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is the first time this information has come to our attention. Q So Dan Bartlett didn't see these documents -- MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I've answered this question up here, and I've answered it back for you. Q I've got one more -- MR. McCLELLAN: We're going to keep moving. Any more on this topic? Do you have this topic, this topic? Then Wendell is a new subject. We're off this topic.So, I'm neither 'defending' Kerry for not releasing documents nor criticizing Bush for releasing his. Just noting that because he said all the documents had been released doesn't make it so. I agree with that. I'm a supporter of the press using the FOIA to hunt down other documents that might be relevant to Bush's Guard service. I'm also a fan of the press cracking open Kerry's file as well. I think either both candidate's military and medical records should be publicly available or neither. Ben, Love ya, bud. Don't let anyone tell you you're not funny. I've been collecting Rosen's wisdoms lately: If you've been arguing the same thing and are getting sick of it, but you're in what John Moore amusingly calls a "target-rich environment," so it's difficult not to blast them ducks, you might just stop, for variety's sake, and argue it instead with links, plus a crisp sentence. Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 5:58 PM | Permalink If I were John Mooresque, I would say,"It's nothing partisan between me and Dubya. Of course, I hope he loses in November, but my main concern is that the world find out what a weasel Dubya is because it was my teammate he was punching in the face on that soccer field picture in the Yale yearbook and I want to settle these old scores in the public arena." But I'm not. It IS partisan, and I'm not yanking your chain like JM. Have you seen that yearbook? That's exactly how Dubya and his dad have always campaigned as well as played rugby. There's a forty year trail of newspaper coverage recording the character assassination carnage from previous Bush campaigns. I know you don't want to hear it, but it's not a pretty world and the longer your man is governing the uglier it will get. You have to learn to distinguish unpleasant realities from denial of it altogether. Try Atios today for the latest to surface, the one on Dubya strategizing Papa Bush going after Bentson's boy because preferential treatment got Bentson's son into Dubya's champagne unit. Those are facts Tim. Refute them if you can, or live with it, but don't just complain about partisanship. When you defend the likes of Bush, you are wading into the mud up to the waist. My characterizations of Bush have not approached the level of contempt you and John demand your mainstream media sources routinely apply to Kerry to qualify as credible. Imagine ten or fifteen of me with a daily talk show on a mainstream broadcast network and we'll be approaching parity when it comes to partisan libel and slander. That's why your vision of a liberal mainstream media is so delusional. When was the last time the MSM referred to Bush as an unscrupulous cretin (which he is)? That kind of crap was routine with Clinton and the poor neglected Swifties have begun to mainstream it again this time. You need a serious reality check. You imagine Republican dirt is clean. Refute the Bush-Bentson story, or get off the pot. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 5:58 PM | Permalink No thanks, Ben. Just add Atrios' link to this one. And the way you're mischaracterizing me, I can only recommend loosening the tin foil. I think some blood flow might not be getting through. Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 6:25 PM | Permalink Tim, Ahh, the blood is flowing back in again. That feels better! Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 7:20 PM | Permalink For a while, I've wondered what Jay means by propaganda. My definition is the selective use of facts and untruths to create a desired false impression. Here is an example. Posted by: John Moore at September 9, 2004 7:32 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 10:56 PM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 9, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink Ben, Atrios, Daily Kos, and Josh Marshall all concluded that there was no booing within hours of blogging the story and clearly said so. I guess you should read more Democratic leaning blogs to get the straight story. I posted at the end of this thread links from TPM, Atrios and Drum at September 4, 2004 04:27 PM - as well as to their comments section. IF, and I'm not conceding anything, the obvious journal of record, the Weekly Standard, ... That's pretty funny Ben. Ignored from May to August? August is now 3 months? These documents "come within a country mile of meeting first-grade journalistic standards for accuracy"? You're right. You are transparently partisan. Posted by: Tim at September 9, 2004 11:26 PM | Permalink Don't be too sure about your dismissal of these documents. We'll see. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 10, 2004 12:08 AM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 10, 2004 12:32 AM | Permalink And the hits just keep coming from Ben: Some Question Authenticity of Papers on Bush No Ben, I'm not calling Hodges a liar. Right now, I'm not in the mood to believe an anonymous source at the embattled CBS News via the Washington Post about what Hodges might have secretly said to even get close to that. I'm not that desperate or partisan. But hey, maybe that counts for more than all that documentary evidence. Posted by: Tim at September 10, 2004 12:49 AM | Permalink Tim, Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 10, 2004 10:53 AM | Permalink Today's empirically groundless wave of "forgery" charges does demonstrate one point Tim and John have been arguing for the last year: The mainstream media's sheer inability to competently address or resolve a simple question of fact. To have the wire services and all the major papers carrying front page stories based on patently false assumptions of fact--that proportional spacing did not exist before Microsoft Word, that superscript "th" did not exist before Microsoft Word--will likely become a future case study in journalism schools for years to come. What a stunning dereliction of duty and distraction. By Tim and John's logic I should conclude from this that the mainstream media bears ill will toward the Democratic cause given the massive and sweeping nature of this failure across all media outlets today. For the time being, I'll settle for calling it a documented case of manifest incompetence that calls into question their basic capacity to do job #1: Fact check. Played as Useful Fools yet again. Posted by: Ben Franklin at September 10, 2004 11:36 AM | Permalink They have to suppress a lot of knowledge they have as veterans, such as the fact that almost no one's medals could fully withstand the kind of scrutiny Kerry's have received You perhaps reveal more of your presuppositions than you might wish with this statement, Jay. I for one know (well) more than a few combat-decorated veterans, including some who deserve the title "war hero" in ways that Kerry's record could not support even if that record were totally substantiated. I know what they did to earn those decorations -- in many cases the full, unvarnished story. Your claim not only does not stand, it seriously undermines your credibility on this issue in my mind. It would be a bridge too far to suggest that your comment is an example of what some claim, namely that the media are by and large populated by people whose biases and assumptions about military service are totally detached from serious familiarity with military matters. However, that comment does betray a breathtaking condescension and ignorance that ill becomes you. Posted by: Robin Burk at September 10, 2004 1:19 PM | Permalink I've been reviewing Jay's previous posts, and I have some questions. Is there any signal in the noise for Kerry while he's avoiding the press? How secretive is a Kerry campaign, and compliant a press corps, that he hasn't released his military records, Vietnam journal, medical records or Teresa's tax returns? Did the Kerry camp plan and coordinate a "smear campaign"? Does the current document debate say anything about the undercard? Posted by: Tim at September 10, 2004 1:28 PM | Permalink Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell: To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers....Well worth a read. Posted by: Tim at September 10, 2004 3:02 PM | Permalink Posted by: Tim at September 26, 2004 10:59 PM | Permalink 2654 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here. Posted by: texas hold em at October 11, 2004 11:15 PM | Permalink 7792 http://www.e-texas-holdem.info Posted by: play texas holdem at October 13, 2004 9:08 PM | Permalink 2096 http://www.e-texas-hold-em.com Posted by: texas hold em at October 14, 2004 6:43 PM | Permalink 4515 http://www.rapid-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at October 15, 2004 5:21 PM | Permalink 7069 http://video-poker.uni.cccheck it out! Video Poker yabba dabba doo Posted by: Video poker at October 16, 2004 10:03 PM | Permalink 3461 You only get one set of teeth. Take care of them with a good
Posted by: dental plans at October 19, 2004 10:02 PM | Permalink 3198 You know anti wrinkle cream Posted by: anti wrinkle cream at October 22, 2004 11:38 AM | Permalink 5804 online casino games Posted by: casino games at October 22, 2004 6:58 PM | Permalink 4264 .Way to poker online. Posted by: online poker at October 22, 2004 11:31 PM | Permalink 599 http://www.blackjack-1000.com Posted by: blackjack game at October 26, 2004 5:55 PM | Permalink 371 jobs online dental plan Posted by: part time jobs at October 27, 2004 1:10 AM | Permalink 2192 http://www.e-slots.info slots click here to play Posted by: http://www.e-slots.info at October 31, 2004 11:54 AM | Permalink If the examination of Bush AWOL meets the criteria, cover it. I personally have not seen enough to believe it meets the standards already surpassed by the Swift Boat Vets. However, if those who have examined it believe it can withstand the same scrutiny, which was laughably inept, then have at it. Posted by: DFaer at November 2, 2004 5:43 AM | Permalink 6851 Kona Coffee 6001 Ttry playing online pokeronline. |
|
Print
