Blogcritics: Comments on Second Kerry attacker discredited

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:33:40 EDT

Thank you for posting this, Hal. It was in my home town paper, but I did not get around to blogging it. French is a typical member of the swift boaters in that his participation in the smear campaign is based on hearsay. Friends contacted him, told him what to say, and he agreed to read a script for the ad. It doesn't even seem to cross his mind that 'because my friends say so' is not exactly solid evidence. Suffice it to say that a prosecutor who does not recognize hearsay as unreliable is likely to be an inept, even dangerous person within the criminal justice system.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:00:44 EDT

Update on the lies:

Several Vietnam veterans are calling for an assistant district attorney to resign after questions were raised about his statement in a recent ad criticizing Democrat John Kerry's military service. Alfred French of the Clackamas County district attorney's office appears in the ad sponsored by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In the spot, French says: "I served with John Kerry. ... He is lying about his record." A group of Vietnam veterans who protested outside the county courthouse Monday said French implied he had firsthand knowledge of Kerry's war actions when in fact he had heard about what Kerry did from friends. In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper last week, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry and did not personally witness the events. French did not return two messages left at his office Monday.

Add one more to the list of liars on the right. The problem with smears is that the mud sticks, even after it is clearly shown that they are lies. You can ask John Kerry about that. In his primary, Bush people used "push-polling," planting an idea without making an outright statement, to defeat McCain with lies:

Voters in South Carolina report being asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" an allegation that had no substance but planted the idea of undisclosed allegations in the minds of thousands of primary voters.

They're still as slimy as they ever were.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:56:24 EDT

Redtard says of John Kerry: his destiny as president. . . . Destiny as president. . . .? Kerry could have been killed in Vietnam. Decided to become a Buddhist monk. Turned out to be gay. To think that he could have realistically known he would be running for president in 2004 is ludicrous. Lots of people want to be president. To actually get the opportunity to run even is incredibly rare.

Comment by JR

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:27:41 EDT

If you do even a minimal search you will find many anecdotes relating that Kerry believed from his youth that it was almost his destiny, and certainly a life goal, to be president. With that in mind it's not much of a stretch that he would use his military service as a stepping stone towards that goal. Damn, a guy with that kind of foresight ought to be able to plan for an occupation strategy for after we invade another country. We sure could have benefited from that last year.

Comment by RedTard

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 20:23:38 EDT

Mac, If it helps you to maintain your fantasy to demonize everyone that does not agree with you as a neo-Confederate and a foolish liar then that is your problem, not mine. Instead of dealing with their argument you resort to personal attacks and make sweeping generalizations about people on the right. When you have a rational explanation that doesn't involve 19th century history as to why the Swift Vets might risk public scrutiny, lawsuits, and media heckling to get out their side of the story then get back with me. Kerry had much motive to exaggerate his bravery to pad his record for his destiny as president, the vets have little to gain directly from this as far as I can tell.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:32:29 EDT

I am sure that 250 (or 2,500, or 25,000) Right Wingers could be easily found to tell any lie about any prominent Democrat any former Nixon dirty trickster told them to, as has happened to John Kerry. All that is required is recruit followers who are hostages to an ideology. The revealing aspects of this episode are: *The zealots recruited may have served on swift boats during the same period, but they were not part of Kerry's crew. Many probably never had any proximity to him at all. *The leaders of the smear campaign are longterm political operatives of the Right, who are driven by ideology, not facts. *Attacking Kerry has become their raison d'etre. They can't go back and win the Vietnam War, their ideal. So, winning their 'war' against Kerry has become a stand-in. I believe that the Right Wing swift boaters will ultimately die screaming "The liberals cost us Vietnam!" on their death beds. They will have no closure because they are incapable of accepting the reality that the war is over and they lost it. In that respect, they are like the neo-Confederate movement. (Which, based on where some of them are from, they may also be members of.) They are doomed to be foolish for the rest of their lives.

Comment by RedTard

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:01:33 EDT

If 250 ANG vets signed sworn affidavits to the effect that they knew or were reasonably sure that Bush did not show up for duty you and the media would be jumping all over it like it was gospel. They wouldn't need rich democratic sponsors to buy them airtime because it would be given for free.

Comment by RedTard

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:55:16 EDT

As far fetched as a conspiracy between 250 Swiftboat vets in his unit and his military doctor. I highly doubt it but you can continue to contort the evidence to fit your preconcieved notion if you would like.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:11:47 EDT

Yes, RedTard, it is exactly "that far fetched."

Comment by A. Scribe

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:54:30 EDT

I can only assume that Thurlow's now going to renounce and return his own Bronze Star, since he claims the heroics it describes are based on Kerry fabrications. I will also charitably assume that until yesterday, Thurlow HAD NO IDEA what his very own Bronze Star citation said, nor any idea that it corroborated what Kerry and everyone else who was there (save one) say about the incident.

Comment by RedTard

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:19:16 EDT

The "master plan" you refer to is not that far fetched of an idea as is may seem. Even Kerry's supporters that knew him throughout his life say as much. I'm not sure how to do the quote thing but here is a snippet from an article in the San-Diego trubune with a quote from Harvey Bundy who went to school with Kerry: "John is a leader. John is someone who wanted to lead, who wanted to serve – he's kind of orchestrated his life that way. We didn't know he would run for president, but we certainly weren't surprised because . . . we sat around the room talking about what our Cabinet positions would be." If you do even a minimal search you will find many anecdotes relating that Kerry believed from his youth that it was almost his destiny, and certainly a life goal, to be president. With that in mind it's not much of a stretch that he would use his military service as a stepping stone towards that goal.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:10:59 EDT

it's self-discrediting. yay!!

Comment by Joe

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:02:54 EDT

Discredit this!

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:35:54 EDT

No, RedTard, Kerry didn't write it. I saw/heard Thurlow interviewed by Chris Matthews last night on "Hardball." Thurlow essentially had nothing but opinions about some master "plan" that John Kerry had to Become a War Hero and Enter Politics by risking his life under fire. As to the action report, the Washington Post reporter (Dobbs) who wrote the first story said that it included details about things that happened on other boats so it was not likely that Thurlow's citation was based on Kerry's write-up. You can find the transcript here, including this: MATTHEWS: Is it a fair assumption on the part of Mr. Thurlow that it was John Kerry�s words because he was the only one that issued a report, or submitted one, that they would have had to get that information about being under constant enemy fire, automatic weapons fire, et cetera, from the person who filed a report, if no one else did? DOBBS: I think probably the after-action report could have been the work of several different people, each reporting on what their own boat did. I don't think that all the language in Mr. Thurlow's citation could have come from that after-action report, either. And there were many things that Mr. Thurlow was doing that are mentioned in his citation that John Kerry was not in a position to observe.

Comment by JR

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:22:11 EDT

Why didn't the swift boat vets come out back then rather than now with their version of the truth? They had better things to do (like fighting a war) than get into a pissing contest over an exaggerated report. So do we.

Comment by RedTard

Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:16:58 EDT

Congratulations, two smears down a couple hundred to go. There is a very good explanation why that language would be in Thurlow's and everyone else's record. John Kerry wrote the report on the incident. Whatever Kerry wrote became the "official version" whether is was true of not. Why didn't the swift boat vets come out back then rather than now with their version of the truth? They had better things to do (like fighting a war) than get into a pissing contest over an exaggerated report.