The Boat Goes Down...
By now, anyone paying attention has come to the conclusion that the Swift Boat Veterans attacking John Kerry are dishonest and dishonorable. Bob Dole is the only major voice joining their chorus, and that, Dole's colleagues admit, is just sad. Apparently the Swifties are banking on people just not paying attention.
However, the public will notice when the "shadowy" group's smear campaign switches from fraudulent but effective to simply fraudulent. For example, their latest ad is based on Kerry's statement that he spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968, which Kerry has since backed away from. Turns out he may have only been on the watery Cambodian border on Christmas, and that he likely crossed into Cambodia at a different time.
Why is this ineffective? Well, for one, the timing of Kerry's crossing into Cambodia is a trivial matter. But the big stomp is right here. Yes, the leader of the Swifties, who today claims that he was never in Cambodia, once told the President of the United States: "I was in Cambodia, sir." As the headline says, O'Neill lied.
And the public will know. Finally, the fact that these guys are full of bullcrap is getting more play than their baseless accusations.
So there you have it. One leader of the Anti-Kerry veterans is shown to be a blatant liar about the very thing he is accusing Kerry of lying about. Of course, the other leader has, among other things, said that "ragheads" are "boy buggers"; referred to "John F*ing Kerry"; called Senator Hillary Clinton a "Fat Hog"; referred to her daughter as "Chubby Chelsie" Clinton; referred to Janet Reno as "Janet Rhino"; called Katie Couric "Little Katie Communist"; suggested Kerry was "practicing Judaism"; and expressed the wish that a small plane that had crashed into a building in Los Angeles had instead crashed into the set of NBC'S The West Wing, thereby killing actor Martin Sheen. Quite a guy, that Corsi. All class.
And still, the President of the United States of America refuses to condemn this group's message. No wonder he's afraid to face Max Cleland.
posted by Abe at 8/26/2004 04:38:00 PM
7 Comments:
uggghhh -- Kerry cannot have it both ways and neither can you Abe!!
Kerry is the one putting the spotlight on his military service.
Kerry is the one who for 30 years claimed to have the memory of an illegal mission in Cambodia on Christmas Eve seared, seared in his memory.
Kerry is the one who came up with the lame-ass "on the border" excuse that anyone who can read a map or use google can figure out is just as improbable as the original Cambodia story.
What Kerry does not seem to realize is that he is the one fueling all of this controversey. Controversey isn't controversial anymore when you acknowledge mistakes and move on. Instead Kerry fuels the fire by screaming "smear campaign" and telling people who are exercising the same right as Michael Moore that they have no right to criticize!
Ultimately its Kerry himself who handed us his war record as the reason #1 to elect him instead of GWB -- based on the heartwrenching, patriotism-inspiring war montage so prominently displayed before his exception speech, Kerry's party even nominated him for what he did 30 years ago. So guess what, you can't stand for something and then not be ready to defend it.
In my opinion the original exaggeration is not even the problem (I could care less where he spent Christmas). But the current cover-up attempt is -- it's the cover up that demonstrates what kind of president we can expect John Kerry to be.
Cover up? Oh, you mean the cover up where Kerry admits that he may be mistaken about the date upon which he was in Cambodia? Scandal!
I understand the reaction that "Kerry put this in the spotlight, so he deserves the criticism," but I think that putting his strong service record out in front was necessary. Not because that's his greatest accomplishment, but because the SVVFT was formed in MAY. In other words, he knew this crap was coming.
Anyway, at the end of the day I think that if there was a legitimate gripe about Kerry's service, it should be out there. These guys, though, have been exposed as partisan hacks and bald-faced liars. We've got to be objective about these people's credibility at some point, don't we? I mean, FACTUAL credibility. For all my problems with Michael Moore's film, the facts therein are not in dispute.
Well said, Abe. It's imperative to read:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529/
...before jumping on the Swifties band wagon. It's seems ludicrous that the fire has burned so long on their unfounded allegations, despite the major news outlets puncturing iceberg sized holes in their bow. It's a conspiracy theory run rampant.
If anything, it continues to highlight the fact that Kerry was rambo-turned an admirable peacenik during and after Vietnam and Bush was AWOL, blowing lines of coke, and ironically driving off the road drunk, oblivious to the issues of the day.
But Rebekah is right about one thing, Kerry should put the issue to rest.
I agree that the swifties are ridiculous, they've lied, recanted, recanted their recants, etc. But I'm not being asked to vote for any of them.
This debate is actually starting to look like it was started on the play ground with both camps yelling that "you lied worse than I did" "Nuh-uh" "Yah-huh" - it's driving me insane.
You're right to jump on my use of "cover up" - it was probably to strong -- but Kerry has not done a good job of refocusing the media on what is really important. Instead he sends a one-limbed man to deliver a message to President Bush. Subtle.
I'll borrow something Steph wrote a little earlier http://fotpt2.blogspot.com/2004/08/get-real.html#comments
"Bottom line, they both need to shut up. What they did or didn't do then has little to do with what they are going to do as president. I think it's an insult to those serving in the armed forces that they are using this for political gain - on both sides. Just like their abuse of religion is an insult to those who value their faith."
In parting, I'm not so sure if "Kerry's No. 1 reason to elect him" is because he served in Vietnam. That may be a perception for those who either don't value it or resent it. Another perception could be that he's not Bush.
One last comment. Reba, please tell me you didn't get that "cover up" line from this article:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20040826.shtml
Olasky has gone overboard. Way overboard.
Actually I didn't get it from that article - I got it from an email I received earlier today from someone who clearly read it though! ha! At least I'm out of law school and can't get expelled for plagiarism. Or spelling - "acceptance speech" you wouldn't think it was that hard ...
I actually think it's sad that the election is going to come down to choosing Bush or Not-Bush. I can't decide if it's better for the troops to be in Iraq with Bush or Kerry in control (seriously)? Selfishly, I think if my brother would be home from Iraq by November 2nd it would make the Not-Bush choice much easier.
Post a Comment
<< Home