Thursday, August 12, 2004
Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans
Unless something changes, I will write only one post -- this one -- on the Swift Boat Veterans. There are so many people out there in the blogosphere and the mass media beating up this issue that I do not expect to add much to the discussion. However, I have several unrelated points to make, in no particular order.
1. Kerry had it coming, part 1. It was Kerry who decided that service in Vietnam made him more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than the sitting President, and Kerry who made that history a central story of the Democratic National Convention, while remaining essentially silent on his 20-year career in the Senate. Well, if service in Vietnam is the number one reason to elect John Kerry President, all opinions about that service are the fairest of game. He "opened the door" big time.
2. Kerry had it coming, part 2. Remember the persistent and sleazy attacks on Bush's National Guard Service? At the time I thought that flyspecking the military records of either candidate was beneath both men, and said so. But it is hard to argue that holding Kerry's statements about his own war record up to scrutiny is less probative of his fitness for President than doing the same to President Bush.
3. Kerry had it coming, part 3. The ads and publications of the Swift Boat Veterans may indeed be misleading, or even false. But there is no way that they are more false and misleading than Fahrenheit 911, which has been endorsed by leading elected Democrats. Indeed, Kerry himself has embraced one of the more stomach-turning arguments in that movie.
4. Kerry had it coming, part 4. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is one of these infamous "527" organizations that have metastesized out of federal campaign finance law and regulation. There are, however, far more leftist "527s" working against Bush than the reverse, many of them saying equally tough things. These organizations are, by definition, outside of the control of either campaign. They are well-funded political attack organizations, but that doesn't make them any less rogue.
5. The press coverage is focusing on the Swifties least credible arguments, and ignoring its most credible arguments. For example, Pat Buchanan and Don Imus, last night and this morning, respectively, hammered away at the attacks on Kerry's medals, which are indeed petty and even ugly. Neither mentioned his apparent lies about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. Both the New York Times and the WaPo have been silent on that more troubling accusation. For the details on that difficult subject, go here and here and here. When will the big newspapers start focusing on the "Christmas in Cambodia" story, which goes right to the center of Kerry's character?
6. Mike Barnacle, a big Kerry supporter, said it best on Imus this morning. He said that he had always believed that Kerry's Vietnam record was best used defensively, against charges that Kerry was soft on security, rather than offensively. Kerry decided to use that record offensively, offering it as the single most important affirmative reason to elect him President.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
1. Kerry had it coming, part 1. It was Kerry who decided that service in Vietnam made him more qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than the sitting President, and Kerry who made that history a central story of the Democratic National Convention, while remaining essentially silent on his 20-year career in the Senate. Well, if service in Vietnam is the number one reason to elect John Kerry President, all opinions about that service are the fairest of game. He "opened the door" big time.
2. Kerry had it coming, part 2. Remember the persistent and sleazy attacks on Bush's National Guard Service? At the time I thought that flyspecking the military records of either candidate was beneath both men, and said so. But it is hard to argue that holding Kerry's statements about his own war record up to scrutiny is less probative of his fitness for President than doing the same to President Bush.
3. Kerry had it coming, part 3. The ads and publications of the Swift Boat Veterans may indeed be misleading, or even false. But there is no way that they are more false and misleading than Fahrenheit 911, which has been endorsed by leading elected Democrats. Indeed, Kerry himself has embraced one of the more stomach-turning arguments in that movie.
4. Kerry had it coming, part 4. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is one of these infamous "527" organizations that have metastesized out of federal campaign finance law and regulation. There are, however, far more leftist "527s" working against Bush than the reverse, many of them saying equally tough things. These organizations are, by definition, outside of the control of either campaign. They are well-funded political attack organizations, but that doesn't make them any less rogue.
5. The press coverage is focusing on the Swifties least credible arguments, and ignoring its most credible arguments. For example, Pat Buchanan and Don Imus, last night and this morning, respectively, hammered away at the attacks on Kerry's medals, which are indeed petty and even ugly. Neither mentioned his apparent lies about being in Cambodia during Christmas 1968. Both the New York Times and the WaPo have been silent on that more troubling accusation. For the details on that difficult subject, go here and here and here. When will the big newspapers start focusing on the "Christmas in Cambodia" story, which goes right to the center of Kerry's character?
6. Mike Barnacle, a big Kerry supporter, said it best on Imus this morning. He said that he had always believed that Kerry's Vietnam record was best used defensively, against charges that Kerry was soft on security, rather than offensively. Kerry decided to use that record offensively, offering it as the single most important affirmative reason to elect him President.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
1 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Aug 12, 05:06:00 PM:
Your #3 is the one I have a problem with. If the Swift Boat ad is false, how can it be justified as "no more false" than Fahrenheit 911 (or anything else)? And assuming that no one controls the 527s or the moviemakers, isn't any candidate free to condemn or disavow what those entities do (like McCain did with the ad and Kerry should do with F-911)? Isn't it still perjury even if the door is wide open to truthful testimony on the subject? -- MCU
