Actually it seems that "swiftboating" is a NewSpeak word: positive connotation when applied to the Republican Party, and a negative connotation when applied to its enemies. Republicans refer to "swiftboating" all the time approvingly.

So they are finally admitting to the fact that they deliberately lied to defame a war hero who opposed a futile and unnecessary war.

The press treats politics like a sporting event, so to them, talking about how the Republicans are going to swiftboat Hillary is like talking about how a quarterback is going to respond to a defense with an effective blitz. The press doesn't see it as their job to play referee; they just plan to munch their popcorn and see how she does.

Democrats expecting fairness are going to have a long wait. Democrats complaining about unfairness will be mocked as whiners and wimps.

I really believe that the middle of the US is getting so down and savvy on US politics that they will not digest the usual propaganda unless it is amped by some extraordinary (terrorist) event. Right now, they don't believe in a war that the administration wants the populace to passionately believe in. 'nuff sed.

Joe Buck is exactly right ... the majority of conservative commenters at this site, for example, aren't exactly as concerned with the facts so much as in scoring points for their side.

Hence all the disembling and vague assertions about the Iranian threat, the "controversy" over global warming, or the accuracy of reporting $20/hr as typical janitor salary.

The press has sadly bought into this, and fall all over themselves to report both sides of issues where the facts, were they reported, would be overwhelmingly one-sided.

She says that Bush "misled" her, and this is why she voted for the war. Someone ask her why Obama, the "inexperienced" candidate, could see through Bush's lies right away. So what took her so long?

The fact that it talks about "Swift-boating" right at the top. It gives me a smidgen of hope that this time

around the media is going to recognize campaign tactics like this for what they are: common thuggery, not

legitimate attacks.

Kevin, your use of "Swift-boating" as meaning illegitimate is non-factually based. Wikipedia gives

href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating">the following factual definition of "Swift-

"Swiftboating is American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure coordinated by an

independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force."

All it means is that an outside independent group is launching a political attack on Hillary Clinton. Your

attempt to make it sound like there's something wrong with the attack is factually without merit.

Al
...

--
"Yes, my comment section might be full of trolls and their vitriol, but anyone who has a factual

disagreement with what I write has a forum to point it out in the same place as the post itself."
Kevin Drum
--

some things Al left out of the Wiki entry:

The name comes from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization's negative portrayal of 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry's military service in Vietnam and subsequent antiwar activities. Although many of the charges were unverifiable or subsequently disproven, they were disseminated widely[3] leading to swiftboating's reputation as a controversial but effective form of "smear campaign".[4]

and

The term has gained currency among some writers and commentators, mostly as a pejorative.[5] At least one conservative commentator has denounced its repeated negative usage as "a hate term."[6]

... go ahead and delete his ass.

Funny this article mentions swift boating. On another front, it seems that Obama is not gonna take any shit from HRC lying down.

http://www.slate.com/id/2159915/

Noah: "So they are finally admitting to the fact that they deliberately lied to defame a war hero who opposed a futile and unnecessary war."

Yeah, but which one?

I can recollect, just off the top of my head, that Jim Webb, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, Max Cleland, Dan Inouye, and Tammy Duckworth were all smeared by the GOP at one time or another because of their opposition to the war.

And as we've seen from the experiences of Cindy Sheehan and the late Pat Tillman's family, even Gold Star families have been seen as fair game to these political charlatans.

"Swiftboating" actually highlights the biggest problem confronting today's GOP, which is that the public now perceives in Republicans an almost complete absence of any sense of humility and remorse.

Republicans have long since proven collectively -- certainly since their impeachment and attempted removal of President Clinton -- that they have developed a near-infinite capacity to absorb embarrassment, by just refusing to acknowledge it.

Thus, when asked on CNN why the Iraq War is going terribly awry, Vice President Dick Cheney could look Wolf Blitzer and America squarely in the eye and say, "I simply don't accept the premise of your question." And, thanks in no small part to a sycophantic and compliant D.C. press corps, they've learned that they could get away with it.

The cumulative effect of their longstanding shameless arrogance will now exact from the GOP what may well be a fearsome political toll.

Facts are facts folks, you can call the way facts come to light anything you want, but every candidate has their own attack outfit. Thinking the American voter is'nt bright enough to get it, ---well, I see that kind of crap coming from both parties. Wise up Kevin--

Kodiak,

What the Bush campaign adjuncts did in 2004 was not present the "facts" in a dispicable way. That would have been forgivable. These people lied off their asses. For 20 years, Kerry had been in public service, but these people decided to come out when he was running for president...hmmm. Furthermore, Kerry's unit, including the person he saved, said he was a hero. Debating it again is useless, but in the end everybody knows what they said was untrue.

Whether she can strike back quickly may prove crucial to winning over Democratic primary voters looking for assurance that she can survive a bruising general election and Swift-boat-style attacks.

I for one hope that the swiftboaters come after HRC well before the primaries for this very reason.

If the wingnuts were smart, they'd exercise some restraint until (and if) Hillary looks like a lock for the nomination.

(wingnuts ... exercise ... restraint... sometimes I just crack myself up.)

There's simply no comparison between Hillary and Kerry in their susceptibility to being swift boated. Like her or hate her, Hillary is a known commodity in American politics, to put it mildly. Kerry was not. No attempt by the Repubs to form our opinion of Hillary will amount to a hill of beans against all the we already 'know' about her.

fwiw, I agree with the analysis of Hillary that she's got nowhere to go but up. If you don't hate her already, there's not much chance you're going to move into that camp in the next 20 months.

Regardless of the merits, or the tactics, I just don't think America can or should stand another round of Clinton v. Bush.

It's like we're trapped in a bad dream out here...

Shorter Nads: Don't let Al paraphrase it - always click the link.

I don't think the Swift-Boaters are too concerned about appearing legitimate this time. They just need to make Democrats worry about whether Hillary is electable.

We are a gullible lot. Negative campaigning is nearly fool-proof. If you listened to GOP pundits last November, they fully believe their mistake was not going even dirtier. Get ready for "Swift Boat X 3".

Kenji

It was Bush v. Gore, as a I recall.

American politics has moved to this level. It began with the attacks on the Clintons in power (actually it's much older than this, but the age of 24 hour media has sped it up).

Also the media no longer sees its role as to arbite on the 'truth'. It's enough to report 'he said' then 'she said'.

The Republicans crafted this system of getting the dirt out there-- the canonical case being the late Roger Ailles and the 'Willy Horton' ads which brought down Michael Dukakis.

Under James Carville, the Clinton campaign fought back, and hard.

John Kerry's campaign, by contrast, didn't seem to take the threat seriously. Given Dukakis and Kerry were both from Mass, is this a New England politico problem?

Re the media: how often do you read an article on global warming, say, and get the impression there is a scientific debate? And yet the reality is, in peer reviewed science, there is no debate about its existence or causes. The debate is about the speed with which it is happening, and about what to do about it.

This is how politics is going to be in the future. Again and again, it's been proven that negative attacks like Willie Horton and the Swift Boats, sow enough doubt in voters' minds to be decisive.

'Surrender, Hell. Sir I have not yet begun to fight'

Donald from Hawaii

Don't underestimate the Republican ability to convince the voters that Iraq was a Democratic problem, caused by the Democrats. It's worked before, and it will again.

The Democrats are of course their own worst enemy in all of this.

Kenji

Or did you mean Bush I v. Clinton? In which case, yes it was dirty, but it was dirty in large part because of Willie Horton and Bush v. Dukakis in 1988. Roger Ailles had perfected the tactic, and Carville and Dick Morris were not going to let Clinton be defeated by it.

You will also recall Clinton as governor of Arizona signed that death warrant for a mentally retarded man. There is little doubt he was a victim of the 1988 campaign and Willie Horton.

"It gives me a smidgen of hope that this time around the media is going to recognize campaign tactics like this for what they are: common thuggery, not legitimate attacks."

The sun and good weather have destroyed your brain cells, Kevin.

Bill Clinton didn't have a fully-developed right-wing noise machine.

Why is it so hard to realize this?

The only thing better than swiftboating Hillary is Osama bin Laden-ing Obama Hussein Barack.

Heh. Heh. Heh.
(insert knuckle cracking sounds here)

You guys nominated an incompetent politician you didn't like because you thought he could bamboozle us yokels out here in the red states. Instead his purported strength turned out to be completely discredited by 285 guys who knew him best. The SwiftBoat Vets didn't give Kerry hell, they told the truth and it felt like hell.

Now your frontrunner is running on her husband's memory... she can't give a speech but people remember he could... she can't connect with voters but people remember he could... I give her six months to run out of money and then blame it on our refusal to take a woman seriously, the same way we didn't respect Kerry's sacrifice.

Ah, Kevin.

Why is when Bush does it, its "swifboating" but when Billary does it, its "fighting back" and "she can take care of herself."

They're starting early because there is money to be made. The anti-HRC crowd is counting on the limitless hatred of all things Clinton they can tap for cash. It's a racket.

FM - What bugs many of us about the Swift Boat charges was that they parsed out inconsistencies in some of Kerry's stories of war heroics.

If THAT made conservatives sour, they should have puked over Bush's service record. But the attacks managed to cloak Bush's TANG fiasco instead. It was blatant 3 card monty.

I don't think the L.A. Times gets much credit for identifying the tactic as "Swift-boating" when those employing the tactic identify it as such themselves. The Times quotes one site:

"Those Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were the real heroes of the 2004 election," one online exhortation reads. "We at the StopHillaryPAC want to do the same thing to Hillary."

Hil will be fine because the swift boating of Kerry WAS legit.

Whatever. Personally, I'm sick and tired of the Clintons and their damn soap opera. Really, is that the best we can do?

By 2008, we'll have had either a Bush or a Clinton in office for 20 years. I'm pushing 40, and I've never stood in a Presidential election booth and NOT seen either a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot.

It's time for a frigging change. How's about electing one of the 300 million OTHER people in America who aren't in one of these two damn families. Or was there an amendment to the constitution when I wasn't looking?

I always love it when people like Al cite Wikipedia to support their arguments. Hill-arious.

Why exactly wasn't John Kerry's war record a legitimate campaign issue? George Bush's certainly was, as we saw vividly illustrated by Dan "who me, biased?" Rather. The fact is there were people who served with John Kerry who questioned the whole Audie Murphy meme (which, as you'll recall, Kerry started himself by the tiresome "reporting for duty" schtick). If their claims were slanderous, Kerry could have sued (has he done so by now?), and the attacks would have backfired (as did the memogate attacks on the president). In the end it was a close election. I doubt the swiftboaters made much impact one way or the other.

Valuethinker...First off Clinton was Governor of Arkasas...not Arizona! The "swift boating" story of John Kerry had legs for one reason only - Accuracy. And pleasedont try to bring John Murtha into the dabate!
No real Marine who's "been there" would prejudge combat troops prior to the
release of a military inquiry.

That was the moment when I woke up and said, "Hey, I'm going to check this
guy out."

And what did I find? Did I find a man of vast operational experience with
an extensive combat record? No. I found a man whom fellow congressman Don
Bailey of Pennsylvania, Silver Star and three Bronze Stars, calls 'a liar
and a phony'. A man who came to Bailey crying and sobbing, thanking him for
saving Murtha from the ethics committee (on ABSCAM-related charges) at which
time he admitted to Bailey that his Purple Hearts weren't earned.

I found a man with a couple of years of active duty, and the rest of his
37-year career spent in the Marine Corps Reserve.

I found a man who served in the Marines during Korean War, yes, but somehow
never actually made it to Korea.

I found a man with one year in Vietnam, not 'up front' but in the rear area,
as a staff intelligence offer.

I found a man who's no more been in combat, or is a war hero, than I am.

Even John Kerry has more combat experience than Jack Murtha.

It's a matter of public record that Chris Matthews of Hardball, and his ilk in the major media, are themselves card-carrying members of the "swiftboating right".

We hear daily from the mainstream media that Senator Clinton cannot win, and that her Iraq position is hurting her campaign. Not only is this conventional wisdom contradicted by all of the polls (USA/Gallop National, American Research Group, Harris Interactive, Fox/Opinion Dynamics, Rasmussen, UNH Statewide, Quinnipiac NY, Zogby), but the fact remains that her lead is increasing over her opponents.

Bob Shrum and other “strategists� readily opine about the "troubles" vexing Senator Clinton’s campaign. Considering her numbers, and Shrum’s renown for being behind every losing Democratic presidential campaign since the early eighties, she would do well to keep to her "troubles" and skip everyone else’s advice.

Senator Clinton clearly knows what she is doing.

Let the swiftboating of Lieberman and McCain begin--their credibility is compromised much more than Senator Clinton's, as we know:
From Newshounds (they watch Fox news so we don't have to):
Alan Colmes asked Oliver North about a comment he made on O’Reilly’s show in January opposing the troop surge because the soldiers opposed it.
North continued, “I was there with the same guys who briefed John McCain and Joe Lieberman and they told (McCain and Lieberman) the same thing and they walked out of the briefing and said (the military) wanted 20,000 more troops.

Now go figure. And I know what was said because I lived with those same guys.�
“They said what they wanted were more trainers, more MTT’s, these military transition teams, these police transition teams, that are working in Al-Anbar to bring Sunni and Shia to work together against Al Qaeda. That’s what they said they wanted, not 20,000 more combat troops.�

From truthzone.com: "This presents an interesting bit of irony. North... trying to discredit war critics, is contradicting false statements by Lieberman and his buddy McCain -- two of the Bush regime's biggest enablers in the U.S. Senate who support an escalation even the U.S. military does not support (polls by the Military Times show only 38% of soldiers favor the proposed surge by the Shrub). Ordinarily North's credibility is nonexistent, given his penchant for lying. But in this instance, he is supported by the facts at hand: polls conducted by military newspapers show that yes, even most soldiers do not see the sense in adding another 21,000 + troops to a failed occupation."

I don't want the North-McCain-Lieberman story to drop from the news while the democratic candidates are mercilessly swiftboated.

Go ahead and make fun of Dick Cheney.

What have you ever done? Ingrates. The lot of you.

Should we let these new Swifties know that she killed or helped kill Vince Foster?

Do they still call her HillBillary?

the canonical case being the late Roger Ailles and the 'Willy Horton' ads which brought down Michael Dukakis.

Your thinking of Lee Atwater, not Roger Ailes.

mhr, it's a little too late in the game for you to start pretending that you're a Dem.

Are you road testing the extent to which people will fall for a ridiculous retcon?

If their claims were slanderous, Kerry could have sued (has he done so by now?),

Idiot.
Google Times v. Sullivan.
And "Affirming the consequent".

mhr: "It was one of the joys of my life to vote against the guy when he had the nerve to run for president. Seeing him lose was a high point of my life. "

What a pathetic description of an empty, wasted life. I feel truly sorry for you when something horrible like this adds up to your concept of joy. While you celebrate, thousands are dying to satisfy George Bush's vanity. Hope your party hat, more than two years later, is still flattering.

kerry's sin was that he actually pointed out that americans in vietnam were committing atrocities. in the eyes of moral cripples like mhr, that justifies anything and everything done to him subsequent.

those fascists weaned at the tit of american imperialism think this way. fortunately, they'll be dead soon.

Of course, Nads, in the inspiring words of George W. Bush, when asked by Bob Woodward how history would regard his Iraq adventure, "It doesn't matter. We'll all be dead."

fortunately, they'll be dead soon.

So we can't implement UHC just yet.

which is ironic, since many of those dinosaurs could have lived longer lives if there was equal access for all.

... see, if the low-income housekeeper had gotten checked out appropriately, she wouldn't have had severe bacterial pneumonia overlying her TB ... so that when cheney walked by her, he wouldn't have contracted it and had his 6th heart attack ... which killed him.

circle of life.

Donald from Hawaii: You left out the smearing of Clarke after his book came out. Al Franken had it right (and it rhymes): The last presidential election was won on "Queers, Fears, and Smears."

Kevin,
I am impressed by the collective dishonesty of your trolls. The parade of troll stupidity combined with ignorance is stunning in it's scope.

Hoo-wah.

CK

Fel: No, nothing will make the people who already hate Hillary like her.

That means she has nowhere to go but DOWN. She's running a general election campaign a year before the primaries and it's going to destroy her.

Every word out of her mouth and every vote she casts only make the progressive and liberals who own the democratic primaries hate her more.

Doesn't matter if she's got the general election voters locked up - she'll never make it past New Hampshire.

"Actually kerry painted all of the troops as war criminals which was a lie."

No, actually YOU are a lying sack of shit.

Real people are dying in Iraq, while you "love it". Please go join them now.

egbert, Go ahead and make fun of Dick Cheney.
What have you ever done? Ingrates. The lot of you.

You're right. I have absolutely failed to shoot anyone in the face.

I've also failed to get thousands of people killed in a contrived mess that was created as if intentionally to ruin our country and promote the interests of all who most despise us.

Bravo, egbert. You've got me. I haven't achieved much. Certainly Dick Cheney will go down in history.

What kind of brain damage is required to not be able to comprehend that someone can be both proud of their military service and proud of their anti-war activism?

I'm guessing it has something to do with the frontal lobe.

cld, you're forgetting the five draft deferrals you got....

Seems the fast-talkin' Obama ain't talkin' straight:

OBAMA HOISTED ON HIS OWN PETARD

"Obama memoir left out credits for activism, critics say

"The senator and presidential hopeful's account of his work at a Chicago housing project leaves out others' work on asbestos removal, organizers charge."

by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 18, 2007

http://tinyurl.com/23hv5e

I agree with Joe Buck and the others. The media will recognize that it is thuggery, and then participate in and cheer on the swift-boating.

Dammit, Disputo, you've outed my angelic nature. . .

and of course my daughter is off-limits, but all those other homos need to recognize they should be fired and herded into camps for electro-shock treatment, which the government certainly isn't going to pay for. Homo brain damage isn't our problem, you know.

These people need to wake up and realize they need to be grateful for how we're helping them with their difficulty.

And it is all our difficulty, not theirs. We're putting a lot of effort into this and what reward do we get? Sniping and ingratitude.

On the other hand you know it's important to realize the media is simply willing to go with whatever provides the biggest spectacle, and if the Republicans provide that, they'll go with that.

The obvious counterplay to this is the overweaning Republican need for war, death and torture. Perhaps the most unifying characteristic of the Republican mind. Or, at least the most telegenic.

Also the media no longer sees its role as to arbite on the 'truth'.

"My job is to spend half the time telling viewers what one side said, and half the time telling viewers what the other side said. Little thing called 'journalism', Jon--y'might wanna check it out." - Rob Corddry, Senior Military History Analyst, The Daily Show

FWG,
There were a lot of atrocities committed by both sides in Vietnam (a majority by the Cong and the NVA).
Kerry's goal was to show that a lot of atrocities were being committed by our guys--that it was not just a few bad apples.
Is your argument that Kerry painted with too broad a brush (in your view) or that he should not have pointed out the atrocities at all?
BTW it is customary to provide a link when you source something. Please provide.

Swift boating, i.e. McCarthyism, is still effective, and our media buys into almost every right wing claim. Obama madrasas, Pelosi jet, Murtha crimes, Iranian EPF's. Clinton op-research, you name it. The more dubious the source, the more often it will appear on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and in the major metropolitan dailies. What Bill Clinton did, and what Kerry neglected, was to have a rapid response team. A charge unanswered, no matter how absurd, will become conventional wisdom when it is circulated by our worthless media. It is a given that Republicans will use their smear&lie option. That, racism and vote fraud are the only ways they win.

… I see that kind of crap coming from both parties….Kodiak at 3:29 AM

…The SwiftBoat Vets didn't give Kerry hell, they told the truth.… former minion at 9:26 AM

…One of my proudest possessions is a card of thanks for the check I wrote to the Swift Boat organization … mhr at 11:12 AM

Actually kerry painted all of the troops as war criminals… Fat Angry Guy at 2:18 PM

do facts matter, FWG? what, exactly, did Kerry say that was inaccurate? Which of the above quotes is a lie?

You are just another idiot lefty that doesn't know what he is talking about…Fat Angry Guy at 4:44 PM

The facts and now the myths about the Swift Boat ads are fascinating.

First, I never understood why a group of about 250 veterans did not have every right to express their views about Kerry. He was highlighting his Vietnam service. The swift boat veterans had a different view of his service and related conduct after service. If the swift boat veterans were not telling the truth, Kerry and his supporters had the right and certainly the ability to refute the charges.

Second, democrats with their friends in the press have won in creating the myth of "swift boating" as false attacks on a candidate. It really is fascinating to watch. The actual issue of truthfulness is either forgotten or no longer considered important. The press just accepts the democratic premise that the charges were false and unfair. If that was the case, Kerry would have shown them to be false and unfair in 04. The reality is that some of the facts presented by the swift boat veterans were obviously true (such as Kerry's testiomony to congress), and others were disputed. Can anyone even cite a swift boat factual charge that was proven false beyond any dispute? I doubt it. But the press largely accepts the democrat's characterizaton of the swift boat ads as false attacks.

Is this a surprise? Expect Vince Foster to rise from the grave one more time. Maybe those who flog the myth of his homicide should be forced to exhume and eat his remains.

This scandal-peddling is one reason I don't want Hillary to be the Democratic candidate. If I have to read any more yarns about Hillary trading cattle futures in the 1970s, I am going to spew vomit all over my computer. I also don't like the idea of an American monarchy and family lineage being the best qualifications for Chief Executive, whether the line be the Bushes or the Clintons. Hillary needs to serve out her term in the Senate and then retire to bake cookies for Chelsea's offspring.

Mike,

Give me an example where there were independent witnesses that contradicted the SwiftBoat charges. The only way these guys were legitimately disparaged was that some of them did not turn down their own medals [and thereby end their careers in a petulant snit] for some of the Walter Mitty heroics Kerry wrote about in the after-action reports he filed.

Senator Clinton's biggest challenge will be to get past the anti-war left in the Democratic party. she already said that if she had known then what she knows now she'd have voted differently (intelligently blaming the administration for fudging the evidence), but she has refused to say she apologizes for the vote. She said that if that is the single issue Democrats are going to consider, there are other candidates they can vote for. She is simultaneously calling for the withdrawal/redeployment to begin in 90 days. Unlike the antiwar left, she wants the military to be strong, confident, and prepared for war for the next president.

The thing about the swift boaters was that Kerry dared them early on ("Bring. It. On."), and then totally failed to attack them when they took his dare. It made him seem feckless and unprepared. I am still puzzled: why issue the dare when so obviously unprepared for it?

I am still puzzled: why issue the dare when so obviously unprepared for it?
Posted by: MatthewRMarler

I'm sorry ... I thought you were referring to AWOL's battle cry.

You can't have it freakin' both ways. You can't claim that the "Clintons" know how to fight back and believe in Hillary's candidacy. There is no evidence at all that Hillary knows how to fight back. She knows how to be the supportive spouse--and more power to her for that.

But she has never fought back on her own. She has never hung out at the Dunkin Donuts in Nashua, working every single vote. Bill Clinton was a horse, an unstoppable force who would not accept losing. There is no indication that Hillary Clinton shares that trait. If anything, she is demonstrating that she is happy as a candidate who never enters a Dunkin Donuts.

Wolfson is doing her a disservice. Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to make the case for her presidency, herself, on her merits. She has to fight back, herself, against a media which is strongly prejudiced against her--that will run stories about her and her husband that would never be run about any other candidate.

Look, it's (from some kind of distant, objective point of view) appalling that she and her husband have suffered through marriage threatening conflict and stayed together and they are being criticized by people who have cheated on their spouses, ditched them when it was convenient, and then claimed to be in pursuit of moral values.

It's bizarre that Hillary wins, in any objective measure, in the commitment to marriage and values race, but, in the media, the McCains and Gingriches, Giuilanis and, yes, Haggards, are portrayed as representatives of morality.

But that's the condition of the pitch. She cannot win by playing defense. She has to go after these people and call them on their hypocrisy.

Back when swiftboating was really swiftboating:

[Jack Kennedy] admired George Smathers’s 1950 Senate nomination campaign against incumbent Democrat Claude Pepper [for U.S. Senate from FL], in which Smathers successfully exploited Pepper’s reputation as a doctrinaire New Dealer and forceful advocate of the welfare state, which opened him to attacks as a communist sympathizer and Stalin’s mouthpiece in the Senate or “Red� Pepper as unscrupulous opponents called him. Whimsically taking advantage of the climate of suspicion and the extraordinary ignorance of his audience, Smathers shamelessly described Pepper in a speech as “an extrovert who practiced nepotism with his sister-in-law and celibacy before his marriage and had a sister who was a Greenwich Village thespian.� [and she engaged in that even before she started defenestrating and matriculating, I would add]

To finish the historic note, Pepper went on the serve FL in the U.S. House from 1963-1989.

KDrum stares into air as the press continues it's 20 year war against Gore and Clintons!

Example:

Edwards says: If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for the authorization to use force.

Clinton says: The same thing.

The media narrative: Clinton won't back off her support for the war, but Edwards has.

Former Minion,

How about these?

"...spokesman John O'Neill insisted the fact the spot report carried the initials “KJW� proved Kerry's authorship (never mind those are not John F. Kerry's initials). But the Navy said the initials belonged to the clerk receiving the report, not the person authoring it."

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,101730_1,00.html

"Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events."

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

"But yesterday, a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to The Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_ker

LMAO at FWG for posting quotes from Kerry which disproves the lies that FWG wrote about Kerry.

FWG wins the "Dumbass of the Day Award".

Congrats!

former minion: "Give me an example where there were independent witnesses that contradicted the SwiftBoat charges."

How about, let's say -- the statements of John Kerry's own crew? Is that good enough for you? Or are you now going to tell us that they were all somehow involved in a vast left-wing conspiracy?

Show me some concrete evidence that what the Swift Boaters said was true. After all, they were the ones making the accusations, right?

Jesus Christ, right-wingers like you are so frickin' gullible for anything Fearless Leader and his band of rogues tells you, no matter how preposterous it is on its face, like it's the fifth Gospel of the New Testament or something.

Wise up, fool -- you're going to lead yourself to a lot of political grief before long.

Give me an example where there were independent witnesses that contradicted the SwiftBoat charges.

Uh, like, every guy who actually served *with* Kerry.

Duh.

Red Pepper Claude had a lot in common with our current intelligencia -- he was positive Stalin was a swell guy and most if not all of our problems were caused by America's mistakes, malfeasance or warmongering.

The bottom line is that there was enough truth in the swift boat veterans' assertions, and enough phoniness in Kerry's war hero persona, to make the swift boat ads very effective. And I'm a guy who thought Kerry deserved some credit for his service, just not the big deal he tried to make out of it.

I don't accept the generalities about guys in Kerry's boat supporting him. My recollection is that they supported him on some issues, but not on others (such as, the phony trip to Cambodia had no support from anyone, as I remember it), and that many of the swift boat assertions did not relate to specific incidents on the boat.

I also don't know that the swift boat guys traveling around the country with Kerry on the campaign would be viewed as "independent."

Overall, there certainly was little evidence to prove the swift boat veterans were "liars," yet democrats and the press are quick to so label them. It is unfair, but at least they have the reward of knowing they probably prevented Kerry from being elected president.

LMAO. Ok, let me see. Anyone who actually knew and served with Kerry during VN, can't be considered an "independent witness" to his in VN, but a bunch of political adversaries who never even saw Kerry over in VN can be?

Nice deal ya got there -- craft the rules of evidence so that it is impossible to refute lies, thereby turning the lies into truth.

And you wingnuts wonder why noone trusts a damn thing you say.

Fat White Traitor.

No, sorry. You are still just a lying sack of shit who doesn't care about the truth or the fate of his country, or democarcy, or the fate of the planet.

We actual human beings, who recognize the colossa waste of the arrogant adventures, in Vietnam or Iraq, are totally fed up with playing by your rigged rules, so just fuck your concept of "discussion" and go off to North Korea or some other dictatorship where you will feel more comfortable.

But do pick your winners carefully, because no matter how well you lick your masters' boots, you can't swiftboat the truths that are racing down the pike to bite your fat white ass. Hard.

brian:,/b> "Overall, there certainly was little evidence to prove the swift boat veterans were 'liars,' yet democrats and the press are quick to so label them."

Please, stop insulting people's intelligence. The Swift Boaters insinuated that they served with Kerry, when they hadn't. Thay intimated that Kerry made up the events surrounding how he won his commendations, which he most obviously hadn't. They alleged that Kerry hadn't really served in combat, which he did.

End of discussion.

You, of course, have the reward of knowing that you supported the re-election of a patently dishonest man who had to be wired-up with WiFi so he could receive the answers, for at least one of the debates with Kerry.

Yes, and they "love it!" These traitorous cheesebags apparently like seeing their countrymen die and even more brown people killed, because "their" side has learned to game the system—to the detriment of absolutely everyone else. Ha-ha-fucking-ha.

Rome was impressive at one time, too.

This probably will get us nowhere. But there was one guy on Kerry's boat who was against him, and the others were for him. Which is pretty good for Kerry. But the ones for him became campaigners, which I think means they were not independent. And they were not present for many of the disputed issues.

You said the swift boat guys "insinuated" and "intimated" things. That is subjective, and certainly not "lies." I really can't think of a single "lie" they told.

In any event, despite being first ignored and then disparaged by the MSM, the swift boat veterans effectively won the debate. I always thought Kerry had exaggerated his Vietnam service and he certainly emphasized it in the campaign, so the questions about it were fair game. If Kerry had had good answers, he would have won the debate because the MSM and most Americans would not tolerate unfair attacks on a war veteran.

No, Brain, like many decent men, he couldn't believe the Republicans would stoop so low, and his crime—naive for a man of his experience—was to respond too slowly and not forcefully enough to outright lies, whatever you call them.

So what matters is that he lost to a shit-for-brains draft dodger who actually believes he is President of the United States. You may be confused about Kerry's war record. But Georgie-Peorgie's is clear enough, and getting clearer every day—to those who still have eyes.

When did Hillary Clinton serve in Viet Nam on a Swift Boat?

So far, this entire thread proves my point about the Swift Boat effectiveness -- it creates nothing more than a 'He said / She said" debate about Kerry's service record.

The reason the Swift Boat affair bothers a lot of people (like me) is that conservatives are being hypocritical. They used the Swift Boat charges to claim that Kerry's service record was so dishonorable they couldn't vote for him. Then they raced out to the precincts to vote for a 'conservative' candidate who's service record made Kerry's look positively stellar.

Give me an example where there were independent witnesses … former minion at 5:43 …I really can't think of a single "lie" they told….Brian at 9:08 PM

from the LAT article: Clinton also reportedly spent lavishly to hire a large team of opposition researchers headed by Judd Legum, previously research director for the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank headed by former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta.
...
Clinton allies say she helped launch Podesta's group in 2003 and played a key role in starting Media Matters for America, which describes itself as "monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
...
Run by David Brock, a former conservative muckraker who once targeted the Clintons and now defends them, Media Matters was a latecomer to the Swift-boat volleys of 2004 but now has a full staff of researchers.
...
Brock said the emerging conservative efforts targeting Clinton operate as an "organized defamation industry" using "the same tactics in mutually reinforcing ways, often with the same funding, with a vast media echo chamber at their disposal."

I think Sen Clinton is lots smarter than Sen Kerry, and will be more successful at ridiculing and warding off the attacks.

If Kerry had had good answers, he would have won the debate because the MSM and most Americans would not tolerate unfair attacks on a war veteran.
Posted by: Brian

Brian ... isn't your very presence here, as well as the insidious ...

"You said the swift boat guys "insinuated" and "intimated" things. That is subjective, and certainly not "lies." I really can't think of a single "lie" they told.

... evidence that some who would call themselves American would, in fact, tolerate unfair attacks on a war vet?

If you were smarter, I might actually believe you really were a lawyer.

Since I am not sure how to post a link. All I can say is do a simple google search and use kerry and antiwar activities. It takes a few seconds.
Posted by: Fat White Guy

try googling "links in HTML," learn how to make some fucking links, then proceed to do your own homework and research your own evidence, cite it, and then make the link.

you're the one slandering a war vet ... shouldn't you be doing some of the work?

FWG belched:

to make the case that virtually everyone committed atrocities

Kerry never made any such case, certainly not in the quote you posted, you lying piece of shit. You need to check yourself into a VA hospital and get some long overdue psychiatric help.

your kerry quote:

Several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia.

did this meeting not take place? did no one testify?

These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

presumably, this is what you're in a snit about. your refutation appears to consist of your anecdote about not personally committing any atrocity personally, and not being aware of any tacit approval from higher ups. Good for you.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do."

See .. I read this as essentially absolving the soldiers in the field, right or wrong, and laying the blame for atrocities committed during vietnam upon the old white men in washington. I don't really see why that should bother you so much.

I mean, if it were ME sent to die in some shithole based on misguided ideologies of some right wingnuts, I'd be mad at the ideologues who put me out there ... not those who protested the action and tried to get me home.

Mullah Cimoc say too much jack bauer tv show make ameriki so stupid for hate the muslim, loving the torture, bow down for masters in tel aviv.

this all rupert murdoch tv show man mind control this way.
This evil doing for usa media , now control so few company. Benjamin Frankling not like this not free press now in usa amerika.

for please now google: mighty wurlitzer +cia

then aemriki people know not free press in usa now. just keep the ameriki so stupid for serve the master in tel aviv.

.. in fact, methinks the Fat White Lady doth protest too much. This may be simply projection for whatever you may or may not have done.

seriously ... the statute of limitations for your mistakes is probably expired. get some therapy.

Too bad so few people have seen "Winter Soldier", the 1971 doc in which vets (including Kerry, very briefly) talk about the things they saw and participated in. The process was very cathartic and non-judgmental for the soldiers involved. Big White Turd and the other human failures are still in denial, and that's what enables cowards like Bush to perpetrate the same mistakes and worse.

Imagine a forceful group of vets speculating about whether Kerry's war injuries were real or just self-inflicted flesh wounds NOT caring why someone with a history of drunk driving and alcoholism was able to go AWOL from the TANG and sit out the war working a desk job for a segregationist candidate in Alabama.

Now imagine this same group of vets ganging up with the announced intention of discrediting one woman.

What would a tough group of vets call a group of vets like the Swiftboaters? Honorable? Patriotic?? Deserving???

Honor aside, if the press knows a group like the Swiftboaters has an announced agenda doesn't this mean the agenda has to be challenged explicitly, like the press does with environmental and peace groups, before the substance of the charges can be addressed? And if the charges are proven false, should they be repeated or just relegated to Fox News, where viewers know what to expect?

Dear pj: the honorable Swift Boat vets are very honorable. They recognized even back when that Lt. Kerry was a young man in a hurry to accumulate some political capital. That was no big deal at the time because a lot of flash-in-the-pan patriots serve in any war hoping to get their tickets punched for when they need credentials later on.

But Kerry went back home and started calling good people some type of genocidal fascists, even to the point of making up events he didn't witness. Giving back his medals--now was that the repentance of a truly troubled hero, or just Mr. Opportunist sticking his finger up in the Massachusetts wind?

You worry about the Swift boaters "agenda." Their agenda was to be mad as hell. They have very good reason to be mad, even after all these years. You can call them all the names you want, but they are better people than you in every way possible. Best yet, these vets are my brothers.

You're an idiot. Yawn.

Mike says:
"...started calling good people some type of genocidal fascists, even to the point of making up events he didn't witness."

Okay, back that up. What events did he make up? Who did he call a genocidal fascist (as opposed to claiming some committed atrocities)?

"You can call them all the names you want, but they are better people than you in every way possible."

Like this absolute prince:

"Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events."

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

Is anyone EVER allowed to point out when an American soldier commits an atrocity? Because if a serving, decorated veteran in the same fucking war can't ... then who can?

I wouldn't get my hopes up. The LAT was actually one of the least guilty among the complicit media participants in the swiftboating of Kerry. I'm thoroughly unconvinced the NYT and the Post have learned anything.

Mike Cook,

It's fine to be angry, it's fine to disagree. But your brothers' and your outrageous, unproven statements about Sen. Kerry's war service dishonor the military.

There are a number of big differences between Sen. Kerry and your brothers. For one, Kerry has the full backing of the Pentagon, Swiftboaters don't. For another, Sen. Kerry spoke his conscience; Swiftboaters merely lust for vicarious power they themselves are too weak and unprepared to obtain themselves.

Have one of your brothers run for high public office and let's see how the spotlight of national attention withers their credibility. Sen. Kerry only looks more honorable with age, and he will always have his Purple Hearts.

You won't.

I once promised never to write about this again, and here I am letting myself get sucked back into it.

There were seven guys that were on Kerry's boat that supported him. The guy that served with him the longest was with the SwiftBoat movement. I never denied that Kerry had a sense of noblese oblige or that he was not cordial with his crew, but none of them were in a position to counter the SwiftVet's charges. Saying the guys on his boat supported him is like saying Ken Lay's driver and doorman and mechanic all thought he was a swell guy and a great tipper...that doesn't go to the heart of the controversy. As far as disputing his stories of Christmas in Cambodia or the CIA agent's lucky hat when he went upriver to kill Kurtz, do a google and see what turns up.

I once promised never to write about this again, and here I am letting myself get sucked back into it.

Don't worry. We all know that wingnuts are incapable of keeping a promise.

Mike Cook says that the Swifties are his brothers.

Mike, you have a very dysfunctional family.

Remember, extra dose of Metformin at night.

The left can't let go of the "swiftboat" meme. It is like "McCarthyism" every time anyone questions a shibbolith, like the "88" at Duke who can't get over the fact that the stripper was black and the lacrosse players white. Bumper sticker mentality.

Hillary doesn't have to worry about swiftboating unless one can "swiftboat" one's self. She can wiggle around but she firmly placed that pin through herself on Iraq.

Personally, I think it is better than 50-50 that she will be the next president. The loony left may want to consider if it is smart to burn their bridges with her. She keeps a grudge.

You're an idiot.

The bottom line is that there was enough money behind the swift boat veterans' assertions, ... to make the swift boat ads very effective.

Fixed it for you.

flash-in-the-pan patriots serve in any war hoping to get their tickets punched for when they need credentials later on.

Except for Bush, Cheney, all the neocons - they couldn't be bothered.

Kenji,

Please have some respect - He is Doctor Idiot, M.D.

Yes, you see the neocons' complete abdication of responsibility in a time of war is proof of their ultimate sincerity when given a crack at power later in life. Their detachment from combat and and moral complexities has given them a deep understanding of the military and its uses.

Whereas a man who saw battle and later fought against the continuation of a ruinous war was really a craven coward meticulously planning out his next 40 years. Which is why he was such a superb campaigner, by the way. Clearly, the fellow just lives for politics, doesn't he?

That's some fucked-up world these cheesebags live in. Too bad they are determined that we live there too. Personally, I've had it with the motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane(t)

You know, I could have had a purple heart for two sprained ankles suffered while falling down a broken stairway during a rocket attack on Danang in 1972, but I wasn't thinking ahead. To be fair, I also went through a period of anti-war remorse after coming home. I read a book called "Fire in the Lake" by Francis McDonald and for a time I called the U.S. a reckless, imperial power.

But then I read that the Vietnamese reds themselves considered McDonald's book to be extremely condescending and insulting to their cause in its own right. Then I watched Vietnam languish in poverty and arbitrary one-party rule for four decades while all around it things progressed much differently--Vietnam had become the Cuba of S.E. Asia. Speaking of Guantanimo human rights abuses, anybody check out Cuba or Vietnam's prisons lately? Gitmo isn't even the worst prison on the island of Cuba.

Jonah Goldberg has an interesting column today. He says he hopes the Dems win the presidency in 2008 so they can find out just how tricky it is to fight the WOT. Democrats will have to have a position on Afghanistan and Lebanon--will they let the Taliban and Hizbollah have their way in those places? Will they crawl to Moscow and beg Mr. Putin not to encourage too much trouble for them to pretend to handle?

Putin has his war in Chechnya against a brutal "popular insurgency" pretty much under control. The Russian president applied an old Stalinist axiom--if radical ideas and idealists are causing too much trouble, put bullets in the brains where the ideas hang out. Pernicious ideas can not survive without a host.

Right now the Democrats are making hay by claiming that the war on terror is an overblown idea, but that even if it were real Iraq (almost dead in the geographic center of the Middle East) is the wrong place to fight it. They don't really explain where they would fight the terrorists or even if they would confront them at all. One gets the real sense that they want to toss Israel to radical Islam like a side of beef to appease a wolf pack.

Except that isn't going to work. Israel has 250-350 nuclear weapons and they will use all of them before surrendering or being over-run. Dear, dear, what are we going to do if that happens? Cut off vital high tech armaments to Israel in their coming hour of dire need? Then for sure the nukes have to come out.

I think I am with Jonah. I don't believe the Democrats are ready for executive power in this most dangerous world in any degree, but the Dems are so nasty and politically vicious that the power they must have.

So, I don't much care if they get it. Oh, I will go all out to support John McCain next year, but if he loses I won't commit hari-kari.

I tell you this--I would not want to move my family into the White House in Jan. 2009 for anything. That hallowed building dodged a bullet on 9/11. Unfortunately, there are a lot of weapons or delivery techniques out there and our enemy is nothing if not cunning, adequately financed, and patient.

"Senator Clinton's biggest challenge will be to get past the anti-war left in the Democratic party."

Since the majority of the voters are part of this "anti-war left," I would say that's a challenge that every single candidate for the office will face, wouldn't you? Thus far, the Republican candidates are not meeting it.

"the Dems are so nasty and politically vicious..."

Biggest friggin' idiot in the room. Yeah, those mean Jews sure beat up that nice Mr. Hitler didn't they?

"Since the majority of the voters are part of this "anti-war left," I would say that's a challenge that every single candidate for the office will face, wouldn't you? Thus far, the Republican candidates are not meeting it.

Posted by: PaulB"

If you are convinced this is true, you should be pushing General Murtha to carry out his plan. It might make some of those moderate Democrats Rahm Emmanuel recruited nervous, but what the heck. Let's find out how big the surrender caucus is.

The Kerry swiftboat crew you guys are so convinced were right; does that include the guy who disappeared after the convention when they found out he didn't serve with Kerry ? His name was Alston.

Watch ... idiot... get... BIGGER!

You know, I could have had a purple heart for two sprained ankles suffered while falling down a broken stairway during a rocket attack on Danang in 1972, but I wasn't thinking ahead.
Posted by: mike cook on February 19, 2007 at 11:45 AM

are we sure mike is a vet? I have a hard time imagning someone who's actually been in combat saying this. It smacks of the pussiest of the chickenhawks.

Mike Cook,

Are you trying to compare your sprained ankles in Danang in 1972 to shrapnel wounds suffered in combat by Sen. Kerry? Are you saying Kerry's heroism in plucking a comrade out of the water under hostile fire was mere "comaradie?"

You sound like Dan Quayle comparing himself to John Kennedy in that debate with Lloyd Bentsen. Mike Cook, you're no Dan Quayle.

None other than Vietnam vet and former POW John McCain called you and the rest of your Swiftboat "brothers" dishonest and dishonorable. You would do well to heed the warnings from leaders of your Grand Old [War] Party.

Thanks to your and your fellow Swiftboater's efforts in 2004 the country elected a former alcoholic, convicted drunk driver, TANG deserter and segregationist candidate supporter who dishonestly led us into a war of choice for who knows what reason -- the justification has changed three or four times since 2003. And like the alcoholic he once was, Bush refuses to accept full responsibility for this foreign policy disaster.

"Swiftboating" is already synonamous with dishonesty. We will make sure you and the Swiftboaters go to your graves permanently linked to the dishonest 2004 attacks on John Kerry and George Bush's failed presidency.

And we will not let you do it again, no matter how much money you put up against Hillary. People don't trust you any more -- your word's no good.

Anyway, people who served with Mike Cook have given sworn testimony that he shirked his duties, was a coward in the face of fire, and regularly sought the company of young boys. Of course, I wasn't there, but all those couldn't be making it up. I mean, what would they have to gain from that? Sure, we should give him the benefit of the doubt but, you know, young boys and all that! Still, I'm just sayin'...

...I don't believe the Democrats are ready for executive power …mike cook at 11:45 AM

The Republican smear machine is the nastiest I seen since the days of Whiggery and McCarthyism, and that's as nasty as it gets.

I realize that the Beautiful House is endangered. It's is endangered all the more because of Bush and his insane policies. Republicans have proven to us that in policy, in case after case, from Iraq to Iran to New Orleans, you are too incompetent to govern.

…Let's find out how big the surrender caucus is…Mike K at 2:43 PM