Here is the letter the Bush campaign asked Jerry Patterson, a Texas Land Commissioner, to give to Max Cleland when Cleland was stopped by a roadblock en route to Bush’s Crawford ranch. It contains the following passage:
“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.”
If anyone can show me where, exactly, John Kerry has said that only those veterans who agree with him have a right to speak up, please let me know. In the meantime, a few points:
First, the right of free speech is not absolute. Among the things it does not include is the right to defamation of character. As I wrote earlier, it seems to me quite possible that some of the SwiftVets have intentionally made false statements that have damaged John Kerry’s reputation. If so, then the First Amendment would not give them the right to make such claims.
Second, as far as I know, Kerry has not made the argument I just made, or any other argument intended to show that the SwiftVets don’t have the right to say what they did. Moreover, when he has criticized them (which is of course not the same as arguing that they should be censored), he has done so not on the grounds that they disagree with him, but on the grounds that what they say is false.
Third, asking Bush to condemn the SwiftVets’ ads is also not the same as denying their right to free speech. I, for instance, supported the right of Nazis to march through Skokie (I’m that sort of liberal), but I would also have hoped that all sorts of political figures would condemn them. There is no contradiction here.
Fourth, what on earth is Bush doing? I mean: if I were (a) utterly amoral and (b) in charge of Bush’s campaign, I would have gotten a group like the SwiftVets together precisely so that Bush could denounce them and look like a decent, honorable, stand-up guy who did not want to profit from character assassination, and who was willing to put principle ahead of expediency. It’s so easy and obvious that I cannot imagine why he doesn’t do it. And why not accept the letter from Cleland directly? He could have seemed gracious and magnanimous at the cost of maybe five minutes of his time. Again, it would have been so easy.
(Note: I have read suggestions that the reason he didn’t meet Cleland had to do with security. But he knew Cleland was coming in time to set up a roadblock, have his campaign draft the letter and get hold of some veterans to sign and deliver it, etc.; I don’t see why this wouldn’t have been enough time for the Secret Service to do its thing. Also, I am not trying to argue that Cleland deserved to be met with; just that it seems to me that it would have been in the President’s interest to greet him and accept the letter, and thus I’m puzzled as to why he didn’t.)
Besides the rather egregiously bad treatment of Cleland by the Bush people..their insistance that 527s are the new bane of politics is looking more and more like the result of the good ass whupping they’ve received by them.
They’ve been outraised and outgunned on this one the whole campaign season. It’s pretty obvious that they were caught off guard.
I’ve made the point on my blog (as you have here) that Kerry isn’t trying to squelch free speech. He’s complaining about outright lies in TV ads.
The problem here, from my perspective, stems from the fundamental lack of the mainstream media doing it’s job. Aren’t news organizations supposed to actually check allegations for facts before they toss them above the fold or make them the top story? (Yes..color me naive)
Bush’s problems both in his campaign and his administration suffer from a desperate lack of honesty.
Of course there was a security issue. Why, Max could have had a bomb strapped to his leg. Wait…
Carla — I am waiting for someone to ask Bush how he squares his recent condemnation of 527 issue ads with the statement he made when he signed McCain-Feingold:
“I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law.”
Here his objection is not to the existence of 527 ads, but to any restrictions on them.
Groan… I can’t believe that this post is actually serious.
How is allowing your buddies to get up and talk good about you at your convention and trying to get Bush to condemn the Vet’s that disagree with you not effectively trying to silence them?
Bush is recognizing this as a phoney and insincere attempt to condemn the Swifts, but not the smears against himself.
It’s not gracious or magnamious to give face to someone who is trying to stab you in the back.
Blue: as I said, it’s not the vets who disagree with him that Kerry is trying to get Bush to condemn, it’s the ones who are saying things that are false. I’m sure Kerry disagrees with John McCain about a lot of things, but I haven’t noticed him trying to silence McCain recently. And when Bush went after McCain in South Carolina, Kerry was one of the Senators who sent Bush a letter urging that he denounce them. Likewise, I haven’t noticed Kerry urging Bush to denounce those veterans who think that he (Kerry) did the wrong thing in speaking out against the war, and unlike the McCain example, these veterans do disagree with Kerry about things Kerry did.
The ones that are speaking the loudest and are being heard, he is openly trying to silence because he disagrees with them. He is not trying to silence the one’s that can’t be heard and disagree.
He would be better off taking Bush’s approach. Ignore the ones who are out on the fringe. Their lies will eventually become obvious.
There is a great book called “Never be lied to again”. Kerry is exhibiting the exact behaviour of someone who is not being honest as described in the book.
Someone with nothing to hide woudl have come out and said these guys are a bunch of liars because blah blah blah and been done with it. He hasn’t done that… he attacked them and continues to try and silence them.
You assume the Swifts statements are false, but that doesn’t make it so.
“It’s so easy and obvious that I cannot imagine why he doesn’t do it”
Because he’s not really that smart.
It’s like the crap about him letting 9/11 happen ’cause they needed “another Pearl Harbor” to invade Iraq. He cut the counter terrorism budget on 9/10/01, would he do that if he knew about the attacks? He’s not that smart.
Reacts OK (politically) but does not anticipate very well. (and hell it’s too late now for something like that)
But hilzoy!
As Sebastian reminds us “Kerry doesn’t even claim to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve anymore.”
Doesn’t that count for something?
Max Cleland is a security risk!?
Oh the depths. How does the press report some of this stuff with a straight face?
The difference between a number of lies and the funding device that allowed them to be broadcast is being erased so the administration can ignore the lies and attack the device.
My TV allows me to see the nightly news and the news is often about war and killings and failing schools. Therefore, my TV is responsable for wars and killings and failing schools. I thought the administration and journalists actually graduated from high school and understood the rudiments of logical thought.
Im kenfuused!
“You assume the Swifts statements are false, but that doesn’t make it so.”
And you assume the Swifts statements are true, but that doesn’t make it so either.
Blue
You need to catch up on the news. It’s not fringe groups who have debunked the credibility of the Swift Boat Captains. It’s every major news source that has had an occassion to look at the details.
As Sebastian reminds us “Kerry doesn’t even claim to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve anymore.”
be a linker not a liar
http://www.??????.com
Blue: I wasn’t assuming that the claims were true, just being too lazy to repost the links I posted a few threads ago (Swift Boats and Big Lies, around the middle of the comments.)
Rugger8,
I agree with you that the truth will never fully be known by anyone.
Carsick,
Please… it really seems like you need to catch up with the news to me.
They are now even backing off his first PH not being a self-inflicted wound.
Cambodia
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105529
“But one thing is for sure: Lt. Kerry did not spend that Christmas Eve just lying around, dreaming of sugarplums and roasted chestnuts. He had plenty of time to cover the 40 miles from the Cambodian border to the safety of Sa Dec (he did command a swift boat, after all). More to the point, the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning, in Sa Dec that night.”
Why would Bush not recieve Mad Max?
From Protien Wisdom 8/23
Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, speaking moments ago on “Hannity and Colmes”: “George Bush betrayed his country by sending us to war on false pretenses, and George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”
Yes. You read that right. “George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”
“George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”
Given an opportunity to correct this rather incredible statement, Ms. Marsh declined, arguing that she had nothing to correct—that it was a fact that George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.
Betrayed his country. By not fighting in Vietnam.
I suppose it is irrelevant that even Kerry doesn’t claim to have been in Cambodia anymore…
Rugger
I was being facetious but Sebastian did actually say that toward the bottom of the Thoughts on VietNam thread here or the Swift Boats and Big Lies thread also here.
Blue
As Rugger reminds us all: Link?
By the way, the purple heart doesn’t care whether a wound was friendly or enemy fire as long as it was incurred during armed conflict.
A “wound” is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent. A physical lesion is not required; however, the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.
LIARS
O’Neil says Kerry was not in Cambodia because O’Neil wasn’t (even if he told Nixon he was).
Thurlow wasn’t under enemy fire even if his Bronze Star citation said he was-
French knew Kerry well- even if he never met him or served with him.
Steve Gardner was on every mission Kerry led so he knows Kerry doesn’t deserve his medals- except he wasn’t with Kerry when he earned them.
And, Admiral Whats-his-face; the 4th man on a 3 person craft, so he knew Kerry didn’t deserve his medal, what a coincidence that the other 3 men (on the 3 man craft) don’t remember Whats-his-face.
Carsick,
Never said that they PH cared where the fire came from… only said that are backing off the enemy fire claim.
I would have linked, but I asssumed it was just common knowledge for those who keep up with the news.
Blue
You have quickly fallen into the category of the type of folks who post a lot of ‘news’ and come back with a lot of feable zingers but never have anything to back up their claims.
Have a good night.
One last link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/
And herew’s the headline:
Navy records appear to support Kerry’s version
“their insistance that 527s are the new bane of politics is looking more and more like the result of the good ass whupping they’ve received by them.”
Funny, I absolutely definitely remember talking about the McCain-Feingold Act being stupid and how soft money loopholes would allow a loss of accountability in campaigns before the Act passed. And lots of Repbulicans said the same thing. The Democratic line at the time was that it wouldn’t happen. I see now the Democratic line is that it is good so long as it is done by people you like.
Nice.
Carsick,
You are the one who made the comment about me not keeping up with the news.
Are you willing to apologize?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Aug23.html
Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry “on one occasion crossed into Cambodia,” on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/04/14/kerry_faces_questions_over_purple_heart/
The Globe asked Kerry’s campaign whether the Massachusetts senator is certain he was under enemy fire and whether he recalled that a superior officer raised questions about the matter. The campaign did not respond directly to those questions. Instead, Meehan said in a prepared statement that Kerry “received the shrapnel wound early in the course of that combat engagement.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040825-125217-7993r.htm
Mr. Kerry’s campaign could not say definitively whether he did receive enemy fire that day.
Carsick,
Hmmm… if you are so easily able to reach the wrong conclusion about me… I wonder where else you have done that.
Sebastian: Two words…. veto pen.
I think Bush’s skittishness around the veto pen is something many conservatives have criticized him for. It’s not as if we think he’s exactly the right guy to have in the office, after all.
Betrayed his country. By not fighting in Vietnam.
Bush favored the war, yet also dodged service. I might not call that betrayal, but I can think of a few other things to call it.
Bush favored the war, yet also dodged service. I might not call that betrayal, but I can think of a few other things to call it.
What would you call it? Your moral formulation here precludes the ability of anyone serving in the National Guard domestically from supporting the war.
This whole issue is making everyone insane.
Do I really want to get drawn further into this? Oh well:
Jonas: first, EH is not talking about people who served in the NG, but people who did so in order to dodge serving in Vietnam. That’s a big difference.
Second, in my view, there’s a difference between people who tried to get out of serving in Vietnam because they opposed the war and people who tried to get out of serving even though they supported the war. (In saying this I don’t mean to imply that it’s OK. I think that the best thing for opponents of the war to have done would have been to go to jail. I have no idea whether I would have had either the self-possession or the guts to do this had I been older and male, so I’m not making any claim about what I would have done.) Opponents of the war might have tried to avoid serving because they did not want to find themselves killing people in a war they thought was unjust. But supporters of the war didn’t have this sort of reason; it’s hard to see what would have motivated them to duck service other than the thought: I’d rather it was someone else who risked his life for my country. Not me. That is a cowardly thought, and not particularly patriotic.
Jonas: first, EH is not talking about people who served in the NG, but people who did so in order to dodge serving in Vietnam. That’s a big difference.
Every person serving in the National Guard domestically during Vietnam was de facto dodging serving in Vietnam. Therefore, not one of these people can be morally justified in supporting the Vietnam war.
That’s nonsense, as far as I’m concerned. Vietnam was a moral quagmire for nearly anyone living at the time, in which any behavior: for or against, serving or dodging; is subject to complex moral dimensions, which you can’t use for partisan point-scoring without eventually making bizarre and incoherent moral pronouncements.
Best not to, I say. I apologize, Hilzoy, but I’m finding your argument about “who is worse” contrived. I will assume for the sake of argument that you supported the Afghanistan war – were you entitled to that opinion despite not being willing to serve in it? I’d say yes, as it’s going to be damn near impossible to operate a Democracy during war if only those willing to die are allowed to endorse military action. Arguments from my fellow Democrats regarding military service and supporting wars recently seem to indicate a desire to erect some pseudo-Roman Republic of Warrior-Citizens, which I can’t say I remember being part of the party platform, never mind liberalism.
Jonas: First, I wasn’t trying either to score points or to talk about who was worse; just to say that I didn’t think that your conclusion follows. A much smaller point. Second, I took EH to be talking not about “de facto” draft dodging, but about trying to get into the National Guard in order not to go to Vietnam. Third, the point isn’t so much that if you duck the draft you’re not “allowed” to be for the war; it’s about what the fact of ducking service in a war one supports says about one’s character. I took EH to be saying: it says something — but not necessarily that one can’t support the war. I just added: it says different things depending on one’s view of the war in question, and I find the things it says about someone who ducks service in a war they agree with more troubling.
I completely agree with you about the complexity of the moral issues surrounding service in Vietnam. I don’t think judgments about this are at all easy. But I also don’t think they are impossible.
And, by the way, had I been drafted, I would have gone to Afghanistan; and I don’t want a Republic of Warrior-Citizens. I am inclined to see the emphasis on military service at the Democratic Convention as a response to the view that Democrats are in principle untrustworthy on defense, and also as a way of inviting people to notice that whatever Bush does at his Convention, he won’t be surrounding himself with the people he served with. This would not be a point anyone would bother with if Bush had just e.g. come of age after the draft.
First, I wasn’t trying either to score points or to talk about who was worse; just to say that I didn’t think that your conclusion follows.
I think it’s difficult to prevent my conclusion from following, given how difficult it is to discern precisely the motives of those serving in the Guard at the time. And I’m not sure it’s worth the effort, frankly.
Second, I took EH to be talking not about “de facto” draft dodging, but about trying to get into the National Guard in order not to go to Vietnam.
As I said, figuring out the motive is the quagmire here. Meanwhile, those in the guard, like it or not, served their country and deserve some credit, albeit likely less than those in the line of fire in Vietnam. Morally, I’m stumped at what to do with this.
Third, the point isn’t so much that if you duck the draft you’re not “allowed” to be for the war; it’s about what the fact of ducking service in a war one supports says about one’s character. I took EH to be saying: it says something — but not necessarily that one can’t support the war.
You are right to say that this is a matter of character – and that your formulation does indeed work within this context. But not within a political one, I’d say, as I think it is fair to hold brave and exceptional military service as a positive character trait of a political candidate; I do not think that the inverse can be fairly applied to those who lacked it. At best, not serving in Vietnam should be viewed, I think, as “neutral,” as opposed to “negative,” i.e. “Bush betrayed his country by not serving in Vietnam.”
I don’t think judgments about this are at all easy. But I also don’t think they are impossible.
My feeling, as of late, is that they are more or less impossible, especially given that historically speaking, it’s too soon to have a rational conversation. I think you and I are (thank god) but hearing this debate rage on in the campaign, it’s becoming so insipid, that I’m ready to go back to the “Vietnam truce,” thank you very much.
And, by the way, had I been drafted, I would have gone to Afghanistan; and I don’t want a Republic of Warrior-Citizens. I am inclined to see the emphasis on military service at the Democratic Convention as a response to the view that Democrats are in principle untrustworthy on defense, and also as a way of inviting people to notice that whatever Bush does at his Convention, he won’t be surrounding himself with the people he served with. This would not be a point anyone would bother with if Bush had just e.g. come of age after the draft.
Maybe I am just being paranoid, but I’m finding the posture taken by Kerry and at the convention turns my stomach. The principle of civilian control of the military outweighs any political considerations about being “untrustworthy” on defense to me. Kerry standing with his boatmates, and Bush standing “alone,” doesn’t say anything to me, quite frankly, about either of them being suitable as commander-in-chief.
It is difficult to figure out motives. Fortunately, Bush has given us some help:
“I’m saying to myself, ‘What do I want to do?’ I think I don’t want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly.”
Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 1989
“I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”
Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990
link here
Interesting that this thread one that questions Bush’s character and motives…