I actually got out of the hospital several days ago (surgery went amazingly well), but I couldn’t bring myself to write anything until now. On the one hand, I didn’t see what I had to add to the Swift Boat Vets controversy: everything I had to say had already been said far more eloquently by other people. On the other hand, I couldn’t really write about anything else. On reflection, however, I think I have one thing to add to this topic.
I don’t know how many of you have ever seen defamation of character up close, but unfortunately I have. I once knew someone who would, every so often and for no obvious reason, decide to trash someone else. I imagine that if there had been something suitably dreadful to say about his victims that was true, he might have used it; however, during the time I knew him, there never was, and so he would just make things up out of whole cloth and repeat them to anyone who would listen. The things he said were really bad: they were full-bore attacks both on his victims’ professional competence and on their moral character. And since I knew both the liar, most of his victims, and many of the people he lied about his victims to, I thought a lot about how his lies worked, and why.
In this case, not many people simply believed the liar. He was widely regarded as eccentric and given to hyperbole, while his victims were, by and large, decent people. On the other hand, not many people simply disbelieved him either, mostly because his lies usually concerned matters that would have been hard for his audience to check, and also because most of his audience did not know him well enough to realize that he was not just eccentric but seriously disturbed. Instead, most people tended to try to split the difference: they thought: well, he’s probably exaggerating, but there’s probably something to what he says; after all, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. And it was precisely this response that accounted for most of the damage to his victims.
I used to wonder what accounted for this “splitting the difference” reaction, since it seemed to me profoundly wrong in two ways. First, some of the things the liar said could not plausibly be thought of as “exaggerations” of something much less serious. If I say that you are a total jerk, it makes sense to think that you might be a bit of a jerk, and that I am just exaggerating. But if I say that you have sex with small children, no such interpretation exists. If the truth is that you merely grope small children, or that you have sex with twelve year olds, my supposed exaggeration doesn’t change the fact that you have done something horribly wrong. If, on the other hand, the truth is that you just like children in a perfectly normal way, or that you have sex with twenty year olds, then what I say is not “exaggeration”; it’s calumny. And some of the things the liar said were of this kind. Second, while “splitting the difference” didn’t involve accepting the full truth of what the liar said, it did involve accepting claims about another person that one should not accept without very good evidence. (Consider the examples above.) The people who split the difference did not have such evidence, and yet they accepted these claims about people they knew and (often) liked.
I concluded that there were two things involved. The first was obvious: a sort of faux evenhandedness. The second, I think, was more complicated: a reluctance to accept the idea that someone they knew was just outside the pale, doing things that no normal person would ever do. I mean: there are some lies that, whether we like it or not, seem to be part of our normal world. Some normal people do understate their income on their tax returns, conceal infidelity, lie when they are caught doing something shameful, and so forth. But normal people do not initiate campaigns of vilification against other people when there is no truth at all to what they say. To think that this was what was going on would force people to conclude that the liar was either delusional or absolutely beyond all moral bounds, but in either case not part of their normal social world. And in my experience people are extremely reluctant to draw this sort of conclusion: to decide that someone is not just bad in a normal sort of way, but either really crazy or really evil. They are much, much more comfortable deciding to split the difference without thinking too hard about it, even if there is no clear way in which the difference can be split.
As I said, I also knew many of the victims in this case, and so I could see what “splitting the difference” meant to them. What it meant was that people they knew and liked, and whose good opinion they valued, thought that their competence and integrity was open to serious question, not because of anything they had done, but just because the liar had decided to victimize them. Those who “split the difference” questioned their competence and integrity not because they had weighed the evidence and drawn the appropriate conclusions, but because they were trying to be “fair to both sides”, and to avoid having to conclude that either party was in some sense beyond the pale. And I thought: first, there is nothing fair about this; and second, while the people who tried to split the difference seemed to be trying to avoid drawing an awful conclusion about the liar, they did not notice that by thinking that “there must be something to it”, they were drawing an awful conclusion about the victim. Thinking about this, I decided that I would never allow myself to be one of the people who “split the difference” in a situation like this. Faced with a serious charge against someone made by a person I did not already know to be trustworthy, I might decide not to investigate it: after all, life is short and one can’t investigate everything. But I thought: if I don’t investigate, I will not conclude that “there’s probably something there”; I will instead just think that I know of no evidence to support the charge in question, and refrain from drawing any conclusions at all.
I drew one other moral from this episode. There was a hero in my story: a person who knew the charges to be false, and who didn’t just sit by, but really tried to go out and combat them every time. And he did this not because e.g. he liked the victims, but for two other reasons. First, he thought that what was happening was an injustice, and as such something one should fight against. Second, he thought: in any corner of the world I live in, it will not be the case that someone can go out and destroy another person’s reputation at will. The usual obstacle to that happening is shame and decency: most people will not, in fact, mount a campaign of lies against another person. But when shame and decency fail, as in this case they have, one needs to try to ensure that this tactic will not succeed. Watching this person, I thought: that is the role I want to play. It’s not enough to refrain from questioning someone’s character without good reason; one should also actively work to prevent this tactic from succeeding.
I mention this, of course, because I think it’s relevant to the Swift Boat Vets controversy. I think that the evidence now available suggests that on their most crucial charges — those concerning the events for which Kerry won his medals — what they say is not true. It is contradicted by their own past statements, all available military records, the recollections of others who were present, damage reports on the boats in question, and so forth, and I would think that even the most hardened partisan would at least have to entertain the possibility that what the Swift Boat Vets are saying about those events is false. Some of the people involved might be mistaken; after all, memories do alter over time. Others might not have known what they were getting into when they signed on, and might now not know how to extricate themselves. In either case their conduct would not be admirable, but it would be comprehensible. But if what the Swift Boat Vets are saying about these events is false, then it’s hard for me to see how to understand the conduct of those who started this campaign as anything other than a deliberate campaign to impugn Kerry’s character by telling lies. And if this is so, then, as I said above, I think that two things follow. First, those of us who do not want to reach a definite conclusion about this should not draw any conclusions about Kerry’s character, one way or the other, from the mere existence of these claims. (In an earlier thread, someone asked whether they would have any traction if Kerry had a reputation for integrity. Answer: they stuck to John McCain in South Carolina.) Second, those of us who think it is a smear should do what we can to combat it, whichever candidate we support.
Please don’t say that this is politics, and so the normal standards don’t apply. For one thing, as long as we don’t expect from politicians the sort of basic decency we expect from other people, we will not get it. For another, smear campaigns are much more damaging in politics than they are elsewhere. And this isn’t just because the stakes are higher, but because campaigns of lies undercut our ability to make reasonable judgments about candidates’ characters. This is already hard to do: it’s hard to assess politicians’ characters as revealed in policy without more policy expertise than most people have, all the more so since it’s also hard to figure out which experts are trustworthy. (Imagine how much better off we would be if we could count on politicians, who know one another, to tell us when someone of their own party was really unqualified for a particular position, and if we could count on all policy experts to tell us which views were genuinely plausible and which were just absurd.) If politicians can destroy their opponents’ reputations just by having someone go out and lie about them, then they will have every incentive to do this. Only their decency would prevent them. And if some of them were shameless enough to use this tactic, this would make our task as citizens much, much more difficult than it already is. We need to know that there are some tactics that are simply off the table, and the best way to ensure this is to do whatever we can to make sure that when those tactics are used, they do not work.
“I think that the evidence now available suggests that on their most crucial charges — those concerning the events for which Kerry won his medals — what they say is not true.”
Where’d you come to that conclusion? It seems to me the big ball is rolling down the other hill. Kerry’s moonwalking backward so fast the press can’t keep up. Remember, the mainstream press has been a couple weeks behind.
At least get yourself back toward the middle. You sound better there.
Excellent post, hilzoy.
Welcome back, Hilzoy. You were missed.
hilzoy,
blogbudsman is right… you need to catch up on all the blogs before you jump into the middle of this. The MSM is well behind in this story…
But if what the Swift Boat Vets are saying about these events is false, then it’s hard for me to see how to understand the conduct of those who started this campaign as anything other than a deliberate campaign to impugn Kerry’s character by telling lies.
If this winds up being the case, they need to have it branded on their foreheads like Tawana Brawley is branded on the forehead of Al Sharpton. It ought to follow them for the rest of their lives.
Even if Sharpton really doesn’t have to face the music.
Hilzoy leaves out another motive people have for continuing to believe that which is demonstrably false. Some people just take malicious joy in seeing someone smeared and slandered, and will help spread the smear and slander: that it’s a lie, and they know it’s a lie, just makes it more delicious. Probably has something to do with feeling powerful.
Blogbudsman and Deagle:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave your echo chamber don’t you think?
Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?
That doesn’t pollute the other links, to be sure, but links to Media Matters don’t pass the laugh test.
Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527
Never said that.
What is factually wrong in the MMFA link that I included? Please cite your source.
Indeed the only subjective comment is this one:
On the August 12 edition of CNN’s Crossfire, O’Neill claimed he has had “no serious involvement in politics of any kind in over 32 years.”
In fact, O’Neill has made more than $14,000 in federal contributions to Republican candidates and causes since 1990; most people would consider giving $14,000 a “serious” involvement.
Everything else is a fact. Facts pass the laugh test.
The stench gets even worse:
Great post Hilzoy. Glad your surgery went well.
Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?
Who said they can’t be trusted because they’re a 527? They can’t be trusted because the evidence shows they’re liars. Being a 527 has nothing to do with it, no matter how much Bush tries to obscure the issue with his nonsense.
I wouldn’t in the slightest not trust anyone because of their IRS status, myself. Specifically, I wouldn’t distrust either cited body because they’re… I’m not sure what the accusation is. Opinionated? Why would that make their information, which is checkable, inherently wrong?
MediaMatters is, inherently, a blog. I welcome challenges to their information. Attacks on the messenger I dismiss.
I’m very glad for your surgery going well, Hilzoy. And I greatly appreciate your fine and wise voice here. I should have said those things in my previous comment, but having neglected to, I so do.
Hi, and thanks for all the kind words. I did so hope this wouldn’t devolve into yet another argument about the evidence for and against the SwiftVets. For the record, I have nothing whatsoever against 527s in general. I quite like the Sierra Club, for instance. And I am perfectly happy to link to any web site that links to the evidence for its claims, thereby allowing me to investigate for myself. This allows me to sidestep the question of whether I would trust them in the absence of any such evidence. On this score, I think that Media Matters is fine; likewise, while it clearly has a point of view, eriposte has good links, and is therefore quite useful. I was mainly relying on articles like this, and this, and this, and sites like CJR’s campaign desk (see, e.g.,this and this. And, of course, the sites Randy Paul mentions, and others.
But the point of my post was not to rehash this issue, but to think about why Big Lies work, and how we should respond to them. Anyone who is convinced by the SwiftVets will, of course, think that my post has no implications about how we should respond to them. I wasn’t trying to convince any of these people that they are wrong; just to address the rest of us.
Slart: “That doesn’t pollute the other links, to be sure, but links to Media Matters don’t pass the laugh test.”
I’m still completely not getting this. People with opinions don’t pass?
What? How? Why? Aren’t the facts what matter?
WTF?
Big Lies work best when a population is battered, frightened, and uncertain.
Producing the conditions for fearful uncertainty isn’t too hard. A chronically failing economy works well. Nothing works better than frequent warnings against shadowy enemies who are everywhere and implacable, esp. when the warnings are coupled with reassurances that our enemies hate us because we’re better than they are. This elicits a strong bellicose streak to go with the fear, and makes the populace eager to lash out. Anger is good: people who are afraid and angry can barely think at all.
Once you’ve gotten the population to the point where it doesn’t know what to think…you tell it what to think. You offer slogans and bromides, because these are simple and comforting; and also because they easily become memes. Memes are valuable: by their very nature, they lodge in the head beyond the reach of rational analysis. It is vital that you always sound very sure of yourself, never admitting to doubt or error. Your battered populace desperately needs certainty: give it to them.
Now you’re really rolling: your people will believe anything you say, even if what you say contradicts reality. In fact, the more what you say diverges from reality, the more stubbornly people will believe you. You’ve become a father figure, godlike in your serene assurance, while the rest of the world makes even less sense than it did, and has therefore become more frightening. It’s a feedback loop.
At some point in this process, your populace will have internalized what you tell them is true so much that they are, like you, incapable of admitting error. Their own identities and sense of worth are now bound up in believing you. To admit error means the hole house of cards will collapse and chaos come down on their heads. If there’s anyone left to express doubt, or question you, theirs is a lonely voice in the wilderness, and your populace will happily tear them to shreds.
I’d like to think that a well-educated population, one schooled in and capable of critical thought, is immune to this process. But a look at history shows that isn’t so. Successful demogogery goes right past the prefrontal cortex to the hindbrain somehow.
There’s another thing to consider with the Swifties. Memory is a funny thing; if something fits your belief system, you can easily end up believing it. Now, the Swifties have been sitting around for thirty years, bitching about how much they hate Vietnam Veterans Against the War. So it’s a natural thing that they will believe all sorts of horrible things about Kerry. Basically, they’re saying “No decorated combat veteran could possibly oppose the war. Kerry opposed the war. Therefore, he couldn’t possibly have deserved his medals.” Bad premise, bad conclusion.
I wrote more about it here.
You do have a good blog, Hilzoy. Usually pretty balanced. Of course you can’t entertain a comments section and not attract us flies. For Randy Paul to assume that everyone who doesn’t agree with his self acclaimed iron clad logic is pretty typical. I did enjoy reading the links though. What’s really interesting is that John Kerry’s memory is getting a lot clearer these days. He’ll be a better man for it.
Blogbudsman,
I back up my claims with factual cites. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.
Excuse me, please, for not answering responses immediately. Occasionally life calls.
Now, it ought to be clear that I didn’t claim that Randy Paul said that 527s were not to be trusted. Please point out where you think I did that. The point was, if SwiftVets are inherently a smear campaign and dismissable because they’re funded by (some) Republicans, you’ve got to use the same standards in dismissing the ideas of Media Matters, which have much greater funding, with opposite polarity.
Again, I don’t claim that Randy did make that argument, but some of the folks who write for Media Matters did.
rpaul – “I back up my claims with factual cites.”
I appreciate the links people attach to their posts. The more opinions the better. Having links attached doesn’t necessarily make you any more right than “Unfit for Duty” having many references and footnotes makes it the absolute authority. I assume many participants have already read what they want to read and seem to have formed an opinion. With the total deterioration of broadcast news, the blogoshere has become my major source of major issue discussion. I will respect your opinion Mr. Paul, regardless of what you think of mine. It’s not the size of your link that counts.
Slart, whether you believe it or not, the claim is that the Swifties are a smear campaign because they’re, um, smearing. That is, they are making charges that are false if not libellous. If they’d come out with just a campaign that said “John Kerry said this and this and this after the war, and we think this shows him to be a horrible candidate for president,” that would be a matter of verified fact and opinion, which is what MM tries to traffic in.
You can argue that the Swifties’ statements are true, to be sure, or even take the hard-to-defend tack that MM spews forth libel itself, but you’re misreading the actual charge, and probably deliberately, since it seems to be clear.
Here’s today’s round of evidence against the SwiftVets.
Blogbudsman: I didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t welcome your comments, let alone that you are a fly; I was just trying to clarify what my point was.
I will respect your opinion Mr. Paul, regardless of what you think of mine. It’s not the size of your link that counts.
I’ll respect yours as well, but if you say A and all the available evidence points to B, I think that you need to provide some basis for your claim.
That is, they are making charges that are false if not libellous.
Which have been shown to be false? JFTR I’ve read hilzoy’s link and think there are some questions that need to be answered, but also think that if that constitutes proof, the standards for proof have sunk rather low.
You can argue that the Swifties’ statements are true
Have I done that?
italicsmania
Damn…didn’t work
Slarti
Some day you should go to Media Matters and grab three articles that you can then FACTUALLY refute. We can discuss that then. I think you’ll find the facts are biased against liars and exaggerators. Ha ha
The swifters are being regularly refuted by the official documents in their own files and in the action files recorded at the time. You can call those action reports and award citations opinion if you like but they are the governmental record of events and I consider them the more reliable source of the two being presented.
Some day you should go to Media Matters and grab three articles that you can then FACTUALLY refute.
Why would I want to do that?
A couple of thoughts.
I’m not convinced that the SwiftVets things is a BIG LIE. But we could still have a discussion about why the BIG LIE works. One reason that has not been discussed here is that sometimes you already believe bad things about a person or group, and the BIG LIE acts to dramatically confirm them. This process regularly plays out against Jews. It is also the reason why the NAACP ad in 2000 against Bush (suggesting that his opposition to a particular version of a hate-crimes bill was like wanting to tie a black man up to the back of a pick-up truck and drag him to death) was so effective. Some people already believe that Republicans generally racist, you can employ a BIG LIE to prove it because it confirms what you already believe.
RE SwiftVets particularly, I’m not following the controversy too closely because I haven’t had huge amounts of free time lately. There are a lot of factual issues that have to be looked at before judgment can be drawn. The idea that SwiftVets have been ‘debunked’ at this point is clearly wrong though. Kerry has completely abandoned his Christmas in Cambodia claims–despite years of repeating them. He blatantly exaggerated the story for political effect while debating about the Contras. The reason that hits so hard now is that it shows how Kerry was (is?) willing to exaggerate events in his military career for political effect. That has clear relevance to how he has been playing his military experience as a ‘get out of talking about security issues free’ card.
But if it were a lie, one reason it could be successful is that people already see Kerry as using stories about his military career in a disturbing fashion.
“…but links to Media Matters don’t pass the laugh test.”
It seems to me that Media Matters attempts to back up every claim they make with links to the documented record.
The swifters seem to rely on refuting ALL official records. Hmm.
Media Matters is laughable to you perhaps because the facts are biased against liars and you don’t like ‘bias’?
Ha ha ha
Posted by: Slartibartfast at August 25, 2004 02:33 AM: Now, it ought to be clear that I didn’t claim that Randy Paul said that 527s were not to be trusted. Please point out where you think I did that.
You implied it here:
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 24, 2004 10:33 PM: Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?
To whom were you attributing this position if not the person who posted the Media Matters link in the first place? Who, besides you, is included in the antecedent of “we”? If you are not incorrectly attributing this position to someone in this discussion, then where did you get the premise “SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527” which must be accepted by all parties in order for your formulation to make any sense?
hilzoy – no, the fly implication was strictly my own – guilty as charged. Actually, although I hold some personal opinions, I’ve tried to stay out of the medal thing. Kerry was there. I spent a good portion of my late teenage years terrified that I would have to go. I turned 18 in 1970 and my draft number was in the mid 300’s that year, so I was ‘saved’ went on to college. I’ve been reading up on it and the ‘evidence’ ebbs and flows. This is one I just read. Hope that comes through – belt and suspenders – http://qando.net/archives/003894.htm Many of the arguments are pursuasive, but most seem to be missing a piece to make them conclusive. And what would we expect? We all know what eyewitness reports produce. On the other hand, it’s Kerry’s contingent that dug up the Bush National Guard again, and Kerry’s emphasis on his military service over his senate record set the stage. You make your bed…
“SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527”
if the argument is framed in the above way (where the president keeps trying to place it) then you can condemn all 527’s and not even look at the credibility of their message.
How convenient considering the one area the republicans are lagging the democrats in fundraising is the 527’s.
Next election the republicans will be fighting the other way because by then they won’t be lagging.
Media Matters is laughable to you perhaps because the facts are biased against liars and you don’t like ‘bias’?
Either you’re deliberately misunderstanding or…no, that doesn’t bear examining. Look: Media Matters has been beating the drum, hard, about how SwiftVets are funded by Republicans, and how that makes the SwiftVets allegations a right-wing smear job. My comments as regards Media Matters have scoffed at the irony of such suggestions, and at the suggestions of others that they’re to be distrusted because they’re Republicans (without evidence about the “Republicans” part). To put it even more simply, I’m not saying anything at all about the veracity of Media Matter. Just saying a few things about consistency.
Plenty to that effect here.
blogbud
If Kerry ignored his service many would be claiming he’s covering something up. Much as many are claiming the president is covering something up by not discussing much of his life before the age of 40.
Me:
Gromit:
carsick:
If I have to explain if…then logic to you guys, I’m going to have to explain far too many other things than I have time for. If you don’t understand that sort of construct, I give you full permission to declare victory.
Sebastian said: The idea that SwiftVets have been ‘debunked’ at this point is clearly wrong though.
The SwiftVets have been quite thoroughly debunked. If you think that’s wrong, you’ve obviously not been paying attention.
They’re a right-wing attack group with close ties to the Bush/Cheney campaign, and their stories about Kerry just don’t stand up. They contradict the contemporary documents, their own testimony, the testimony of eyewitnesses (many of the SwiftVets never served with Kerry and are reporting hearsay evidence).
The longer right-wingers cling to the idea that somehow this attack group is possibly telling the truth, the worse they’re going to look in the long run. What does it say about you, Sebastian, that you’re so hostile to Vietnam vets you’re willing to see them all smeared by a group because it’s attacking a Democratic candidate for President?
Yes Slarti
I am an idiot and you are superior. Lovely way to sidestep. By the way, if I have to explain that my comments are not Gromits and vice versa then you obviously have trouble identifying basic words so I give you permission (since, you know, I am Simon from Simon Sez and therefore have the authority to do so) – I give you permission to declare victory.
Obviously, we CAN’T agree in your little construct that “SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527.”
Sebastian Holsclaw: The idea that SwiftVets have been ‘debunked’ at this point is clearly wrong though. Kerry has completely abandoned his Christmas in Cambodia claims–despite years of repeating them. He blatantly exaggerated the story for political effect while debating about the Contras. The reason that hits so hard now is that it shows how Kerry was (is?) willing to exaggerate events in his military career for political effect.
They may not have been completely debunked, but their credibility is in shambles. For all intents and purposes, when it comes to events 35 years ago, they are debunked, Sebastian.
And I’ll need a cite on the Cambodia story. Or are you characterizing his admitting to getting the date wrong as having “completely abandoned” the story? Furthermore, if he did only get the date wrong, can you back up the claim that he “blatantly exaggerated the story for political effect” as opposed to simply misremembering the date 17 years later? Or could it be that you are blatantly exaggerating the strength of the case against Kerry for political effect?
And this Cambodia story only “hits so hard” (i.e., does not fall completely limp) because it is, from what I can tell, the only Swift Vets claim that is not directly refuted by reversals on the part of individual swift vets, official documentation, and multiple eyewitness accounts (no documentation or eyewitness accounts of illegal, clandestine missions? Shocking!). It is the only case in which it is Kerry’s word against the already less-than-credible Swift Vets, who have no actual evidence to support the accusation that he never went on those missions, correct? Yeah, that’s pretty damning stuff.
Gromit sez: {heh…yes, I too can be an idiot}
Do I really need to quote myself again to show you that’s not what I said? Or, can I selectively quote you, in a like fashion?
carsick: I am an idiot and you are superior.
Thank you. About time you acknowledged that.
Slarti
Your direct quote:
“Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?”
My reply: No we cannot agree on the original (“SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527) premise.
Seems pretty clear to me.
If dogs cannot be trusted because they are pets then cats cannot be trusted.
carsick – “If Kerry ignored his service many would be claiming he’s covering something up. Much as many are claiming the president is covering something up by not discussing much of his life before the age of 40.”
If I wasn’t such a gentleman and knew I had an evil twin, I’d be tempted to say something about how you pulled that one out of your ass.
And Jesurgislac, are you an android? How can you read the body of work out there and come up with such a narrow, one sided, self serving conclusion. I guess in many ways, I envy you. What do they say, frequently wrong, but never in doubt.
Slartibartfast: If I have to explain if…then logic to you guys, I’m going to have to explain far too many other things than I have time for. If you don’t understand that sort of construct, I give you full permission to declare victory.
I would have been glad to let this issue rest, had it not been for that “if…then” jab.
“If” is a conditional. In order to validate the conclusion indicated by “then”, you must accept the premise indicated by “if”. I have no quibbles with the logic of your formulation — it is perfectly sound. I only question its application to the current discussion. “We” is the first person plural pronoun, meaning “one or more others and I”. In other words, you implied that, in addition to yourself, someone on this thread accepted the premise that “SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527”. You said this in direct response to Randy Paul, further implying that he is included in your “we”. You might have been joking, you might have been otherwise insincere, or you might not have intended that implicaton. But that is the most obvious inference to draw.
Now, I’ll ask again, who is the antecedent?
I hereby declare that all of us understand logic, none of us are idiots, and all of us are superior, or at least above average. How can I do this? Because I looked closer and saw that I was Fafnir all along, that’s how.
Questions about cocaine use:
“I’m not going to talk about what I did years ago. … I made mistakes. I’ve asked people to not let the rumors get in the way of the facts. I’ve told people I’ve learned from my mistakes — and I have.”
George W. Bush
I see the point’s still not taking.
There are some (including those stalwarts at Media Matters, but not confined to them) who suggest that Swift Vets might be less than trustworthy because they’ve got Republican funding. My point is (and I’m going to try to make it very precise here, so bear with me) that if SwiftVets are to be discounted in any way because they’ve got Republican funding, then Media Matters must also be discounted because they’ve got Democratic funding.
If you don’t subscribe to the idea that one’s ideological bent can have any bearing at all in a discussion, then, no, the source of Media Matters’ funding is not relevant.
See how simple that is? It should be clear to you now that you don’t belong in this exchange, because you don’t meet the “if” condition.
I know I shouldn’t jump into this, but I can’t resist:
“Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?”
There’s nothing to agree on; the reason that SwiftVets are not to be trusted has NOTHING to do with their tax status. It has everything to do with the fact that Thurlow’s accusations are utterly inconsistent with his reported statements and conduct over the last 35 years, and that O’Neill is a proven liar.
“links to Media Matters don’t pass the laugh test” Why not? MM essentially does nothing except publish inconsistent statements made by right-wing attack groups. If you can show me specific occasions where they have edited comments to create a false impression, I’d be fascinated to see them.
cheers
Francis
“Or are you characterizing his admitting to getting the date wrong as having “completely abandoned” the story? Furthermore, if he did only get the date wrong, can you back up the claim that he “blatantly exaggerated the story for political effect” as opposed to simply misremembering the date 17 years later?”
Seared in his memory. Christmas is a special day for most Americans. If I something really eventful (enough to be seared in memory) took place in my life on December 29th I wouldn’t remember it as happening on Christmas Eve. I might think it happened on the 28th because the 29th and 28th aren’t special days. I might think it happened on the 30th. I’m not likely to misremember it as the 31st since that is New Year’s Eve and also a special day. Misremembering isn’t infinitely elastic.
Furthermore it hasn’t been established that Kerry was in Cambodia at all. I haven’t been following super-closely, but last I heard Kerry was admitting to being NEAR Cambodia. Which totally undermines the point of his speech about being illegally IN a theoretically neutral country. It wouldn’t have been illegal to be near a neutral country. Changing IN to NEAR leaves Kerry’s speech totally without a point.
There’s nothing to agree on; the reason that SwiftVets are not to be trusted has NOTHING to do with their tax status.
I didn’t say that it did.
carsick – “Questions about cocaine use:
“I’m not going to talk about what I did years ago. … I made mistakes. I’ve asked people to not let the rumors get in the way of the facts. I’ve told people I’ve learned from my mistakes — and I have.”
George W. Bush”
Ohhhhhhhhhh-kay. Next question? If you were running for Dog Catcher and I asked you about rumors regarding you and your neighbors dog. How would you answer?
Slart: “There are some (including those stalwarts at Media Matters, but not confined to them) who suggest that Swift Vets might be less than trustworthy because they’ve got Republican funding.”
I don’t think it’s fair to argue that Republican funding per se makes the allegations less trustworthy (than allegations from a non-partisan source). It’s in my view true (and applicable to both sides) but not a fair argument in isolation.
Would you not however agree that in the context of heaping inconsistencies in the stories that it’s fair to find partisan backing consistent with a smear campaign and hence consider the links further reason to dismiss the charges?
Sebastian – afaik Kerry’s current position is consistent with his being in Cambodia at Christmas, even xmas eve. Please see the lengthy discussion of this issue in the “Killing me softly” thread, esp. the contributions from NTodd on the “seared” statement.
In order to validate the conclusion indicated by “then”, you must accept the premise indicated by “if”.
Ok…and that affects me how, exactly? Look, this isn’t rocket science.
Slarti
If…this is what you meant:
“My point is (and I’m going to try to make it very precise here, so bear with me) that if SwiftVets are to be discounted in any way because they’ve got Republican funding, then Media Matters must also be discounted because they’ve got Democratic funding.”
Then…why did you say:
“Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?”
They are not one and the same. You want us to assume 527 status equals lack of credibility. Conservatives paying for an honest ad doesn’t make the ad a lie. A lie makes an ad a lie.
Hilzoy,
Gromit and I are obviously not communicating well enough here because it honestly does appear that Slarti is missing in the logic department on this one.
and applicable to both sides
Ah, finally someone gets me.
Would you not however agree that in the context of heaping inconsistencies in the stories that it’s fair to find partisan backing consistent with a smear campaign and hence consider the links further reason to dismiss the charges?
Well, maybe not. No, I don’t agree. Look, if partisan funding is poison, it’s poison all around. If it ain’t poison, then the most I can say is if the group being funded is telling lies, those lies reflect poorly on the individuals writing the checks, until such time as they publicly put distance between themselves and the liars, and cut the funding off.
As to whether the SwiftVets are in fact lying, I’ve seen a number of interesting questions raised on both sides. None of it, so far, appears to be conclusive.
I don’t know what Kerry’s very most current position is. I do know that he no longer claims to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. I do not know if he currently claims to have been other than ‘near’ Cambodia at any time.
Sebastian: “I do know that he no longer claims to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve.”
Do you have a cite? The most recent info I’ve seen – from his spokeman – says he was there then. See the LA Times article I linked to in the other thread.
And as noted above, I think NTodd shows your claim here doesn’t actually impugn Kerry’s “seared” statement.
Slart: “Look, if partisan funding is poison […]”
Not what I argue above. One has a decision function – the function shouldn’t be proportional to partisan funding, but df/d(pf) shouldn’t be identically zero (perhaps around f=”reasonably credible” but not around f=”serious questions raised”.)
One has a decision function
Fine. Then that decision function ought to work the same way when the source is funded by the other party, no? If one is being objective, that is.
“Then that decision function ought to work the same way when the source is funded by the other party, no?”
… as I noted above at 01:55 PM.
Of course you’re allowed to say, Party X has an estimated partisan-sway parameter Blah based on the last n years of data, while party Y has a parameter Foo.
I’m a partisan Democrat, but I don’t accept at face value what my party says. Believing the Republicans are less science-based, I look at what they say with more skepticism, esp. in light of what seems like reasonable counterargument – but I don’t reject it out of hand. An argument from a neutral source gets less initial skepticism and a slower skepticism turn-on when counterarguments arise (though at some point the “neutral” assumption fails and there’s a phase transition.)
(Is Pratike out there assessing pedanticism?)
Slartibartfast: My point is (and I’m going to try to make it very precise here, so bear with me) that if SwiftVets are to be discounted in any way because they’ve got Republican funding, then Media Matters must also be discounted because they’ve got Democratic funding.
Unfortunately, while the logic of your original statement was pristine, the logic of your clarification is not. The premise that Republican funding diminishes credibility does not lead to the conclusion that Democratic funding does the same. Now, if the premise was that organizations funded by all political parties are untrustworthy (assuming you are correct in your assessment of MM’s funding sources), you would be back on track. I realize, based on your more recent comments, that this is your starting premise, but then that is not the MM folks’ premise, is it?
But thanks for clarifying, nonetheless.
Personally, I believe there are trustworthy folks and untrustworthy folks in both parties, and all claims should be assessed on their merits and on the credibility of the individuals involved, but that argues against the premise, not the logic involved. It also seems to me that the major motivation for linking the ads with Bush is that the ads will diminish his credibility, not the other way around.
Let’s see if I, who have been known to draw little logic diagrams for my students, can help here.
(a) Slart said: “Can we at least agree that if SwiftVets are not to be trusted because they’re a 527, then MediaMatters cannot be trusted for the same reason?” As s/he points out, this does not imply acceptance of the antecedent (‘SwiftVets are not to be trusted…’); only that if someone accepts the antecedent, s/he should accept the consequent.
(b) However, in context one would expect that Slart thought that someone relevant to this discussion did accept the antecedent. (I mean, it would be odd to drop in a completely unrelated conditional argument, like ‘If you believe that the SwiftVets should not be trusted because their name begins with S, then obviously you shouldn’t trust the Sierra Club either.) In context, it would be reasonable to think that the ‘someone’ Slart had in mind might be someone who had already posted on this thread. Thus Randy thought that he might be that someone and denied that he accepted it; Bernard asked who accepted it; Gary said that no one should accept it; Gromit asks who else Slart had in mind. In fact, however, as Slart pointed out, s/he meant that Media Matters accepts it, and that for this reason the people at Media Matters should not regard themselves as trustworthy either. Here it seems to me that the mistaken interpretation was perfectly reasonable, but not what Slart had in mind.
(c) The next substantive bit is Gromit’s post just above my weak attempt at Faf-humor. Gromit questions the applicability of what Slart says to this discussion, which is indeed the question at hand. But Gromit is, in my opinion, wrong to say that Slart’s use of the term ‘we’ implies that ‘we’ do accept this claim. ‘We’ is used as part of the antecedent in a conditional argument, and does not imply that any of us do in fact do what the antecedent says. As noted above, however, there’s another reason to think that Slart might have intended this, namely that this is the most obvious reason why s/he might have thought this argument was relevant. Slart had already disavowed this reason, but it would have been possible to miss that.
(d) My interjection: Media Matters does report on the SwiftVets’ ties to Republicans. My understanding of this, however, was that they were doing so not because getting contributions from Republicans undermines their credibility, but because their 527 status requires that they not be coordinating with the Bush campaign, and also because their claim that O’Neill lied about the extent of his Republican donations, the SwiftVets’ ties to the Republican party, and so forth, would, if true, be relevant to an assessment of O’Neill’s credibility. I should note, however, that I haven’t trawled through their whole site to see whether they say something like what Slart attributes to them, so I could be wrong.
Is Pratike out there assessing pedanticism?
That’s “Praktike” and “pedantry” or, if you prefer an obsolete usage, “pedantism.”
Carry on.
Great post Hilzoy.
Everyone else: Spread the word, the Sierra Club cannot be trusted.
But Gromit is, in my opinion, wrong to say that Slart’s use of the term ‘we’ implies that ‘we’ do accept this claim.
You are correct that I should not have attributed acceptance of the premise to him, even thinking he meant it as jest (which is how I took it at the time). Sorry for that, Slartibartfast.
Thank you Hilzoy. It seems to me that Slarti is “fighting the last war.” As he clarifies, he’s looking at comments from other forums and threads, which is a bit confusing because no one on this thread said anything like that. Question marks raise over heads, and mudfight ensues.
Ah, the lights are coming on all over Florida.
I confess that part of this was borne of impulse to troll. Sometimes you just have to roll in the dirt (yes, Edward, even me) and it backfired hideously. Not all, though. Various components of Media Matters did in fact trumpet SwiftVet’s Republican backers as if it in and of itself were significant, while discounting the DNC’s even more direct connections to MoveOn and other, similar outfits whose mission consists almost solely of Bush-bashing.
So, is it really the point that a relatively miniscule amount of Republican funding to SwiftVets (along with some quite inappropriate RNC interaction with them) is condemning, while many tens of millions in Democratic funding to MoveOn and similar 527s (along at least equally inappropriate connections to the DNC to those organizations) is squeaky-clean?
Or can we just deal with the facts?
Damn, I just realized that I’ve threadjacked egregiously. This was not my intention. I offer my apologies.
me: Is Pratike out there assessing pedanticism?
Praktike: That’s “Praktike” and “pedantry” or, if you prefer an obsolete usage, “pedantism.”
me: where’s my ineffectual-joke sign?
As to whether the SwiftVets are in fact lying, I’ve seen a number of interesting questions raised on both sides. None of it, so far, appears to be conclusive.
Otherwise known as the Howard Dean Standard, which as I recall was . . . not popular among Bush supporters.
OK, only half-sarcastic, but it seems notable that the simple raising of “interesting questions” has become much more acceptable — indeed acceptable enough to drive several news cycles — when they’re raised about someone else.
Otherwise known as the Howard Dean Standard
Which would apply, were I Howard Dean, John Kerry, or John Edwards prior to Kerry getting the nod. As I’m inconsequential, pseudonymous Slartibartfast (who happens to be, admittedly a major figure in the HVRWC), I’m just interested in how all this pans out.
Slarti
Interested in how it all pans out but in the meantime trying to take the president’s talking point of “527’s are to blame” and insert it into the argument with a sledgehammer?
Interested in how it all pans out but in the meantime trying to take the president’s talking point of “527’s are to blame” and insert it into the argument with a sledgehammer?
I have no idea what to make of this.
It’s not the fairly modest funding by Reps. that has made the SB attack so effective, it’s the constant play and replay of every little detail by the right media. Where’s Paris Hilton when we need her? Or Scott Peterson?
It’s not surprising that a great many of the President’s supporters would rather be discussing the war in Viet Nam than the recent/current war.
Mission Accomplished.
If I understand the position of MM correctly, support by Republicans is not ipso facto condemning (correct use of ipso facto? Quick, I need a lawyer!). The claims are condemned by the preponderance of evidence (despite the desperate yenning of those who would benefit from their truth, and the tendentious RedState tactics, like pretending to care only about the effects of the rumors, not their veracity), so the next question is who is responsible? That is, we have here some lies. So who’s doing the lying? That’s an interesting question and researching into funding is very salient.
If you found the Sierra Club aggressively pushing some lies, then yes it would be very interesting to see who was paying for it and why.
Hilzoy – Glad to see you back: terrific post. (I got caught up in refuting Sebastian, but I meant to say that, honest.)
me: “Believing the Republicans are less science-based, I look at what they say with more skepticism”
Well, looks like the WH has finally acknowledged that humans are a major cause of global warming – hopefully a reversal of the trend away from science by the party.
Believing the Republicans are less science-based
Unintentional irony?
I think I can defend the thesis that Republican policy-making is less science-based than Democratic – and that over the last generation the scientist vote has moved from the Rs to the Ds. I probably can’t defend the thesis that I never write in shorthand…
Ah. I thought I had you with “Believing”.
Still, it’d be interesting to see a comparison between the scientific Democratic policies and the Luddite Republican policies. Until I see such a comparison (sans cherry-picking) I’m going with the idea that politicians, in general, are stupid in a non-partisan way when it comes to what’s science and what ain’t.
I think you might want to be careful about how scientific you claim any party’s policies to be, rilfekan. IIRC Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s USSR were very scientific. That the science was total garbage is another matter entirely.
Science is a human activity and, like all other human activities, is filled with agendas, politics, prejudice, and emotion. The word does mean “knowledge” in Latin but being a scientist is no more a guarantee of knowing something than being a moral theologian is a guarantee of being moral.
Slart: “Until I see such a comparison (sans cherry-picking)”
The various statements from prominent scientists and science academies have been widely reported and blogged on. In my view the cherry-pickedness of the available info is between you and your conscience.
“Ah. I thought I had you with ‘Believing’.”
If you want me to translate from standard English into a more accurate representation of my stance (“I am a heap of elementary particles evolving according to this Langrangian, I don’t think there is ‘thought’, there is no such thing as a person or a chair or …”) we’re both going to be unhappy.
Dave: “being a scientist is no more a guarantee of knowing something than being a moral theologian is a guarantee of being moral.”
This is egregiously false in my view – that or postmodern and hence useless, as is the Godwinization.
rilkefan-
Surely I’m not the one in need of a joke sign here. 🙂
praktike – that was “an ineffectual-joke sign”. I’m sure you would have gotten a good joke, having noticed it was funny. Ineffectual jokes are much more subtle, camoflagued as they are as idiocies, misspellings, and insults.
To get back to the thread of Swift Boats and Big Lies:
Here is a big lie but it’s not related to Swift Boats
“I was in the Air Force for over 600 days.”
George Bush 1999
And people want to focus on the character issue of the exact time Kerry was in Cambodia.
By the way, Bush was never in the Air Force.
I see seven definitions, one of which is “To accept as true or real.” The above is a perfectly acceptable and completely consistent usage of “believe”. As to the opinion rilkefan expressed, I would narrow the criticism down from Republicans generally to the Bush administration in particular, which (and yes, I’m parroting folks who are more knowledgable than I) has shown a consistent disregard for expert advice in most matters.
“I would narrow the criticism down from Republicans generally to the Bush administration in particular”.
Metonymy, or rather synecdoche, though I think I’m still correct in the wider case at present. I’ve read that before the Republican embrace of the religious right the situation was reversed.
Back to hilzoy‘s thread…
Carsick,
Are you just going to put a quote like that in their and not substantiate it?
Didn’t you just berate me for doing something similar yesterday?
Will the double standards never end? ; -)
And please moveon.org as a source isn’t really good enough.
And is the a claim that Bush has repeated for 30 years… let’s make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
Did he mispeak once… or does he consistently make this claim in front of millions of people?
So far you’ve done a perfunctory job of showing that you think the current administration to be…not very scientific, and done zero by way of comparison to the alternatives. Bravo!
My definition of “Believe”, in this context, would be something to the effect that I maintain it’s true without having to actually do the grunt work in substantiating it.
It’s a Democrat smear job, I tell you!
You Can Look It Up
Houston Chronicle, 7/14/99 (subscription unfortunately)
FORT WORTH – In literature for his failed 1978 congressional campaign, George W. Bush said he served in the Air Force, a claim his presidential campaign says is legitimate based on time he spent training and on alert while a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
Asked Tuesday at an appearance in New Jersey whether he was justified in claiming Air Force service, Bush replied: “I think so, yes. I was in the Air Force for over 600 days.”
But the Air Force says once a guardsman always a guardsman, even if called to active duty for training or another temporary assignment.
The Republican presidential front-runner already has faced questions about whether he received preferential treatment when he joined the Guard during the Vietnam War. His father, former President Bush, was a congressman at the time.
A pullout ad from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal on May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture of Bush with a “Bush for Congress” logo on the front. On the back, a synopsis of his career says he served “in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft.”
Was he a lazy thinker or embellishing a story to juice it up a bit or just sincerely mistaken?
Certainly someone – obviously not Karen Hughes because she later had to defend his statement – must have told him in the intervening decades that “Once a guardsman, always a guardsman.”
More Bush quotes exaggerating his military service here.
Sounds like one issue to me: Bush thought he was doing Air Force duty, and he was wrong. Do you think he knew better, and thought this would fly? If so, do you have any evidence for that?
Let me get this straight…
“Bush replied: “I think so, yes. I was in the Air Force for over 600 days.”
I suppose the “I think so” part isn’t really relevant to the context of his statement.
This is so lame…
“This is so lame… ”
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the relevence of when exactly was Kerry in Cambodia. And did he stick his right foot in and take his right foot out. Did he stick his right foot in and shake it all about.
My god, you think three purple hearts and a Silver and Bronze is too much proof of a guy’s service. Fine, so you try to take away a couple medals. I doubt it will help your cause though.
Remember when soldiers returned from Viet Nam and protesters spit on them? How is this different? You are looking the official record in the face and saying “Screw you. It’s a lie. Your service to your country is not valued.”
Hope your proud.
Hope you’re proud.
Carsick,
Who the hell are you posting to?
“Fine, so you try to take away a couple medals. I doubt it will help your cause though.”
I don’t think you can ever ever find any proof of me doing that any where. I don’t really care whether Kerry was in Vietname or not. I didn’t really care about Clinton’s record either.
Don’t blame me for what’s in the news? Don’t blame me that Kerry has backed off the Cambodia claim and said the first PH may have been a self-inflicted wound.
“Hope your proud.”
I guess I’m proud I am not a babbling idiot.
“Remember when soldiers returned from Viet Nam and protesters spit on them?”
I’ve heard this is an urban legend. A quick google yields this cite.
Blue: Don’t blame me that Kerry has backed off the Cambodia claim and said the first PH may have been a self-inflicted wound.
The Cambodia claim, or one detail of the Cambodia claim (i.e. the date)? If the former, can you provide a cite, please?
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.
Blue
The subject is relevent how? You follow those who want to question every specific detail of a decorated vets experience to prove what? A character issue? Take a look at your own candidate with the same microscope and stone casting abilities.
In the mean time could you also explain this statement:
“Don’t blame me that Kerry has backed off the Cambodia claim and said the first PH may have been a self-inflicted wound.”
Are you trying to keep your hands clean while at the same time questioning whether Kerry deserves his first purple heart? Do you understand the parameters for the distribution of a purple heart? Are you attempting to say Kerry intentionally hurt himself to get a purple heart – without exposing yourself to libel?
It seems hard to imagine that you think it is relevent how exactly Kerry was wounded during armed conflict if not to question whether he deserves the medal he received for being wounded during armed conflict.
Blue, check the posting rules.
Carsick,
LOL!
You just said:
“Take a look at your own candidate with the same microscope and stone casting abilities.”
But who really cast the first stone…
The subject is relevant because you tried to smear Bush. I would politely suggest that you not only start actaully reading what others post, but that you also read you own posts.
You give yourself away too much in that comment. The entire country, even Chris Matthews, now knows that a self-inflicted wound does not mean that he intentionally hurt himself. Again… LOL.
I guess this wasn’t clear enough for you:
“I don’t really care whether Kerry was in Vietnam or not.”
I’ve read the posting rules. I just take great offense when someone like Carsick states so many blatant lies about my position.
His post:
My god, you think three purple hearts and a Silver and Bronze is too much proof of a guy’s service. Fine, so YOU try to take away a couple medals. I doubt it will help YOUR cause though.
Remember when soldiers returned from Viet Nam and protesters spit on them? How is this different? YOU are looking the official record in the face and saying “Screw you”. It’s a lie. Your service to your country is not valued.”
Hope YOUR proud.”
I never said or implied any such thing and as I said above I take great offense at anyone accusing me of saying such things.
Maybe on the posting rules there should be something about not honesty and we could point Carsick to it.
What’s the relevence?
You don’t care yet post after post you comment on it?
As I said before: What is the relevence you see in your posts.
After many go arounds I pulled the Bush quote to emphasise how it is easy to find a tit for your tat.
This thread and your earlier comments were in no way a response to the Bush quote. The exact opposite actually.
I only titted I never tatted.
Hey Blue
I corrected that “your”. It was a typo I swear. The very next post I typed “you’re”! Please refrain from attaching me to that misspelling. Certainly don’t highlight it in all CAPS. It’s out of context.
Okay, I read your cite on Cambodia, Blue. Please show me the part where Kerry backtracks on the claim that he ferried operatives across the border. And before you point to his journal again (which does not contradict, but only fails to confirm, his claim), do you suppose the folks who did cross over on those missions made a practice of documenting their illegal activities in their diaries? Or are you simply relying on the American Enterprise Institute’s nonsensical conclusion that lack of proof of clandestine events from 35 years ago is equal to refutation?
The open of Mr. Muravchik’s commentary is quite telling:
Which, if honestly written, would read:
Well, at least he got the part about lack of moral standing right.
News on the Web:
Swiftboat Crewman: Kerry Boat Took Fire (AP)
Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert E. Lambert joins in supporting Kerry’s version of events
Swift boat memories: Eagle Point vet who was there backs Kerry’s assertion that bullets were flying the day he won two medals on a river in Vietnam (Jackson County [Oregon] Mail Tribune)
Ads anger Colorado vet: Telluride man says he saw Kerry rescue soldier from river (Rocky Mountain News) “Retired Navy lieutenant Jim Russell, 60, backed up Kerry’s version of an incident more than 35 years ago.”
Navy records appear to support Kerry’s version (MSNBC)
Swift Boats came under fire, task force reported
Kerry-Loathing Swift Boaters Sinking Facts (NY Observer)
Assault on Kerry Dishonors G.O.P. (NY Observer)
These Charges Are False … It’s one thing for the presidential campaign to get nasty but quite another for it to engage in fabrication. (LA Times) “No informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago. Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation. His accusers have no evidence except their own dubious word. … These charges against John Kerry are false.”
Swift Boat Writer Lied on Cambodia Claim (AP)
Bush Dismisses Idea That Kerry Lied on Vietnam (NY Times)
Gromit,
This was an event that was seared into his memory. So much so he presented it on the conrgressional floor in order to make a point.
Doesn’t it seem to you that he was being a little dishonest in order to score politically.
I think that is just one of the things that has po’d so many of these vets.
He could have done a million other missions to Cambodia and served with great honor. But, to get on the floor and blatantly mislead Congress just seems wrong no matter how you spin it.
Blue: I think that is just one of the things that has po’d so many of these vets.
Yeah, they are angry because he didn’t have superhuman recall for dates from 17 years prior. They must be just furious about that.
Hey… call it any way you see fit… but when I don’t remember all the facts I certainly don’t talk about how they are “seared” into my memory.
People accuse Bush of being dumb, but let’s face it… that ranks up there with the best.
“Yeah, they are angry because he didn’t have superhuman recall for dates from 17 years prior. They must be just furious about that.
Americans don’t normally confuse Christmas Eve with other dates, even years later.
Blue: Hey… call it any way you see fit… but when I don’t remember all the facts I certainly don’t talk about how they are “seared” into my memory.
That’s a highly selective interpretation of what he actually said, Blue. Kerry’s statement can just as easily be interpreted to say that the memory that was seared into him was that of hearing the president make a claim that Kerry knew, based on his own experience, to be false. You are reading more into his statement than is really there. I’m sure lots of events from that era are seared into his memory (combat, testifying before congress). His misremembering the exact date of any given event does not in any way reflect on the veracity of those memories.
And in any case, you are suggesting a ridiculous standard. Human memory isn’t an encyclopedic catalog of all the minor details about any given event. And, unfortunately for you, if you narrow that standard to the facts that are actually material to the point of Kerry’s speech, namely that he participated in the secret war in Cambodia, and that the president claimed no such war was taking place, then your argument evaporates.
People accuse Bush of being dumb, but let’s face it… that ranks up there with the best.
No, I’d say the following is a much better benchmark for stupidity (or mendacity, take your pick):
And, for the record, I don’t really care that bush ducked serving in Vietnam, except insofar as he is willingly reaping the benefits of proxy attacks on Kerry’s actual in-country service. But his above statement is plainly untrue (also via Marshall).
Sebastian, I think your “Eve” is incorrect.
Regardless, I’m still waiting re August 25, 2004 02:24 PM above.
Americans don’t normally confuse Christmas Eve with other dates, even years later.
Perhaps when they were gathered around the tree singing carols and drinking egg nog, you might be right, Sebastian. But when they were fighting for their lives in a hellish jungle war, I think such lapses can be forgiven, don’t you?
rilkefan: Sebastian, I think your “Eve” is incorrect.
No, Sebastian is right, on one other occasion, ten years after his tour, Kerry said it was Christmas Eve.
This story sounds much too good to be true, but someone claims to have footage of Kerry in Cambodia in Dec.
I’ll be astounded if this pans out – astounded and amused.
Gromit – thanks, my bad re “Eve” (though this wasn’t the “seared” speech).