« HCB | Main | Mackris/O'Reilly et al. litigation settles with a whisper, not a bang »
Thursday, October 28, 2004
SwiftVets release five powerful new "must-view!" videos
This, obviously, isn't the post I teased about below; I'm still working on that one. But wow. Wow x 5! And this won't wait.
You may think you're "SwiftVetted out." You may have made up your mind one way or the other — you believe 'em, you disbelieve 'em, you think it doesn't make a damn one way or the other.
But if you have any opinion whatever on the SwiftVets and the allegations they've made about Sen. John Kerry's war record, you need to spend the few minutes it takes to watch each of the five short video clips — "mini-documentaries" — that you can access here.
John O'Neill, as he has throughout, serves as spokesman and narrator. But most of the videos are composed of extended statements by eyewitnesses to each of the events being discussed (which O'Neill concededly is not, and has never claimed to be). I'm tremendously impressed with all five.
The first one, entitled "The Sampan Coverup," covers the least well-known of the incidents — a night encounter on 20Jan69 with a sampan that Kerry, who wasn't paying attention to his Swift Boat's radar, had allowed to approach too close without warning his crewmen. When Kerry's crew noticed the sampan and lit it up with a spotlight, Gunners Mate Steve Gardner, manning the twin .50-caliber machine guns in the gun tub atop the Swift Boat, saw a man aboard the sampan run over to grab an AK-47. Gardner explains in the video that he opened fire, killing the man and causing damage to the sampan that would result in it sinking within seconds. But the crewmen then saw, to their collective horror, that in addition to the man who'd been going for the AK-47, Gardner's shots had killed a young boy around 10 years of age. The crew rescued a woman and her small baby before the sampan sank. Gardner says in the video — his voice thick with emotion, in what must have been an incredibly difficult statement for him to make — "There was only two people killed in the boat, and I killed both of them, and I'll take that to my grave with me." But the child's death might not have happened had Kerry been paying attention to the radar. Regardless of that, it was a tragedy that should have been reported. Instead, Kerry falsely wrote the event up as a great victory — two VC captured in action, and five (!) killed.
The second video, "Christmas in Cambodia," covers territory (so to speak) that's now familiar to anyone who's been following the controversy, but like a "Greatest Hits" reprise, it's still entertaining. The third, entitled "John Kerry's first Purple Heart," is likewise familiar, but worth watching especially for the eyewitness statements of Skip Hibbard and Louis Letson about how they'd refused Kerry's request for the medal. Captain Charley Plumley is presented as "speaking for" Adm. Bill Schachte; I wish they could have persuaded Adm. Schachte to speak out again in person, although what Plumley relates is exactly the same as what Schachte himself reported to Lisa Myers and Bill Novak.
The stars of the quintet, though, to my mind, are the fourth and fifth videos, both covering the Bay Hap River action that resulted in Kerry's Bronze Star and third Purple Heart. (Kerry's Silver Star isn't covered by any of these five.) And oh! Calm thyself, Beldar's heart! For whether prompted by my suggestion back on September 6th or not, these clips include animated graphics that exactly match the multiple eyewitnesses' telling of the sequence of events and the locations and actions of the various boats. In particular, the "5000 meters of enemy fire" claim is exposed to be completely ridiculous. And another point that suddenly became clear to me for the first time while watching these videos was that the whole group of boats was traveling down-river, and continued moving down-river after the first mine explosion while the rescue of PCF 3 and its crew took place.
The production values on all five videos are okay — neither flashy nor crude enough to be noticeable. There's a sad trumpet and snare-drum background score, with occasional intercuts of blow-ups from documents and some generic stock footage of Swift Boats zooming down-river or peasants in sampans, just to break up what would otherwise be nonstop "talking heads."
But with the exception of the extremely helpful (and therefore powerfully persuasive) graphics mentioned above, these videos are mostly indeed about the personal stories of the men telling them. Their credibility is on the line, and it's important that you get a fair chance to size them up — to hear them speak in the way real humans tell what's happened (instead of like actors or, God forbid, politicians). As someone who sizes up witnesses and the truthfulness of their testimony for a living, I continue to be impressed by the dignity and inherent credibility of these men when they're allowed to simply tell what they know, without interruption and without some maniac shouting "Creepy liar!" to drown them out.
Remember when the SwiftVets' controversy first broke back in August, and there were threats of defamation litigation from the Kerry camp? That was all bluff, of course, as I said at the time. But watching these clips, I continue to ache for the opportunity for someone — some reasonably competent trial lawyers — to develop these controversies in the methodical fashion we use in courtrooms. Could a seasoned Kerry advocate land some blows if he were allowed to cross-examine the men you see in these videos? Yes, of course. But in very vivid contrast to the men from Kerry's "band of brothers, these guys speak out at length, in detail, and without falling back on stock "talking points." I think they'd eagerly agree to be grilled under oath and in a public spotlight, provided that their counterparts from the Kerry campaign were similarly subject to close questioning. I've got a pretty good idea whose fleet of witnesses would end up shredded by skilled cross-examination, and whose would still be steaming proudly.
Update (Fri Oct 29 @ 3:30pm): I neglected to note that the entire "Stolen Honor" documentary can also now be viewed for free, in multiple streaming video formats, from their website.
Posted by Beldar at 06:00 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier), SwiftVets | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to SwiftVets release five powerful new "must-view!" videos and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» SwiftVets release Five Powerful New Videos from Ed Driscoll.com
Tracked on Oct 28, 2004 8:59:33 PM
» SwiftVets and POWs for Truth from bohnsack.com
Tracked on Oct 28, 2004 11:01:01 PM
» Swift Boat Vets: New online documentary segments from No Illusions
Tracked on Oct 29, 2004 2:25:06 AM
Comments
(1) The Old Coot made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 6:36:41 PM | Permalink
I watched each of the videos and as they unfolded, Kerry's mendacity became more and more obvious. Perhaps more importantly, please pay attention to the veterans in the videos who speak of what really happened in Viet Nam; listen to their voices, look in their eyes, and then tell me what the MSM tells me, that they are all lying. For shame.
(2) Toby Petzold made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 7:50:02 PM | Permalink
Thanks very much for the link. These little documentaries are truly devastating.
I have been told that we won every battle of the Viet Nam War. But, there is still one more left to fight. For the sake of these men who oppose Kerry and for our country's security, I hope it is one that we will win.
(3) Marla made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 7:50:19 PM | Permalink
My husband, a Vietnam Vet, was very quiet as we watched these movies. Each movie is so powerful. If only the media would not be so bias and let the truth be known. Thanks for the information!
(4) Kathy made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 8:28:14 PM | Permalink
Thanks for the link, those videos are outstanding. It's maddening that they aren't on the front page of NYT instead of lies, lies, and more lies to help Kerry defraud the American public. It's maddening that the truth of Vietnam is silenced by our press instead of being investigated and honestly reported. If we fail and this traitor becomes president, there will be no checks and balances in our press. The Swift Vets are still fighting for our country, and it's time we stood behind them.
(5) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 8:51:20 PM | Permalink
It almost goes without saying that if these men were going after the President that Dan Rather would be salivating all over them. Consider, CBS called the ridiculous Bill Burkett an "unimpeachable source" with his absurd fabricated documents, and yet all of these men with their signed affidavits are dismissed out of hand. How sad.
When the post mortum of this election is done the media will have some difficult questions to answer; it will start with Rathergate, and get a lot worse. The blogs really need to flog the MSM about this after the election, be on them like pit bulls on a ham bone.
(6) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 28, 2004 9:33:37 PM | Permalink
Here is a request for the liberal commentators at this site.
Pretend, for the sake of argument that instead of being evil Republican operatives and hacks that the Swiftboat vets really were what they claim to be: a bunch of guys who knew someone back in Vietnam, who are horrified to find out this ass is running for president. They band together to tell everyone what a miserable lying bastard the guy is and how he is utterly unfit to be president.
The question is exactly how could they go about doing that?
Just for the sake of argument, of course, please teach us ignorant conservatives how to present the truth (assuming for the sake of argument that we actually had some) would you? Pretty Please. Come on you are so superior, you can afford to just this once, nobless oblige . Come on guys show us how things would be so different if only the Swifties were telling the truth because then they could...
(7) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 12:01:47 AM | Permalink
One thing that is unfortunate here is that we must accept the testimonials of the Swiftboat Veterans without qualification. We must do so with faith that each and every one of them gives account with total honesty. Therein lies one problem, since very few of us are and have been throughout our lives altruistic to a fault.
The viewer is required to suspend the fact, for example, that the videos supporting the commentary have no relation to the events being discussed; they are there for effect, since no authentic video exists, nor has ever existed.
Mr. O'Neill, in particular, despite what he may wish, is tarnished by the genesis of his pursuit of this white whale--the Nixon administration.
Had I been there, I might very well have had a low opinion of Mr. Kerry. However, I have known a number of people over the past three decades, myself included, who have had to come to terms with personal failings on the way to maturity. This is one thing that the Swiftboat campaign fails to take into account. If Mr. Kerry is truly regarded by the public to be and to always have been so reprehensible, then it is astonishing that he is in a dead heat with Mr. Bush. Also, it is important to remember that if one's past irrefutably sets the stage for his future, then Mr. Bush's redemption and transformation also must be questioned.
I suspect that there is much truth in what they recount, but I cannot accept them unquestioningly. My day-to-day experience with human nature suggests to me that at least one of the men is misleading to some degree. Alternatively, I would have to accept on blind faith that these people who I don't know and have never met would never deceive me.
This election is the most important one in the history of this nation and it's fate literally hangs in the balance. For me it is not a hard choice. I can deal with the domestic agenda, because we can endure detrimental policies only as long as our right to vote remains uncorrupted. We are never more than four years away from setting it right.
I cannot sanction, however, the continuation of an administration that has squandered our moral standing in the world as a nation of principle and honor, and as one which leads by example.
(8) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 12:50:36 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit wrote,
Mr. O'Neill, in particular, despite what he may wish, is tarnished by the genesis of his pursuit of this white whale--the Nixon administration.
No, no, no. O'Neill was already challenging Kerry to debates before his name ever came to the attention of the Nixon White House. The "genesis" of O'Neill's outrage wasn't anything Nixon or Colson did, it was what Kerry did.
SemiPundit wrote,
The viewer is required to suspend the fact, for example, that the videos supporting the commentary have no relation to the events being discussed; they are there for effect, since no authentic video exists, nor has ever existed.
Any layman can compare the animation to the oral accounts given not only by the SwiftVets, but by Kerry's Band of Brothers. Enthusiastic laymen can compare the animation to documentary evidence (casualty and damage reports, for example). Animations like this are indeed "for effect," the effect being to make clear, in a visual way, what other oral and documentary testimony establishes. SemiPundit, do you have any specific objections to make to what the animations depicted, and if so, what's your basis for them?
Finally, SemiPundit wrote,
I suspect that there is much truth in what they recount, but I cannot accept them unquestioningly.
No one asks that you, or voters in general, do that. By all means, question what they have to say. Measure each man's testimony against other eyewitnesses', and against the physical and documentary evidence, and then decide what weight to give it after testing it against your common sense. You'll be hampered, unfortunately, by the fact that the "Band of Brothers" won't subject themselves to serious questioning and, indeed, have made themselves pretty scarce recently. Most of all, you'll be hampered by your candidate's stonewalling the single, unquestionable impediment to a full development of the facts here being none other than John Forbes Kerry.
(9) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 4:47:54 AM | Permalink
It has been my understanding that Mr. O'Neill's pursuit of Mr. Kerry did not gain traction until his association with the Nixon administration. Am I wrong?
On the videos, I should have been clearer. When I said videos, I meant actual images of people, boats, etc. It is almost second nature for me to look beyond primary images for secondary or subliminal material, such as the video of a woman and baby in a small boat while the sampan incident was being recounted.
I am particularly annoyed by this with Fox News. During the course of a discussion, it is not uncommon for not only Mr. Hannity, but a sympathetic guest to cite some situation in an off-hand or now-that-you-mention-it sort of way, when almost immediately a related video clip starts running. I am satisfied that it goes right between the eyes and straight to the subconscious of a vulnerable viewer.
As to the animations, I have no problem with them. They provide a better description of the presenters' version of the events better than verbal accounts by themselves.
Nevertheless, the presentations are disturbing, but they will not sway my vote. My hope is not to elect Mr. Kerry, who was not my first choice, but to replace an administration I believe to be corrupting our democracy to its own ends. I still maintain that people can evolve over time into into more noble and worthy versions of their former selves.
Finally, I speak only for myself when I said that it is difficult to weigh 200 men against one with such a crucial, world-changing end result in the balance and not be wary that the necessity of winning could trump fair play.
(10) Boger made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 5:00:55 AM | Permalink
To SemiPundit,
I was interested in your views and have been thinking about how to respond to them. After several fits and starts here is what I would like to say. In theory Kerry should be a terrific candidate for President, particularly at this time in American history (and I attach the same importance on this election as you do). The reason is because of his military service, combat experience and performance as reflected in his Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. In terms of being Commander in Chief and leading the men and women in our military, what more could we ask for in qualifications for the job. In that regard, here is what you would expect to see from candidate Kerry. You should see him confidently and proudly putting his entire military record in the public domain. You should see the medical reports of serious injuries, ones that required medical attention, some stitches, some hospitalization, some loss of blood, some days of loss duty. You should see a large group of Swift Boat veterans who served with him singing his praises, who can't do enough to support him and get him elected, who fully support and tout his valor awards, who give accounts of combat actions that match closely with his medal citations and supporting After Action Reports. You should be hearing from his fellow vets stories about how he got three Purple Hearts and was told these qualified him to go home before his tour was up, but Ltjg Kerry said no he would stick with his boat crew and squadron shipmates. You should be hearing kudos from his shipmates for his coming home and showing responsible leadership and good judgment in opposing a grossly flawed military enterprise.
But that is not what you, me or the country is getting from candidate Kerry. Here we have this man with terrific credentials, but we are not seeing the benefits. It is not really understandable and it is very distressing.
(11) Ann_Observer made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 5:39:57 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit, you wrote this:
I cannot sanction, however, the continuation of an administration that has squandered our moral standing in the world as a nation of principle and honor, and as one which leads by example.
Do you truly believe that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his spawn, and thereby releasing 25 million people from the throat-crushing grip of a murderous tyranny, is not the work of "a nation of principle and honor" which "leads by example"? And what about our dispatch of the Taliban in Afghanistan and our midwife's work in facilitating the birth of an unprecedented Afghan democratically elected government? Was that, too, the work of an unprincipled and dishonorable nation?
Sir or madam, I question your judgment about matters of political morality. The bought-and-paid-for political entities that refused to assist us in Iraq (France, Russia, China, Germany, the corrupt United Nations bureaucracy) are the ones who know little of principle and honor. And the leadership example they set is the leadership of the selfish (they ask only 'What's in it for us?').
Of course, we didn't decide to topple Saddam's regime solely out of the goodness of our heart. But the fact is, the result of what we did is objectively a good thing for the Iraqi people as a whole, as the coming years will show. And the good that results for us is that the possibility has been created of a democratic state in Iraq, and we have established the front line of the war on terror over there, not over here.
Here's something to think about. Suppose somebody had figured out a way to hold a referendum in Iraq before the war (an impossibility in that Saddam-strangled country, of course), a referendum which asked each Iraqi a single, simple yes-or-no question:
Do you want the United States to invade your country, remove the Saddam Hussein regime, and then assist you and your fellow citizens in bringing into existence a democratic government in Iraq?Yes[ ] No[ ]
Do you think this referendum would have passed? I do. Indeed, I would suggest that, at a minimum, 80% of Iraqis would have said 'yes' (and probably closer to 90%). We know who would have said 'no'—some of Saddam's regime members and their families, some of the military and their families, and some of those who profited from the regime (and who had had only a small number of family members summarily executed, or tortured and mutilated, by Saddam's henchmen).
And I also believe that if you had told the Iraqis that the coming of the United States would incite an influx of foreign jihadis into Iraq, they would have said, "Come on in anyway; with your help, we'll deal with those monsters after you've slain our own home-grown monster, Saddam!"
(12) The Old Coot made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 8:25:47 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit: I ask you a simple and respectful question...Why has Mr. Kerry refused to release all of his military records by signing a Standard Form DD-180? What is lurking in there that he is afraid to display?
(13) Patrick R. Sullivan made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 9:24:55 AM | Permalink
Semi-pundit can determine for himself who being truthful about the March 13, 1969 Bronze Star incident. Get a copy of Tour of Duty, go to Brinkley's description of the mine explosion and aftermath.
Take a pencil and paper and try to diagram the version of events that appears in the official Kerry biography. Go ahead, try to make it work for yourself....
And, when you can't, ask yourself why the version told by the Swiftboat vets does work, if Kerry is the truthful one.
(14) Sgt Bulldog made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 9:41:10 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit has gone to the heart of the MSM and DNC philosophy with the final statement:
"the necessity of winning could trump fair play."
God forbid we be allowed a truly informed electorate, to determine whether the "win" is in the best interest of our country.
(15) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 9:49:20 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit wrote,
It has been my understanding that Mr. O'Neill's pursuit of Mr. Kerry did not gain traction until his association with the Nixon administration. Am I wrong?
Mr. O'Neill had already lined up his long-sought Cavett Show debate with Kerry (who'd previously already appeared on Cavett's show) before Mr. O'Neill came to the White House's attention, and he had his famous visit with Nixon just before that televised debate actually took place. I think a fair reading of the Nixon-Colson documents is that they were concerned about Kerry, noticed O'Neill's efforts, encouraged him, and perhaps added some publicity to his efforts (although nothing comparable to that which would have flowed from the Cavett Show debate anyway). I don't think it's fair to suggest that they were the "genesis of [O'Neill's] pursuit" of Kerry.
(16) Tom Grey - Liberty Dad made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 10:42:00 AM | Permalink
Semi-pundit also FAILED, totally, to answer Veter330's request. What is the fair way to tell America WHY Kerry is unfit? Notice that the SwiftVets really got started only AFTER Kerry's brag-book Tour of Duty was published -- and the SwiftVets see the lies/ exagerations that Kerry has been telling.
These are great, thanks, Beldar.
(17) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 11:45:19 AM | Permalink
Boger,Old Coot:
I am uncomfortable with the brevity of Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam, since I volunteered for the draft, to enter as enlisted, after deferments to finish college. My brother also volunteered and served two tours on the ground in Vietnam.
I, too, would like to know more, but it is not in the genes of politicians to lay out anything that they don't have to before public scrutiny. This can be said in other ways of his opponent as well. He has wisely attempted to keep the focus on the here and now, and not become embroiled in a hopeless defense of his past that would drain energy and resources. As I said, he may have made mistakes of personal judgment in the past, but so has his opponent.
Simply put, he is the standard bearer for the party that I believe can best serve our country--a party that needs some tweaking.
Ann Observer:
I did not intend to mean that we are an unprincipled and dishonorable country, only that our reputation as such has been tarnished by our present leaders. We either accept our citizenship in the world and what should be our role as a respected leader, or choose to go off on our own, which may ultimately have some serious consequences.
I was pleased with the action against Afghanistan. We identified the aggressor, and justifiably punished its sponsor. That should have been the true showpiece of what righteous power can do.
The sudden and opportunistic turn toward Iraq has nullified a great deal of the success we could have had. We can succeed as an older brother to our fellow countries, but not as their vengeful father.
I'm tapped out for now, and trying to think coherently makes my head hurt. Besides, I have to go have lunch at school with a fabulous five-year old boy.
(18) loy made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 7:02:58 PM | Permalink
I, too, would like to know more, but it is not in the genes of politicians to lay out anything that they don't have to before public scrutiny. This can be said in other ways of his opponent as well. He has wisely attempted to keep the focus on the here and now, and not become embroiled in a hopeless defense of his past that would drain energy and resources. As I said, he may have made mistakes of personal judgment in the past, but so has his opponent.
Fair enough--if only Kerry had not made such a big deal of his Vietnam experience both during the convention, and also in his political career over the past decades. He would have saved himself a lot of grief if he had simply say from the beginning: "both my previous experience in Vietnam--and my opponent's past service with the TANG--are all ancient history. This election is about the present and the future..." Not to make too fine a point about it: (1) Kerry really brought a lot of this upon himself; (2) the fixation with Bush's TANG record on the part of e.g., CBS--despite Bush's not running on the basis of his TANG record--only ensured that things of this nature will happen--that Kerry's past record will come back to haunt him.
I did not intend to mean that we are an unprincipled and dishonorable country, only that our reputation as such has been tarnished by our present leaders. We either accept our citizenship in the world and what should be our role as a respected leader, or choose to go off on our own, which may ultimately have some serious consequences.
Let me add my two-cents--speaking as a non-American. I'm from the far east, actually. Before I came to the US, I did not have a great impression of Bush and his administration. Then I came the the US (for studies) and soon got to watch how the Bush administration dealing with 9/11, and importantly, discovered the blogsphere. Then I realise just how much my previous impressions were a direct outcome of an extremely biased press--both in the US and in other parts of the world--and the deluge of Bushisms and Michael Moore type books.
Upshot: at least for this person, the reputation of the US has not been tarnished, if it has been tarnished at all, by its present leadership.
Needless to say, I'm not saying that I'm representative of the world at large. But only that critics of the Bush administration who think that "the reputation of the US has been tarnished by its present leadership" should think through it a bit more. (On this score, powerline has a good post about this at http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008251.php)
from: a Citizen of a Small Country that's part of the Coalition of the Willing
(19) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 11:00:54 PM | Permalink
Still waiting for someone to answer my little query about how the Swift boat vets could have told the truth if they really had possesed it.
So I'll pose another question to any of the liberal commentators. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the Swift Boat vets are simple normal people, and that John Kerry is, as we all know to be true, the greatest hero any of these men have ever known.
Here is the question: exactly how could the evil Republicans have convinced almost all of Lt(jg) Kerry's fellow sailors and officers (including his entire chain of command) to slander him, and pretend to be angry at him?
Extra credit: once you have done that explain what the evil Republicans could have said to that POW who got the Medal of Honor that would have caused him to also slander a fellow hero and pretend to be disgusted with him - when of course he really isn't.
Do you think they used a carrot or a stick to get them to lie? What do you think Karl Rove offered them, group sex with the Bush Twins, or do you think he threatened to call them all poopy butts if they didn't play along?
(20) Boger made the following comment | Oct 29, 2004 11:11:39 PM | Permalink
SemiPundit,
Good hearing from you.
Not real thrilled with that "old coot" low blow. I don't know how old you think I am (or your guess on my gender). But I dusted a couple of testosterone laden 24 year olds in an athletic competition a month ago. I now get the respect I am properly due.
Thank you and your brother for your military service. I am proud of both of you. Its a sacrifice and not a ton of fun. I hope your brother got back and all in one piece.
I well-know the medal inflation, fitrep hype, bogus body count reporting that went on in Vetnam. But not everybody did it. And we got a different standard to meet on Nov 2.
I beg to differ on Bush being respected. Many of his contemporaries don't love, like or agree with him. But they all, in the absolute sense, respect him. In that vein, I love a couple of comments this year by our previous sophomore president (BC) and President Putin of Russia. To other dems, BC said words to the effect, What are you surprised about, he has done just what he said he was going to do. Of Bush, Putin said words to the effect, if he tells you something, you can rely on it. Word of advice to you: if you can only have one, love or respect, choose respect.
Maybe we can share our mutual experiences about leadership, whether at work, military, politics, whatever. For me, after a little schooling in the class of hard knock, the only thing I ask of someone who has the role of leader (and expect) is, tell me what you are going to do, then do what you say. That's it. That's all I need to feel properly led.
I digress, sorry. Oh, yes Mr. Kerry. Member of my family was killed in Normandy. Shot, died within minutes. Good looking guy, played in a band back home, had a fiancée waiting for him, etc. The only thing the family has signifying his service is a Purple Heart. It is not a trivial award. Purple stands for blood. I know this is ridiculous but could you contact the Kerry campaign and just ask them if they would release the medical record entry on just one of his Purple Hearts that shows he shed a little blood? As God is my judge, if you do that and his campaign accedes to your request, I will vote for him. I just don't think that is too much to ask of a buy with three PH's who is running for Pres.
Re "a party that needs tweaking": I was not greatly attracted to Dean. I did not think the scream was that big a deal. Dean has been against the Iraq war from Day one. Clear. Unequivocal. I respect that. My perception of him is that he wouldn't come off that position an iota. Maybe the dems ought to take a chance and nominate someone who has the courage of his convictions. I have always thought Joe Lieberman was an adult, smart, a complete person with a lot of integrity, ie qualified to be President.
Hope you enjoyed the beenie-weenies and the chit chat.
(21) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 1:32:07 AM | Permalink
Sorry for the distress, Boger. I meant to address both you and the writer of a similar post, "The Old Coot".
Also, in my haste, I failed to add that I did not serve in the military, and did not experience Vietnam. Although I volunteered for the draft, I was classified 1-Y because of a spinal birth defect.
(22) The Truth made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 2:19:20 AM | Permalink
Only a blind fool could watch these documentaries and not see the truth in the testomony of these men. Kerry himself is the best witness. He supports the case the swiftboat vets make.
(23) Ann_Observer made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 4:57:34 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit:
Let me say that I don't doubt your sincerity or your good intentions, but I continue to doubt the soundness of your judgment on these matters of political morality.
You write:
I did not intend to mean that we are an unprincipled and dishonorable country, only that our reputation as such has been tarnished by our present leaders. We either accept our citizenship in the world and what should be our role as a respected leader, or choose to go off on our own, which may ultimately have some serious consequences.
Perhaps you don't believe that trying to better the lives of Middle Eastern muslims (and, in so doing, trying to render them less interested in attacking us, at least in the long run), is the role of a respected leader. I disagree. And I don't know what you mean about choosing "to go off on our own": 30+ countries is not on our own. And I've already accounted for the absence of France, Germany, Russia, China and their ilk.
At least we agree on the Afghanistan question.
Finally, you write this:
The sudden and opportunistic turn toward Iraq has nullified a great deal of the success we could have had. We can succeed as an older brother to our fellow countries, but not as their vengeful father.
If 12 years (from 1991 to 2003) means "sudden", how long is "not sudden"? And "opportunistic"? Do I hear echoes of "no blood for oil" there? Almost the first government ministry that we turned over to complete Iraqi control was the oil ministry. If anyone at all could show that the U.S. is stealing oil from the Iraqi people, the New York Times would have been screaming about it for months.
But if you mean by "opportunistic turn" that we were seeking to increase our own security by disarming a vicious dictator who possessed vast amounts of weaponry (some of which he might well have been willing to turn over to terrorists), I will accept your terminology. But the all-important side-effect of our actions is, to say it again, an opportunity for the Iraqi people to move towards democratic self-government.
As for "vengeful father", I see no vengeance in our behavior in Iraq. Ask the Iraqis in a few years if they think that we were being vengeful when we liberated them.
Best regards to you and yours ...
(And thanks, Beldar, for allowing such conversations to take place on your dime.)
(24) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 6:49:35 AM | Permalink
Sound of crickets chirping on the left....
(25) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 7:24:22 AM | Permalink
Crickets leave, replaced by sound of left wing leaves rustling in the wind...
(26) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 8:12:26 AM | Permalink
Leaves exit, replaced by sound of left wing grass growing...
(27) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 8:42:37 AM | Permalink
I'll now translate into simple English what the left's failure to answer any of my questions means.
1. There is not even a vaguely plausible case that the Swift Boat Vets and POWs are liars dreamed up by the Republicans to defame Kerry.
2. Even though they are telling the truth they have been treated horribly by those on the left.
3. As they have been demonstrating Kerry is not someone who can be trusted, and is therefore "Unfit for Command".
(28) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 2:26:28 PM | Permalink
I went back and took a look at Veteran330's request (10/28), which I thought I had answered. It may just be me, but I still have some trouble understanding what he wants. If I can decipher the logic, I believe he is asking me to (1)assume that they are truthful in the aggregate, and then (2)suggesting to them how they might convincingly get their message across.
I don't make it a habit of beginning the process of decision-making with a conclusion on the truth of the argument. I would tell them to do exactly as they have done: to assemble their evidence and testimony and to present them to the voting public for evaluation.
The point of my argument is, as I said, that it is unreasonable to expect the the public (or me) to grant them credibility simply because they are veterans. They have to make a plausible case. The case they have made seems to be that a man who might have behaved in a self-serving and possibly dishonorable way three decades ago could not possibly be deemed fit to serve in a responsible and honorable way now. It doesn not take into account that people may grow and develop into fuller persons than they once were.
What I, and I think perhaps most people, get from the water mine incident is that Kerry's boat got immediately out of the area, which might have made some sense, and then he came back. I have problems with many of the details as reported by them and by Kerry, including the fact that he has not addressed them during the campaign. To do so, would have put him in a detrimentally defensive position (i.e., "putting himself on the witness stand")--a position that Mr. Bush would also not have wanted to be in.
What I got from the sampan incident was that Kerry was not attentive to the radar, which could have resulted from fatigue, distraction, or just screwing up. If he had detected the approaching sampan, the outcome might have been the same, but hopefully the man would have been surprised in time to have been captured, and the young boy might not have been killed. Again, I have questions about the discrepancies in the reports that were filed.
We owe Mr. Kerry at least some amount of consideration for being a different person now, just as we would for Mr. Bush.
(29) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 30, 2004 2:56:45 PM | Permalink
Ann Observer:
These are just my opinions. Had I been in Mr. Bush's place, I would have done exactly as he did in Afhghanistan. The only difference is that it would still be our focus and we would still be there in full force.
We would pound into dust every Taliban and every Al Quaeda that casts a shadow, with or without a coalition of any kind.
We would have popular elections as we have done, but we would have not allowed anyone we had appointed to run as the new head of state.
We would have destroyed every opium crop we could have laid our hands on, as a signal that we really are fighting a war on drugs at the source, and that we are able and willing to do the same elsewhere.
We would have taken the lead on a truly international effort to put in place new and war-damaged infrastructure.
In short, I believe we could have more ably honored our citizens who died in the September 11 tragedies in this way. Saddam, on the other hand was going nowhere, was not likely to have maimed and killed as many people as we have now done, and, in my estimation, was too paranoid to have shared any weapons lest they be used against him. He should have been kept in the box, made to watch, and dealt with later.
In my view, the Iraquis under his rule would have had to wait a while longer.
(30) Ann_Observer made the following comment | Oct 31, 2004 2:59:32 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit:
I suppose this thread is soon to die a natural death, but I'll still append a few remarks on your most recent post:
You write:
These are just my opinions. Had I been in Mr. Bush's place, I would have done exactly as he did in Afhghanistan. The only difference is that it would still be our focus and we would still be there in full force.We would pound into dust every Taliban and every Al Quaeda that casts a shadow, with or without a coalition of any kind.
My response:
We haven't lost focus on Afghanistan. We're hunting down and killing or capturing Taliban remnants each and every day. Did you notice how peacefully the elections went (the first elections ever in that ancient country)? Would that have been the case if we'd dropped the ball over there?
You write:
We would have popular elections as we have done, but we would have not allowed anyone we had appointed to run as the new head of state.
My response:
If you're implying that Hamid Karzai was appointed by the United States to run Afghanistan prior to the elections, you're mistaken. Mr. Karzai was chosen by a loya jirga composed solely of Afghanis (including a few Afghani women).
You write:
We would have destroyed every opium crop we could have laid our hands on, as a signal that we really are fighting a war on drugs at the source, and that we are able and willing to do the same elsewhere.
My response:
It's best not to fight two wars in a single locale at the same time, don't you think? An immediate crack-down on the poppy growers and the opium infrastructure would have brought an additional force onto the field arrayed against us. I believe that once the government there soldifies its position in the country, the poppy growers will experience significant pressure to cease and desist. If not, we can re-examine the situation from a calmer perspective.
You write:
We would have taken the lead on a truly international effort to put in place new and war-damaged infrastructure.
My response:
That has been, and is continuing to be, done.
You write:
In short, I believe we could have more ably honored our citizens who died in the September 11 tragedies in this way.
My response:
See my earlier responses.
You write:
Saddam, on the other hand was going nowhere, was not likely to have maimed and killed as many people as we have now done, and, in my estimation, was too paranoid to have shared any weapons lest they be used against him. He should have been kept in the box, made to watch, and dealt with later.In my view, the Iraquis under his rule would have had to wait a while longer.
My response:
"Not likely to have maimed and killed as many people as we have now done"? This remark is beneath you. It is false on its face. Most of the people killed in Iraq have been men fighting against us—Iraqi military men (ones that didn't desert), Fedayeen Saddam fanatics, confused supporters of al-Sadr, street thugs and foreign jihadis. The United States has applied force as sparingly and as accurately in Iraq as has ever been done in any war in the history of warfare (perhaps even too sparingly!).
As for the suggestion that Saddam should have been kept in his box, tell that to the families of Saddam's victims, victims who deserved better than to be slaughtered and then bull-dozed into mass graves.
You appear to be turning a cold and calculating eye on Saddam's horror. Look again at your own son and try to imagine what Saddam's vicious enforcers might have done to him had he been unfortunate enough to have been born in the Iraq of five years ago.
Again, I'm not suggesting that we went to war in Iraq solely out of concern for the welfare of Iraqis (although I'll say that for me personally, that was a crucial factor). But for you to be so willing to say, even after the fact, that "the Iraqis under his rule would have had to wait a while longer", as if this were no big deal...are you really comfortable with that position? I sincerely hope not.
It's all too easy to dismiss suffering if it's distant suffering.
(31) Veteran330 made the following comment | Oct 31, 2004 5:46:24 AM | Permalink
SemiPundit proves himself to either be a fool or a paid troll. I would assume him to be the latter.
My questions were RHETORICAL questions. They were meant to show the ABSURDITY of the liberal posistions by illustrating what those positions really mean.
Of course SemiPundit understands this, but as a paid troll for the Democrats who is meant to spread doubt. He has to say something to keep people who read these sites from seeing the truth.
John Kerry, official "Hero of Communist Victory" since 1983.
(32) SemiPundit made the following comment | Oct 31, 2004 1:00:11 PM | Permalink
I'm back just to tidy things up and let you know I have read all of our conversations. All of you make good points, as I feel that I do. There is plenty here for other readers to consider, as I hope they do.
This seems to be a good site, and I hope to stop by at times. I find it unsatisfying to spend too much time around people who generally agree with me. Also, growth and knowledge are constrained if we do not go out and play with others who may be more capable and better informed.
Right now, I'm trying to decide if we have created more terrorists, as addressed in another, more recent, post. I'm leaning toward "yes".
(33) Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain made the following comment | Nov 1, 2004 2:41:32 AM | Permalink
"My hope is not to elect Mr. Kerry, who was not my first choice, but to replace an administration I believe to be corrupting our democracy to its own ends."
As in, “pining” for the pre 9/11 good ole days of Eurocentric policies based on failed 19th century nation states drawn out on a map by Victorian/Edwardian era aristocrats imposing their collective world view on these culturally inferior “savages”??? The paradigm has changed (as have the centuries).
"To do so, would have put him in a detrimentally defensive position (i.e., "putting himself on the witness stand")--a position that Mr. Bush would also not have wanted to be in."
AS in…c’mon…pleeeezzzz, just 3, okay, just one mistake---help us out—we are so bereft of “plans” and issues and morally bankrupt as to anything vaguely concrete in terms of an alternate course of action, not to mention our choice as a candidate-- we need you to help us---give us the things we ask for so we can repeatedly beat you without mercy (and repeatedly show clips of your own words to verify the righteousness of our “moral indignation”)???? How utterly callow and puerile.
We would have popular elections as we have done, but we would have not allowed anyone we had appointed to run as the new head of state.
Sheer “academic” arrogance and intellectually dishonest ignorance. The paradigm has changed—One asks if this is not a means by which those so inclined can scream their collective moral outrage when we stand by waiting to see who kills the most, and who is left standing….wait, isn’t that how they got…Saddam?? How does one “talk” Sudan into more “civilized behavior”?? Somalia??? Must be those same crickets chirping referenced elsewheres above. Yes you ARE going to have to choose---domestication or eradication. NO, “Rodney” we CAN’T just all get along. Such drivel is suspect in that it tends to “elevate” one’s need to maintain an ethically superior and morally defensible “position” in trying to balance a fancifully drawn, altruistic conclusion about "human nature" against the disdain of getting one’s hands “dirty”, and perhaps, even being “wrong” in ANY degree of practical application.
"We would pound into dust every Taliban and every Al Quaeda that casts a shadow, with or without a coalition of any kind".
Do you have any idea how many $10 million tomahawk missiles we expended on $10 goatskin tents?? Beyond a VERY limited point, all you were doing there was bouncing and rearranging the rubble. WE HAVE effectively done it the old fashioned way---Marines at Tarawa (albeit on a much tinier scale) if you will, and continue to “mop up”--- chasing them up into box canyons at 10k feet and KILLING them the old fashioned way— twos and threes at close range with 5.56mm ammo—you don’t need an obscenely expensive, "threat missionless” F-22 /35 to assist in that process, btw---. Been there done that.
As successful as we HAVE been to date there, it was (and in many respects remains) an extreme case of the “Flintstones” meet the “Jetsons”—their “table manner” leave a little to be desired, but they seem to have taken to “wearing shoes” quite well in such a short time. Now, if we could just break them of their disgusting habit of “dive bombing” in our porta johns—or at least improve their aim…..and toilet etiquette in general..but hell, we could say that about the french….
In my view, the Iraquis (sic) under his rule would have had to wait a while longer.
Sit down, and STFU, --gawd keep me from getting personal with ignorance---such a perspective comes normally from one schooled in the nuanced art of moral equivalence and ensconced in his barca lounger with remote at the ready in his little castle in suburbia—do YOU want to come here, look ANY of these people (chosen at random) in the eye and repeat that?? Especially the women and female children—they would feed you your balls (now) faster than Zawkari and Co could get the video camera turned on as they truss and behead YOU.
The trick here seems to be “refocusing” their aim and targets—towards the “native” males of their population, but as “muslims” they have been terrorized as a subset of their overarching population of “arabs/Iraqis” for about 1400 years longer---Saddam only had, what?? 3 ½ decades???
Another “Bill” over at Eject, Eject Eject sums up his impatience with the liberal preponderance for being mired in the intricacies of moral equivalence, and as being in the main, those who…
while they whine about ethics are hypocrites who as usual want to have things both ways in order to preserve that essential fix of moral superiority that seems to be the only thing to make life worth living for the Bitching Classes.
See them for what they are: nothing more than the Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons: Worst. Country. Ever.
They are useless people. They have heeded the last and final boarding call and pushed back from the gate of reality. They have left the building.
Don’t argue with them, don’t engage them. They want to make this about rhetoric and sophistry, which they fetishize, and not about the simple difference between right and wrong, which is a world where they cast no reflection.
(Strength, ptII)
And in case it isn't obvious,,,where this Thread started, I personally believe jfk is this generation's Eddie Slovik in need of a firing squad (for which I would happily volunteer).... but perhaps it's as simple as, it isn't a conservative thing, a liberal thing, a partisan party thing...it's a MILITARY thing...guys like the swifts are a "dime a dozen" in OUR "culture"---extraordinary virtue and honor is common place, AND TO THE BONE for them...and is more than just a theoretical concept--it is the one's like jfk, who are the odd, rare exceptions that curiously require those like even you, insti to sanguinely "question" that term as it applies to them (in his defense)...not as you would, perhaps apply it for them.
Serial bitchers…I swear,
...and your little dog too, my pretty....
The comments to this entry are closed.
