It's just like the Ministry of Truth, only in reverse. First, print the propaganda in large, strident lettering. Wait until everyone's absorbed it, and then correct it in tiny print on an inside page, with no fanfare.
This way, if your boyz lose the election, you can still try to claim some independence.
The NYT is just a mouthpiece for the DNC anyway--who gives a shit? They're doing their damdest to spike the Swift Boat Vets story, even though it exposes your boy Kerry as the lieing, pandering, spineless power-monger that he really is. Of course, it looks like your blog is trying to spike this story as well.
The Swift Boat Vets are just a mouthpiece for the RNC anyway--who gives a shit. They're doing their damnedest to obscure the fact that only one of the candidates even bothered to show up. Of course, it looks like you are as well.
Mouthpieces for the RNC? Hardly. Some are Democrats, some are independants, and yes, some are Republicans. Stop getting your facts from the DNC spin doctors. If you were about to be promoted, and over 250 of your coworkers came forward and exposed your crappy work, and you had maybe 10 backing you up (and who knows how much the DNC is paying them), your promotion would be shitcanned. Just like Kerry will be.
"Stop getting your facts from the DNC spin doctors"?? When 2/3 of the Swift Boaters' money came from the same RNC-connected real-estate developer, when none of the Swift Boaters actually served on JK's boat though they imply that they all did, when JK's former commanding officer signs the affidavit and then later says that he did it under political pressure and now regrets it, when others of JK's vet detractors are on record as earlier having praised JK's military service, when one of the chief Swift Boaters is on record earlier as not having known JK well at all -- you (Ronnie) choose to challenge the military decoration system (calling into question all decorated veterans' records) and claim that JK's military heroism is just spin? This while GWB lied about his own military service and used family connections to avoid seeing combat?
The Swift Boaters clearly are mouthpieces. The biggies among them have documented GOP ties and have reputations as extremist loudmouths. You say "who knows how much the DNC is paying them," but the political motivations of Corsi, Hoffmann, and O'Neill are clear.
And as for who gives a shit bc the NYT is just a DNC mouthpiece -- it took three weeks of haranguing the public editor just to get this ridiculous ink-speck of a correction. For months the NYT acted as a White House mouthpiece, refusing to question the Bushies' rationale for war despite plenty of non-mainstream-press criticism.
With something like the NYT -- or anything you suspect of being a mouthpiece, you don't just dismiss it as a mouthpiece. You find its inaccuracies and embarrass them. By just labeling them a mouthpiece as a way to dismiss everything they say, you just embarrass right-wing idiots.
Go here: http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php?topic=AboutUs
Why is it so impossible for you to give them the benefit of the doubt? TWO HUNDRED FIFTY guys have signed onto this, including a majority of his commanding officers. If it were one or two I would also be suspicious of them. But these numbers are too high.
Has your hatred for GWB made it impossible for you to consider there might be a kernel of truth here?
One more thing: if their allegations are untrue, then they are also libelous. Are you saying 250 guys are committing libel against Kerry? Please, if you claim to be "open to new ideas" and "accepting" (typical progressive claims) then go read up on them at their site. 250 people committing libel against a sitting senator and potential president is simply preposterous.
Whew - I think Unfogged's number came up on the wingnut Wheel-of-Trolling. Someone had better send Ronnie some blood pressure pills before his/her/its head explodes.
No whammies, no whammies, no whammies...STOP!
"...lieing, pandering, spineless power-monger..."
Wow, you're full of holier-than-thou comments but can't explain that troubling 250 vs. 10 number. The truth...it's so inconvenient sometimes....
Perhaps if enough people complain for three more weeks they can issue another correction saying that they mistakenly used the word imprecisely in a correction when what that should have said was that they got the trend completely backwards.
The NYT is just a mouthpiece for the DNC anyway
This is an insane statement. Why did the NYT not publish on the front page any of the evidence that Bush's claims in the leadup to war were wrong? Why, during the March For Women's Lives, did the Bush spokesman get to spew out incorrect facts and figures about abortion and women's rights with never being challanged by the editors? Do you even remeber whitewater, travelgate, filegate, and the ridiculous impeachment of BC? How about the double standards in the reporting on the Bush v. Gore debates? These are just a sampling of the favors the NYT has done for the RNC. I have just as much right to say the NYT is a mouthpiece of the RNC as you do to say it's a mouthpiece of the DNC.
can't explain that troubling 250 vs. 10 number.
I'll take the word of the 12 who actually did serve with him versus the ones who didn't and still somehow magically know what the hell they are talking about.
Yes, what apostropher said. It's easy enough to explain the 250 -- lots of Vietnam vets are angry with JK for speaking out against the Vietnam War and angry with anyone who questions Bush and the current war. Yes, angry enough to lie -- look at George Elliot, angry enough to lie but remorseful enough to retract.
Ronnie -- you seem to think that anything someone says is equivalent to anything someone else says, so that in the end it's about counting how many people say what. The guys who served on JK's boat count way more than some random who is asked to sign a petition. The NYT counts way more than GOP intimates with too much money riding on the election.
In the end, which side is arguing by pointing to the figures and to the record, and which side is arguing by namecalling and wholesalely dismissing its critics?
And which side is wasting everyone's time on the ridiculous swift-boat thing when the Bushies are selling (at a discount!) the country to its friends in the energy business, are weakening the economic recovery to benefit the richest of the rich, and are pushing a war by lying to the nation and pissing off the rest of the world?
I've had enough.
You guys, who I WILL BET NEVER HAVE BEEN MILITARY, know nothing about "who knows what about whom" in the military.
#1: at least one guy who was on Kerry's boat in the the SBVFT.
#2: most of the rest of the guys in the SBVFT served on other boats in Kerry's unit. These boats did not go on missions all by their lonesome. There were MANY MANY guys who were familiar with John Kerry in Vietnam. To put this another way:
"If I'm in 2nd Platoon, I can tell if 3rd Platoon is fucked up; I don't have to actually be in 3rd Platoon to know that. Same is true for other companies, battalions, and I'm sure, boat crews. Units don't operate in a vacuum. They operate in full view of their fellow units."
Not my words, but those of a vet. So the 250 vs. 10 argument remains--Undefeated.
I've been reasonable. When will you all be reasonable and admit the SBVFT raise valid questions?
Out of curiosity, what do you think about the valid questions veterens have raised about George the First's actions in combats? The acqusations fellow members of his squad have made that he cowardly and needlesly jumped out of his plane and abandoned the other two members to die?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408120012
George I is not a matter of current concern, so we're not going there. And MediaMatters is hardly an objective source of information on anything. Surely you'll say to that, "Well why should I think the SBVFT are objective?" Well, it's because it's not just 1 or 2 guys with an agenda who are behind it. The SBVFT are 250 honorably discharged patriots who've stood up and said something that, if untrue, are guilty of libel. They've already exposed Kerry's lie about Xmas in Cambodia. Is your hatred for GWB making you blind to the flaws of John Kerry?
Media Matters may not be objective, but objectivity isn't what it's all about. Media Matters doesn't say anything without giving you the direct quote -- generally in full context -- that exposes the deliberate misinformation campaign being waged bioth by the administration and by its supporters. It's more than just accusation -- it's verifiable and therefore can't be dismissed by ad-hominem argument.
And: none of this is the point! It's misdirection, which is exactly the point of the Swifties' accusations.
George I is not a matter of current concern, so we're not going there.
The point is that by your standards of argument, George the First should be considered guilty. I can't see how you could think otherwise and not be holding a different standard of judgment. It's a question to test your partisanship.
"Is your hatred for GWB making you blind to the flaws of John Kerry?"
The answer is becoming quite clear.
I'll have to ask the analytics; is there a term for when one's opponent in an argument begins talking to himself to reassure himself that he's winning?
Anyway, it seems you're avoiding answering my question.
">Here's some more info.
Be sure to click the link on who is Ted Sampley.
oy.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_08_digbysblog_archive.html#109226492059211715
George H W Bush is not up for election, so who gives a rat's ass? The current issue is that John Kerry, your hero, is a LIAR. Don't you understand this? HAS YOUR FANATICAL HATRED MADE YOU BLIND? With John Kerry's conduct becoming clear, it's quite obvious he does not deserve to run this country. And all respondants to me have proven to be uninterested in discussing the damaging claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, instead preferring to attack my character. You all are truly sad.
Nobody has said the first thing about your character. Similarly, nobody has claimed John Kerry as their personal hero. You, on the other hand, have clearly selected him as your personal enemy, for reasons known only to yourself.
SBVFT's claims aren't damaging because they don't have any credibility as a group. They are easily dismissed and that is exactly what is happening. And apparently, that just drives you nuts. The only person exhibiting irrational hatred 'round these parts is you, Ronnie. Either that, or you just enjoy eating bullshit sandwiches.
However, if you believe the best course of action for the Bush campaign is to turn this into a contest of the two men's military service and demonstrated honesty, I absolutely support you in that endeavor. Bush is boxing off the ropes with two broken hands in that competition. You can quibble over dates and the testimony of men who weren't even in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry, but the facts are plain: one of the two candidates bothered to show up, and it wasn't the one you're supporting.
Ronnie, I've reread these comments -- and no one has maligned your character. Others and I may have questioned your logic, your accuracy, and even the temperament you've been displaying here, but none of us has said anything about your honesty, courage, or anything else that has to do with character. Unlike you, none of us has accused anyone of being a hate-filled fanatic.
(I congratulate you, though, on doing such a good job of leading us all so far off topic. Excellent illustration of how the Swifty thing is being deployed out in the larger world.)
Respond if you like, Ronnie, but I won't be reading this thread anymore.
Thank you Bob. I'm on a personal mission to bring up the SBVFT every chance I get, because unlike the "GWB was AWOL" story, this one's being spiked by the major media. See here:
http://nerepublican.blogspot.com/2004/08/media-hypocrisy-how-media-handled-bush.html
Ron,
You condem JK as a liar about his military fact but ignore that Bush is indisputibly a liar about this same issue. His autobiography, for one, does not fit the facts as we now know them. There have been other lies here and there, such as his statements that all his records have been released. If there's anyone displaying "fantatical hatred" that "makes them blind," it's not us.
And while GHWBush is not running for President, the same guy behind maligning Kerry was the one behind maligning him, and so that makes it relevant.
As per your link, the problem is that the AWOL story was already 4 years old by the time the reporters asked McClellean all of those questions, and the reporters were sick and tired of not having their questions answered, not just on this issue, but on all sorts of issues that 1) the people desereved an answer to 2) were unfavorable to Bush. These had to do with what was going on in Iraq, intelligence failure questions, and the like. It was amazing to me that the press corps kept their tempers for as long as they did after it became clear they had been repeatedly lied to (or "misled" is the term in vogue, i think)
The two stories are also different because there is hard evidence for the AWOL claim, but the SBVFT are led by a pack of known radicals, guys who hold opinions that seem insane to the rest of the world, they intentionally mislead people with no remorse, and they have been caught in several lies already. And, you know, there was no national television campagin about the AWOL story like there is for the SBV. The only conclusion is that the SVB story has gotten much more national coverage more quickly and with less merit than the AWOL story ever did.
Further food for though about this issue, in case you don't read atrios:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_atrios_archive.html#109261989466959877
Michael,
I'm not aware of the facts behind your claims that GWB lied "about this same issue." As far as I know, he was asked to release his military records and he did so. If there's more you'd like to share, feel free.
However, the people asking these questions of Kerry are quite different than those who raised questions of GWB. It's well known that the majority of the Washington press corps leans left, by ratios I've heard are as high as 9 to 1. They control the agenda, as you saw in the transcript of the 2/10/04 press conference I linked. The people raising questions of Kerry are honorably discharged vets. Yes, some are politically motivated. Yes, military guys *generally* tend to vote conservative. But to dismiss all 254 by saying they're all rabid liberal haters doesn't wash, especially when you consider that if they are making this up they are all guilty of libel.
You claim the SBVFT are "let by a pack of known radicals..." First of all, I know plenty of decent conservative people who really don't see much wrong with the "worst" of the cherry-picked comments of Mr. Corsi. If you want to cherry-pick one that's really nasty go ahead, we'll discuss it. But at worst he's guilty of being REALLY REALLY politically incorrect--not a felony last time I checked. Mr. O'Neill has a record with which you can brand him as being consistently conservative. So what? What's "radical" about that? And how does that discredit the other 252 guys who are on board with them?
As for the Atrios page you linked, it points out a deficiency of GWB's. I won't deny it--he's awful at impromptu public speaking. What percentage of the population are really good at it? Very few. The problem is that the media tends to use his poor public speaking skills against him--Micheal Moore for example. So GWB puts up a defense to make sure he doesn't have to do impromptu public speaking on matters that he's vulnerable on. Not a big deal. He comes through on his actions--Afghanistan, Saddam and sons out of power, Libya coming around. His proactive approach is exactly the right one; a "sensitive" approach is just more "Clintonian" bad policy that will get lots of Americans killed.
By the way, thanks for the relatively "well-mannered" discourse...so many political topics are either "preaching to the choir" or flamefests.
In his autobiography, GWB declared he flew with his fellow texas pilots for several years, which we know now is not the case. He wasn't even there for two years. Even if you don't think he was AWOL, he admits to going to AL.
I think it's "well-known" about liberal reporters only in extreme conservative circles, because everything's relative, and conservatives are not a tad notorious for their lack of tolerance for dissent.
And I don't care how many people sign off on these SBVFT, the fact is that they have lied. As far as I'm concerned, they probably lied to get those signatures. I heard about these guys at least 3 months ago, when their lies were even more outrageous.
As far as Corsi's statements are concerned, if you know people who believe these same kinds of things, I would hope you don't call them your friends. (quotes: http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010)
One other thing, Sampy, who is behind the attacks on Kerry and Bush the First, was also behind the cruel, lying, racist smears of McCain in North Carolina. So, he's got quite a track record.
The point of the Atrios piece was that the track record of Democrats listening to and even encouraging dissent is worlds better than the Republicans, who tend to squash it and not let anything but the party line be heard. It's one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in now, and it's about as unAmerican as you can get.
As far as Clintonian vs. Bush policy, I think Bush has gotten more Americans killed, if you look at the numbers.
And I noticed you through that 'sensitive' in there, an allusion I'm guessing to Dick Cheney's repeated mocking of Kerry for suggesting, among other things, a more sensitive approach to Iraq. Funny thing is, both Cheney and Bush have been quoted as saying they're pushing a more 'sensitive' strategy in Iraq, and they said this after Kerry said it. Nothing new, just Cheney being a hypocrite again.