republicans are swiftboating Obama on bin laden...

[spanone]

The word swiftboating is an American neologism used pejoratively to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (formerly

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," or SBVT) widely publicized,[1] then discredited, campaign against 2004 US Presidential candidate John Kerry.[2][3]

Since the political smear campaign[2][4][5][6][7][8] conducted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry, the term "swiftboating" (or "Swift-boating", or "Swift Boating&quot

commonly refers to a harsh attack by a political opponent that is dishonest, personal and unfair.[9][10] The Swift Boat Veterans and media pundits objected to this use of the term to

define a smear campaign.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating


this reaks of karl rove

[msongs]

1. unlike Kerry, it appears that Obama is fighting back. good on him for that. must be campaigning lol

[randome]

4. Exactly!

That was Kerry's problem. He fought back in a mushy kind of way.

[karynnj]

17. Kerry did respond - it was a media condoned character assasination

Last edited Wed May 2, 2012, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August.(In 2008, the first reaction of the Obama team was to put out 41 pages on lies in Corsi's book.) This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it. (Like Kerry, Obama used surrogates against Corsi rather than respond himself)

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverend Wright?

Many Democrats, including Edwards who was asked to, did little. It wasn't that they had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't hear this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 2 minutes long - so there is no excuse.

[Mc Mike]

25. +1, Thanks. NT.

[NavyDavy]

2. this will just backfire on the repukes!

[dballance]

3. I just don't see it being as effective as the Kerry swift boating

They are ragging on him for getting the bad guy. Unfortunately since Kerry did trash his medals that made it easy for try to paint him as unpatriotic.

[DCKit]

5. Y'ain't gonna work.

Even the unwashed Teabagging minions can smell their desperation.

Anyone already living in poverty, with unemployment and little future can only take so much negativity. Your kid, or your Mom, got that operation this year because of Obamacare, not despite it.

[Lasher]

6. How can it be Obama's economy now and still be Bush's military?

Saint Ronnie won the 2 September 1945 - 26 December 1991 Cold War all by himself, remember.

[uponit7771]

7. If they are then this is hurting RMoney already, let them...Make the swifters partisan or get some

...of your own (something Kerry should've done early) and highlight Mitt RMoneys statements

[karynnj]

18. If Kerry would have hired swiftboaters of his own, he would have lost in a landslide

and lost something very important to him - his integrity.

Do you remember 2004? Consider how Rather, an eminent, respected journalist was treated when he did the National Guard story, which was very likely essentially true - even if the reports shown were not originals. With Bush, there were things in his past - and present - that were problems and were real and true.

Kerry did use the CURRENT things Bush was doing wrong and he pushed them when he could. He hit Bush harder than his VP, who should have been the attack dog did. At the end of the campaign Kerry was speaking of the fact that Bush's people left the KNOWN ammo dumps unsecured for months - and that ammo was being used in the ied killing and maiming "our kids". Give me one charge in ANY campaign stronger than this - it is gross negligence and it led to kids being killed AND it led to a FAR more violent Iraq for the Iraqis as well. He was also the one in 2003 and 2004 who criticized Bush for "outsourcing the capture of OBL" to Afghan warlords who were allied it the Taliban weeks before. He and Dean also called for Rumsfeld to resign over Abu Ghraib. One thing that Kerry needed was more attack dogs and it did not help that his VP lied to media that the campaign did not want him to do that. The candidate can do just so much before it damages their likability and Presidential appearance.

One advantage that Obama has is that he is the President and is already known. It is far harder to change people's opinion on someone they already know. Even if the media were as unhelpful to Obama as they were to Kerry, the Presidency has a platform that can not be ignored.

[uponit7771]

20. I'm not talking about swiftboating lies just the truth...

[karynnj]

27. Kerry himself did that - and so did people like Cleland, Clark and Dean

Most of the other Democrats (most annoyingly, Edwards) did want to use their own political capital attacking Bush. Some, like Bill Clinton, in the early summer of 2004, were actually closer to Bush's position on Iraq than Kerry's - so Clinton actually spoke against "those on the left" who criticized how the President was fighting the war. That included Kerry, who had spoken against Bush "outsourcing" the capture of OBL to "Afghan warlords who weeks before were allied with the Taliban, who spoke against Abu Ghraib, and who suggested a better way to resolve the war. (Yes, I know Clinton had heart surgery in August)

I think it would have been much more important to defend and make publicly known Kerry's record - and there was a huge amount of good there. (This could have included actually speaking of the accomplishments of Teresa's foundation. One thing that would have demonstrated who she was, her intelligence and her caring was that it was Teresa who enlisted all the Pittsburgh philanthropists to work together to successfully revive Pittsburgh in the 1990s when it was not doing well. This was highlighted when Obama had the G20 there - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQgwNr-lnLvj0VT-OQFehl6LIehQD9A4FSC00. (Here is an article written when a long term executive of the foundation left - http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/newsmaker-interview-jeffrey-lewis This would have possibly protected Teresa when she was blasted for saying that a difference between her and Laura was that her identity stemmed to some degree from her job, where Laura's came from elsewhere. The question was to cite a difference - making it a trap.)

One group of Democrats who deserve blame are the few Democrats who had positions in the media and never attempted to learn Kerry's biography or positions and to defend him. Top on that list - Begala and Carville (who even in April, after Kerry had enough delegates, still hoped that there could be a brokered convention.) Consider that both used SCHIP as one of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments in 2008 - in 2004, they could have played Kennedy's comments at campaign events speaking of Kerry/Kennedy, the precursor bill to SCHIP (Kennedy/Hatch), which Kerry and Dodd were the cosponsors of. He could have spoken of the complicated provision of the Patriot Act that brought more transparency to transactions to prevent international money laundering that were from a Kerry bill written in the late 1990s after the BCCI investigation. (In fact, they could have spoken of Kerry's role in closing BCCI, OBL's bank.)

[pa28]

8. Karl Rove described the tactic as attacking your opponent on his greatest strength.

Swiftboating is exactly what is going on here. It was nice to log into DU tonight and see tons of threads pushing back against Republican hypocrisy.

I've never witnessed gross politicization of a tragedy like what the Republicans did after 911.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. The question is:

is it working?

Can it work on this? President Obama killed world menace and mass murderer #1. What the hell can the GOP really say that's going to change the significance of THAT? That he shouldn't get to shove it in their faces that he did in 2 years what they couldn't do in 7- and, additionally, ordered it in the face of dissenting opinions of his military and intelligence advisors? There's not really a lot the average joe or jane can or will find wrong with this IMHO. It's pretty telling that the only people whom are really upset about it are people whom hate President Obama already.


Try as they might, I just don't think that they'll be able to "swiftboat" or even "Wellstone" President Obama and the Democrats over this IMHO.

[Kalidurga]

10. I think this will bite them in the *BLEEP*

This will be just another thing that turns off moderates and independents so they will either vote for Obama or stay home.

[cliffordu]

11. It ain't working.

Notice while Rmoney was trying to look tough at the firehouse with "9/11 Juliani" in NYC, (and that the firefighters weren't in the shot at all...)

Breaking news was that Obama was on the way to Afghanistan??

What the fuck did Rmoney look like??

Obama is killing them at their own game. He owns national defense, the will own the economy before the election and will chump the R's at every turn.

This is the fucking guy who defeated the Clinton machine almost 4 years ago.

Graham, Cantor, the tea baggers are just appetizers for the next 6 months

His only real problem are the super pacs, the gullibility of the American people.

They are going to use over half a billion dollars against him.

Jesus himself would have a bad time against that kind of dough.

But I wouldn't count the man out.

His political instinct has been pretty close to perfect so far.

[uponit7771]

21. Yeap on the PACs, only HALF of money raised for both candidates because most is going to PACs...

...and no one knows where the money is coming from

[CTyankee]

24. I noticed today on Morning Joe, Joe and Michael Steele were changing the subject FAST!

Their little ship was going straight to the bottom...if anything, Obama was gaining traction on them.

Kudos to the prez. Nicely handled, sir!

[Rhiannon12866]

12. K&R. Yup, that's it exactly. Again...

[Warren Stupidity]

13. They should bring up Dead bin Laden a lot.

It is entirely a losing tactic for them. Every time they mention it, they lose.

[kentuck]

14. I don't think it will work.

Although I agree that is their intent.

But more people are aware of how Bin Laden was killed than they were of John Kerry's Vietnam war record. It will not be so easy.

[spanone]

16. i agree, but it amazes me that they would even try this. and this is six months from the election.

what else is to come...

[uponit7771]

22. +1

[KharmaTrain]

15. It's Already Backfiring...

Team Willard has already backed off on this...congratulating President Obama on his visit to Afghanistan and shutting down their criticizm of the bin Laden anniversary. Their polling must show that their harping came off more like sour grapes. Their cries of how President Obama is "politicizing" this is so disengenuous few are buying it. Give the Obama team credit for doing their homework on this and having the Mittens soundbites ready to roll the second he opened his sleezy piehole. It took Kerry 10 days to respond to the Slimeboaters and then with a tepid response. We live in far different times.

To those who claim the President is "politicizing" anything...like "duh"...the man is a politician and this is an election year. You can see the rushpublicans doing the slow burn here as they've lost a big political trump card they held for decades...

[karynnj]

19. Kerry responded the day the SBVTs came out - and the media already had

more than enough to discredit the SBVT Before they came out. He used a report that identified lies and inaccuracies and surrogates - including his guys - to counter it. Just as Obama himself did not address the Corsi lies in 2008.

The 10 days is the time until Senator Kerry himself addressed the issue before the Firefighters convention - and though it was labeled beforehand as his response, most of the media DID NOT COVER IT.

[kentuck]

23. I recall it somewhat differently?

I recall that the Kerry campaign decided to not respond to the charges and just let the story die. But it didn't...

[ProfessorGAC]

26. My Recolletion As Well

By the time he got serious, it was already a story with unwarranted traction.
GAC

[karynnj]

29. Its the old if a tree falls in the forrest, does it make a noise question

The media - which was lavishing time on the SBVT - ignored everything that Kerry's team did do. Then, after he lost, there were people - mostly allied to Clinton - who had a vested interest in making the CW that he, unlike the Clintons, did not fight back.

The fact is the media had either before the SBVT attack or within a few days, all of the following:

- All Kerry's fitness records - all glowingly positive - some written by future SBVT
- the official Navy accounts of Kerry's medals
- Every one of the men on Kerry's boat for any medal - all backed him (I saw several of them at a Boston event honoring Kerry's 25 years in the Senate - and they were still 100% behind him - and still said he saved their lives. The bond between the man who spoke there (and others who spoke in 2004) and Kerry is intense and important to each.)
-Before the convention, parts of the Nixon tapes were excerpted - showing Nixon investigated him, 2 years after the fact, and found that he was a hero and clean.
- Senator John Warner (R, VA), who had been the Secretary of the Navy told the media that he reviewed then Kerry's silver star and it was well earned. (The media ignored a REPUBLICAN Senator, who had been the Secretary of Navy at the point of time in question!)

Consider this in the light of the Obama birth certificate nonsense. There the issue was simpler for people to understand, but the fact is the story STILL lives even though there was NEVER any rational reasons behind it - and the simple proof - Hawaii verifying it and there even existing a listing in a Honolulu paper announcing it.

Compare this list to the highly esteemed responses of the Clinton war machine on Flowere and the draft. The difference is the Kerry charges were 100% fake and attempted to negate a Kerry strength - Clinton's were partly true and were not areas of strength. The team prided it itself in responding within the news cycle - even if it was not complete or needed to be retracted the next day - as was the case in these two examples. Any one of things on my list is a stronger response.

The fact is the media condoned a character assassination. The biggest fundamental lie was that there was a "Kerry" story and a SBVT story - in fact, it was many SBVT stories, not backed by a single iota of proof and which contradicted each other and the NAVY's story. Kerry was not out there telling war stories. Read Tour of duty and you see the excerpts from his journal deal with his feelings, concerns and fears - and certainly are anything but heroic.

[dougreese]

30. Spot On, Karynnj

You clearly know what you're talking about re the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth". I should add that when they had their first news conference (I think it was May 4, 2004, at the Press Club in DC), the Kerry campaign responded immediately, a floor or two below.

I was present at the incident which led to Kerry receiving the Silver Star, so I know from first-hand experience how the SBV't" misrepresented and lied about Kerry's service.

Doug Reese

[karynnj]

35. Thank you for your comment

You obviously know far more from personal knowledge. I can't really imagine how terrifying that action must have been.

[Nedsdag]

32. So karynnj, is this story true or false?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2004/11/14/the-vets-attack.html

[karynnj]

33. Some true, much not true

Kerry was prepared to deal with his "angry" vet comments - the response was Going Upriver, which put it in context and as something Kerry was proud of. There was never any way to "hide" his Senate testimony. In fact, taken as a whole it was incredibly responsible and reasoned - and that is how the Senators responded to it. The media of the day broadcast the 5 minute or so speech in its entirety on all three networks. Though "angry" is true, it was not over the top or any way something Kerry should be anything but proud of - and in fact, 35 years to the date, Kerry gave a fantastic speech at Faneuil Hall that spoke of the right and responsibility to dissent.

In fact, it was important that the ENTIRE speech be available. What the RW used was PART of a sentence - completely distorting what he was saying. Kerry was called to the committee to report on what was said at the Winter Soldier hearing. He dispensed with that in about 30 seconds in the beginning with a sentence that said that soldiers spoke of having (done a list of atrocities&quot . They took JUST the list saying Kerry accused the soldiers (even ALL the soldiers) of doing these things. The committee had previously obtained the entire transcript with the identities of who said what and what was said. Kerry then spoke of the betrayal of the soldiers returning to inadequate care and little help rejoining society - and asked that they be helped. He also famously questioned if the war was contining to save politician's faces and called for a change in US foreign policy. All in a very strong, eloquent speech.

My personal experience was that a WWII vet relative - a old time Republican businessman surprised my husband and I by saying that he hoped that Kerry won the primary and that he might then vote for him (in the general election). He spoke of looking for and finding that testimony - and his comment was he was a good man and he saw where he was coming from.

Not to mention, the swiftboating attacked his service, not his protesting - something even Nixon had not done. There was no reason to expect that because there was absolutely nothing in his record that was a problem. He is a highly decorated vet with glowing fitness records.

One thing totally false is that Edwards wanted to attack them and was held back - the opposite was true. He was asked to hit them - just as ANY VP would - and though he said he would, he didn't. These comments were obviously from teh Edwards team to help him in 2008.

[ananda]

28. With a complicit rightwing media helping.

nt

[politicasista]

31. Thanks to Shrum and Cahill

They have managed to let a decent (good) Dem in Senator Kerry take a lot of abuse still to this day (case in point this thread) for not "fighting back."

The GOP knows that we are good at eating our own, even if they aren't running, so go figure.


JAO

[cynatnite]

34. Can they be anymore jealous?