NYT:Kerry Pressing Swiftboat Case, Long After Loss

[cal04]

John Kerry starts by showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969: "Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia." He moves on to the photographs: his boat leaving the base at Ha Tien, Vietnam; the harbor; the mountains fading frame by frame as the boat heads north; the special operations team the boat was ferrying across the border; the men reading maps and setting off flares. "They gave me a hat," Mr. Kerry says. "I have the hat to this day," he declares, rising to pull it from his briefcase. "I have the hat."

Three decades after the Vietnam War and nearly two years after Mr. Kerry's failed presidential bid, most Americans have probably forgotten why it ever mattered whether he went to Cambodia or that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of making it all up, saying he was dishonest and lacked patriotism. But among those who were on the frontlines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to prove their case.

The Swift boat group continues to spend money on Washington consultants, according to public records, and last fall it gave $100,000 to a group that promptly sued Mr. Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, for allegedly interfering with the release of a film that was critical of him. Some of the principals behind the Swift boat group continue to press their claims. John O'Neill, the co-author of the group's bestselling manifesto, "Unfit for Command," criticizes Mr. Kerry on television talk shows and solicits money for conservative causes and candidates. In a South Carolina newspaper, William Schachte recently reprised his allegation that he was aboard the small skimmer where Mr. Kerry received the injury that led to his first Purple Heart, and that Mr. Kerry actually wounded himself.

(snip)
"They lied and lied and lied about everything," Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?" His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat. While it would be easy to see this as part of Mr. Kerry's exploration of another presidential run, his friends say the Swift boat charges struck at an experience so central to his identity that he would want to correct the record even if he were retiring from public life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?hp&ex=1148788800&en=774bb79bdf3f1d35&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Mass]

1. So the NYTimes is still not ready to call these guys liars.

Why are they making it as if the SBVT may be right. Something is really wrong with the Gray Lady.

Dont take it wrong. I am very happy Kerry defends himself, but the problem is that he should not have to. These accusations have been dismissed by the Navy and by anybody who was there. That the NYTimes even consider these guys seriously is the problem, not whatever Kerry did or did not do to defend himself.

[emulatorloo]

3. Fair and Balanced don't you know -- equal weight to lies and truth

because they don't want to be accused of "bias"

:shrug: :banghead: :nuke:

[Mass]

4. Well, if it is fair and balanced, I dont want fair and balanced

If you are not ready to call a liar a liar, you dont have any right to be a reporter.

[emulatorloo]

5. No argument from me . . . the truth should be valued over all EOM

[tomreedtoon]

79. There are people who STILL believe the lies.

One person I know - my car mechanic, an honest and solid man - still has FRESH versions of anti-Kerry stickers on his car. You know, the "Fonda/Kerry" ticket stickers, the things calling him a coward in Nam, and some I hesitate to even mention here.

He is not a stupid man. But he is an angry man. Kerry has become his focus for all the bad things that happened in the Vietnam War to him, the lack of appreciation from the country for his service and everything else. I don't think I could keep a grudge that deep and that long, but he can, and he apparently isn't alone.

And yes, the right-wing radio jerks on his radio keep him angry. And the Republicans rely on that anger, and keep it burning, and will stoke the fires again this year. They are making sure that Vietnam never ends.

So I put it to you. If Kerry doesn't keep making this point, if he doesn't keep stating the truth about his service, if he doesn't make this point until everyone hears it despite the braying of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, who is ever going to end the war for my mechanic? Who is going to extinguish the lie once and for all?

[VolcanoJen]

87. Truly an outstanding post.

I wish I had an answer. I look out into the wilderness and I really don't see anyone willing to step up and extinguish that flame.

[_dynamicdems]

92. Vietnam was a tough war for that generation.

It wasn't just tough because of the death: it was tough because it wasn't the kind of war where people questioned the very premise of the war, which was new for the United States. America had always held the high moral ground in previous wars. It was always a case of black and white, or we were made to believe so. Vietnam, however, was a war fought and maintained in the shadows and some of those shadows are still being illuminated today.

Many of these vets were treated deplorably when they returned. They served honorably and they couldn't understand how their country turned its back on them while they were still fighting and dying. Much of the anger of the peace movement was directed at the veterans. Some peaceniks called them baby killers and spat upon them when they returned. There were no honors or respect for their service, no parades.

There was anger on both sides of the peace movement. Veterans who protested the war when they returned, like John Kerry were blamed by other veterans and old-school "my country right or wrong" patriots, for being unpatriotic and they will forever be associated in the minds of some Vietnam War veterans with the people who called them baby killers.

And there were some veterans who hated John Kerry and other VVAW because they were openly talking about the doubts and questions that they themselves had pushed to the back of their minds and vowed never, ever give voice to.

Vietnam brought two American values into conflict: duty and morality.

Which is the higher patriotism, duty to country, right or wrong, or maintaining the morality of what your country stands for?

Sad to say, there probably isn't a damn thing that can be said or done by anyone that will end the war for your mechanic. He has to live with his memories and his bitterness until he resolves the pain within himself.

[ray of light]

96. see this too.

http://www.progressiveu.org/115408-oy-vey-mainstream-media-still-lending-soapbox-to-swift-boat-liers-kerry-begins-to-defend-himself

[AbbyR]

80. I am a reporter

at a small paper. We do well, win awards, etc. I have thought a lot about what I would do in the Kerry case - not that it matters, as we generally don't cover national issues except in our columns. If I were at the Times, what I think would be right would be to get Kerry's records myself and read them carefully. Then I would interview any sources I could find to verify them, including Kerry himself. Then I would interview the spokesSwiftie and confront him with what I had found out, and ask for comment. Assuming that I had done my homework, I should be able to make it clear what was true, by writing something like "Joe Q. Swiftie said that Kerry shot a lone teenage boy in the back. However, reports written of the incident cited when he won the medals indicated that there were at least 100 Vietnamese shooting from the woods. Records also show (and I would cite which records) that the person who was shot was in his late 20s and was carrying a loaded XYZ weapon."

This is very general, and not exactly what I would do, but it's the general idea of what I consider good reporting. I would also ask to see any records that said Swiftie had to offer, and would try to verify or contradict by other records.

Don't know if that's right - I'm a former teacher turned reporter/editor - but it seems the reasonable route to take, at least to this editor.

[_dynamicdems]

91. It is shameful that Kerry was even expected to defend himself on these

bogus charges. There was enough information out there for anyone with a brain to know the entire thing was a sham.

That a decorated veteran of the United States Navy, a veteran who served in time of war, could be attacked this way in this country is more than just an outrage: it is a black mark against every, single one of us.

John Kerry was running a Presidential campaign. He was going after a big target. He was going for Bush. The Swifties had a major goal and it wasn't just discrediting John Kerry: they wanted to take focus off the issues and off George W. Bush. And this country let them do it. John Kerry kept going for Bush and trying to talk about the issues while taking heavy sniper fire from the Swifties.

These slimeballs had all the time in the world to hide in the bushes (pun intended) and to fire at Kerry, but he had to keep his focus on the target: Bush. That's one of the most unfair things about this entire shameful episode.

Who had Kerry's back? The media? The Navy? The people of the United States, who should have been just as outraged because, whether they recognized it or not, this was an attack on the very fabric of what the United States stands for?

The media was and still is complicit. And when the media is complicit in such an attack on American values, and don't be mistaken, this kind of shit is most definitely an attack on our values, then the media no longer represents us.

The question isn't what John Kerry is going to do. The question is: what are WE going to do?

[Old and In the Way]

2. I really hope he pursues a defamation suit.

Extract every cent of profit that these hateful pricks have garnered from their campaign to discredit Kerry. And make the settlement contingent on a public retraction of their charges, admitting they made this stuff up.

[WiseButAngrySara]

29. I wish that Dan Rather would do the same! His career was ruined by

similar liars. Cover up B*'s errors at all costs, by casting blame and accusing others. That's their M.O., the most recent examples being Leopold/Truthout and Jefferson, IMHO.

[_dynamicdems]

94. Dan Rather was crucified by a lot of "so called" liberals and even by

"friends" over this. He was probably too hurt and deeply ashamed to be part of the media at that point.

It was pretty horrible how everyone turned on him like a pack of rabid dogs.

[Festivito]

89. For an amount equal to sale of the houses above and below market value!

Isn't that how RepubliCONs make payola. They buy your house above its market value then might sell you a bigger one below its market value.

This activity need be put into sworn testimony.

[_dynamicdems]

93. I don't know the law on this sort of thing or if there would be any

recourse in court, but I'm sure it is being considered.

I wonder why the Navy has been silent. The United States Navy awarded John Kerry his purple stars and his medals, why isn't it considered unpatriotic for the Swifties to question the United States Navy's decision?

More than a bit of hypocrisy here.

[ificandream]

6. I wish Kerry had fought this harder when it counted

Unless he's playing to make another presidential bid -- which I wouldn't mind -- this is too late.

[Mass]

I think it still matters to him, even if it does not to you.

The problem is not with him anyway. It is with the media. Notice how the NYTimes is still not ready to call the SBVT liars and give them the same place they give to Kerry and do not take side.

What kind of media is this?

[ificandream]

13. It does matter to me ...

Of course, I want to see the lies and the liars put in their place. But the time to really do that was during the campaign. Doing it then probably would have changed the results of the election and we wouldn't have all the garbage we do now. Not refuting the charges hard also made Kerry look weak, giving the GOPigs more ammo to hit Kerry with. You can't blame the media for that.

[Mass]

15. He did refute them. Many others did. The media did not cover it.

Read mediamatters.org once in a while. You may be surprised.

There were editorials in the WaPo and the NYTimes by people who were with him. The reasons they were editorials is because the media refused to show the truth and treated the SBVT as if they were saying the truth.

[progressivebydesign]

56. I concur. The media REFUSED to cover Kerry's side of it.

When will people grasp that until there is some equity in the media, we are fighting with one hand tied behind our back. We can dispute, dispel, and fight, as much as we want.. those types of attacks, but unless the media is covering it, no one hears it. The biggest two fights right now, before the next presidential elections, should be electronic voting and fairness in media.

[_dynamicdems]

97. We need to push back and fight to reclaim the media. That's as

important as reclaiming Congress.

As we speak, the RW is buying up more media outlets.

When the media stops serving the people, the people should stop serving the media.

[flyarm]

81. absolutely the media ignored the rebuttals!! they also ignored his

campaign!!..they only showed the dullest parts of his speeches and took them out of context!
it was media vs. kerry!!
this media is total scum...we have no media..period..all we have is * monica's
by media whores!

i try to not watch the whores anymore!!

fly

[_dynamicdems]

99. We need a national campaign to take back the media. Is there one?

I'm talking a real campaign to discredit, boycott and take over.

Where are the big liberal money guns on this? They should form a corporation and start doing what the repugs have been systematically doing for decades: hostile takeovers of the media.

[petgoat]

30. Not refuting the charges....

Kerry allowed the $87 billion flip-flop meme to stand when he could have
very easily explained that he voted for fiscally-responsible bill and
against a fiscally-irresponsible one, and that Bush threatened to VETO
the very same $87 billion!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100777,00.html

[ificandream]

40. Fox News isn't the best source for your link...

I don't trust that "fair and biased" spin.
Here's a better one that appears to do a more impartial analysis.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/87_billion_vote.htm

[petgoat]

44. What spin? Fox prints the text of the letter, period. nt

[MH1]

51. Different charges, and anyway he did.

I'm not sure why you bring a whole different smear into a discussion of the Swift Liars' smears?

Hmmm....

[NI4NI]

52. I agree!

I was hoping that Kerry would have fully explained the difference between those 2 votes and his reasoning when he was asked about "flip-flopping" by way of a question from an audience member during one of the debates...but he didn't.....Back then, I tried explaining it to 1000 knuckleheads after asking them....Why did Kerry vote for it in the first place?

[karynnj]

65. He DID try to explain it

and the MSM played dumb.

[libhill]

86. Agreed -

n/t

[AndyTiedye]

32. During The Campaign, They Gave the SBVT Far More Airtime than Kerry

Our candidates, whoever they are, can expect the same or worse treatment this year and in all future elections.

[Mass]

36. Exactly, this is not a Kerry issue - Understanding what happened

is vital for future elections. Giving the media a free pass will lead us to 20 more years of GOP rule.

[karynnj]

64. True - which also shows how it would have played in 2004 if Kerry did more

As it was he did fight back with extensive facts and you saw how the MSM compared official Navy records to clear self condradictory lies. Kerry had over 140 pages of Naval records on his web site - this article says "some". It was 1 page short of the entire Naval record minus his Yale transcript and his detailed medical records. The one page (which Kerry didn't have)gave him the highest pssible rating and recommended him for accelerated promotion per the Boston Globe.

That the NYT is essentially not content with the complete release of Kerry's records and the fact that Kerry's allies have proved numerous lies to be untrue, I doubt even if Kerry diverted a huge amount of money and attention to this in 2004, the result would be different than this article.

I can think of no one treated worse by the press than this. Kerry has all the official records on his side. Still the NYT is treating him as quilty untill he proves otherwise on every comment written by a known group of liars. It's too bad they didn't examine Judy Miller or at least a dozen of their own reporters and columnist with half the energy. (Maureen Dowd made up a fake Kerry quote which hurt him - rather than apologize several of their reporters quoted it. They have more to answer for on the run up to Iraq and the 2004 campaign than Kerry has for his heroic service.

O'Neill will never get his apology for 1971, Kerry proudly affirmed he was right on the 35th anniversary at Faneuil Hall in Boston. In today's WP, there's a Kissinger letter from 1972 saying that the US would pull out as long as there was a decent interval before the fall of Saigon. Exactly what Kerry was saying - all the dead from that point on (including the Vietnamese dead from the Christmas bombing) were for the egos of the Nixon administration. O'Neil should think of the criminals he cast his life with - how he sleeps at night I don't know.

[Southsideirish]

8. Absolutely! He was "Dukakis-like" in his reluctance to defend himself -

what's with that? Its only natural for a person to respond to unfair attacks and people don't understand why some Democrats don't do that - it makes them look like they are guilty.

[blm]

43. HE EFFING DID - BUT MEDIA GAVE IT NO AIRTIME. Now they complain he

didn't do enough when THEY WERE THE ONES who ORCHESTRATED the imbalance in the first place.

Read the data in the DU Research Forum for the details if you care to KNOW the truth.

And check out this:

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

[Old and In the Way]

14. I think it was pretty difficult for him to run a Presidential campaign

and deal with this libel at the same time. Perhaps he assumed, incorrectly, that the media would expose these partisan liars for what they were. But the Republican corporate media, night after night, would give these people are very public platform to "explore" their charges. Not really siding with them, but allowing them to make their case over and over again throughout the campaign. How much time did they devote to AWOL's missing time in the TANG compared to the SBVT disinformation campaign? I'd bet for every minute they talked about AWOL, they devoted 30 minutes to Kerry's "problem".

Kerry, as a former federal prosecutor, is probably quietly building his case out of the public/media eye. When he's ready, I hope he drops the big one on these guys and cleans them out of every ill gotten penny. I hope that as part of the plea bargain they all have to publicly apologize to Kerry....that'd be a moment to savor.

[_dynamicdems]

101. Great post!

The media did give these toads a national pulpit. And they certainly didn't devote much time to the AWOL story. Good point.

And Kerry did have a campaign to run. At every turn the opposition tried to take the focus off the issues.

Kerry isn't a former anything though. He might not hold the job, but he's still very much the prosecutor. He plays things close to the vest though because he's not one to show his cards. Out of the public eye is exactly how Kerry operates. We only see what he's ready for us to see.

[ginnyinWI]

25. as explained at the end of the article,

The attacks they were expecting would have been over the anti-war activist years, not his military service. He didn't expect that the records themselves would be called into question--cause it's really a crazy thing to do. So they weren't geared up for that fight during the heat of the campaign. They didn't expect that those lies would have been taken as seriously as they apparently were. I am not convinced it did so much damage, but then what do I know.

[Dudley_DUright]

62. My mother in law lives in WI, and lost her husband in Vietnam

She was completely taken in by the swiftboat liars (and she is not a wingnut by any means). She assumed if the media was covering so much, there must be something to it (even though I tried to disabuse her of that erroneous idea). I think it did more damage than you think.

[ginnyinWI]

73. my mom believed stuff too

Both of my parents would believe whatever the local RW radio talk said. I would try to tell them that it was all lies, but it just didn't sink in. Yeah probably for the same reason: they think somehow if it gets on TV or the radio, then it must be true. :eyes:

[deFaultLine]

84. Parents

This was the one issue that I got in a heated debate with my parents about. They are totally devoted to Bush et al and they were pretty vicious about Kerry's Vietnam record. I lost it with them and nearly got kicked out of the house when I defended him and a whole lot of other Vietnam vets that opposed the war.

It amazes me how uttery clueless people still are about the war and what it did to people.

I really hope Kerry can exonerate himself against these false accusations.

[_dynamicdems]

102. It's not just about defending himself now. One thing I noticed about John

Kerry, he's got a tough shell and he is someone used to taking hits. These guys have been attacking Kerry for over 3 decades, ever since Nixon first recruited John O'Neill. He first angered the RW when he said this in Washington in 1971:

"Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputation bleaching behind them in the sun in this country."

Here is something Kerry said that shows he's used to taking hits. He'd faced this crap for over 30 years and it didn't have legs then. The ONLY difference in 2004 was that the media had finally been turned and was being used as the bully pulpit of the RW.

"I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what they do to me. But I do worry, and I am angry, about what they do to the American people. That's what this race is about. It's not about me. I can take it -- I don't care. I've been in worse things. I was on those boats -- I got shot at. I can handle it."

And this about the Swiftboating of Congressman Murtha:

"Dennis Hastert -- the Speaker of the House who never served -- accused Jack Murtha of being a coward. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and earned two purple hearts -- he was a patriot then, and he is a patriot today."

"It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on the uniform of their country have aimed their venom at a marine who served America heroically in Vietnam and has been serving heroically in Congress ever since. No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience."

John Kerry is most fierce when defending us. He doesn't worry about himself. And he shouldn't have to. While he is busy DEFENDING US, we should have his back.

Now these swifties have turned their poisonous lies in the direction of other Veterans and John Kerry is coming out with both barrels blazing. And he's right. They have to be stopped NOW because they have been very busy since 2004 and not just attacking John Kerry.

[karynnj]

66. Exactly, it would be like calling your college grades into question

35 years after you graduated and had a successful career and considering the claim of someone who, claimed with no proof, that he went to school with you and knows that "A" you got in Chemesty was really a "C". Your boss then says can you prove you're right (ignoring the official record), frustrated, you try to track down the (possibly dead) professor - who, of course, may have a faulty memory.

All the official records backed Kerry and many evauations - all consistently filled with praise - were written by the liars.

[ginnyinWI]

74. exactly--that's why we keep official records, after all! n/t

[CTyankee]

58. well, JK got a couple of Ds his freshman year at Yale

and that was in his record (as part of his military record as they had his college transcript) and he didn't want that revealed during the campaign, because he played on the fact that he was smarter than W. So that part of hismilitary record came out after the campaign. I really think it was Kerry's pride and I feel bad for him that he let pride get in the way of just releasing the whole shebang.

As it turned out, of course, the Swifties had NOTHING on JK. His military records backed up everything Kerry had said. But that was too late.

[karynnj]

68. I think the concern was not the Yale grades, but that the Bush

controlled Navy could play games that could throw a monkey wrench into the campaign. All these records were on his web site. It was clear the fitness reports spanned the entire time he was in - they were universally good and the Navy verified the medals were deserved. As you can see, this article is STILL not saying in clear headlines the SBVT were liars. they are still playing - Kerry needs to prove everything.

Kerry is a 62 year old man. He was a brilliant prosecutor, a well reguarded lt Governor and Senator. Anyone who saw the primary or ge debates can see he is a thoughtful, intelligent man. It's pretty clear that Kerry - just as he said in Tour of Duty, before anyone knew his grades - was a "capable but not dilagent student" who participated in way too many extracurricular activities, the debate team, where he was the star, the political union where he was president in his junior and senior year - even though he was a Democrat on a Republican campus, the Young Democrats, 4 sports and the flying club- where he learned to fly a plane. He also had a part time job and a serious girl friend. How other than cutting classes does someone fluent in French get a "C"?

[CTyankee]

72. I should have explained

My son in law worked for Kerry in Boston and he recalled that the staff was mysified as to why Kerry didn't respond so forthrightly to the Swifties. They knew there was something in the record he didn't want to reveal and they worried if it might be something like an STD. Well, it happened to be the Ds at Yale.

Now who could blame him? Kerry had the high ground when it came to beating Bush at any intellectual game, esp. the debates. What the really came down to was Kerry's inabliity to let go of those Ds at Yale.

As I have said, this does not surprise me. Most of us are in high school emotionally for more than half our lives. I am just sad that he couldn't release those records before, get it out of the way and get on with life.


I think it is a sad loss.

[ginnyinWI]

76. well, we are all just guessing, here, that it was because of the D's

It might have been something else. He could have just explained them away by telling the truth, and say he was "young and irresponsible" that year--after all, * was so much more irresponsible at that age (all the way to age 40 in fact).
So I don't know if that's it--but in any case, the Swifties were not about to be stopped by anything so trivial as the truth of the matter. Kerry's crew was out there telling the real story, and it didn't stop the Swifties one bit.

[karynnj]

77. Interesting -

Obviously you (and your son-in law) have far more information. It is kind of sad that the papers felt the need to embarrass him with this - as he obviously cared (per what you wrote). He's clearly a proud man who has more than proven his intelligence in the 40 or so years since college.

That it likely - given this story a year + after the release - wouldn't have made a difference is probably the only saving grace.

I was guilty of assuming they were simply concerned about what the Bushies would do. (Too much reading the tin foil hat threads).

[_dynamicdems]

95. He was trying to take out Bush and address the issues that matter

to Americans. This was sniper fire and wasn't about to be diverted from his mission. It was sad that there weren't many who had his back in this. That's supposed to be how it works. Your guy storms the hill and you cover him while he does. It didn't go down that way. Kerry was expected to take out all the snipers by himself while taking the hill at the same time. Superman would have been hard-pressed.

The swifties weren't running for anything. They had all the time in the world to take their pot shots. And instead of defending a veteran of this country, the media gave these slimeballs a national platform.

John Kerry isn't in the middle of a campaign now. He's determined that these creeps are discredited, not for himself, but for other Veterans. This is important. The attacks on Kerry were a RW strategy that began with Nixon himself. The Swifties turned next against Social Security, someone running for office in Maine (I forget who that was now) and Congressman Murtha. Who next?

It's not just about John Kerry. It's about exposing the RW ties and funding for these liars. That needs to be exposed and tied in with the other Repug scandals. This is exactly the time to do that.

No, now is the time to take these bastards out once and for all. We have CRUCIAL elections coming up in November and these rabid dogs need to be muzzled before we get into the heat of the battle.

[Itchinjim]

7. Wow, five replies to this post and not single one bashing JK.

That must be a new DU record.

[Jim Sagle]

78. He's a socialistic, French-looking. horse-faced flip flopper,

and don't you forget it. ;)

[LostInAnomie]

9. I would love to see O'Niell's lying ass bankrupted...

... and disgraced in front of the nation.

[Trajan]

10. I respect John Kerry ....

He should have fought harder when this came out ....

But clearing his good name is a worthy goal ...

SLAM them lying bastards with a defamation suit ....

[blm]

47. DNC needs media monitors. Read what MEDIA did whenever JK defended truth

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

[dogday]

11. He does need to sue them and I hope he does....

I wonder why Bush Cartel did not sue Kitty Kelly on her book? Any takers??? :shrug:

[Mass]

12. So I am the only one who does not see the problem with the NYTimes

article.

May be he needs to sue, but is it not more important that the media does its job and do not relate debunked facts as if they were true.

[ificandream]

16. Recounting charges doesn't make them look true

If the evidence is presented for Kerry, Kerry comes out looking good. It's when the evidence isn't presented, but just the charges are cited by themselves or spun for the Republicans -- a la Fox News Channel -- then the media is to blame.

[Mass]

17. They were presented. The media ignored them.

Not only on Fox, unfortunately.

[ificandream]

27. It wasn't (and still isn't) the media's job to defend Kerry

Kerry should have defended himself better.

[Mass]

31. It is the media job to tell the truth.

Showing lies and truth at the same level is not doing their job.

Remember, O'Neill was given hours on the media to call Kerry a liar. When Lawrence O'Donnell tried to call O'Neill a liar on TV, he was reprimanded. That is our fair TV.

Of the person present during the Silver Star episode wrote an editorial in the Tribune saying that HE WAS THERE AND KERRY WAS NOT LYING. How many times did our so-called reporters opposed it to the lies of the Swift Boat.

If they did their job, it means that any nutjob can call you a murderer on TV and be given hours and hours, even if several witnesses come and say you are lying. I hope this never happen to you.

[ificandream]

39. Kerry didn't say enough

>Remember, O'Neill was given hours on the media to call Kerry a liar. When Lawrence O'Donnell tried to call O'Neill a liar on TV, he was reprimanded. That is our fair TV.<

While that may be true, the issue still is that Kerry didn't mount enough of a defense of himself. Had he done that, HIS quotes, not someone else's, would have countered the lies and made a much stronger defense. Believe me, I didn't like what I was reading then, either. But again, it wasn't the media's fault. It was up to Kerry to defend himself and he did, but too little too late.

[_dynamicdems]

103. These snakes are still attacking other Vets. Has Murtha defended himself?

Kerry is defending Murtha from Swiftboating and he's attacking them NOW because they are going after other veterans.

If anyone can show me one statement made by Congressman Murtha during Kerry's campaign defending him, I'd like to see it.

It seems like everybody else who is attacked by these creeps is allowed to just sit back and let other people defend them, but when it is John Kerry, he's supposed to mount a single-handed assault on them. And he's supposed to do it when in the middle of a presidential campaign. And even when he does, it just isn't good enough. Of course not. How could it be? He needed backup and it wasn't there. Period.

[blm]

108. You mean like when he made a speech ATTACKING the swifts and NO MEDIA

showed up?

No effing media showed up at Kerry's speech the the FIrefighters Convention where he went after the swifts AND their link to the WH on Aug. 19, 2004. You want to venture a guess why no media cameras showed up and WHY it was barely reported?

Check out the Research Forum and you will see how EVERY defense got muted by the media. And BTW, you never heard Bush come out ONCE and defend himself, did you? Nope - he had a whole team PLUS 90% of the media doing it for him, 24/7.

[blm]

45. EVERY DEFENSE he put up the media REFUSED TO COVER - get the facts.

Altercation Book Club: Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799378/#060518

Relatively early on in the August coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, ABC's Nightline devoted an entire episode to the allegations and reported, "The Kerry campaign calls the charges wrong, offensive and politically motivated. And points to Naval records that seemingly contradict the charges." (Emphasis added.) Seemingly? A more accurate phrasing would have been that Navy records "completely" or "thoroughly" contradicted the Swifty. In late August, CNN's scrawl across the bottom of the screen read, "Several Vietnam veterans are backing Kerry's version of events." Again, a more factual phrasing would have been "Crewmembers have always backed Kerry's version of events." But that would have meant not only having to stand up a well-funded Republican campaign attack machine, but also casting doubt on television news' hottest political story of the summer.

When the discussion did occasionally turn to the facts behind the Swift Boat allegations, reporters and pundits seemed too spooked to address the obvious—that the charges made no sense and there was little credible evidence to support them.. Substituting as host of "Meet the Press," Andrea Mitchell on Aug. 15 pressed Boston Globe reporter Anne Kornblut about the facts surrounding Kerry's combat service: "Well, Anne, you've covered him for many years, John Kerry. What is the truth of his record?" Instead of mentioning some of the glaring inconsistencies in the Swifties' allegation, such as George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale 's embarrassing flip-flops, Kornblut ducked the question, suggesting the truth was "subjective": "The truth of his record, the criticism that's coming from the Swift Boat ads, is that he betrayed his fellow veterans. Well, that's a subjective question, that he came back from the war and then protested it. So, I mean, that is truly something that's subjective." Ten days later Kornblut scored a sit-down interview with O'Neill. In her 1,200-word story she politely declined to press O'Neill about a single factual inconsistency surrounding the Swifties' allegations, thereby keeping her Globe readers in the dark about the Swift Boat farce. (It was not until Bush was safely re-elected that that Kornblut, appearing on MSNBC, conceded the Swift Boast ads were clearly inaccurate.)

Hosting an Aug. 28 discussion on CNBC with Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Time's Jay Carney, NBC's Tim Russert finally, after weeks of overheated Swifty coverage, got around to asking the pertinent question: "Based on everything you have heard, seen, reported, in terms of the actual charges, the content of the book, is there any validity to any of it?" Carney conceded the charges did not have any validity, but did it oh, so gently: "I think it's hard to say that any one of them is by any standard that we measure these things has been substantiated." Apparently Carney forgot to pass the word along to editors at Time magazine, which is read by significantly more news consumers than Russert's weekly cable chat show on CNBC. Because it wasn't until its Sept. 20 2004 issue, well after the Swift Boat controversy had peaked, that the Time news team managed enough courage to tentatively announce the charges levied against Kerry and his combat service were "reckless and unfair." (Better late than never; Time's competitor Newsweek waited until after the election to report the Swift Boat charges were "misleading," but "very effective.") But even then, Time didn't hold the Swifties responsible for their "reckless and unfair" charges. Instead, Time celebrated them. Typing up an election postscript in November, Time toasted the Swift Boat's O'Neill as one of the campaign's "Winners," while remaining dutifully silent about the group's fraudulent charges.

That kind of Beltway media group self-censorship was evident throughout the Swift Boat story, as the perimeters of acceptable reporting were quickly established. Witness the MSM reaction to Wayne Langhofer, Jim Russell and Robert Lambert. All three men served with Kerry in Vietnam and all three men were witnesses to the disputed March 13, 1969 event in which Kerry rescued Green Beret Jim Rassmann, winning a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The Swifties, after 35 years of silence, insisted Kerry did nothing special that day, and that he certainly did not come under enemy fire when he plucked Rassmann out of the drink. Therefore, Kerry did not deserve his honors.

It's true every person on Kerry's boat, along with the thankful Rassmann, insisted they were under fire, and so did the official Navy citation for Kerry's Bronze Star. Still, Swifties held to their unlikely story, and the press pretended to be confused about the stand-off. Then during the last week in August three more eyewitnesses, all backing the Navy's version of events that there had been hostile gun fire, stepped forward. They were Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

Russell wrote an indignant letter to his local Telluride Daily Planet to dispute the Swifties' claim: "Forever pictured in my mind since that day over 30 years ago John Kerry bending over his boat picking up one of the rangers that we were ferrying from out of the water. All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach; although because of our fusillade into the jungle, I don't think it was very accurate, thank God. Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."

The number of times Russell was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 1. On Fox News: 1. MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1. On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Like Russell, Langhofer also remembered strong enemy gunfire that day. An Aug. 22 article in the Washington Post laid out the details: "Until now, eyewitness evidence supporting Kerry's version had come only from his own crewmen. But yesterday, The Post independently contacted a participant who has not spoken out so far in favor of either camp who remembers coming under enemy fire. “There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river,” said Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat that was directly behind Kerry’s. Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the “clack, clack, clack” of enemy AK-47s, as well as muzzle flashes from the riverbanks." (For some strange reason the Post buried its Langhofer scoop in the 50th paragraph of the story.)

The number of times Langhofer was subsequently mentioned on CNN: 0. On Fox News: 0. On MSNBC: 0. On ABC: 0. CBS: 0. NBC: 0.

As for Lambert, The Nation magazine uncovered the official citation for the Bronze Medal he won that same day and it too reported the flotilla of five U.S. boats "came under small-arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

The number of times Lambert was mentioned on. On Fox News: 1. On CNN: 0. On MSNBC: 0. ABC: 1 On CBS: 0. On NBC: 0.

Additionally, the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs, who served as the paper's point person on the Swifty scandal, was asked during an Aug. 30, 2004, online chat with readers why the paper hadn't reported more aggressively on the public statements of Langhofer, Russell and Lambert. Dobbs insisted, "I hope to return to this subject at some point to update readers." But he never did. Post readers, who were deluged with Swifty reporting, received just the sketchiest of facts about Langhofer, Russell and Lambert.

If that doesn't represent a concerted effort by the press to look the other way, than what does?

[karynnj]

69. Kerry gave them proof that the SBVT were lying and the Navy records said

so. Even Nixon people on tape admitted Kerry was very clean and a hero.

Rather had to drop the WHOLE TANG story when part was found to be not true. The SBVT made a clusterbomb of charges. There were hundreds. The MSM seems to set the bar that until Kerry can PROVE that every single one of these 35 year old claims were wrong, that they won't say he's clean, in spite of all the official records being on his side.

Bush has missing official records - Kerry's are intact and are very good.

[CTyankee]

100. According to Mary Mapes, Dan Rather's producer, the TANG

memo was never proved true or false. Because it was a copy, not the original, it couldn't be tested for authenticity. But that didn't make it false. Mapes never claimed to know it was authentic, but with all the surrounding evidence she amassed, she believed that the memo was a copy of the real thing.

[_dynamicdems]

98. The media shouldn't defend anyone. The media should defend the truth.

John Kerry was going after Bush. These ass wipes had nothing else to do BUT take pot shots. It shouldn't been up to Kerry alone to defend himself: his primary charge was maintaining his focus on Bush and the issues. What was expected of Kerry was that he both storm the hill and handle the sniper fire from the bushes (pun intended) while he did. That is an untenable battle strategy.

He can't both cover his own back and go on the attack. It's just not possible. There were mistakes everywhere, but more people should have had his back in this instead of expecting him to go it alone.

[Old and In the Way]

18. I guess that's the point.

Since the media failed to do their job informing the public of these libelous charges, Kerry has to do it in a court of law. These jokers should have been laughed and ridiculed for the bogus charges they made. They weren't, so Kerry needs to set the record straight.

[Mass]

20. I agree, but surprised (not that surprised) that people are not more

outraged by the media and are continuing to say Kerry did not defend himself. He did (except if one expected him to provoke O'Neil in a duel).

[ginnyinWI]

24. What I read seemed pretty fair

They didn't support any lies that I could see, in this article anyway. They cited several that have been called into serious question. And having it on the front page tomorrow is really good!

This is going to give people a good view of Kerry: he's going to a lot of trouble to set the record straight. Conventional wisdom says that a person wouldn't try to do this if the attacks had been at all true.

[OzarkDem]

70. Good luck with that

These are different times. It will take new leadership in this country to get the news media to start doing its job again.

[ginnyinWI]

26. she even offered a reward, didn't she?

She offered $10,000 to the first person who could show she wrote anything that was a lie. :)

[patdem]

19. I sent Ms. Kate an e-mail

Here is a hypothetical for you. You and a competitor for a promotion are sitting for an interview and in marches a friend and supporter of your competition. They present a packet to the boss with lies about your performance, personal life and a question if all the acolades and awards you received were garnered by dishonesty and plagurism. You are confronted with this 'evidence' to which you stammer and stutter because you BELIEVE it is an honest competition.

You are then denied the promotion because you could not defend yourself to the satisfaction of the boss. Do you forget about it? Or do you THEN begin to collect the proof that the person who was dishonest was NOT you but the person who presented the lies to the boss?

You think Kerry should just forget about it? Fair and Balanced is only Fair when Lies are NOT touted as equal to the Truth and Truth NOT presented as equal to Lies.

[Mass]

21. Thanks for saying what I was trying to say so much better.

[ginnyinWI]

35. agree

The media failed to do its job. It's been broken for a long time now, because they are too lazy or scared to take responsibility. So they just pass along everything they get, which then legitimizes it.

So people like Kerry have to then do the job themselves. It's a shame, but that's how it's gotten in this country.

[karynnj]

71. Great post

[riona]

22. It seems that the

msm has become too lazy and/or more iterested in a sensational stories than to verify the information presented on their programs, much less acknowledge what is true or false. The fact that people, such as the "Swiftboaters" are allowed equal presentation of their "side" lends credibility to their lies. "Fair and balanced" means equal time for any whacko that has a tale to tell.

[uppityperson]

23. Good, fight lies and liars. Good. Do what you need to do everyone.

[Nickster]

28. What I've been waiting for...Why not challenge that dirtbag to another

debate like he did on the Dick Cavett Show? He could mop the floor with that puke like he did in the 70s and that should put a cork in the lying fool. I'd have no fear of Sen. Kerry being able to beat O'Neill into the ground.

[_dynamicdems]

104. Now that is a smackdown I'd pay to see! n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

33. Sue them Kerry, and keep using the "L" Word! Then maybe we can advance

to the "I" Word!

:kick: and R!

[Olney Blue]

34. I will never understand the SBVT's heartless campaign of lies

against one of their own.

I approve of Kerry's efforts to expose them.

[ginnyinWI]

37. They feel betrayed,

and therefore justified in their attacks. I can't understand how they could have interpreted that 1971 speech of Kerry's as being an attack on the troops, because it wasn't. I wonder if they even listened to the whole thing. He was attacking the establishment, not the troops, for the situation the troops found themselves in. They just didn't get it.

[Nickster]

42. Honestly, I don't think that's their motivation at all. I understand that'

s the story they put out there,but a lot of these guys stood up for Kerry during his Senate campaigns and said what a great guy he was and how honorable his service was. How can they feel betrayed now but not then? I think it boils down to plain and simple greed driven by that sniveling piece of crap O'Neill. If you go to "war" for the powers that be, then you think you're entitled to some of the spoils of "war", access, money, whatever. Not to mention the Neo-con way of thinking, "if I do bad stuff, but it's for the higher good, than it's ok". Lying and cheating mean absolutely nothing if it's in the name of a higher conservative power.

[ginnyinWI]

60. I was talking about the ones who felt betrayed back then.

Initially they were angry, but it became more, especially with the 2004 election--a chance for empowerment, money, all sorts of stuff.

O'Neill is a real nutcase, IMO. He may have gone round the bend due to Vietnam--not able to mesh his flawed worldview with what he saw over there. And the last part of your comment fits right in: they either felt they were doing no wrong, that the ends justified whatever they did, or they were not able to face what they did. Either way, they absolutely hated that Kerry would bring it up and tell America what had happened.

[aquart]

53. They were PAID.

[progressivebydesign]

55. It had nothing to do with betrayal, it was about pure political lust.

Political blood lust. The likes of Nixon have had their sites on Kerry since the Vietnam War, and once you're on Nixon's enemy list, it'll haunt you forever. These people are political opportunists who will use anything to push their own agenda.

[RandomKoolzip]

38. I hope he sues Michelle Malkin, too, for intimating

that his wounds were self-inflicted. :grr: That, for me, was the lowest point in the 2004 presidential race.

Transcript from "Hardball:"

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Xze4Pd1FnmAJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/+malkin+swift+boat+self-inflicted&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&ie=UTF-8

[Vidar]

41. Better late than never, I guess.

[SoCalDem]

46. Next? Swiftboat Liars file FOIA request for journal

and have it analyzed..conclusion: ink in entry for said date came from a roller-ball ink cartridge, circa November 14, 2004,,..Today Show invites all swifboaties on the show to enlighten the public. Then takes them all to lunch, where they discuss a book deal..:evilgrin:

[Fla Dem]

48. He should sue the pants off these people to send a message

for future campaigns. If you're gonna smear, you better have your facts straight. Hit them personally in the pocket and they won't be so quick to defame someone else.

[blm]

49. It sounds like they haved pored thru every lie made and collected every

scrap of archival evidence, papers, pictures and even still frames from movies that were shot there. Alot of guys carried movie cameras then, and they probably researched every news photographer who was stationed there then.

Kerry was a top prosecutor in Mass. and I would say it sounds like this case is built and airtight.

[ProSense]

50. When the MSM begins to treat this as

lies vs. the official record, then they can stop giving the impression there is any validity to the lies. The MSM is constantly reporting this as Swift liars said vs. Kerry said. What about the Navy record?

Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves.

The record proved every one of their claims false. Plain and simple: These people are liars!

[progressivebydesign]

54. I support Kerry fully on this. They should not get away with it.

The dumbass media, in a misguided effort to look netural, refused to look into the wild and vicious claims by the SwiftBoater scums. there was no time in the election cycle for it to be pursued hard enough. I believe that Kerry is 1000% correct in doing this now. I wish an indie film maker would do a documentary about this...

[Fleshdancer]

57. well enough about FACTS....

when will the NYTimes report on his marriage? :eyes:

[oasis]

59. Simply put, Swiftboat Liars for Bush. (eom)

[Mass]

61. From the American Prospect, a perfect analysis of this article.

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/05/post_36.html

The piece is infuriating because...well, let's run the tape. The article says:

"They lied and lied and lied about everything," Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?"...

Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves.

Still, the charges stuck.

One of the key themes of this blog will be that a big problem with political reporting today is that its practitioners simply refuse to acknowledge their own role in shaping public perceptions. Thus it is that this Times piece can blithely observe that "the charges stuck" as if this happened by magic, when in fact the real reason this happened is that the media simply failed to be skeptical and aggressive at an absolutely critical moment. That failure, of course, is one of the reasons that Kerry is still a Senator -- and is still battling the Swifties today.

[Marr]

63. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar?"

That *someone* was supposed to be YOU, Mr. Kerry. They'll be allowed to lie just as long as the person being lied *about* sits back and lets them. It seems like he was expecting the corporate media (i.e. Bush media) to actually investigate the charges themselves and do some sort of honest coverage. That's naive, at best.

The big media outlets are biased against Democrats, it's true. But he could've come out IMMEDIATELY when these frauds started their smear campaign and called them liars.

[ProSense]

75. He did respond

Reasearch forum (see the video clip there too):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=358&topic_id=2555&mesg_id=2555


More on the MSM:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2309826&mesg_id=2309891

[earth mom]

67. Yo Kerry! You shoulda fought em over the stolen election!

That was the much bigger lie. You had your chance and blew it. Who cares about the swiftboat liars now, when you wouldn't even fight for the election you won?! :eyes:

[_dynamicdems]

105. Stop being a cry baby and start thinking about the other vets these scum

are attacking. Other veterans are being swiftboated and they are planning to use this tool against Democrats in the upcoming elections.

Idea: stop whining about John Kerry and what he did and didn't do and start being part of the solution. By making inane statements like this all you do is help the RW. Is that what you want? If not, then get off your ass and fight back. Not John Kerry: you. You fight back. Every time you waste time with an idiotic post, you give them ammo to keep the status quo. Every time you say you don't care about liars that are attacking other vets, you make them stronger.

If you are not part of the solution.... get it?

[upi402]

82. The Swiftboat festering buckets of pus

can fry in hell. This man, President elected John Kerry, is a hero. And the chickenhawks that the swiftboat scum hoisted with bullshit are phonies and cowards.

Better (excruciatingly and tragically} late than never, President Kerry!

[_dynamicdems]

106. Point: it's not too late for other veterans JK is seeking to protect from

this kind of crap. They attacked Social Security...remember that? And Murtha. Who's next. They have been given a bully pulpit for their lies by our own media. Time to beat these liars back into the slime from whence they sprang.

[LittleClarkie]

83. Good for him!

Even though there are those who will say "Why didn't he do this sooner", this is when he was ready to do it, unfiltered by the campaign.

Without Cahill and Shrum shouting "Restrain the candidate!" I think this is more like what you'd have gotten from him.

Good for him. It's his record, and I will pass no judgement as someone who never served as to when and how he should have done this. i'm merely glad he's doing it now. Lying swine.

[libhill]

85. He's a day late and a dollar short -

n/t

[blm]

109. No - media's late to tell facts because they were COMPLICIT w/Swiftliars

and the Bush campaign. Boehlert's breakdown posted above in the thread PROVES IT. There is no believable explanation for WHY the media did NOT show up or report on any of the defense of Kerry or his own attacks on the swiftliars.

[Clarkie1]

88. Vietnam is not the issue, Mr. Kerry. n/t

[ProSense]

90. The Swift lies are about Vietnam, so it is the issue! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

107. What a dumb statement. Swiftboating is the ISSUE. They are using this

against other veterans. The liars have to be exposed. They have turned their attacks against others since 2004, or don't you read?

What would General Clark say to you about this? I think he'd say that the truth should be illuminated and the liars exposed so they can't attack any other American war heroes.

Ask him.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

110. kick

[meow2u3]

111. I think Kerry was wise to keep his mouth shut until now--and here's why

It's hard for a public figure to win a defamation suit, so I wouldn't knock Kerry for waiting until now to speak out against the swiftboat liars. He, as a public figure, needs more evidence against those thugs than you or I in order to win a defamation suit.

He has to prove the swiftboat liars either knowingly and deliberately lied about him, or at least had reckless disregard for the truth. We can easily say Kerry's been both slandered and libeled--the swiftboat liars have been found liable in the court of public opinion, but to prove it in a court of law is damn near impossible. Kerry was wise to keep his mouth shut until he had the overwhelming evidence he needed to prove those malicious beasts as the vicious liars they really are.

[blm]

112. That's a good point - and whoever took this tactic on would have

HAD to have every lie charted and refuted with written AND photographic evidence to nail the door shut on the case AND to discourage the tactic being used against others.

Those Dems so smugly willing to use the swifts to attack Kerry should be GLAD that he is the one who was targeted and not THEIR guy. Because who's to say if THEIR guy could have documented their case to the degree that Kerry was able to do. It took alot of time and care, but it sounds ike they did it.