Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

The thing that irritates me more than anything about this whole Swift Boaters thing is that Perry Homes builds crappy, ugly houses, devoid of charm or sensitivity to the neighborhood where they're being built. I was already boycotting Perry Homes on astethics, I didn't need another reason.

I may, however, put a couple of Kerry / Edwards bumperstickers on the Perry Homes signs on the median across the street from my house.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

The GOP wouldn't be so good at doing it if the Dems didn't give them such great material to work with. I mean, they could have nominated Gephardt but they decide instead to choose Kerry.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

Whatever, dude. Look what work the GOP has done with a hard working Senator with decades of service to his country (actually, now that I think of it, TWO, counting McCain). Compare that with what the Dems have done with a draft-dodging playboy former cokehead with decades of experience running his daddy's friends' companies into the ground.

No, you guys are the masters. Take credit where credit is due.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

You're not doing your argument any favors.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

While I understand your point, I really disagree with this assertion. I don't think politicians really flip-flop all that often. I think politicians (on both sides) have nuanced views and have different answers to different questions. Do you support higher pay for soldiers? Yes. Did you support higher pay for soldiers [by voting for a bill that not only would have raised pay for soldiers but also would have required all teenagers to have mandatory abortions]?* No.

The tendency of both parties to misconstrue quotes and votes in the manner, especially in the context of contending that someone flip flops, is very distressing.



* Obviously, I'm making this example up.

I lied.

The real thing that I don't get about the Swift Boat thing is this:

As far as I can tell, they're saying that John Kerry didn't deserve his Bronze Star and that one of the wounds for which he received a Purple Heart were self-inflicted. They vaguely say that Kerry lied about Vietnam. Last I heard, Kerry didn't give himself those medals. While I'm sure his own report of his actions had an impact on the decision to grant those medals, last I heard, the US Navy give the medals to those who have earned them. The Swiftees are saying that the US Navy gives out medals to the wrong people for the wrong reasons. They're bringing into question the entire medal granting process. If they're right, if Kerry's medals weren't earned, then shouldn't we look into all of the medals granted in Vietnam? Hell, shouldn't we look at all the medals that have ever been given by our armed forces up until these noble soliders and sailors brought this issue to our national attention?

I don't understand why the Kerry campaign doesn't point this out. By focusing on the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart (thank god they stayed away from the Blue Diamond) these people are not only bringing into question Kerry's record, they're bringing into question the records of all of the service men and women who have ever received decoration for their efforts in wartime, and I think that is inexcusable.

And I still think Perry Homes are cheap and ugly.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

You are right. The GOP put a gun to Kerry's head and made him say all those things when he got back from Vietnam, which inflamed other Vietnam vets and which now result in these Vietnam vets attacking Kerry.

Honey, these people hate Kerry with a passion, but the GOP cannot take credit for it. Kerry did this all by himself.

It doesn't take mastery of character assasination to go after someone like Bill Clinton. Are you forgetting the blow jobs in the oval office or the sperm-on-dress?

I think what they're saying is more specific than that. It has to do with the self-reporting process that Kerry made liberal use of. (Ooo, bad pun.) The latest thing about how one of the Swifties got a medal, and the medal citation record contains Kerry's version of some fight (I'm not really sure of the specifics) and so discredits the Swifties' account, is being explained (or spun - I guess it depends on your viewpoint) on that basis - that Kerry himself wrote up the account, used it to aggrandize himself, and also greatly benefited from it.

So, it's not so much "all medals are suspect", as it is "all accounts authored by Kerry about Kerry are suspect."

You need to read the book because you aren't charaterizing what they are saying accurately. They are backing up what they are saying with eye witness accounts and official records and Kerry's own statements (i.e., a baby was killed on my orders) which conflict with the official records. Mind you, Kerry is the one who went around telling stories about the baby that was killed. Only thing is, at the time he filed the report of the incident, no baby was mentioned. Go figure.

Cite please.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

Perhaps not, but you undersell their capabilities. Whitewater, the Arkansas drug-running and murder of WH aides gives a certain flair to their resumes that's hard to forget.

Wait. You've bought the book?

You can discredit the accounts that he authored with his own words once he came back from Vietnam. He wrote up the sampan incident WITHOUT MENTIONING THE DEAD BABY. Sure, at the time he wrote it, he wanted to make it seem like they killed some VCs. But when he got back stateside, he wanted to be an anti-war activist so he he told the story as it actually happened (i.e., dead baby).

Kerry lied!

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

(A) Everyone likes to imply that everyone else is a hypocrite. Some posters do present such arguments. The bottom line is that it is very rare for someone on a chat Board to leap to defend a person whom they do not like or agree with, so no one should expect it. Lots of folks seem to think that accusations of hypocrisy, or attacking the messenger, are substitutes for substance.

(B) Nope. I agree completely, and I don't think you'd actually have to nail a number of posters here to anything to get them to agree.

(C) I agree here too, but find the faux morality and holier than thou attitude of the GOPers while they smear particularly irritating. [Of course, I'm sure that the other side would level precisely the same charge.]

S_A_M

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

You forgot about how Hillary turned a $1000 investment into $100k in less than a year's time by investing in cattle futures or the like when she had no experience investing in that arena in the past.

FYI - whitewater was a real scandal. She just covered her tracks good enough that it made the evidence hard to collect.

As for the drug running, that wasn't the GOP. It was fringe types who happen to be reps. The Dems have a few of those, too. Moore for instance.

Slate fisks the Swift Vets.
 

Can this be the topic for Kerry slamming next week? Please?