Revealing Swift Boat Vets’ Lies

The Swift Boat Veterans attacking John Kerry have, for the most part, been treated with kid gloves by the media. Most reporters have acted as though there are two sides to the story, theirs and Kerry's, even though every credible examination of the claims reveals that they are false - if not obvious lies. Why don't more media outlets get serious with this?

Fortunately, The New York Times has:

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements. Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war. ... As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us. He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."

The full article should be read to get a sense of all of the duplicity and dishonesty going on. It’s clear at the end here that these people are still upset that Kerry dared to question the war and point out that some American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam. That, then, makes him “unfit” to be president? Since when is telling the truth a bad thing?

Law and Politics comments:

I think the article does a good job of showing the underside of the modern-day GOP – or at least its current leadership. Look closely – the NYT has shined a light into the shadows. No doubt, the bugs will scurry back into the darkness, but we still got a very good glimpse of how things really work behind the scenes. In reality, the GOP under Bush has two faces – like Two-Face in Batman. The one face is its public face which speaks of religious values, liberal tyranny, and “real” Americans. The other face, though, is hidden from the public. Let’s call it the Tom DeLay face. That’s the face of a spiteful group of individuals who are willing to do whatever is necessary to personally destroy another human being. It happened to Clinton. It happened to McCain. And now they’re trying to do it to Kerry.

I mean, think about what we’re seeing here. The bulk of the financing came from a longtime Rove associate and a trustee of Daddy Bush’s presidential library. Rove clearly knew about it. And the fact that Drudge and Fox News have given so much coverage to the lies is another indication of the level of coordination involved here behind the scenes. Once again, I’m wondering where have all the honest conservatives gone? The leadership of your party has become corrupt. The only way to punish them is to vote them out. Then, the GOP will be leaderless, and a new group of real, non-corrupt conservatives can take the wheel. Sometimes you have to lose to win.

To on-the-fence moderates, take a good look. Take a good long look at what you’re seeing – and think about what you’re seeing. I mean, I will give Rove credit for having gall. Bush didn’t even serve, and probably didn’t fulfill his National Guard duties. Kerry of course did serve, and showed great bravery under fire. So, one might think that Bush would shy away from attacking him on this ground. But no – instead, Rove and pals chose this very issue upon which to apply the “Clinton method.” They funded and supported a group of veterans (angry about Kerry’s protests, no doubt) who lied – egregiously – about Kerry’s actions in combat. That my friends is chutzpah. We have the organization surrounding a draft dodger subsidizing an effort to accuse Kerry of lying and of inflicting wounds on himself during the combat he volunteered for. I think I would be more than a little upset if I were a veteran.

It is certainly true that any Democrat attacking a Republican’s war service would not get away with it, but we’ve seen Republicans do exactly that to Democrats more than once now. Even Bob Dole is getting in on the act. How can George W. Bush be regarded as a better leader for the war on terrorism when he can’t even maintain decent respect for those who have risked their lives in a real war?

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry