Archive for the ‘Swiftboat Vets’ Category

democrat fear mongering

June 22, 2008

The usual suspects are on Meet the Press today tossing around the term “Swiftboating.”
Let us review what that term really means.

“…the definition of “swiftboating” is: “producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying.”

Swiftboating – 1. (verb) – to use actual quotes and facts that are 100 % traceable to the party they are attributed to. 2. (noun) – the published record of an individual that is later used against them.

Keep in mind that the Swiftboat Vets for Truth have not had not to retract a single statement they made. Senator Kerry had to retract his story about going into Cambodia as not factual.

The Swiftboat Vets for truth have called for Senator Kerry to take them to court about their statements. The Senator has refused to do so. Probably because he doesn’t want the facts brought out in a Court of Law, because those facts are against him.

The left has yet to answer this question about the Swiftboat Vets for Truth:

Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully “debunked” or fully proven to be “unsubstantiated”?

The truth of the matter is …

January 25, 2008

…as Mr. Reynolds correctly puts it, “Media spin notwithstanding, it was Kerry, not the swiftboaters, who had to retract falsehoods.

Update: Ed Driscoll points out The Greatest Hollywood Digital Special Effects Job In History

Yes, how did the Swift Vets, on their budget, talk Industrial Light & Magic into digitally inserting Kerry into footage of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations back in 1971, and pay Rich Little for doing an outrageously over-the-top Boston Brahmin accent? (But c’mon Rich–JJJJJennnghis Kahn? isn’t that a bit too much? Nobody will believe it!) To complete the ultimate scam, ILM then digitally inserted Kerry, much like Hollywood’s Forrest Gump a decade ago, onto the set of the Dick Cavett Show from that same year. And they talked C-Span into running that footage in 2004. Amazing!

An accurate definition…

November 15, 2006

“Swiftboating” — a coordinated effort to let the voters know the truth about a candidate.

This accurate and true definition is courtesy of Lorie Byrd.

Left wing "McCarthyism"

November 30, 2004

Swift Boat Vet Steve Gardner stood by the truth, after being warned by the left that he would be punished for speaking the truth. In this case, the left wing hit squads kept their word.

Sent to me by a Vietnam Veteran…

October 31, 2004

The Vietnam Veteran who sent it to me is my father.

All across America, Viet Nam vets are smiling. At last, perhaps they can bury their demons. These angry vets are demanding that this man who sentenced them to being shunned as criminals, tell the world that he was wrong and that he is sorry for what he did to them. Kerry must admit that he lied about them.

For many, it would still not be enough. Satisfaction and hopefully peace will come when Viet Nam vets see and hear John F. Kerry give his concession speech the night of November 2, 2004 with the knowledge that it was their votes that helped defeat him. There are approximately 2.5 million Viet Nam veterans in America and they have not forgotten.

Kerry denied them their rightful place as heroes and they will deny him his dream of the presidency. Angry Viet Nam veterans, silent for so long, will finally have their say. Payment in full will be delivered to John Kerry on November 2, 2004. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.

What evidence?

October 17, 2004

Juan Williams (of NPR) is on Fox News Sunday right now, still claiming that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have been discredited.

It’s time repeat the question again:

From a post made on 9/26/04.

Beldar puts for the following challenge:

Can you identify even one specific and material SwiftVets allegation that you believe to have been fully “debunked” or fully proven to be “unsubstantiated”?

A few words on Civility in the political debate.

October 15, 2004

Don Feder has some damn good ones that you should read.
Here are some highlights:

For the left, civility is a one-way street, running toward them – but never in the opposite direction.

The blonde buzz-saw also noted that nobody was calling for civility in 1964, when Democrats we’re telling the nation that Barry Goldwater wanted to drop the big one and precipitate a nuclear holocaust.

Now that conservatives can fight back – via the Internet, cable TV and talk radio – liberals whine about civility, Coulter charged.

Despite their carefully timed civility campaigns, liberals are smear artists who can never resist hitting below the belt – with brass knuckles.

Their modus operandi is calling conservatives: racists, bigots, hate-mongers, warmongers, Nazis, trigger-happy cowboys, gun nuts, psychos, despoilers of the environment and political Ebenezer Scrooges rubbing their bony hands together in greedy glee as widows and orphans starve in the streets simply to boost the profits of their junk bonds.

Speaking of civility, have you ever heard of College Republicans trashing liberal campus newspapers, or members of the local ROTC unit shouting down leftist speakers? Both regularly happen to collegiate conservatives – whose publications are incinerated and speakers attacked.

Still, when it suits them, liberals run their civility scam – usually, when they’re cornered and seek to stifle a frank discussion.

What the Left finds really rude and uncalled for is a candid discussion of Kerry’s war record — which he cites as his chief qualification for the White House. Thus, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (with their ads questioning Kerry’s medals and exposing his involvement in the anti-American/anti-War movement) make the civility-mongers positively apoplectic.

They can lie about us; we can’t tell the truth about them. They can name-call; we can’t discuss their record or describe the natural consequences of their policies.

Calls for civility in the political debate have become the last refuge of liberal con men, and should be treated with the scorn reserved for shameless hypocrites.

Oh, how uncivil of me.

Another reason Kerry hasn’t signed the 180 form yet…

October 3, 2004

From the Captains Quarters:

Thomas Lipscomb writes a fascinating article about his clever piece of detective work which demonstrates that John Kerry wrote the after-action report that led to his Bronze Star for an engagement that almost all witnesses claim never involved enemy fire. Lipscomb uncovered a 35-year-old operations order which narrows down the source of the story Kerry denies inventing:

A faded 35-year-old operations order recovered from the Naval Historical Center in Washington bears directly on the ongoing dispute between Sen. John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about who wrote the key after-action report that ended Kerry’s service in Vietnam. The report appears in the official Navy records and is posted on Kerry’s presidential campaign Web site.

The report details Kerry’s participation in a naval operation on the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, in such glowing terms that he was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for pulling Special Forces officer James Rassmann out of the water while under heavy enemy fire. This third Purple Heart allowed Kerry to cut short his Vietnam tour after only four months.

Lipscomb reviews the action in the report and how it clashes with the memory of everyone except Rassmann and Kerry’s crew. It talks about three miles of sustained enemy fire on both banks, something that Roy Hoffman says not only didn’t occur that day, but never occurred under his command in Viet Nam. Larry Thurlow, who commanded the task force that day, insists that had they been met with that kind of withering enemy fire, he would have called in air support.

Mr. Harris sums up liberal arguments.

September 15, 2004

Mr. Harris says:

Let me see if I properly understand your argument…

1) Everything the Swifties said was a lie because one US$100k contributor to their effort was a Republican. That Kerry was forced to revise at least two elements of his decades-old personal narrative because of them has no bearing on this determination whatsoever.

2) Barnes, a major fundraiser (US$500k+) for Kerry’s campaign, has said for decades – under oath even – that he was not asked by Bush’s family to help get him into the Guard. But now when says he was lying all those years (contradicted by his own family) he’s telling the truth.

3) This same man, his candidate down in the polls and rapidly losing steam, now also ‘admits’ to an an act of extreme corruption, for which he was ultimately compensated to the tune of US$23 million.

4) Bush, at the time, was a candidate, not an officeholder and, as such, had no actual power. But he was terrified that people would find out the shocking news that, as the son of a Congressman, he’d gotten special treatment to get into the Guard, so he gave in to Barnes’ extortion and exercised power he didn’t have to help Barnes’ client.

5) Ergo, Bush is corrupt and cannot be believed.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Mr. Reynolds nails it.

September 4, 2004

JOHN FORBES DUKAKIS
For someone from contact sport political arena of New England, Kerry is pretty damn thin skinned when his voting record in Senate is discussed.
Yes, you served as a Swift Boat Commander in Vietnam for four and half months over thirty years ago.
I’ve got got at least four Vietnam veterans in my family, including my father.
I respect your service and give you credit for it. You want to be President come January 20, 2005.
Your voting record in the Senate (in which you have had a rather poor attendance record, since your election to that body in 1984), is a valid subject to discuss and review.
You if don’t want your Sentate voting record discussed, why are you even running for President?
Let’s not forget the other elected office you held.