If you can’t discredit them, you can muzzle them. From Drudge today (and yes - I’m considering the source) - is the following:

The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to ‘withdraw book’ written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry’s service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is ‘retailing a hoax’… ‘No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,’ Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag… Developing…

Thing is - to me it focuses a LOT more attention on the issue. Is that REALLY what the DNC’s got in mind? Are they TRYING to blow Kerry out of the water?

The vets standing against Kerry aren’t career politicians - they’re average folks. They’ve been shot at - and they believe they’re in the right. Brown books or not - people are listening. And I think they’re wondering just why the DNC’s working so hard to suppress so much.

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at August 20, 2004 12:22 PM

tell me again how this book differs from Moore’s lies about Bush? Do only the libs get the right to not do as they say? (not saying the book is lies here either)

WPoS

Posted by: WPoS at August 20, 2004 01:32 PM

It’s the typical Loony left double standard. Free speach is only for democrats, as long as they agree with it.

And this isn’t anything like MicheaL Moores fake-u- mentry, “unfit for command” is based on truth.

The democrats are finnished. Maybe you are right, the DNC is better off to out Kerry now, and save money for ‘08. They have alot of house-cleaning to do.
By the time November rolls around, kerry will be buried in all his lies and flip flops. All we will be hearing is the steady dron of the loony left complaining “Bush stole the election- again”.

The DNC will probably distance themselves from them. in 08 they will all join the green party, They are too far left even for the DNC

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 20, 2004 01:47 PM

Watch the Ad. Real Heros are telling the world about Kerry.

POW’s View of Hanoi Kerry

Democrat like Kerry and Moore say things like this

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 20, 2004 02:18 PM

“Watch the Ad.”? How laughable…

http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/more-on-the-swift-boat-smear-2004-08-20.html

The Ad is scurrilous. When a number of these folks in the ad are even contradicting themselves…I’m not saying that they’re shills or perhaps allowing themselves to be mislead, or even that they’re so angry at what Kerry said when he got back home from Vietnam that they are willing to denigrate themselves just to punish someone that hurt their feelings…but just because I’m not saying it doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 20, 2004 03:21 PM

This from the NYTimes article in today’s paper:

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry “unfit” had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry’s authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry’s antiwar positions but said, “I am not going to say anything negative about him.” He added, “He’s a good man.”

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry’s Silver Star: “It took guts, and I admire that.”

And further….

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was “an act of courage.” At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the “bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats.”

“Senator Kerry was no exception,” Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. “He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers.”

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as “not exceeded” in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and “one of the top few” - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry “unsurpassed,” “beyond reproach” and “the acknowledged leader in his peer group.”

It’s a lengthy article and deserves to be read IN FULL as it covers a number of points:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html

Posted by: Jatsby at August 20, 2004 04:20 PM

Jatsby,

You and the media are attacking the people. Release the records to attack the charges. Why can’t you do that?

Posted by: jones at August 20, 2004 05:44 PM

jones - Ditto

Posted by: Jim at August 20, 2004 08:14 PM

The liberal democrats are screaming that the Swift Boaters book is full of lies. YES< FULL OF LIES!!!
Well, I have to sort of agree with that….the first lie, of course, was that JOHN KERRY WAS IN CAMBODIA!! Another lie is that supposed shrapnel in his leg….lets see some leg John???
Lets take it out and see if it is from an American shell!! That will solve your fricken lying problem!!

Posted by: dickmr at August 20, 2004 10:15 PM

Jones, I’m attacking no one. These men who label Kerry’s actual crew as liars, who say Rassmann a liar, are attacking the people involved. I am simply quoting these people, who say one thing for years and have now done a 180.

From the New York Times article:
“But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, “He’s lying.” “If that’s what we have to say,” Mr. Chenoweth added, “that’s how it was.” ” But in 1996 Londale said:
“Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed,” Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, “It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure.” In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as “intense” and “unusual.” The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts. So…were they mistaken before? Or are they mistaken now?

Did you read those quotes at all? Hoffman, Elliott and Lonsdale praised Kerry in person and in print for years. The positions they take today are inconsistent with what they said before. “Unfit for Command” is based on half-truths at best by people that are very angry at Kerry for his public pronouncements after the war and so are saying things now very different than they were saying before. Why or whether Kerry has other records to release I don’t know (though regardless of what they said, I’m sure it would be contested here). Mr. Thurlow also declined to have his citation records publicly released, perhaps because they contradict what he’s saying this time around: “Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry’s false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates “enemy small arms,” “automatic weapons fire” and “enemy bullets flying about him.” The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.” Citations that both men had previously approved.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 20, 2004 10:59 PM

What I am doing is going back and reading the records. If you were to do that as well, you would see very dramatic changes in what Elliott, Lonsdale, Hoffman are saying now from what they were saying at the time…and the 30 years in between. I continue to be amazed at how so much time can be spent on this kind of he said then/he says now when serious current issues are at hand. That’s definitely one reason why I believe these SwiftVet gentlemen are playing smoke and mirrors, trying to change focus from our current difficulties in Iraq and how we can get ourselves safely out of there to very dubious claims about Vietnam. It’s clear that people have their opinions about this already set, that no evidence of any sort will change minds (or that would already have happened…for instance, SwiftVets say Kerry wrote the incident reports because his initials are on them…except they aren’t, anywhere. The initials of the officer who RECEIVED the report are on them). Or saying that because he brought a typewriter along that proves that he was overly ambitious….what on earth? That kind of mindlessness doesn’t resolve anything. But it is much easier to go back and forth over that old war and why people have changed their memories than it is to address the current problems…though they are far more pressing.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 20, 2004 11:36 PM

Unfortunately, Jatsby, the NYT hasn’t exactly covered itself with a cloak of honesty and integrity in the last decade or so. Any reporting done by them has to be seen as self serving and suspect at best. To me it looks much more like they…

1. Realize Kerry’s campaign is near death due to an unviable candidate

2. Are doing everything they can to prop it up, any way they can.

I don’t see them as an honest news source. Their record belies their honesty, and their slant is showing in far too obvious a manner.

J.

Posted by: JLL3 at August 21, 2004 03:48 AM

Self-serving and suspect? That sounds suspiciously self-serving, at best. Would you care to suggest a newservice whose articles you would pay attention to, or label as “honest” (it seems to me that everything in the Times article was buttressed by a document or record in the public domain. Do you hold all of the Times articles suspect, or are you selective about it?)? I would certainly take the Times over Drudge. Do you have specific objections, or are you dismissing the article as a whole? I believe the Times largest gaffe of late was it’s initial support of the current administration’s rush to war, and in that I’d agree with you that editorially there have been lapses.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 21, 2004 05:10 AM

BBC, Sky News, Detroit Free Press, Seattle Post, Houston Chronicle, NPR, San Jose Mercury…even Newsweek decries the SwiftVet ads that are uniformly misleading and in some instances maliciously false. So, removing the NYT from the mix, I see no difference in the meat of the story —- the Ad, and perhaps the book as well, are a revised history that is not supported by ANY of the documentation from the event or the 3 decades following. If they are angry with Kerry for his testimony that’s fine, proceed on those lines. But to call the Crew dishonest, to say the medals process is patently dishonest, to completely reverse themselves so long after the fact publicly…is clearly biased, dishonest and a very poor use of the political process.

Posted by: Jatsby at August 21, 2004 05:25 AM

The Swiftites message is powerful because it’s from regular guys who are telling us what they saw and heard. Their testimony would be admissible as direct evidence in any court in the land.

Kerry has already changed his narrative on two stories: Christmas in Cambodia and the Rassman incident. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out who was embellishing the truth. If Kerry had said from the beginning that he stands on his Navy record, and that he invites the Navy to investigate the accuracy of their own records, that would have been the end of it. Instead, Kerry mobilizes an army of lawyers to threaten TV stations and bookstores, and files lawsuits with the FEC.

The NYT article was lengthy at about 3,500 words. Almost all of it however, was that this guy knows this guy who knows this guy that had dinner at the Bush house last Wednesday. Heck, with Three Degrees of Separation you could probably connect any Swiftie to the Pope.

Thousands of people are buying the book and sending donations to the Swifities to help them defend themselves against the army of drone lawyers spilling out of the DNC Death Star. People just flat ass admire the courage of these middle age vets who have come forward again to defend and uphold…everything that Kerry wanted to be. I love irony.

Posted by: Warthog at August 21, 2004 07:09 AM

You attack them. They praised Kerry in the past, the call Rassman a liar etc. None of that touches the charges.

Why won’t Kerry release the records and blow SBVFT out of the water? Think how humiliating it would be to prove he was in Cambodia, and that Purple Heart #1 wasn’t from his own weapon etc.

If there was fire when Rassman fell in, why were no boats hit? Could it be casings from the boat’s guns themselves were splashing around Rassman, and in a panic he though they were slugs? (Hat tip:texasgal)

Now, you say Swifties are liars and are thus disqualified.

1. Kerry said the formative moment of his youth was when he was seared, seared, with the thought Nixon was lying about sending Kerry into Cambodia.

A lie. Kerry is disqualified.

2. Kerry wrote in his diary after December 3, 1968 that he had yet to see hostile fire, yet he had a purple heart.

A lie. Kerry is disqualified.

Now a new one

3. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7273

See “Kerry Is Seared All Over”

A lie. Kerry is disqualified.

So, those are your standards. If you want to beleive Swifties are liars, I have shown Kerry is too.

Posted by: jones at August 21, 2004 08:34 AM

Jatsby,

The previous post is in reponse to you.

Posted by: jones at August 21, 2004 08:35 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html

An article that anyone should be able to conclude is balanced. And Jones, your references….1, neither you nor I know about where he was that day. 2, enemy fire isn’t necessary for a Purple Heart, and 3, serving in the Grid people certainly were killed by enemy fire though I don’t know if I’d call that “in” Vietnam. Three very weak points to make in the face of the issue here, whether the SwiftVet group reversed themselves years later (as ALL records indicated they have done). So again you call Rassman a liar, then accuse me of attacking “the people”. Why don’t you read the Post article, which walks through the river incident step by step, referring to the reports filed by both sides? A dogmatic reply doesn’t help anything…if you just hate the guy say so. And Warthog, characterizing the NYT article as you did was incorrect; there are records and citations for each claim made, it is not “this guy knows that guy.” That was misleading at best, the claims are documented. The SwiftVets message isn’t powerful because it’s true or “regular guys” but because it’s dramatic and comes at a topical time — fortunately, it would not be allowed in any court in the land because these gentlemen are contradicting themselves, both their military reports and personal testimony over the years. Directly contradict themselves…am I attacking them? Or are they calling themselves liars?

Posted by: Jatsby at August 21, 2004 01:56 PM

“A wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, may, in the judgment of the commander authorized to make the award, be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service.”

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/PurHrt.htm

Jatsby, if you want to think wounding tourself playing with a grenade launcher meets this, fine.

The timeline shown at the Gridley Site suggests the Gridley was off the west coast of the US April ‘68.

Also, he admits he was not in Cambodia when he said he was “Seared, Seared” with the memory.

You have no credibility.

Posted by: jones at August 22, 2004 01:31 PM