Is Sestak getting “Swift-boated” by Specter?

posted at 2:20 pm on April 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Only in the sense that Arlen Specter is telling an inconvenient truth about Joe Sestak’s military career, after Sestak made it a centerpiece of his campaign.  Sound familiar?

The war of words between Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in Pennsylvania’s Senate primary has Democrats worried.

In the latest salvo, Sestak accused Specter of swift-boating his military record.

The senator released a 30-second spot earlier this week that said the former Navy admiral was relieved of duty at one point for creating a “poor command climate.”

Sestak invoked Vice President Joe Biden in his response, point to a statement Biden said in 2008 regarding the swift-boat tactics used in the presidential election

“Swift-boating is not going to work this time, and the reason it’s not is, number one, I’m going to smack ‘em right square in the chops,” Biden said at the time.

As long as one qualifies “Swift boating” as telling the truth, then Sestak’s on solid ground. Sestak became the highest-ranking officer ever to win election to Congress in 2006, but his career came to a halt when he got relieved of command for exactly the reason Specter notes in his commercials. Sestak apparently wants to have it both ways in this race; he wants to run on his military record, but doesn’t want his military record to get discussed by his opponents.

Perhaps Sestak should talk to John Kerry and see how well that worked out.  Kerry made his own Vietnam combat experience the centerpiece of his campaign as Democrats attempted to paint George W. Bush as a privileged son avoiding life-threatening duty in the National Guard — just a mere four years after the last Democratic President served after really dodging the draft.  Kerry even jumped on stage and declared himself “ready to serve,” which was just a little too much for over 250 of his swift-boat colleagues from Vietnam who recalled Kerry’s service much differently than his campaign painted it — and who then exposed many fabrications and exaggerations made by Kerry during the campaign.  To this day, Kerry claims victimization for having his war record criticized during his attempt to smear his opponent as a coward, a laughable pose that has rendered Kerry a joke to all but the far Left.

So as long as we have the correct context for that term, then Sestak is right — he’s being “Swift boated,” and it’s no one’s fault but his own.  When candidates make their military record part of their argument for voters to support them, then the entirety of the military record becomes fair game for debate.  When candidates run explicitly as Catholics as part of their campaign, the same holds true (which was another of Kerry’s hypocrisies).  Offering those kinds of campaigns and then complaining that people take it seriously is certainly hypocritical — but worse yet, it’s whiny.  People don’t vote for whiners, which Sestak should have learned from 2004.

Of course, for those of us on the other side of this particular contest, it provides some amusement in an already promising midterm cycle.  Pass the popcorn, folks!

Tags: , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ed, I love your work, I really do. However, I disagree with you on this one. Specter is distorting Sestak’s 30 year+ military record.

Believe me, I’m not defending Sestak, but Specter is smearing him and he knows it.

Ian on April 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I love Blue on Blue carnage!

search4truth on April 23, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Claro que si. Of course Sphincter is swift-boating his opponent, except he is using false allegations to damage Sestak. Sphincter and his fellow Dems have no compunction about using dirty Chicago-style tactics to derail opponents.

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:24 PM

That ad is brutal. I didn’t know it was coming and nearly fell out of my chair the first time I saw it. I really didn’t think Specter would go there. Sestak doesn’t have a lot of name recognition, especially outside of his district, so this is a classic example of an incumbent trying to define his opponent before he gets started.

rockmom on April 23, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Oh, wait, the allegations are true. Well, than he isn’t being swift-boated. He is just experiencing the consequences of his actions.

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Good news.

I needed some of that right about now.

logis on April 23, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I’m going to smack ‘em right square in the chops,” Biden said at the time.

Such violent, heated vitrolic rhetoric is going to lead to violence. O, wait it was a democrat who said it…never mind.

Joe Caps on April 23, 2010 at 2:28 PM

…more butter ?

RUReadingthis on April 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Well, than he isn’t being swift-boated. He is just experiencing the consequences of his actions.

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:26 PM

That’s what swift-boating is.

lorien1973 on April 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM

We all know how deeply respectful the nutroots was of McCain’s record….

Speedwagon82 on April 23, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Neither one of them deserves to win!

capejasmine on April 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

What is swift-boating? I used to think it was the use of one’s military record to damage one’s political campaign, regardless of the validity. Then I thought is was a true allegation used against someone to damage a political campaign. Then I thought it was a false allegation used to damage a political campaign. Now I think it is an amorphous term for a particularly sharp political attack that the recipient is not well-suited to defend against. Still, the term is unclear.

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

True enough, if the man wants to tout his military record then it should be open to appraisal. The terms of Sestak’s being relieved of command are typically murky for a man as high up the COC as he was, so it’s difficult to say how much it matters (at least for me).

Bishop on April 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Specter would throw his children under a bus if it could by him an extra hour of cancerous life. He is a diseased canker.

Mr. Joe on April 23, 2010 at 2:35 PM

The Dems have said that it is off limits but I guess not.

CWforFreedom on April 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM

…more butter ?

RUReadingthis on April 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM

More salt!

fourdeucer on April 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM

This is good news. Spector will be much easier to defeat in November than Sestak. I’ve talked to lots of Indpendents who are fed up with Spector.

Deanna on April 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Blue on Blue mud wrestling, yes pass the popcorn and beer.

meci on April 23, 2010 at 2:39 PM

What is swift-boating?

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

It depends on who you are talking to.

I thought is was a true allegation used against someone to damage a political campaign.

This is the way most conservatives and R’s define it.

Then I thought it was a false allegation used to damage a political campaign.

This is the way most libersals, D’s and MSM sychophants define it.

Now I think it is an amorphous term for a particularly sharp political attack that the recipient is not well-suited to defend against.

And I guess this is the way you define it, although I think a number of people are moving towards agreeing with your definition.

Fatal on April 23, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Sounds like it was a political dismissal. Spector is a douche.

pedestrian on April 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM

…more butter ?

RUReadingthis on April 23, 2010 at 2:29 PM

More salt!

fourdeucer on April 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM

More beer!

farright on April 23, 2010 at 2:43 PM

relieved of duty at one point for creating a “poor command climate.”

I think it kind of comes down to what that statement means.
Was he a bad leader? Is this a bunch of PC hypersensitivity? A euphemism for something more embarrassing?
Hard to say anything about it without knowing.

Count to 10 on April 23, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Maybe there’s more to it than the linked article suggests, but the impression given is that he was relieved of command because of internal politics.

“Poor command climate” could mean just about anything from inappropriate behavoir to doing nothing wrong except holding a position that his superior wanted someone else in.

Hollowpoint on April 23, 2010 at 2:45 PM

To this day, Kerry claims victimization for having his war record criticized during his attempt to smear his opponent as a coward, a laughable pose that has rendered Kerry a joke to all but the far Left.

Have to respectfully disagree with this, Ed. He’s still not a joke to a lot of clueless Democrats. He handily won re-election in MA in 2008, and replaced Uncle Joe as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Uncle Joe quit as Senator to be the worst VP of the worst P in history.

The Democrats have also repeatedly cited him for his work raising funds for other candidates, including those in other states.

Want to get a laugh? His wiki page has a whole section devoted to, in their own words, his “Post-Presidential Activities”, which would seem to imply that he once was President:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Post-presidential_activities

BTW, his favorite Red Sox player is Manny Ortez. To think that this tool got as close to the WH as he did still boggles the mind, although less so now after seeing what happened in 2008.

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Does Sestak know Massa?

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Oh please, this is why people hate political ads.

This kind of thing invariably boomerangs.

AnninCA on April 23, 2010 at 2:55 PM

As long as one qualifies “Swift boating” as telling the truth, then Sestak’s on solid ground.

…which was just a little too much for over 250 of his swift-boat colleagues from Vietnam who recalled Kerry’s service much differently than his campaign painted it — and who then exposed many fabrications and exaggerations made by Kerry during the campaign.

I think it’s unfair to characterize the Swift boaters as purely telling the truth and exposing Kerry’s inaccuracies. While it’s true they did that, it’s also true that some of their claims were false and many were unsubstantiated. One veteran later admitted that he hadn’t actually witnessed what he had sworn to.

You can choose to believe the Swift boaters and disbelieve all of the other witnesses who gave contradictory accounts if you want. But I think it’s unfair to summarize the entire affair by stating conclusively that the Swift boaters simply told the truth to undercut Kerry’s claims.

tneloms on April 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

What is swift-boating? I used to think it was the use of one’s military record to damage one’s political campaign, regardless of the validity. Then I thought is was a true allegation used against someone to damage a political campaign. Then I thought it was a false allegation used to damage a political campaign. Now I think it is an amorphous term for a particularly sharp political attack that the recipient is not well-suited to defend against. Still, the term is unclear.

andy85719 on April 23, 2010 at 2:34 PM

The term was invented by Democrats. And many continued to use it well after the 2004 election, especially the Leftist idiots at the NT Times. Even O’bama himself used the insult when running in 2008.

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Kerry even jumped on stage and declared himself “ready to serve,” which was just a little too much for over 250 of his swift-boat colleagues from Vietnam who recalled Kerry’s service much differently than his campaign painted it — and who then exposed many fabrications and exaggerations made by Kerry during the campaign. To this day, Kerry claims victimization for having his war record criticized during his attempt to smear his opponent as a coward, a laughable pose that has rendered Kerry a joke to all but the far Left.

Kerry tried to be both a “war hero” and an “anti-war hero”, undermining his brother sailors fighting with him and for him, and found out that he couldn’t have it both ways.

Joe Sestak tried to do the same thing in 2006–tout his military record while decrying the war in Iraq, and the McCain / Bush / Petraeus “surge” strategy that eventually worked. It worked for Sestak (and Murtha) in one district in PA, but failed on a national level for Kerry. It might not work for the whole state of PA, but it’s enough to get Arlen snarlin’.

Somewhere out on the campaign trail, Pat Toomey is smiling!

Steve Z on April 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM

While it’s true they did that, it’s also true that some of their claims were false and many were unsubstantiated. One veteran later admitted that he hadn’t actually witnessed what he had sworn to.

You can choose to believe the Swift boaters and disbelieve all of the other witnesses who gave contradictory accounts if you want. But I think it’s unfair to summarize the entire affair by stating conclusively that the Swift boaters simply told the truth to undercut Kerry’s claims.

tneloms on April 23, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Gee, you must have been a member of Kerri’s crew. Got any facts to back up your claims?

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Dam it, where’s the salt???

trs on April 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Popcorn, indeed.

his swift-boat colleagues from Vietnam who recalled Kerry’s service much differently than his campaign painted it — and who then exposed many fabrications and exaggerations made by Kerry during the campaign.

BTW, I thought the Swiftboat crew were correct BUT I distinctly remember that splotchy ego-blob Bill O’Reilly reporting that the Swiftboaters were playing fast and loose with the truth (this is when I first saw BOR pander to the Donks). Is BOR full of HS like I think he is?

Gob on April 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM

How can someone like Spector, who is so blatantly about self interests, possibly really “swift-boat” anyone.

Come on.

That’s just darn silly.

AnninCA on April 23, 2010 at 3:00 PM

This link has been around for a couple of years now …

It took the new Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Mullen, less than 24 hours to dump one of the most disliked officers among the Navy’s top brass. Vice-Admiral Joe Sestak, an arrogant and obnoxious “bully-boy,” who delighted in being rude and unreasonable and getting away with it, found he was expendable the minute his mentor went out the door.

I understand that Sestak’s management style has not changed for his Congressional staff.

Since he was sworn into Congress in January, 13 of his staffers have quit, including his chief of staff and three press secretaries — a high attrition rate even for time-intensive and stressful jobs on Capitol Hill, The Hill newspaper said. His staff members are expected to work seven days a week, including holidays, go months without a day off and “often” work 14 hours per day, according to the newspaper. The Hill article said staffers at Sestak’s Media, Pa., district office are required to work 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and work part of the day Saturday.

J_Crater on April 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM

This story just reminds me of all Mark Steyn’s hilarious pieces about Kerry in 2004 where he fully put to bed the whole “swift boating” meme.

Speedwagon82 on April 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM

I love popcorn and really love popcorn Fridays.
Apparently neither of these Dems are stellar characters so who cares? Let them slug it out.

ORconservative on April 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM

It’s true Sestak was a complete a-hole who was fired the day after Mike Mullen became CNO. There where no teary eye at DON when he got canned.

GREENTURTLE on April 23, 2010 at 3:12 PM

This story just reminds me of all Mark Steyn’s hilarious pieces about Kerry in 2004 where he fully put to bed the whole “swift boating” meme.

Speedwagon82 on April 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM

tneloms must have missed those.

Here’s one:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-08-28&id=4943

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Yecch. I hold no brief for Joe Sestak, but what Specter is doing isn’t Swiftboating him. The Swiftboaters didn’t have to make the scoop on Kerry sound any worse than it was. It was bad enough unvarnished.

Specter’s approach does make Sestak’s last months in the Navy sound much worse than they were. For one thing, Sestak was not “relieved of command.” He didn’t have command in his last job. He was a senior staffer on the Navy staff in Washington. Being relieved of command has a very specific meaning, and it’s bad, and justifiably so. Sestak was never once relieved of command in the Navy. You don’t get to be the commander of a carrier strike group, and lead it into combat, by being someone who would ever be “relieved of command.”

He did make waves on the CNO staff, and was told by the CNO that he couldn’t continue in that job. He could have accepted a 3-star job somewhere else and kept his head down until he could retire as a 3-star, but he chose instead to take retirement on the spot, and move on to a new phase of life.

There were some things I agreed with Sestak on, from his policy days, and some things I didn’t. He had fanatical adherents in the Navy as well as detractors. He wasn’t a go-along-get-along kind of guy when it came to policy. Having dealt with such people as subordinates, even at my much lower level of seniority, I understand Admiral Clark’s decision to remove him from the job he was in. Not everyone who’s a brilliant visionary is the right guy or gal for every job. It takes a very particular set of leadership skills and vision of your own to “handle” them, and I’ve long gotten over being judgmental about seniors for whom that’s not a priority.

In Sestak’s case, the truth about him and the DCNO job doesn’t carry any of the implications or smarmy overtones of the Swiftboat Vets’ information on Kerry. Maybe it means his prickly independence, determination, and tendency to wear out staffers is something the Pennsylvania voters might think twice about sending to the Senate. But he was never “relieved of command,” with the genuine failure of leadership that implies on his record. He decided not to conform to the traditional climate of the Navy staff, and there are arguments both for and against doing that.

J.E. Dyer on April 23, 2010 at 3:20 PM

It’s true Sestak was a complete a-hole who was fired the day after Mike Mullen became CNO. There where no teary eye at DON when he got canned.

GREENTURTLE on April 23, 2010 at 3:12 PM

I will confirm that.

But, I’d still like to see him beat Specter.

Melba Toast on April 23, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Good. Keep attacking and defending and do each other in. Make way for a Pat Toomey senatorial win in PA this November. I am going to send Specter a ‘Congratulations on Your Retirement’ card.

Constance on April 23, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Ian wrote:

Ed, I love your work, I really do. However, I disagree with you on this one. Specter is distorting Sestak’s 30 year+ military record.

Believe me, I’m not defending Sestak, but Specter is smearing him and he knows it.

I noticed you gave absolutely no specific examples of this alleged smear. What has been claimed by Spector about Sestak’s record that isn’t true?

Carl on April 23, 2010 at 3:40 PM

As long as one qualifies “Swift boating” as telling the truth,

Ed, I’d have thought you learned by now that any word or phrase is qualified as it’s needed by the democrats:

Swiftboating:
1) Against Kerry’s military career – bad
2) Against Sestak’s military career – good

Dissent:
1) Against Bush – good
2) Against Obama – Near sedition

Seriously.. this is why I gave up this idea of “maintaining higher standards” when discussing things.

darury on April 23, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Sestak was an abusive officer and a poor example of leadership. He also retired as a Rear Admiral and not a Vice Admiral, so he may want to change his own ads before throwing stones at the other guy!

Pat Toomey for Senate!

MCPO Airdale on April 23, 2010 at 3:47 PM

John Kerry deserves to be called out for his outrageous statements, his gaming of the system to get out of Vietnam (and military service) and for being the absolute boor he is. When we consider his treasonous actions in re: the North Vietnam/Viet Cong meetings in Paris – Kerry should be recalled to service, given a Court Martial and made to pay with hard time (imagine the callouses on his pretty soft hands)

As for Joe Sestak – 30 years of uniform service is more than Republicrat Spector ever thought of.

SeniorD on April 23, 2010 at 3:48 PM

BTW, I thought the Swiftboat crew were correct BUT I distinctly remember that splotchy ego-blob Bill O’Reilly reporting that the Swiftboaters were playing fast and loose with the truth (this is when I first saw BOR pander to the Donks). Is BOR full of HS like I think he is?

Gob on April 23, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Can’t find a cite for that statement from O’Really-I would think if he’d actually said that, Media Matters would be on it like Clinton on an intern.

All I could find was this

FOX News Channel host and radio host Bill O’Reilly does not seem to have been paying attention to anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s accusations about Senator John Kerry’s (D-MA) military service in Vietnam. Despite a flurry of media stories proving otherwise, O’Reilly erroneously claimed that members of the Swift Boat Veterans have not accused the senator of lying.

Speaking to a caller on the August 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, O’Reilly described the anti-Kerry group’s accusations as follows:

I think what they’re doing is they’re saying that in their experience, Kerry did X, Y, and Z. It’s very — it’s nuanced [caller's name]. They don’t say, “Well, he — he lied about this.” They say, “I didn’t see any firing.” Or, “I didn’t see any Viet Cong.”

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Correction:Kerry didn’t declare he was “ready to serve\”.

He saluted and said: “Reporting for duty”.

Which, naturally, immediately became “reporting for doody”.

Whatta joke.

jeanneb on April 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Thanks Del. I’m going by memory of what I heard on his radio show (Gosh, can’t believed I ever listened to that toerag! But then again, he was a different BOR then) AND TV Show. I remember him always dismissing them (The Swiftboat Crew) as unfair.

Gob on April 23, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Arlen Specter is a street fighter, a junk yard dog and loyal to no one but himself. If the Dems didn’t know this before, they will soon.

In 2004, after brilliant national GOP strategists Bush, Rove and Santorum decided to endorse Specter over Toomey for the GOP nomination, giving the latter a very narrow primary win, Specter repaid them by putting up “Kerry*Specter” signs all over southeastern PA, his home base, for the general Presidential election. The day after election day, his hold on the Senate Judiciary confirmed, Specter then warned Bush not to send him any conservative judges for approval.

When Pat Toomey declares victory over Specterd this November, I will enjoy the moment immensely and will be glad that the national GOP dummies did not interfere and screw it up, this time.

james23 on April 23, 2010 at 4:40 PM

plus, I don’t feel sorry for Rear Admiral Smokestack, my Congressman. He is a hard left nut. If Specterd knocks him off and Toomey delivers the win over Specterd, its win-win for me.

james23 on April 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM

“Swiftboating” has always meant telling an inconvenient truth. That was my takeaway when the left called telling the truth about Kerry “Swiftboating”.

Dawnsblood on April 23, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Gee, you must have been a member of Kerri’s crew. Got any facts to back up your claims?

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Sure.

Regarding the veteran who admitted he hadn’t personally witnessed what he swore to having personal knowledge of, here’s an AP article: http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2004/08/24/news/news10.txt

Before recording the ad, French signed an affidavit that said: “I am able to swear, as I do hereby swear, that all facts and statements contained in this affidavit are true and correct and within my personal knowledge and belief.”
….
In an interview with The Oregonian newspaper on Thursday, French said he relied on the accounts of three other veterans in making the statement about Kerry, and did not personally witness the events.

Regarding unsubstantiated claims made by the Swift boaters, here’s one example: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

One of the accusers says he was on another boat “a few yards” away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry’s account.

Here’s another one about the supposed firefight Kerry was involved in: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/print?id=166434

That account is disputed by Swift boat veteran John O’Neill, author of “Unfit for Command,” who maintains in his book that the statement “is simply false. There was little or no fire.”
….
Villagers say this is what they saw:

“Firing from over here. Firing from over there. Firing from the boat,” Vo Thi Vi told “Nightline.”

Anyway, I’m not saying one side or another was definitely right. What I actually think is that both sides have stated inaccuracies and made exaggerations, and it’s probably worse when Kerry did it since he was using it to run for office. But what I personally think happened isn’t the point. I’m only saying that there’s evidence on both sides, and you can choose to believe whoever you want, but I don’t think it’s right to definitively state that the Swift boaters were simply telling the truth as if that is established and clear from the evidence.

tneloms on April 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

tneloms must have missed those.

Here’s one:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-08-28&id=4943

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM

I think that link isn’t right, or I just can’t see what you’re referring to on that page.

tneloms on April 23, 2010 at 4:59 PM

You have to go back to the founding statement at the beginning of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. They wouldn’t even have existed had not Kerry made broad statements saying that they routinely committed war crimes. So the opening salvo by Kerry, which was accepted by the press, included not only him and his crew, but the other bats in his squadron.

So the SBVFT demanded that Kerry provide proof that these crimes were in fact committed. The men that made up the core of the group were Officers and Enlisted of the other boats in the squadron. The press discounted their stories, “because they weren’t on Kerry’s boat.”

So Kerry makes a statement about them, even though he “wasn’t on their boats” and that’s ok. But the other crews have no standing to defend their honor because of the same reason. It only makes sense in a newsroom.

I was never on Swift Boats, as they didn’t exist when I came in. I was in enough small boat units to know that if something is going on, on another boat, everyone on the waterfront knows about it. Boat units mainly operate in groups due to constant danger of shore ambush.

You can discount what the SBVFT may have said because of errors in times and dates, but there is no standing to discount their stories because “they weren’t actually ON Kerry’s boat.”

Had Senator Kerry provided proof of his allegations of war crimes and opened his service record fully, the term “Swiftboating” wouldn’t exist.

TugboatPhil on April 23, 2010 at 6:52 PM

tneloms on April 23, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Disclaimer-I believe the Swift Boat guys, and always have, especially since one of them is a lifelong family friend and his credibility and honesty are beyond reproach. I have also debated directly with one of the leading service member critics of the Swifties, and the guy was an absolute raving nut. Sorry to say I can’t remember his name.

Link #1:

Totally inconclusive.

First of all, citing an AP article won’t help, as the “news organization” was itself in the tank for Kerri. He only released his complete military history to 3 reporters, one of whom was a Leftist AP reporter, but only if they agreed not to publicize them. The other two reporters? One from the LA Times, the other from the Boston Globe-both of whom endorsed Kerri.

AP cannot be considered to be objective in this matter, especially. That is because they had-in the same election cycle-successfully sued the Bush White House to release all of his military records, which he did. They then happily ignored and failed to report that his “opponent” refused to do the same.

As for Alfred French, this AP story references an interview he did with The Oregonian, which also endorsed Kerri. They do not give any exact quotes, just a generic line that “he said in an interview”. I’ve tried to find this Oregonian interview but it’s disappeared.

It’s interesting to note in this story that French’s critics accusing him of lying were soldiers-none had served on Swift Boats, unlike French and the 250 others who did.

Link #2:

Also inconclusive. You are aware that FactCheck’s veracity is in doubt, don’t you? Their “facts” on O’bama, for example, totally ignore the fact that their own owner gave O’bama his first community organizer’s job.

In addition, FactCheck’s “proof” is, if you read all of the footnotes at the bottom, based on primarily pro-Kerri sources. Out of the 11 cites, 3 of them are from Boston Globe “reporter” Michael Kranish, who was one of the 3 “reporters” who promised to keep Kerri’s military records secret. 1 more is from Kerri’s personal biographer Doug Brinkley, and all the others but 1 come from “newspapers” who endorsed Kerri for President. Hardly objective.

The other FactCheck footnote is of a sole fellow Swift Boat veteran, the infamous Bill Rood. So once again, we have biased analysis that doesn’t prove a thing to prove the Swifties were “lying”. Remember, over 250 of them signed the Swift Boat Letter to Kerri calling him dishonest, but so far here we have only one guy who also served defending him.

Link #3:

Thanks for reminding me of this example of biased “journalism”. You do know that ABC News’ Political Director at the time this laughable pro-Kerri campaign ad aired was Mark Halperin, famous for this memo to his “reporters” and news critters during the 2004 campaign. First, the Drudge setup to the actual memo, whose authenticity was confirmed by Halperin’s Superior:

An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to “reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable.”

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how “Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.”

But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to “win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.”

“The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done,” Halperin writes.

Halperin’s claim that ABCNEWS will not “reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable” set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.

Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have “become quite grave.”

In August, Halperin declared online: “This is now John Kerry’s contest to lose.”

Now the memo itself:

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns – and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today – nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides “equally” accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.

I’m sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It’s up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

Translated: “ABC News is now officially in the tank for Kerri.”

As for the ABC News in Vietnam story, it proves absolutely nothing. As analyst Tom Maguire noted at the time:

The producers of ABC’s Nightline have an interesting idea — go to Vietnam to research some of the questions about Kerry’s medals. Since the folks who participated in his battles as spectators, or from the other side, may not have any axe to grind in this election, ABC News may be able to confirm or refute the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

With that thought, ABC hired some translators and sent a crew up the river. Brilliant. Of course, we have our own questions. First, if ABC is so interested in Kerry’s war record, maybe they could send a crew to Kerry’s campaign headquarters and ask him to sign a Form 180 authorizing the release of his military records. And they wouldn’t even have to hire a translator. But I doubt they are really that interested.

Maguire wrote that before the Nightline campaign ad aired. After he watched it, he had this to say:

Does ABC think they have rebutted [the Swift Boat vets' critique]? And if so, do they realize that they have rebutted Kerry and his Band of Brothers?

Honestly, now — did ABC read the Globe account, or the Brinkley “Tour of Duty” account? Neither is cited in this story. Just what is going on here?

What Maguire is correctly noting here is that the testimony of the Vietnamese featured on Nightline conflicts not only with the accounts of the Swift Boat vets but also with those of Kerry and his crew.

3 pro-Kerri links, a grand total of 4 or 5 people saying Kerri was honest…and yet still 250+ of his fellow Swift Boaters say he was dishonest.

But feel free to offer additional evidence!

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 6:54 PM

A follow up to the ABC News story

When Kerri served in South Vietnam for a cushy 6 months, the country’s population in that area was between 10 and 20 million people. 35 years later, it was many times that number. Many times.

Out of all of those millions and millions of people, isn’t it a Festivus Miracle that ABC was able to find 3 people who were able to identify Jean-Claude Kerri from shore all those years later?

Only reasonable explanation I can think of is that ABC was assisted by the Vietnamese Ministry of Propaganda to find these people.

Either that or ABC made them up, or Kerri himself adopted them in 1973 to keep them in reserve.

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2010 at 11:30 PM

Slestak isn’t Kerry or even Kerryesk. Kerry destroyed any military credibility he had with his traitorous anti-war activities.

jpmn on April 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM