They’ve all been disputed. They haven’t been debunked. Scylla’s position is most accurate - if you give the burden of proof to the Swift Boat vets, then you have to say that they’ve failed to make their case in at least two of their charges, but they haven’t been debunked, either.
The problem here is that the two sides of this debate are assigning wildly different weightings to conflicting evidence. For instance, take yourself. Taking your statements at face value, you’ve decided that Kerry WAS in Cambodia on Christmas, because you’ve decided that John O’Neill was lying about never being in Cambodia himself.
On the other hand, we have EVERY sailor that served with Kerry saying that they weren’t in Cambodia (and that includes his ‘band of brothers’ who are campaigning for him). We have every other swiftboat commander saying that Kerry was never sent into Cambodia. We have his gunner, who says he served on every mission of PCF-44, signing an affidavit that they never went into Cambodia. Kerry’s commanding officer says he was never sent into Cambodia. There are no records of his being in Cambodia. His own biographer says that he wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas eve or Christmas day, but that he thinks he was there in January or February. However, there are at least three different versions of this coming out of the Kerry camp.
I say that that is compelling evidence that Kerry didn’t go into Cambodia. You decide that because John O’Neill has contradicted himself once on his own Cambodia experience that you will weight that greater than the evidence above. Is that correct? Despite having been shown that O’Neill’s inconsistency is easily explainable because he served in An Thoi, from which you can technically be ‘in Cambodia’ just by sailing north on the sea a few miles?
I’m not saying that your position is necessarily unreasonable. What I’m saying is that it is possible to have an honest disagreement about the issue - one worthy of serious debate, and one in which if you can’t come to an agreement there is no need to belittle your opponent.
The same goes for the other charges. There is a lot of evidence contradicting Kerry’s statements about what happened on March 13 on the Bay Hap river. On the other hand, there are a few eyewitnesses who back him up (and more who don’t). This is an issue worthy of debate - enough so that the Washington Post has felt it reasonable to expend considerable resources researching this story. And their own conclusion is mixed. Again, there is room here for honest debate.
I know of no claim by the Swiftboat vets that can be said to have been ‘debunked’. The ebb and flow of information has swung in their direction, and away from them. Witnesses have come forward to support them, and to rebut them.
In weighing the evidence, I tend to also consider the reputations and character of the men involved. The SBVT is not a bunch of burned-out vets who can’t hold jobs. They are very serious men with serious reputations to protect. Admiral Schachte was acting Judge Advocate General for the Navy. John O’Neill runs one of the most successful law firms in Houston. These men have a lot to lose by stepping forward. Given the sheer quantity of them, you can not say that they are shills of Karl Rove or the Republican party.
My take on the whole thing is that these guys didn’t like Kerry when he was there, and they were outraged when he came home and trashed them. They were further outraged to the point of hatred when he re-emerged this year as a war hero after throwing away his medals, and they were damned if they were going to let him ride his Swift Boat into the White House.
Given their obvious bias and animosity, is it possible that they went too far with some of their charges? Absolutely. They are clearly biased, and bias is insidious. Even if they believed they were being honest and responsible, some of their charges may be wrong or at least levelled without the requisite amount of proof for charges that serious. That’s what debate is all about.
But on this board, that is impossible. The bullies on the left will just scream at you and shout and call you a liar and a bastard and an idiot, and repeat until you go away. What’s good enough for analysis in the Post is apparently beneath the pale for a DEBATE board.
These are the same people who have been yapping for four years about Bush’s guard service, despite the fact that there is not 1/10 of the evidence against Bush than there is against Kerry, and that the charges levelled against Bush are not nearly as serious as those levelled at Kerry. Admiral Schachte is dismissed as a liar, but when Turnipseed says, “I don’t remember Bush on base…”, he’s an oracle of truth. When people come forward to say they served with Bush on that base, they are instantly branded liars. The Swiftboat vets? Liars. Sam Stone? A Liar. Scylla? A Liar. Oh, wait! He’s conceded a point! He’s a damned fine, upstanding individual who has learned to be a better human. At least until he disagrees with them again, at which point the name calling will begin anew.
And the kicker is that all these blinded-by-rage lefties think that they are the ones who are being thoughtful and reasonable.
