David:
Indeed it would.
I think the point is that no military record could possibly withstand the microscopic inspection of detail to which Kerry’s records have been subjected by the Swifties. There will always be some ambiguities in the record, some different versions of the events, and so forth, that can be exploited to cast doubt on the official history. Who wrote the after-action report? How deep was the shrapnel, really? How many people were on the boat? Etc.
As we say in Sweden, the Swifties read Kerry’s war record the way the Devil reads the Bible: that is to say, with an eye to exploit every possible ambiguity in the record to cast Kerry’s service in a bad light. But if the Swifties feel that this sort of attack is justified, then I call upon them to also sign 180s; let’s see if their own records can stand up to the sort of scrutiny to which they have subjected Kerry’s.
It has been gratifying to watch this attack come apart like a piece of wet toilet paper over the last couple of days. Thurlow has been completely discredited. He won’t release his records because he’s afraid they will be twisted against him, i.e., he’s afraid someone will do to him exactly what he’s doing to Kerry. He says that doesn’t remember that his own citation for a Bronze Star clearly states he performed his heroic rescue mission under enemy fire, a claim that beggars belief. His performance on Hardball was pathetic; the idea that Kerry “engineered” his medals so as to exploit them later is beyond ludicrous.
The New York Times article referred to by Drudge is available here. It includes a very interesting pop-up graphic detailing the relationships among various important Republican operatives and the Swifties (which, unfortunately, I don’t know how to link). Definitely worth looking at, though, and, not surprisingly, we see that Rove has a finger in this game as well.
I’m falling out of this discussion mainly because there just doesn’t really seem to be that much to debate anymore. I agree with elucidator regarding the eRiposte website, and highly recommend it. It squarely demolishes a great deal of the Swifties testimony, in particular Hibbard’s poor memory.
I will say this, though: in my case, at least, the Swifties’ tactics have backfired. I think Kerry has thus far addressed this issue in an admirable manner, and for the first time in my adult life, I’m beginning to believe in a presidential candidate. Kerry sure sounds sincere to me, and he’s intelligent and articulate. Prior to this debate, I was voting primarily against Bush; but now, given what I’ve learned, I think I’ll actually be voting for Kerry.
Thanks, Swifties!
