I’ve been sitting here for the last month or so trying to make some rational sense of this whole Swift Boat thing. It’s not been a notably successful effort. A few things are, however, apparent to me.
The first thing is that the Bush Reelection Campaign ought to be smart enough to take the simple steps necessary to insulate its self from the Swift Boat guys. The fact that some level of coordination is hard or impossible to demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence certainly does not mean that there has not been coordination. It seem to me that it is more likely than not that there has been coordination, covert though it may be. There probably is no common planning but it is easy enough for the word to pass from the President’s people to the people they know who know the Swift Boat guys that it would be very helpful to the President if the Swift Boat guys were put in contact with a good GOP PR outfit and if they got enough funding to put a TV publicity campaign together. In the real world no more than that is necessary to set off the chain of events. It has happened before; remember “will no one relieve me of this turbulent priest.” I am not so naive as to think that there is not similar communication of expatiations and hopes between the Kerry Campaign and Democrat section 527outfits.
The second thing is that there is a new waive of Swift Boat guys ads coming which will concentrate on Kerry’s Congressional testimony – apparently the claim will be (is) that the Swift Boat guys had the war won but John Kerry went in front of Congress and the war was thereby lost. The atrocities described by Kerry to Congress, however, were common knowledge among people in the armed forces who were paying attention to what was going on. I was instructed in the fine art of decapitation bodies for the effect on the enemy by the finest of the First Infantry Division in the summer of 1965 – the mutilation of enemy dead was doctrine. My chief of military justice in Germany in 1969 was just returned from an airborne division in Vietnam where one of his duties was to remove photos of troopers holding up strings of ears like sunfish on a stringer from out going mail. Free fire zones were established and used pretty much without regard to what or who was living in the zone. Me Lie happened and may have happened more than once. Prisoners were pushed out of hovering choppers to encourage other prisoners to talk. There is at least one film of a POW coming out of a chopper. Peasants were machine gunned for the amusement of the gunners and for no excuse beyond running. It all happened again and again. It and more was verified by the Detroit testimony and was repeated to a disbelieving Congressional committee by Kerry and by others.
Third, the attack by the Swift Boat guys is to the greatest extent insubstantial and seems to consist of three bitches – that Kerry’s action in February, 1969, was not up too their standard of bravery, that in March 1969 Kerry was not actually under enemy fire when he plucked 1LT Rassmunson from the river, and that Kerry was not sufficiently wounded to meet their requirements for the Purple Heart. Now, all that is just silly. It is especially silly when you know the criteria for the decorations are known along with the process for issuing them.
Fourth, I know what is going on here. I’ve defended enough law suits to recognize the tactic. What is going on here is the use of information that is not sufficient to persuade that Proposition One is true to create doubt about the truth of Proposition Two. It only works if you do not have the burden of persuasion and it only works if you have a jury that wants to doubt Proposition Two. In a trial I have some control of who is on my jury but when dealing with the electorate you don’t have that luxury. The creation of doubt with information you are not prepared to vouch for is dishonest. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that evidence supports a conclusion but you have to be very careful not to let bad or questionable evidence contaminate your client if the jury wises up.
Fifth, to continue the jury analogy, there is no way I’m going to let somebody who has made up their mind to accept Proposition One no matter what the evidence is serve on my jury no matter what side I represent. That guy catches a preemptory challenge right off the bat. Our friend Razorsharp falls into this category. In fact he can be counted to go into the jury room and concoct new arguments and facts not of record to advocate Proposition One. His disingenuous advocacy will drive other jurors away. Our friend Sam is the juror every defendant wants – you give him the merest whiff of a reasonable doubt – questionable credibility defense and he will lock up, sit is the corner and proclaim that the evidence just is not strong enough to make a decision. This guy is a walking hung jury. He wants proof absolute – proof beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of the evidence is not good enough for him. He wants unanimity of opinion. It ain’t going to happen. He gets on my jury only if my case is weak and I have no other hope of protecting my client.
Sixth, my President is incapable of candor. The characterization of his ideology ridden administration as incompetent and dishonest is wholly appropriate. He purports to see no difference between the fairly debatable proposition and one founded on deception and dishonesty and expedience. He has no business continuing to serve as the chief executive of the country I love and served in my relative youth.
Seventh, if this election is a referendum on the Bush administration then the President is in real trouble. If he can turn it into a referendum on who can throw the most mud he has a chance.