# Pitting Liberal - what a surprise. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 1, 2008, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921 "2008-07-01T16:42:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/141 "2008-07-04T06:56:22Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] > **[Swiftboating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating)** > > The term swiftboating, also swift-boating or swift boating, is a pejorative American neologism used to describe an unfair or untrue political attack. The term is derived from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), the organization responsible for a widely publicized—and later discredited—political smear campaign against the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Since the 2004 United States presidential election, the term has been commonly applied to a political The term "Swift Boat"... [/QUOTE] Yes, the left has tried mightily to taint the men. It made it to Wiki. I’m shocked. Tell me, if the Swift Vets were proven to be 100% correct in their accusations and interpretations, is there any “taint” to what they did? Of course not. And they maintain, and I believe, that they are right. The new book I cited seems to support that position. That and that we STILL don’t have Kerry’s complete military records, which he vowed to release. Sorry, Kerry = Dishonorable Lying Sack of Shit. Evidence: 1) His testimony to the senate, creating a false impression and impugning men that weren’t there to defend themselves, 2) throwing his medals over the war and then seeking to get elected on those same medals, 3) his conduct as a Swiftboater as relayed by the Swift Vets. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/142 "2008-07-04T09:37:17Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] It made it to Wiki.. [/QUOTE] So whence did you want a standard acceptable definition of a word coined in 2004? The 1928 OED, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/143 "2008-07-04T15:09:45Z")
> [@](#): > > …His stories to the Senate committee were absolute les..fabrications..perjury..fantasies, with NO substance… (As quoted by **Liberal** , page one) Mr. Day impugns the integrity of the Winter Soldier testimony. The men who testified were lying, perjuring fabricators. Did he verify this? Has he presented any evidence that they were making shit up? And not just inaccurate, mind you, not merely slipshod on details, but, and I quote “absolute lies”. He must have been quite busy, running down all those testimonies. When, exactly, did he do this? And if he didn’t, isn’t he guilty of _precisely_ the same dishonorable behavior that you shrilly insist Kerry is guilty of? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/144 "2008-07-04T17:01:49Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. You will take the position that if any of the atrocities he claimed actually happened, he was justified in his comments. and that “how do we know those other things didn’t happen too?” Day’s (my) position will be that unless he can prove that all of the accusations are true, then he either lied or acted dishonorably. Or both. Also, the passage I quoted earlier about these atrocities being routine is highly problematic for him. **Because even if each of the accusations were correct, his projecting it out is him jut making stuff up**. [/QUOTE] This is a false statement. It’s a question of judging the evidence presented. My position has no resemblance to the one you described. I acknowledge a big difference between the isolated events of horror that occur in war and a wide spread occurrence of atrocities with full knowledge of officers. The\*\* evidence\*\* indicates the latter is true. I also reject that \*\*all \*\* the accusations have to be true for Kerry’s statement to be factual. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s simply a false statement. Over 100 combat vets testified at WS. There was a process of checking and double checking to verify their status as combat vets. Still a few phonies and exaggerators slipped in but apparently , according to your own cites, very few. That leaves about a hundred sworn testimonies of combat vets about what they witnessed first hand. For Day or others to say they don’t believe it, or never witnessed anything like that doesn’t disprove a thing. Out of numerous platoons that served over the ten years we were there I can believe many or most of them didn’t participate in atrocities. The pertinent questions are, how many were, and did officers know? How many platoons would it take for Kerry’s statement that you keep repeating " > [@](#): > > not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command… to be true? The emotional response that this somehow implicates \*all \*VN vets is just false. I understand it but it has nothing to do with the facts or the strong implications of the evidence. > [@](#): > > And if I have to assess who is telling the truth about what went down in Vietnam and choose between Bud Day who saw lots of combat and who has demonstrated extremely honorable action time and again and Kerry, who 1) spent about 3 months in combat and has a record that is questionable at best and 2) gathered stories in a process that has revealed that people—some of whom had never even been in combat in Vietnam— completely fabricated stories and 3) had a clear political agenda he was pursuing, and 4) lied to the senate saying his remarks were impromptu when the speech had been written for him, I have to go with Day. Especially since so many Swift Boat Vets and other HIGHLY decorated servicemen who were in Vietnam agree with him. But you’re not just choosing between Day and Kerry. Day’s statement accuses every combat vet who testified at WS of being a liar. Somehow you can accept that Kerry is maligning all VN vets but refuse to see how clearly Day is maligning the WS vets. Add to that that he is doing so without presenting any evidence that he is correct and his statement flies in the face of existing testimony. You keep trotting out his medals and the opinions of others as if they add credence to his statement. No more or less than Kerry’s or the WS vets. IMO this is not a matter of opinion or political bias. The actual evidence presented indicates it is Day who is lying and maligning vets rather than Kerry. I’m speaking specifically about his testimony before the Senate committee and not about any questions about his purple hearts or service in general. > [@](#): > > Do you really think all those people I mentioned are wrong and kerry and a few others are right? A few others? Over 100 VN combat vets. Those few others? If we got 100 vets together that testified “I never saw or participated in any atrocities” does that prove anything about the honesty of the WS vets? No. btw , on the site containing the testimony transcripts one vet says. > [@](#): > > And bounties were put on our own men in our own companies if they were inadequate in the field. And they were either disposed of, or wounded, or something to this effect just to make sure they were taken away. Shocking? I worked with a VN vet for several years who told me this. If a young gung ho officer ignored the experienced master Sargent and was putting his squad in unnecessary danger they would pool their money and someone would take him out. I don’t have the time or the interest to research Kerry’s service and the details of his medals. I do think a commitment to honesty requires that we don’t accept obviously biased sources as completely accurate. > [@](#): > > I had read _Unfit for Command_ and that is what sealed the deal for me against Kerry. This new book has even more information. And from the one chapter online, I was impressed with the degree to which they included all the facts known, even those that would, in isolation, help Kerry. When reading biased material I try discern how much of a commitment to honesty the author has. To what degree are they willing to twist the evidence and reason to support their conclusions. If they say evidence X clearly indicates Y when reason and logic tells me that’s not so , I take that into consideration when gaging their credibility. That’s why I reject Michael Moore. He seems to want to support his own POV more than he wants to honestly present the facts. Then he has the nerve to call it a documentary. I don’t think the details of Kerry’s service 30 years ago is all that relevant to his being a candidate for president, especially given the choices we had at the time. He made a tactical error by making it a bigger issue than it should have been and another when he didn’t fight back effectively. The swift boaters themselves are another issue. Did they misrepresent the facts in order to win an election? In the case of Day and his comments about Kerry’s testimony, the evidence indicates he lied. The evidence does not indicate Kerry lied. In lying he maligned a substantial group of VN combat vets, not just Kerry himself. The emotional response that Kerry maligned VN vets with his testimony is opinion not based in the facts or the existing evidence. > [@](#): > > As a cite I offer that book. Seriously. I haven’t read it yet, but I think it will have the most complete presentation of the facts. yes, it has the taint of bias. But do you really expect there to be an 100% unbiased recitation of the facts. Maybe there will be a counter to this book, which I will red also. But from the one chapter I read, it appears the that the worst one thought about Kerry are true. The other cite you offered seemed okay at first, but since I had already read the Wikki article which was intended to be informative of the facts without making political judgments, I noticed right away that the author left out some significant facts in order to make his argument more convincing. I have no interest in reading Unfit for duty or any other book about Kerry’s service because the issue seems irrelevant. I am interested in judging the honesty factor in groups such as the swift boaters and Moveon. Since you seem interested in looking at the evidence from both sides I recommend that you look at some of the actual testimony on you tube and read some of the testimony from the link I provided. Then tell me if you think these men are all liars as Day clearly said they were. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/145 "2008-07-04T17:42:10Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01] I don’t know what you mean by the “Swift Boat sliminess”. Surely you don’t mean the honorable Swifties who revealed Kerry to be the Dishonorable Lying Sack of Shit that he is, do you? Those Swift Vets? And Clark has been criticized by more than just Day. Not that Day cannot criticize anyone he wants. Kinda like you or me. Except for all the extraordinary service to his country, heroism, etc. that is his baggage. [/QUOTE] Bud Day has also been criticized by more than just me. He was criticized by … wait for it… _John McCain_. On August 5, 2004. In an inteview with the Associated Press. McCain called Day’s participation in the anti-Kerry ads “dishonest and dishonorable”. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/146 "2008-07-04T18:02:29Z")
in looking for info on the SBVT to determine their credibility and their commitment to an honest presentation of the facts I came upon [this Wikki article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy) I acknowledge that Wikki is not a 100% reliable and accurate source but I think it would be hard to present it as being full of liberal bias. It is intended to be a presentation of information without political agenda much more than books like Unfit For Command ,…wouldn’t you say? I haven’t read the whole thing but here’s what stood out so far. > [@](#): > > Several members of SBVT served in the same unit as Kerry, but only one, Stephen Gardner, served on the same boat. A number of Kerry’s later SBVT critics claimed to have been present on accompanying Swift Boats, at some of the salient events of Kerry’s enemy engagements in Vietnam. > > Defenders of John Kerry’s service record, including virtually all of his former crewmates, have stated that SBVT’s accusations are false. Purple Heart > [@](#): > > Some SBVT members have questioned Kerry’s first Purple Heart, received for a wound sustained on December 2, 1968. Kerry remained on duty after being wounded, and sought treatment at the following day’s sick call. They assert that the injury was too minor to merit a citation because the only treatment Kerry received, after the removal of a piece of shrapnel from his arm, was bacitracin (an antibiotic) and a bandage, and he returned to service immediately; however, other division members, including at least one SBVT member, received Purple Hearts under similar circumstances > [@](#): > > The criteria for the Purple Heart call for its award for any injury received during combat requiring treatment by a medical officer; the military makes no distinction regarding the severity of the injury. Under military regulations, the Purple Heart is awarded for “friendly fire” wounds in the “heat of battle”, so long as the fire is targeted “under full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.” > [@](#): > > In an interview in 2003, Schachte made no mention of being on the skimmer with Kerry that night; in addition, he described the action as a “firefight” and said of Kerry, “He got hit.” In August 2004, however, Schachte stated that he was the senior officer on Kerry’s skimmer that night, with one enlisted man also on board, that he popped a flare after detecting movement, and opened fire. He stated that there was no return fire, and that Kerry was “nicked” by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself. > [@](#): > > Kerry crewmates Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon dispute Schachte’s 2004 account. Zaladonis stated that “Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer.” Runyon added, “Me and Bill aren’t the smartest, but we can count to three.” Bronze Star > [@](#): > > Kerry’s Bronze Star has been criticized by former Swift boat commander Larry Thurlow. > [@](#): > > alleged that Kerry’s citation for bravery under fire is false because neither Kerry’s boat nor any of the others was under hostile fire. In a sworn affidavit about the incident, Thurlow testified, “I never heard a shot.” > [@](#): > > Several other witnesses insist that there was hostile fire during the incident. Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river…When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. > [@](#): > > " Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote “All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach… Anyone who doesn’t think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river.” here’s the clincher > [@](#): > > Although it is not mentioned in Unfit for Command, Thurlow himself was awarded a Bronze Star for his actions during the same incident. Thurlow’s citation includes several phrases indicating hostile fire such as “despite enemy bullets flying about him” and “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire”, and speaks of fire directed at “all units” of the five-boat fleet. That smacks of exactly the kind of avoidance of pertinent facts I just mentioned. Someone who’s agenda matters more than their honesty. There’s lots more. At the very least we can seriously question the memories of several members of SBVT since other combat veterans \*\*who were there \*\* strongly disagree. When you factor in the political agenda as well I think it pretty much crushes their credibility. That’s not to say Kerry is all honor and glory and they are the opposite. I’m only saying that somewhere along the way we have to put a little honesty and a reasonable assessment of the evidence above our political preferences. To believe Unfit for Duty is an accurate portrayal of Kerry is to deny additional credible evidence and the testimony of other vets. It’s an example of an incredibly obvious double standard. “The SBVT are telling the truth and everybody else that was there is lying” It’s ludicrous. The fact that Thurlow himself was awarded a bronze star in the same incident that he criticized Kerry’s for removes his credibility wouldn’t you say? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/147 "2008-07-04T18:04:51Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Bud Day has also been criticized by more than just me. He was criticized by … wait for it… _John McCain_. On August 5, 2004. In an inteview with the Associated Press. McCain called Day’s participation in the anti-Kerry ads “dishonest and dishonorable”. [/QUOTE] Oooooooooo A smack down if I ever saw one. I believe McCain also expressed regret over similar tactics being used on Max Cleland. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/148 "2008-07-04T18:20:39Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] Bud Day has also been criticized by more than just me. He was criticized by … wait for it… _John McCain_. On August 5, 2004. In an inteview with the Associated Press. McCain called Day’s participation in the anti-Kerry ads “dishonest and dishonorable”. [/QUOTE] Are you sure about that? What I’ve seen, from [media matters](http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050007) is that: > [@](#): > > In an August 5 interview with the Associated Press, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), “a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the ad criticizing John Kerry’s military service ‘dishonest and dishonorable’ and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.” So, he called the ad “dishonest and dishonorable”. Here’s a [transcript of the ad](http://web.archive.org/web/20041012040319/http://www.swiftvets.com/script.html), and I don’t see Bud Day in it: > [@](#): > > Any Questions? > > John Edwards: “If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him.” > > Al French: “I served with John Kerry.” > > Bob Elder: “I served with John Kerry.” > > George Elliott: “John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.” > > Al French: “He is lying about his record.” > > Louis Letson: “I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury.” > > Van O’Dell: “John Kerry lied to get his bronze star … I know, I was there, I saw what happened.” > > Jack Chenoweth: “His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day.” > > Admiral Hoffman: “John Kerry has not been honest.” > > Adrian Lonsdale: “And he lacks the capacity to lead.” > > Larry Thurlow: “When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry.” > > Bob Elder: “John Kerry is no war hero.” > > Grant Hibbard: “He betrayed all his shipmates … he lied before the Senate.” > > Shelton White: “John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam.” > > Joe Ponder: “He dishonored his country … he most certainly did.” > > Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry … > > Bob Hildreth (off-camera): John Kerry cannot be trusted." > > Announcer: “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.” Was there a different ad and/or a different associated press interview? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/149 "2008-07-04T18:22:39Z")
They didn’t shoot at Kerry because Jane Fonda told them not to. It all makes sense when you look at it the right way. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/150 "2008-07-04T21:50:29Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Are you sure about that? What I’ve seen, from [media matters](http://mediamatters.org/items/200408050007) is that: So, he called the ad “dishonest and dishonorable”. Here’s a [transcript of the ad](http://web.archive.org/web/20041012040319/http://www.swiftvets.com/script.html), and I don’t see Bud Day in it: Was there a different ad and/or a different associated press interview? [/QUOTE] Day did appear in a [SBVT ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLwSaWB_G90) just not that specific one. Day’s issue with Kerry {as well as other SBVT members} seems to be his involvement with The anti war movement after returning from VN rather than his service there. The problem is allowing yourself to be used as a political dupe and being so closely associated with all the lies told about Kerry’s service. If you are riding in the car during a drive by shooting you share some of the responsibility. If they had simply expressed their opinions about Kerry’s anti war activities that’s one thing. Outright distortions of the truth used to attack him is quite another. Evidently McCain thought so too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/151 "2008-07-04T22:13:28Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Day did appear in a [SBVT ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLwSaWB_G90) just not that specific one. Day’s issue with Kerry {as well as other SBVT members} seems to be his involvement with The anti war movement after returning from VN rather than his service there. The problem is allowing yourself to be used as a political dupe and being so closely associated with all the lies told about Kerry’s service. If you are riding in the car during a drive by shooting you share some of the responsibility. If they had simply expressed their opinions about Kerry’s anti war activities that’s one thing. Outright distortions of the truth used to attack him is quite another. Evidently McCain thought so too. [/QUOTE] Regardless, it does not seem that McCain ever called Day or his actions “dishonest and dishonorable”. Part of **Liberal** ’s argument is that he has McCain on his side (historically) and that McCain is being hypocritical by having Day speak on his behalf now. I’ve seen \*\*Liberal \*\*playing fast and lose with the facts lately, and he is often making uncited claims about McCain that don’t stand up to close scrutiny. Sound familiar? As for Day, he was a POW when Kerry (at the very least indirectly) called him a war criminal on Meet the Press. I imagine Day might hold a bit of a grudge about that. No? Even Kerry said, during the 2004 campaign, that he felt he went a bit overboard in his statements about war crimes. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/152 "2008-07-04T22:31:11Z")
You’re probably right there, **John.** I recall McCain very weakly protesting the treatment of Kerry, then he got busy pressing wildflowers. He certainly doesn’t deserve the sort of praise **Lib** is serving him for integrity and fairness. Good catch! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/153 "2008-07-04T22:45:20Z")
I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean. Anyway, there is much to criticize McCain over. His association with Day is not one of them. Perhaps McCain can no more disown Day than he could disown his own white grandmothers. (McCain had two.) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/154 "2008-07-04T23:16:43Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Regardless, it does not seem that McCain ever called Day or his actions “dishonest and dishonorable”. Part of **Liberal** ’s argument is that he has McCain on his side (historically) and that McCain is being hypocritical by having Day speak on his behalf now. I’ve seen \*\*Liberal \*\*playing fast and lose with the facts lately, and he is often making uncited claims about McCain that don’t stand up to close scrutiny. Sound familiar? [/QUOTE] I’ll grant you that McCain didn’t call Day dishonest and dishonorable directly. It is obvious that McCain wasn’t too happy about that brand of dishonest politics at the time {since it also cost him the nomination} but he certainly seems okay with it now. If that’s not hypocritical it’s awfully dam close. > [@](#): > > As for Day, he was a POW when Kerry (at the very least indirectly) called him a war criminal on Meet the Press. I imagine Day might hold a bit of a grudge about that. No? Even Kerry said, during the 2004 campaign, that he felt he went a bit overboard in his statements about war crimes. It’s obvious to me that Day and other vets feel that way about Kerry. I don’t see Kerry’s testimony as saying that at all. Saying that government officials lied and war crimes that were clearly against international law were being committed, hidden, and ignored with full knowledge of officers is a bitter pill to swallow but that doesn’t make it untrue. It also does not malign every vet who served and died or our POWs. As much as we’d like to simplify things to a we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys type of mentality it’s about time we grew the fuck up and acknowledged that’s not how real life works. If the SBVT {for truth, how ironic} wanted to vent their feelings about Kerry’s testimony and express their opinions about it there’s nothing dishonest in that. It was the extremes they went to to distort the facts that condemns them as dishonorable. What gets me is how Day could condemn Kerry for what he thought was maligning the vets while he personally called the WS combat veterans liars and frauds. Isn’t that hypocrisy plain and simple? ftr, after reading about Day’s service I am very reluctant to criticize him. He went through experiences I can’t even imagine. Still, that doesn’t mean he’s got his facts correct. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/155 "2008-07-04T23:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean. Anyway, there is much to criticize McCain over. His association with Day is not one of them. Perhaps McCain can no more disown Day than he could disown his own white grandmothers. (McCain had two.) [/QUOTE] OKay that’s a good one. 🙂 I object to people playing guilt by association with Day and McCain because of what happened 4 years ago. Let’s wait and see what happens this election and speak plainly about it when it goes down. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2008, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/156 "2008-07-04T23:47:38Z")
Like I said earlier, I really don’t want to go back and debate the Vietnam war. I was against it then, just like I’m against the Iraq war now. But McCain and Day have had a long and deep relationship, so I don’t see why he has to “reject and denounce” (that’s what pols are supposed to do these days 🙂 ) him over what he did in 2004, and it shouldn’t be surprising that he did not say Day was “dishonest and dishonorable”, as he said about those folks who tried to smear Kerry’s military record. Day was focussed on Kerry’s anti-war activities, and I bet McCain doesn’t feel to happy about those either, even if he seems too have gotten over it whereas Day hasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921/157 "2008-07-05T13:17:37Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Like I said earlier, I really don’t want to go back and debate the Vietnam war. I was against it then, just like I’m against the Iraq war now. But McCain and Day have had a long and deep relationship, so I don’t see why he has to “reject and denounce” (that’s what pols are supposed to do these days 🙂 ) him over what he did in 2004, and it shouldn’t be surprising that he did not say Day was “dishonest and dishonorable”, as he said about those folks who tried to smear Kerry’s military record. Day was focussed on Kerry’s anti-war activities, and I bet McCain doesn’t feel to happy about those either, even if he seems too have gotten over it whereas Day hasn’t. [/QUOTE] I have some great friends with whom I strongly disagree on certain issues. I agree, there’s no reason for McCain to denounce and distance himself from Day personally. If tactics similar to the 2004 SBVT travesty start appearing we’ll see how JM reacts. Perhaps the SBVT could run another ad. “Hi, remember us? We’re the Vets who lied about John Kerry’s service in the 2004 election. We just want you to know we now support John McCain, because it’s all about character” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-liberal-what-a-surprise/454921.md?page=7)