To be fair, although the first cite was to Democratic Underground, the post there was quoting cited material, so it wasn’t just some partisan hack giving his biased opinion. It was unfortunate that poster didn’t link to the primary source, but you’re wrong in rejecting that cite for the reasons given.
I’m telling you what happened. I’m not lying.
septimus and John Mace: Yes, I admit I’m dragging my feet somewhat on purpose regarding the NY Times cite. There’s a reason for this.
It offends me when people post lazy cites as Budget Player Cadet did here. He tossed a claim out there (that many of Kerry’s accusers are flip floppers) and clearly had no intention of backing it up. When I requested a cite, he tossed three links out with no quoting or further explanation. One was the DU. One was a cite we’d already discussed in this thread. One was behind a pay wall.
Yes, the DU thread had some cites in it, but I shouldn’t have to follow two clicks to get at the information. If you make a claim, back it up. Post directly to the information, and quote in the thread what you think is important or backs up what you claim.
Sure, I could gain access to the NY Times page by clearing my cookies and then read through it hoping to find evidence of what Budget Player Cadet was claiming. But I shouldn’t have to. That’s his job.
As you say, septimus I’m here to discuss ideas as well. However, since this board is so overwhelmingly biased towards one point of view I also try and force people to back up their casual assumptions with actual cites. It’s become so easy for a poster here with the “right” opinion to simply get away with tossing an assumption out there and having it not be challenged. Then people get annoyed with having to back up their claims, because everyone simply knows that it must be true.
It turns out I was right. Budget Player Cadet had no intention of backing up his claim. Just like Elvis, he wants to be able to toss something out there and have everyone simply assume it’s true but can’t be bothered to back it up.
Yes, let’s talk about the letter.
It opens:
Again, as I’ve maintained all along: The central focus is his accusations that he made against the military after the war.
Their first point is again on this theme:
This is probably a bit unfair of them, but I don’t see anything dishonest. It’s most likely fog of war stuff. Different people remember the same thing different ways. But there’s no accusation here that can be accurately called a lie.
This is not something they should be accusing him of without proof. Absent proof of a self inflicted injury they shouldn’t make this claim. However, I see no reason to think they don’t actually believe that his injuries are suspect. I won’t believe this without proof, but I also won’t call them liars for it either. It’s he said/they said.
This last point isn’t too important I don’t think. I don’t know if anyone really cares which side of the border Kerry was on that Christmas. It’s just a specific thing they latched on to in his testimony that they could challenge.
TL;DR: The swift boat vets were primarily angered at Kerry by his statements and actions after the war. Their accusations against him, while mostly centered on that, also included things during the war. These accusations about his conduct during the war don’t have as much proof as I’d like but fall short of being outright lies.
I admire the artful wording here, specifically, “your exaggerated testimony”. Exaggerated? What an interesting word choice, no? Not “false”, not “lies”, but “exaggerated”. It implies and insinuates dishonesty without the burden of specifics.
Exaggerated how, perzackly? There were maybe twenty civilians murdered, but he implied a hundred? There were hundreds of such incidents, but he implied thousands? He suggested these were the most shameful events in American history, when, really, they barely qualify for the Top Ten?
A “big picture” viewpoint is good in a debate like this. Debating detail-by-detail, perhaps excerpting 2 sentences from the NYTimes article for one sub-debate and then 2 other sentences several hours later for a slightly different point is tedious.
I usually quote an excerpt from an article – sometimes just to hint at the flavor of the article – and often regret even that: Dopers will focus on that excerpt without even clicking to the worthwhile article.
I would take issue with SDMB being “overwhelmingly biased towards one point of view.” There are many on the right, center-right, and center. Admittedly, to Americans focused on just two poles – the Democrats (right-of-center) and GOP (apeshit) – the board will seem largely leftist.
As for Swiftboating, it’s important to note that this was certainly no spontaneous movement; it was strongly orchestrated by Karl Rove.
And the droll hypocrisy! Slandering and insulting a decorated veteran for slandering and insulting vets! Can’t make up shit like that.
Do you usually cite another message board post that itself has the cites? Do you usually just post a URL without so much as a single word of comment?
It’s not mandatory to quote the article, but it certainly helps. Or at least, stating your case or paraphrasing or something. In this case, we got none of that.
There’s an accusation that the Swift Boat Vets are a “right wing front group” in post 177. I asked for clarification on that. Then the response that it was funded by Republicans (of course it was) and that “many people” making claims against Kerry “flip flopped” against previous positions to make him look bad.
So I asked for a cite of this. A good response to this would be some names. Who are these many people? What claims did they walk back?
Instead we get three links with no commentary. It probably took him three minutes to google those up. One of them had already been debated in this thread. It was weak. It deserved to be called out.
Many? Let’s see, there’s me. There’s Shodan. There’s me…
You guys successfully converted Airman Doors so we can’t count him.
Will you at least admit that I’m outnumbered in this thread? That it probably makes sense for the people in the majority to back up their claims themselves when they make them rather than forcing me to do the work?
I disagree. Rove helped organize it, sure. But the ball got rolling by the admiral, and the motivation for most of those involved was their dislike of Kerry due to his statements about the military after the war. This has all already been posted with cites in this thread.
I suspect they are talking about this, from Kerry’s testimony:
And especially the underlined portion.
This is actually a good example of what we’re talking about. You are making a claim: That rather than being spontaneous the SBV movement was orchestrated by Rove. But you supply a link that doesn’t mention the Kerry election at all. It was written in 2002, long before Kerry was even a candidate and before the Swift Boat Vets had formed.
I read that, expecting at any moment it might have something to do with what you were claiming. It doesn’t. Got an actual cite for your claim that Rove orchestrated the vets, rather than Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann as previous cites in this thread have shown?
Note that I’m not doubting Rove was involved in funding and backing the swift boat vets. But you made a claim. Back it up. It appears to me that you just posted the first google hit you found mentioning Karl Rove. Or is there something in that cite that I missed?
The whole thing sound exaggerated to me. I’d underline a lot more than that.
Kerry should never have made those claims without proof or at least having first hand knowledge of the events.
:smack: :smack: :smack:
The link for Karl Rove was about … Karl Rove. I provided a link to his methods because I’ve learned many GOP apologists have no clue how despicable that man is.
If you’re interested in an article about Rove’s connection to Swiftboat, let me recommend … (wait for it) … the NYTimes article you still refuse to read. :smack: :smack: :smack:
HTH
(ETA: No snark about Font size 3, please. Given your obstinance, I’m more worried the font is still too small.)
The problem is that if Kerry said that he saw it personally, the natural question is “Why didn’t you do anything about it?”
Regards,
Shodan
What do you think Kerry claimed to have seen personally? And why do you think so?
Sure you are, and maybe, just maybe, there’s a reason for that, hmm?
Trying reading my post again, more slowly this time.
Regards,
Shodan
So you’re asking why Kerry didn’t do anything about things you aren’t actually claiming he even saw personally. Got it. :rolleyes:
That’s a novel variant of JAQ’ing, but it’s still worthy only of pointing and laughing.
What could one do, other than talking about it later?
The smileys and font size don’t do you any favors. It just makes you come across as unhinged.
Let me ask you this: Do you think it adds value to post a cite like that about the evils of Karl Rove to the thread? We hadn’t been discussing him. You bring him up out of nowhere with a claim. But your link doesn’t back that claim up. Do you stand by it? If so make an argument.
I’m not going to do your homework for you. I’ve explained why this is. I won’t read every cite vomited into the thread without comment by Budget Player Cadet, and you can’t make me. If you want to make an argument by all means make it. Just don’t expect to be able to toss something off without actually backing it up.
It seems to me you’re just looking for some high fives because Karl Rove = Evil, or something. Maybe you’d be better off posing in a place where dissent isn’t allowed such as DU. People would surely love such a post there.
Stop it. Like Hugh Thompson did.
I don’t disagree that they were primarily mad about his after-war activities. I disagree that that was the focus of their campaign. After all, the letter wanted him to apologize or admit to one thing that happened after the war and three things that happened during it.