Swift Boat Vets Site - seems phony

Well with a thread title like that, you can see why I started this in the Pit.
Their site (I won’t bother posting the URL) seems incredibly one-sided.
There are absolutely NO dissenting opinions. Everyone hates Kerry and loves Dubya.
Every posting about Kerry is 100% negative.
It seems to have a huge membership but I’m wondering if some of that is just being made up.
After all, one person working in their basement could come up with a website that seems to be outrageously popular but its “membership” consists of a couple of thousand of hotmail accounts.

I see from another posting that a Bush crony is connected with the swift boat website:

Well, if you think I’m wrong feel free to pounce away. I asked for it. Hey this is the Pit.

From what I’ve read, the guy that started the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth group, John E. O’Neill, seems to be motivated not so much by love of G.W. – he voted for Perot in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000 – as by a blind hatred of John Kerry.

And it’s apparently a long-standing grudge: he first heard Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War testimony to Congress while laid up in a hospital, and was furious at Kerry’s allegations of atrocities perpetrated by American troops. He wrangled his way on to the Dick Cavett show in 1971 to debate Kerry, wearing, he says, the only suit he owned and paying his own travel expenses to get there.

Now, the rest of the group may well be Bush partisans and shills - who knows - but his guy doesn’t seem to be a fan of Bush so much as an enemy of Kerry.

  • Rick

I think that’s pretty accurate. I also think that such men as these are both misguided and exploited. Misguided in that they blame Kerry for speaking the unpleasant truth, a truth that reflects dishonor upon them. But their ire is misplaced, the men they should be angry with are the creeps who committed the acts and the cowardly slime that covered it up.

The exploitation part speaks for itself.

We shouldn’t blame the truth-tellers, but of course we frequently do. And that is bad enough. But the people who seek to exploit Kerry’s courage in speaking truth to power, and to turn it against him are cynical, power grubbing swine.

I lurked there for a while.

The moderators there are pretty aggressive in shutting down and deleting anything that diverges from the party line. Lots of bannings.

I will not go back after reading a poster saying he supports GWB because of his plans and efforts in killing a lot of Arabs.

I’ve half a mind to copy/paste the post though and start a GD thread “How common is this attitude.” Because it is a silent constituency for Bush. The size of which may have a bearing on the election.

Is it really that silent of an attitude? I don’t think so. I’ve heard enough of this crap from people, and I live in one of the most liberal places in the U.S.

Sam

It struck me as an interesting insight into the mindset of one of those “end of the world” groups, and what it must be like sitting in their midst as the deadline for the end of the world comes and passes, and the evidence for their being completely wrong becomes an overwhelming flood.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t exaggerating the opinion expressed at all. Although I often do exaggerate to make a point, not this time.

I don’t live in or post from the US. So my communication with US-minded people is through message boards and the major newspapers. The attitude in question isn’t frequently committed to writing in those. So maybe those of you who live there come across is more often, mixing with the people and all.

You know, my curiosity is piqued because it is not an attitude that gets much airing in the reputable press or polite company. Not many or any, US newpapers are prepared to canvas how common that attitude is.

What plenty of money gets:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/siege_11.html?sect=7

Money made the difference…

Money talks, OJ walks.

And Mark Fuhrman’s credibility was in the toilet.

In today’s case, money is giving the swift flip-floppers a platform for their lies and innuendo; and they are passing it as a valid issue while the confirmed evidence on the side of Kerry, is given the same weight in the mainstream media!

As if those positions are somehow equal! The right is controlling the discussion by making the lies of one position to have the same weight of the truth of the other position, the resulting “fair” action of the mainstream media is to give a lot of time to false positions, and people then are misled, not all of them, but enough of them are, so the right then gets enough votes to squeak by.

Once money and book and movie offers enter the picture, memories do tend to become “creative”, and people who were friendly before, (several swifters are on record of praising Kerry until he got the nomination) now turn to backstabbers for fiction’s sake.

The shameful thing is, that is not for king and country, but for Mammon and partisanship.

Except none of what you said applies to SBVFT Mr. O’Neill, who launched his crusade against Mr. Kerry in 1971, long before there was any money involved, and who was not then nor is now a partisan, having supported Republican opponents in the previous two elections.

Right?

Except that you haven’t shown any reason why it’s phony, or even what you mean by that.

In fact, it is your OP that seems rather phony, in the sense of American Heritage definition 3a: Insincere or hypocritical. For example, you open with a disingenuous, almost RTFirefly sort of disclaimer, saying that you’re putting this in the Pit because the thread title compels it. I suppose you are hoping that it will occur to no one that you composed the title that compelled you…

Then, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, you omit even so much as a link to the site that you’re criticizing, as though you are shielding the eyes of children from a pornographic image, rather than holding a sincere discussion with adults capable of thinking for themselves. The site, incidentally, is SwiftVets.com.

Then, you lament that there are no dissenters, that everyone loves Bush but hates Kerry, except that in your lamentation, you mangled one name but not the other — just in case you thought you had concealed your own bias while accusing others of having biases. You note that everything there favors Bush over Kerry. Of course, that criterion would make John Kerry’s own site phony.

Finally, you raise a suspicion as though it were an assertion, and ponder whether the site is not the work of some lone madman in a basement, whose membership is a few thousand free e-mail accounts, apparently blind to the irony of how closely your description matched the description of a much more familiar site — one which you then invoked, in a self-referential vortex, to support your suspicion. But your self-reference amounted to nothing more than a guilt-by-association accusation.

As you say, you asked for it. Phony is as phony does.

Wrong, and I am begining to lose respect of anyone that has ignored the Nixon tapes:
http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003260.html

IIRC, the context of the O’Neill meeting Nixon was to collude with Tricky Dick against Kerry and other veterans against the war. You could not get more partisan than that.

Oh god, another person duped by John “Life-Long Democrat” O’Neill. The money trail shows he’s lying about his votes, too.

If O’Neill was in it for the money, why would he be donating his share of the proceeds from “Unfit for Command” to charity? That book is going to sell at least a million copies. His share of the profits will probably amount to a million bucks or more, and he’s giving it all to veteran’s charities. He’s also the main partner in a huge law firm, so I don’t think he’s doing this for the cash.

You guys just can’t accept the fact that the swiftvets are for real. They are honorable military people who believe that John Kerry has unfairly maligned them and that he has misrepresented his military service, and they are seeking to set the record straight.

Now, they may be wrong about some details. They are clearly correct about others. The fog of war may explain some differences of opinion on what happened, but they believe strongly that they are correct. They aren’t Karl Rove’s minions.

No, it doesn’t. O’Neill says people aren’t looking in the right place. The money he gave to Democrats wasn’t for federal races, but for Houston city politics. Therefore, the records aren’t in the FEC database. I can’t find the article now, but he gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal last week, and he named the politicians he had given money to, and invited the reporter to go to the Houston election records and look it up for himself. $25,000.

He also says he was supporting Edwards in this election, and that if Kerry dropped out he would support Edwards over Bush.

Like even a Butthead said: “You can’t polish a turd, Beavis.”

Revealing the partisanship and hatred for Kerry points to big axes to grind the swiffters have against Kerry. That is real enough, it has nothing to do with their attacks being the truth, and since this flap started, even MORE evidence has appeared against the swifters. You are constantly ignoring that, I only see you getting deeper in their shit. Stop digging.

From a sticky over there:

"Admin note:

Until further notice, any further exploration or development of this line of inquiry or the reproduction of any material associated with this line of inquiry is prohibited within this forum.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Admin"

It’s about the Kerry/Alston relationship whatever that is.
Can’t even talk about it though.

Chicago Sun-Times: Plot Thickens After Checking Records

So… Everyone went ape about a missing few weeks in Bush’s guard records, but Kerry’s record is missing six years, and he was discharged late. And he has three different, Silver Star citations on record, each one showing increasingly glowing language and the last one showing a ‘Combat V’ which does not exist. That was was apparently Signed by John Lehman. But wait! The next day, the Sun-Times posted this:

Kerry Citation a ‘Total Mystery’ to Ex-Navy Chief

Moving the goal posts Sam, and even granting you that point, there is very little there to discredit Kerry, There is even more to discredit O’neill:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucas/20040829/cm_ucas/bushcampaignprofitsfromvetsslimyattacksonkerry

Well, if doubts on that valor citation, is the only thing they can pin on Kerry, bring it on I say, the incoherence of swifters and supporters of them make them look like the fools they are.

That’s pretty compelling evidence. Even if it turns out that he also gave money to Democrats, those are hefty contributions to the GOP side. Of course, if he says he voted for Perot in 1996, that doesn’t exactly make him a life-long Democrat, either.

But I agree that this information considerably weakens the “I’m not remotely a partisan” stance.

Oh there you are, Sam! I wondered where you’d slunk off to after you were handed your ass on a silver platter in this thread on the very same subject. Guess you found a bright, shiny new place to pretend you’re being objective on this issue.

Oops. Nevermind.