# Swiftboat Vets startin' to look pretty good. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875 "2004-09-24T14:26:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/321 "2004-10-07T23:43:36Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Scylla** :Well, this is the crux of the biscuit, in a way. I disagree that he did so. For example, he didn’t name a single person in his testimony. The statements to which the you (and the Swiftvets) object so strenuously is takes up a mere paragraph or two in his entire 15 page testimony. I think making generalized smears is bad. I think if you are going to make such an attack it is imperative that you be precise and specific, and it’s a bit more than a couple of paragraphs. > [@](#): > > Honestly I don’t see Kerry as ”doing the same thing.” But if his testimony was factually incorrect, or if he lied, then of course I think that should be pointed out and made public, so to speak. It is, and it is. > [@](#): > > I have no problem with the Swiftvets contention that they were ”betrayed” by Kerry in 1971. I disagree with that view, personally, but I can fully respect the fact that someone else might feel differently. I even agree – or at least, agreed – with the Swiftvets when they question Kerry’s integrity now, and wonder how someone who testified of US war crimes before the Senate in 1971, and threw away his medals in protest, could turn around 30 years later, wrap himself in the flag, and act the war hero. Yes, I think it’s key, as well. > [@](#): > > But when this, arguably legitimate, criticism of Kerry spills over into a smear campaign designed to impugn the record of a man who served honourably in combat, and to imply that this man who performed his duties more bravely than I ever would is really a coward, well… then they’ve crossed the line, in my opinion. And to my mind, the sin is not ”overzealousness.” It’s wilful misleading, lying and dishonourable character assassination. Unlike Kerry, they are specific, and it doesn’t seem that they’ve manufactured anything. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I would agree with the idea that it is okay to lie, distort, spread innuendo, and so forth, as a means of collecting that payment. **elucidator** makes a good point about this, and I agree; Kerry spoke truth to power. I’ll be heading to the Wintersoldier thread shortly. Kerry was full of shit, and I believe that he will burn in hell alongside, Brutus, Cassius, and Judas in Dante’s hell if there is any justice in the afterlife for his lying opportunistic betrayal. > [@](#): > > You know, the guy who finally blew the whistle on the Abu Graib situation has been forced to go into protective custody. Many people believed that he ”betrayed” his country when he spoke out, and he received numerous death threats. Well yes. It sickens me to hear Kerry compared to this man, or to the man who threatened to fire on the troops at Mai Lai. It truly sickens me. Both of those men stood up for others and refused to allow an atrocity to continue, at great personal risk to themselves. That is honor. Kerry on the other hand, **participated** in the atrocities himself, according to his own testimony. He witnessed others first hand. He did nothing when it mattered. Then, the sack of shit comes home early and whines about how the government made him do bad things, and how he’s so fucking disenfranchised and feels like an outsider to society, and boo-fucking hoo. Please notice that he never gets specific enough to indict himself. No, he’s trying to capitalize on the disenfranchised young man forced to committ atrocites role he’s created for himself. He’s very hungry to hold the US to task, but completely unwilling to accept any responsibility **personally.** He coerced people like Pitikin to tell made up stories at his “investigation,” at which no level of proof was required and at which not a single incident was verified, and his own cofounders were both imposters. He took no responsibility in gathering his evidence and presented an empty bag of wind that wouldn’t hold up to the mildest of scrutiny as his proof, playing games with symbolic gestures that he didn’t even men. He’s a lying skeevy, underhanded traitor. There is nobody worse in the entire world than one who is a traitor like Kerry. If Kerry was the patriot and responsible individual he pretends to be he would have done something about the things he saw while he was in Vietnam. He would have put his ass on the line. Failing that much character, when he comes back and makes his charges, he better have them to the point and specific and be prepared to name names. He’s the worst kind of opportunistic fucking liar, and you will not find lower whaleshit in the whole deep blue sea. > [@](#): > > Do you, **Scylla** , think that this brave man betrayed his fellows when he decided to tell the truth about what was going on in Iraq? No. He put his ass on the line and presented specific proof, and he didn’t fucking whine to the Senate to promote a political career and make a soundbite. > [@](#): > > But a man who lies to the entire American public in order to instigate a costly, pointless, counter-productive war of choice – he is someone you can vote for? Yes. He fucked up. [/quote] A man who used his family connections to avoid combat service, and then couldn’t even be bothered to fulfil his stateside duties in a cushy Guard unit – he is in some way a better choice? [/quote] Mr. Bush served honorably and fulfulled his duties, and I’ve seen no proof to the contrary. Are you feeling a little Sam Stonish, pot, kettle, black and all. You know that it is unproven, how do you present it as fact? > [@](#): > > (I want to emphasize the word ”use” here, as in ”exploit.”) Their grudge against Kerry has nothing to do with you or me, however. It’s not an important issue in the presidential election, which should be about what’s going on _now_ – not about the wounded egos of a bunch of old soldiers who could simply never forgive Kerry for his opposition to the war 30 years ago, and his damaging testimony before the US Senate.Nothing wrong with arguing forcefully for your beliefs. Oh god, no. It’s the most important thing. Kerry’s an opportunistic traitor. War hero/protestor/war hero he’s whichever way the wind blows, truth and honor be damned. It’s sociopathic the fact that he thinks he can just remake himself in whatever way suits him at the moment, and then just change when it no longer suits. He’s gotta stand up and do what’s right whether it’s popular or not. I never would trust Kerry to make an unpopular decision. I would never trust him not to sell us out the way he sold his fellow veterans out. > [@](#): > > However, if, after this discussion, I were to continue using the passage from _”Unfit”_ I quoted above, again and again, in thread after thread, claiming that it was irrefutable proof that the Swiftvets were full of it, and completely ignoring the conclusions we’ve reached in this thread thus far – am I ”arguing my point as strongly as I can,” or am I simply being obtuse? If this is pointed out to me time and time again, and I refuse to acknowledge it, and continue blithely acting as if I had proven beyond doubt that the Swifties were full of it: obtuse, or wilfully spreading lies and innuendo? Well, it’s kind of like when you say Bush didn’t fulfill his guard service. You know better. > [@](#): > > I’m not on a crusade to wipe out all lowly and vile arguments here at the Straight Dope. I’m engaged in an argument with you, and **Sam** , about the credibility of the Swiftvets. In that argument, I’ve watched **Sam** employ these dishonourably tactics again and again. So have you, and so have I for that matter. > [@](#): > > Your point of view on this matter is arguably more balanced and dispassionate than my own. For me, what I can’t understand is how the other three men involved in the incident all have the exact same story; a story that was never in dispute until Kerry started running for President, and the Swiftvets – who make no bones whatsoever about their bias against Kerry – began their smear campaign. Well, that part’s easy. I’m sure they talked about it. I’m not positing conspiracy mind you, just what happens when people get together and discuss old times. Their stories merge. > [@](#): > > In addition, Runyon comes off to me, personally, as an honest, straightforward, simple, credible witness. He does not try to exaggerate his role in the events of that night or turn himself into a hero (”It was the scariest night of my life”), and he just feels honest to me. For example, he says, ”Me and Bill ain’t the smartest, but we can count to three.” This _is not_ the statement of man caught in a lie and on the defensive, in my opinion. Yes, I feel the same way about Runyon. Can’t say the same about Zaldonis. > [@](#): > > But of course, we have no real way of knowing what happened that evening, so in the final analysis, we are both left to speculation. We make the best and most reasonable guess we can with the information we have available. However, afterwards, you do not write, as if it were an established, undisputed fact, that: > > _”John Kerry’s first purple heart was not due to enemy action, but due to fragments from his own grenade.”_ > > I do not write: > > _John Kerry’s first purple hear was due to enemy action, when he was shot by enemy combats fleeing from an engagement._ > > We both acknowledge that we don’t know with certainty. Yes, on our good days we do that. > [@](#): > > Somewhere along the way I lost track of the accusation. Again, if your only point is that Kerry could have been wounded by friendly fire, and that the Kerry campaign has acknowledged that possibility, then the point is mundane and I have no argument with it. Alrighty then. > [@](#): > > I think that Garrett’s statement is considerably more ambiguous, on the other hand, and could be easily misconstrued as a claim that Kerry had conceded Schacte’s story is true. With **Sam’s** version, there’s no room for doubt: **Sam** has already decided that Kerry is a dishonourable liar, and that Schacte’s version is accurate, and writes as if that was an established fact. I can’t do anything about your feelings towards Sam. I’m not sure what you want me to do. > [@](#): > > I try to piece things together as well, but I don’t use information that was previously debunked and that I know is false, or at least disputed, as if it were an undisputable truth upon which a rational argument can be based.Not really, no. ”In Cambodia,” the phrase O’Niell used in his conversation with Nixon, does not mean, ”Sailing around off the coast of Cambodia.” To me, this is just another one of **Sam’s** standard tricks: confronted with information that contradicts his beliefs, he rationalizes, or simply makes up something to serve as a possible excuse for the inconsistency. It’s **exactly** the same thing as trying to explain Kerry’s journal about not being fired on yet. **Exactly.** Somebody says something that contradicts facts or previous statements. One seeks a context that explains away the contradiction. EXACTLY THE SAME > [@](#): > > Sam doesn’t know what O’Niell meant when he told Nixon that he had been in Cambodia. You don’t know what Kerry meant when he wrote his journal. > [@](#): > > He provides no evidence whatsoever that his interpretation of O’Niell’s statement is correct. And you prove that Kerry was referring to the current Swiftboat when he said they hadn’t seen combat yet… in what fashion? > [@](#): > > But watch the way he works, now: in six months, **Sam** will have forgotten all of this, and his version of O’Niell’s statement will be, for him, the incontrovertible facts of the matter. Only Sam’s wife is allowed to bitch at him for things he hasn’t done yet. > [@](#): > > No one, least of all me, would give **Sam** shit for arguing specifics with logic and evidence. I don’t at all. But the truth is, **Sam** doesn’t use logic or evidence. He picks and chooses arguments, ignores contrary evidence, refuses to concede even when the counter-evidence is overwhelming, continues to make spurious claims even after they’ve been factually disproven, and employs an entire gamut of rather despicable rhetorical tricks. And when people finally get tired of it, he plays the martyr. It doesn’t look that way to me, but again, let’s leave off of Sam. _That’s_ why he gets so much shit.God knows I’m not. > [@](#): > > I’m really glad we’ve been able to keep this discussion on such a gentlemanly and reasonable level, though. That’s what I come here for, really: not all the name-calling and shit, which I find to be a sterile waste of time. Although I know that in the heat of the moment it’s easy to loose one’s temper. Yeah, I’ve enjoyed it, too. For a guy who’s wrong about so much, you sure are reasonable 😉 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875/322 "2004-10-08T00:23:49Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > …Kerry was full of shit, and I believe that he will burn in hell alongside, Brutus, Cassius, and Judas in Dante’s hell if there is any justice in the afterlife for his lying opportunistic betrayal… Don’t keep it all pent up inside. Tell us how you really feel. See you there, in the GD. But could you bring a long a few cites other than stuff you pick up from Kerry’s sworn enemies? > [@](#): > > …Kerry on the other hand, participated in the atrocities himself, according to his own testimony. He witnessed others first hand. He did nothing when it mattered… Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! Get your cites and bring 'em. You’ve been called on this one before. Might want to put some mayo on them, 'cause your gonna end up eating them. Again. > [@](#): > > …Please notice that he never gets specific enough to indict himself… You can, of course, explain the glaring discrepancy between this statement and the one just previous? About how his testimony indicts himself for war crimes, but he never does that? Hmmmm? > [@](#): > > …Yes. He fucked up… So, this first term, this was a Mulligan? He’s getting the hang of it now, he should get a do-over? Listen, pal, this clown gets a do-over, the rest of us are going to be lucky if we get a reach-around. But see you over in the GD. Gonna have us some fun, yessir. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboat-vets-startin-to-look-pretty-good/265875.md?page=16)