Buckle in, kiddos-looks like we’re in for yet another 22 page debunking for the Swifties.
sigh
It appears you’re not very observant. Look again at the link. This time carefully:
www.swiftboats.net
Do you see it? Now go ahead and click on it. Not what you thought it was, was it?
Now look again for PCF-31, and the name Zaladonis.
Do you see my point?
Diogenes, that’s a smart move. Nothing that you say is going to move The Immovable Object, since the point of this exercise isn’t to prove anything one way or the other, it’s to keep this stuff in play so that no one thinks about Cheney’s deferments, Ashcroft’s deferments, Buchanan’s bum leg (he at least opposes the Iraq war, anyway), or of course the fact that Bush pulled every string on the planet to make sure he didn’t have to do anything more strenuous than play a fighter pilot on TV instead of actually being one.
There is a long and highly dishonorable history of cowards sending brave young men off to fight and die for nothing more than their egos. That’s what we have in the Iraq war. These threads are an exercise in trying to deny this simple truth. Every additional post validates that denial.
Let it die, and let these people stew in their own dishonor.
My apologies, I was wrong. I thought you were attempting to do the same thing you did in post #91, for example.
I’ve been perusing the board since August, and I have yet to such an opinion expressed. I must have missed it. I don’t beleive there’s much if any of what you say going on. Can I have some links?
Because it’s the only part that’s arguable. The Testimony, the interviews, etc are all on the record.
It doesn’t work that way, in my book. Honor is either there, or it’s not.
We’ve done that. We’re talking about Kerry here. Or, at least I am.
Being in Cambodia is a claim that Kerry made. There is no substantiation, not a single person who served with him or on his boat that claims they were ever in Cambodia with Kerry. It is rather unusual and exceptional claim that Kerry has made. A negative cannot generally be proven. It is the actual claim that requires substantiation. The only substantiation that Kerry has is the story he told, and he is on the record telling it several different ways that are mutually contradictive. He’s in Cambodia, no he’s in a mortar attack, no he’s back at base, no he’s going to the Bob Hope show, no it was Christmas eve, not Christmas, no it was secret missions at some other time.
Nobody substantiates the Cambodia story. Nobody. Not even Kerry. He contradicts himself and you have to arbitrarily choose which version to believe. By what possible criteria do you put it out there as fact. It’s ridiculous.
No. It is not. You have a cite which appears to contradict it. It only appears to contradict it when you refuse to see that two different things are being described. UFC describes Kerry’s units’ patrol area on Christmas of 1968. Your cite describes an overview of all units participating in operation Sealord throughout the campaign.
Further, it is disingenuous of you to say that this is an example of the Swiftvets lying. The Swiftvets did their research and they properly attribute their research in this instance to Tom Anderson who was the Commander of River Division 531, who happened to be on the scene at the time.
Would you argue that your cite presents a more authoritative viewpoint for this particular fact, than the man who was on the scene? And again, if I’m generous, and I decide that your generic overview cite trumps my specific man on the scene cite, than Tom Anderson is simply to blame. The Swiftvets have not lied. They’ve produced a cite that is in error.
What it actually says is “Areas closer than 55 miles to the Cambodian border in the area of the Mekong River were patrolled by PBRs, a small river patrol craft, and not by Swift Boats.” (I added the italics.)
This is somewhat different from your capitalized statement.
If you are going to shout, which I take to mean that you’re getting huffy because you feel I’m being stubborn or obtuse THAN IT BEHOOVES YOU TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. The fact that you are disputing is not the one made in the book, and your cite is hardly the final authority even if it were.
On the contrary. You seem to missing something. Sam it appears, has it right. As do I. I’ll tell you as clearly as I can where I believe you’re making the area. There is more than one base besides Cat Lo. What UFC is actually saying is that PCF from Cat LO did not patrol further up the Mekong river than 55 miles from Cambodia in December of 1968.
Your cite says that there were patrol boats closer than 55 miles to Cambodia. These boats came from An Thoi and had a different patrol areal than the ones from Cat lo. Logical, yes? Different bases in different locals equals different patrol areas. If you go to www.Swiftboats.net, which appears to me to be a historical cite rather than a partisan one you can click on different groups and bases and see their patrol areas.
Anderson in UFC does not say no PCF were closer than 55 miles from Cambodia, contrary to your claim. He says the patrol on the Mekong river closer than 55 miles to Cambodia was patrolled by PBRs not Swifts in Decmeber of '68. Furthermore, there were Swiftboats operating of Ann Thoi in the Gulf of Siam that clearly spent much time right off the coast of Cambodia, perhaps mere meters. Look at the map on your cite and find Ann Thoi, and you’ll see what I mean and why there’s no contradiction here.
They’re not full of it. You didn’t fully understand your own cite and the context of Anderson’s quote. There are other ways to Cambodia besides the Mekong river. There’s the whole coas which was patrolled by Swifts out of Ann Thoi.
I doubt it. It’s just the Mekong river that was blocked on the border. Clearly the coastline remained open and was patrolled by Swifts out of Ann Thoi.
Only if you don’t have your facts straight.
Kerry wasn’t there. It’s not what we’re talking about.
Sure let’s move on. Before we do, though. Do you agree that you are wrong on this one. Do you concede that there is a Cambodian coastline that was patrolled closely by Swifts out of Ann Thoi and that by context Anderson was specifically not referring to these?
It’s not even that. Now that I understand it, it’s obvious that you are flat out wrong. Once you look at the map, I’m sure you’ll agree. You were much better off with the “potential innacuracy.” Now you’re completely, and obviously wrong.
Yeah, it’s a minor point.
Well, this is a real quandary. I’m not going to pay for the transcript. This press release that I did cite is widely circulated. If it were a fabrication I’m sure somebody would have jumped on it. It is not in dispute by Kerry’s campaign or any bloggers that I’ve been able to find. I’ve presented you with a press release substantiating my claim. The press release admittedly is not a first-hand transcript. The first hand transcript costs money. Even if I pay for it, I can’t link to it, you’ll have to hear it from me which will still be secondhand. The only way that this can be substantiated to your satisfaction is if you see it firsthand yourself in the transcript which means you have to pay money, too.
I’ve presented you with a cite. It could be better, I admit. If you seriously doubt it, and it’s important, go pay the cash. I’m not going to take crap though for saying something and providing a cite for it. Nor am I going to fault you if it’s not good enough. But, if you want to resolve it and see the transcript, you have to subscribe. My subscribing and telling you it’s what is described in the press release is still secondhand.
I think it’s minor. It’s pretty obvious to me that it was probably a friendly fire wound. To me that is not a knock on Kerry. Whether or not a Kerry representative admits the obvious is only of academic interest. There is nothing wrong about getting hit by friendly fire. The only reason we are interested in this is because of an attempt to prove that Schacte is lying. Such an admission or lack of one, does not prove the point either way, so it’s minor.
What you said was: "Kerry had already served one tour of duty; within 9 days he was commanding a Swift boat all on his own. "
I took this to mean (and I still take it to mean from context) that Kerry took command of a Swiftboat within 9 days of the end of his first tour of duty. This is obviously wrong, and I corrected it.
If you meant something else that’s no problem. I went off what you actually wrote. This seems minor. Yes?
You’re kidding me, right. Forearm, elbow who cares? People do not speak with absolute precision. Do you really expect them to?
Kerry says he was in Cambodia, no wait he was back at base, no wait he is in a mortar attack, no wait he was looking for Bob Hope and you find this perfectly acceptable. Hibbard on the other hand conflates elbow with forearm and this disproves the Swiftvets? Gimme a break.
No problem (I was being facetious there, you know.)
www.swiftvets.com and www.swiftboats.net do look very similar, don’t they?
Anyway, did you see what I was pointing at. According to that, Zaldonis was not in Cam Ranh Bay at the time.
This is interesting because of a letter that Schacte wrote concerning this incident:
The full letter can be read here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document200408280010.asp
From the part that I quote, Schacte says he always took one officer and one enlisted man. Runyon and Zaldonis are a part of Kerry’s band of Brothers. Both claim to have been on the boat.
Zaldonis apparently wasn’t even in Cam Rahn Bay on the date in question.
As far as I can tell, this is the first place that this has been put together. I’m not asserting as of yet, that this proves Zaldonis is lying or that he wasn’t on the boat.
Somebody show me if there’s a hole in this though. It certainly seems interesting, does it not?
Sam:
I’m not sure that the Vietnamese shoot guns to celebrate Tet either, for what it’s worth, which is a month-long celebration of the lunar new year. In 1968 Tet was began some time in February, which was also discussed in the previous thread.
Good point. While of this ”seared into his memory” stuff could have been added for rhetorical purposes, it seems that he would have remembered that particular Christmas.
But I’m not at all convinced that he never was in Cambodia. Sorry.
Also, I’m not sure about if, or how, the Vietnamese celebrate Christmas. Approximately 10% of the population is Catholic, though, and the South Vietnamese government of the time was Catholic as well, so it’s possible that they celebrated Christmas in some manner.
Scylla:
I’ll get back to you on the quotes from the Swiftvets message board. Mods, am I allowed to post short passages from other message boards here at the Straight Dope?
Let’s stop and summarize the dispute thus far:
The Swiftvets argue that Kerry was not in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, which the Kerry campaign has also conceded, so that point is moot. However:
As a part of their argument, the Swiftvets assert that Kerry couldn’t possibly have made it to Cambodia during that period, because Swiftboats were not allowed to traverse the border area. In support of that contention they quote Tom Andersson, who flatly states:
Now, you know, and I know, that the purpose of this passage is too imply that Kerry’s claim is completely absurd from a logistical perspective as well, as in, ”Not only can Kerry not confirm that he was in Cambodia, the fact is that no Swiftboats were allowed up there.”
Now, observe the quote from the YRMB page:
Then, note this passage from the Sealords history page:
Now, look at the map.
What does Tom Anderson mean when he uses the word ”area,” Scylla? How large is an ”area?” 5 miles? 10 miles?
Is the Bassac River in the same ”area” as the Mekong? Is Chau Doc in the same ”area?” Do you get to decide what ”area” mean, or can I play to?
Did Swifts travel from Chau Doc to Ha Tien, a stretch of marsh and waterways along the Cambodian border, as stated on the Sealords page, and as I stated previously as well, or not?
?
Mr. Anderson makes no specific mention of the whereabouts of Kerry’s patrol unit whatsoever. He makes a general statement that no Swiftboats were allowed north of Sa Dec ”in the area of the Mekong” during an operation in which, at least as far as I can see, Swiftboats were employed in a major combat roll to free up larger waterways in the area north of the Mekong (depending, perhaps, on how narrowly one chooses to define ”area”). Even you concede that Swiftboats were patrolling the area along the Cambodian border.
Well, okay, if we’re going to mark words in this manner, two can play I suppose. Anderson says no such thing. He says that there were no Swifts patrolling in the area of the Mekong River north of Sa Dec in December of 1968.
However, let me suggest an alternative scenario: since, apparently, by your definition, Chau Doc doesn’t lie in the ”area” of the Mekong, then let’s say that is entirely possible that Kerry boat travelled up the Bassac to Chau Doc and then into Cambodia. This would make Anderson’s claim, in this context, completely irrelevant.
If this is the case, why would O’Neill and Corsi include it in a discussion of Kerry’s whereabouts in 1968?
Not really, no. I don’t agree with your version of the context. The context of the quote is a debunking of Kerry’s claim that he was in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968. In this context, the quote is designed to lure the unwary reader into believing that Kerry could not possibly have made it into Cambodia on that date, because the only route in was blocked by PBRs. This is misleading, if not an outright lie.
Regarding this:
This is Great Debates. You know the rules. It is not my responsibility to chase down cites to prove your point.
If the Kerry campaign has conceded this point, a simple Google search would surely locate a direct quote from Kerry or one of his representatives in which this concession is made. An off-the-cuff sound bite from a representative of the Swiftvets on a single talk show is not good enough, and you should know this. If you cannot find and cite a more reputable source, but continue make the claim, then I will be forced to accuse of wilfully spreading disinformation.
Which, by the way, is exactly what I accuse the Swiftvets of doing.
Gotta go. More later.
Since it’s oen to interpretation, it seems very irresponsible to insist he’s lying
I wasn’ there.
I have the book. Anderson is not quoted directly here, but cited as the source of the information. This information applies specifically to Kerry’s unit. That is the context.
I suppose.
Jesus Christ Svin. They probably included it, because Kerry was supposed to keep his boat in his patrol area with the other boats in his patrol.
Bullshit. I gave you the cite. You want a better one. I showed you where a better one is. YOU have to pay to get it, if you want it.
[/quote]
If the Kerry campaign has conceded this point, a simple Google search would surely locate a direct quote from Kerry or one of his representatives in which this concession is made. An off-the-cuff sound bite from a representative of the Swiftvets on a single talk show is not good enough, and you should know this. If you cannot find and cite a more reputable source, but continue make the claim, then I will be forced to accuse of wilfully spreading disinformation.
[/quote]
And then I’ll call you a lying lemur, and a hypocrite with double standards. You just walk around insisting that Anderson’s quote is a lie, when in fact, by your own admission, you can prove no such thing. Then I’ll make some other threats involving toilet paper and chewing gum and we can call each other names. Or you can just debate.
And you need a better cite to do that. Anderson was the man on the scene, the Commander in charge. That’s my cite. Your cite is an historical overview. If you want to stand on this, you need a better cite to overcome Anderson.
Well, it appears that the premise of my original OP has been validated, much to the chagrin of the majority of those who wear the badge of “Doper”.
The thread has gone on for six pages now, and the veracity of the Swiftboat Vets is still debatable. While, on the otherhand, CBS’s reprehensible offense against the whole of American society, is beyond debate.
See, here’s the deal. Had CBS been truly concerned with factually reporting the story in question, CBS would have discovered that the documents were forged. But, CBS’s main concern was to report a story that painted President Bush in a less than flattering light, so as to influence the election of a president.
CBS’s actions were egregious to the point of warranting FCC sanctions.
So, compared to the Swiftboat Vets, IMNSHO, CBS has actually been detrimental to society as a whole.
Yep, comparatively, Swiftboat Vets don’t look bad at all.
Dopers and Freepers… the same birds, just a different color plumage.
Fine… make your own conclusions… I just think CBS was stupid and wanted their “breaking story” too quick. Even if they were out to get Bush they didn’t make up those documents. Swiftboats were out to hit Kerry by deliberate lies from the beggining.
Did anyone actually defend CBS ? To me it seems your trying to defend Swiftboats.Wonder who did create those forgeries. CBS says that they don’t want to reveal the name of their source. (I guess they want to use the same source again.)
I just don’t see why a major player in the establishment media would want to protect a source that screwed them over with forged documents.
But wait a minute, maybe they don’t have a source to reveal. Perhaps the “source” is internal to CBS.
Why’s that, 'cause I compared them to a division of the “Ministry of Truth”?
That seems to be the only rebuttal available to those whose sacred cow is getting gored.
Well, I would argue that the fact that the debate has gone on for 6 pages says more about some of the people debating it than about the premise itself.
If you mean by “reprehensible offense” you mean that CBS made an incredibly stupid mistake then I agree. If you mean that in doing so, they committed a reprehensible offense by:
(1) Giving the right-wing echo chamber something to harp about and an excuse to dismiss all past and future reporting about any subject that they don’t like as biased, and
(2) Creating a distraction that has now caused people to discount the various questions surrounding Bush’s National Guard service even though those questions remain and even though the secretary who says these particular memos not the real thing notes that they were not inaccurate in their representation of her boss’s view of Bush and were similar to memos that she did type.
then I also agree with you. Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what you are complaining about.
Pure speculation as to motives. And, as I noted, you have been selective here in what you have focussed on. Why not reserve the same shock and horror for the fanciful reporting about WMDs in the N.Y. Times by Judith Miller before the Iraq War, as I noted in post #52? Why not insist that the N.Y. Times launch an independent investigation as CBS is doing? This was an offense with much worse consequences since it was not uncovered until well after the deceptions had been propagated and the Iraq War had happened! As I noted, the net effect of CBS’s idiocy is that they have helped Bush. I’m not claiming that was there intent (because I’m not psychic like you are) but that was their effect.
Oh yeah…And, another bit of fallout from the CBS fiasco is that now the network has delayed until after the election a story about the Bush Administration and the forged Niger documents:
And, in other news (from that same link), the Chairman of CBS’s parent company Viacom announced his endorsement of Bush:
Might not be a bad move on CBS’s part anyway. The topic isn’t a scoop by any means, any other source can do the story (and may feel compelled to if/when it gets heavy play in the debates), and it’s too easy right now for the RW echo chamber to reply “Oh, is *that * what CBS is saying now? Tee hee.”
Ya know, that doesn’t really matter. None of them is running for President anyway.
But what do you conclude about Kerry’s “veracity”? Is it similarly debatable? How does his veracity compare to Bush’s? That’s what you need to ponder.
Not one to let the facts get in the way of a good rant, are you? CBS has indeed revealed the identity of the person who gave them the memos. Dan Rather even interviewed him on camera to question him about the documents.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644539.shtml
MrS, as much as I appreciate all of your ignorance fighting efforts in the past – and believe me, I do – I think you’re wasting a valuable resource here: yourself. For this is one ‘debate’ that’s specifically designed to be unwinnable. No matter how many facts you bring into the picture, no matter how many allegations you knock-down, in the end, the Whack-a-Boaters, can simply change course, move the goalposts and make any number of additional subjective claims that no one’s ever going to be able to “debunk.”
So the whole thing simply becomes a battle of attrition, one that you can’t and won’t win, because of the bottom line: Kerry is bad because [sub]fill in the blank[/sub].
Lather, rinse, repeat…and hope something sticks. And the longer they manage to keep the topic alive, the better the odds a soundbyte or two will linger around long enough to catch someone’s ear. i.e. post the last message on the topic and claim ‘victory.’ I say let them have it.
While it’s true that the Kerry campaign reacted slowly to the initial attacks, I also think that by now anyone still pushing the Shifties wares, either,
1-Can’t and won’t be convinced that they are peddling BS, because they are True Believers and Bush is good and Kerry is bad.
or
2-Know exactly what they are doing but will continue to do so anyway…because they are also True Believers and The Cause is all that matters.
Anyway, far be it from me to tell you what to do. But I’d love to see those great dabating skills of yours put to better use. As in yet another thread reminding all comers of the numerous deceptions and outright lies used by this Administration in their reckless pursuit of their ideology. Not only can you nail them with facts yet again, but there’s the outside chance you might reach an undecided reader or two.
Just a thought. All the best just the same.
Make that “great debating skills” and leave the rest as is.
I just reread your OP. Strictly speaking, it didn’t have a premise.
It is being debated. That does not make it “debatable.”
I’ve been a journalist. Believe me, CBS’s concern was to break open a hot, earth-shattering scoop before anybody else. That’s how the game is played. They would have done the same if somebody had handed them some shocking dirt on Kerry.
CBS News has been making invaluable contributions to American society for decades. The SBVT has been broadcasting cynical lies for a few months. There’s really no way you can make the Swifties compare favorably.
Scylla:
I’ll start from your last post, and then work my way backwards.
Regarding the statement by Anderson in the passage from Unfit currently under dispute, you write:
Again, all I can say is:
?
Previously, in post # 219, I wrote:
But I actually can envision two possibilities. I assume Tom Andersson must have known about Operation Sealord. So, either 1) he’s lying, or 2) his statement has been taken out of context. He could have been referring to the period prior to Sealords, for example, when he claimed that Swift boats weren’t allowed to operate north of Sa Dec.
Speaking for myself, I lean much more heavily towards the second of these possibilities; that is to say, I believe the authors of Unfit lifted Anderson’s claim from some other context and placed it in this context, with the hope of misleading their readers by creating the false impression that no Swiftboats were operating north of Sa Dec, along the Cambodian border, in December of 1968.
What did not occur to me, however, was the possibility that the phrase ”in the area of the Mekong River” could be subjected to wildly varying different interpretations. I thought the phrase was fairly straightforward, and looking at a map, I took it to include at least Chau Doc, and arguably even west of that village a few miles. That you interpret the phrase to mean ”the Mekong River plus a 2 foot space along each bank,” by the way, doesn’t necessarily mean that I don’t understand my own cite.
Oh, well. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
If only you could do me the favour of pointing out where, exactly, in the cited text, Anderson specifically refers to Kerry’s unit, or explicitly states something along the lines of ”Costal Division 11, or 13, never patrolled north of Sa Dec in November and December of 1968,” we’ll be able to finally clear this up and move on. I keep looking, but I don’t see it.
Look, if I were to present a sound bite from a spokesperson from MoveOn.org claiming, ”Bush was AWOL in Alabama during his National Guard Service, and even the Bush administration recently admitted this to be the case,” I think you would display a natural and fully understandable scepticism towards this statement. You would be completely within your rights to request from me the specific admission made by the administration as evidence that the claim was accurate. My request is no way exceptional.
And I’m not interested in the full transcript of that particular interview, as I have already made clear. You seem to have ”accidentally” missed that part in your response.
Oh my. Touchy touchy. Do I sense another Scylla meltdown waiting in the wings?
You are painting me into a corner here, Scylla, one that I truly do not wish to be forced into. I don’t want to ”demand” a cite from you; nor do I want to be forced into accusing you of wilfully spreading disinformation, if not outright lying. But you’re giving me very little choice here. If you continue to insist that the Kerry campaign has conceded Schecte’s version of events is the correct one, you’re going to have to prove it. Proof, obviously, consists of such a concession taken directly from the Kerry campaign. If you can’t provide that proof, then your claim is nothing more than so much hearsay – and, in addition, a good example of exactly the type of smear tactics the Swiftvets employ.
As I pointed out above, I’m not insisting that Anderson is lying. I don’t know where you get all this stuff from.
Hmmm… I seem to recognize this tactic. Ah, yes. The Pee Wee Herman Defence. ”I’m rubber, you’re glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” You don’t have to provide more evidence in this debate when I request it, but I must do so when you request it. I see.
Well, I ain’t exactly a military historian, but let’s see what I can find….
From the Department of the Navy, Navy Historical Center:
From this page on Ha Tien:
And just in case these sources aren’t ideologically pure enough for you, here’s a Freeper page, the Freeper Foxhole, that also details the history of Sealords, although it basically rips off the Navy History text I quoted above.
It’s late here. If you require more, I’ll look tomorrow.
RedFury:
Thanks for your kind words and advice. I will take them under advisement, even though, perversely, I don’t seem to be able to let this topic go just yet. It’s like a bad itch – you know if you scratch it it’s only going to get worse, but still….
scratch
scratch
scratch.
If memory serves from the previous 22-page smackdown, the sole mainstream source offered from the claim that the Kerry campaign admitted he wasn’t in Cambodia on Christmas was a British news article, which made the statement without attributing it to any particular person. This was about the same time that the guy who wrote Tour of Duty stated that he didn’t think Kerry had been in Cambodia on Christmas, so one suspects that to be the source of the British newspaper claim. There certainly appears to be no record of such a statement by the campaign anywhere in their public statements, press conferences, etc.
And of course, lost in the shufffle, is perfectly good evidence that Kerry was, at the least, darned close to Cambodia on Christmas Eve, and that his boat was indeed involved in a firefight that included getting shot at by allies.