In response to BrainGlutton’s post:
Yes, you drag that dirty old rag out here every year, and every year it gets sliced to pieces. Is that supposed to be the **BEST **you’ve got?
I will agree that you have a rare debating talent. You are able to unite people like **BrainGlutton **and me who rarely, if ever, agree on anything political. Good job!
The meme that the Swiftvets have been ‘totally discredited’ is bogus. They haven’t been. What happened is that people with an axe to grind searched for anything all all that could be construed as evidence against, then once they had it they started yelling that they’d been discredited and everyone else picked it up and shouted the same thing until it became ‘conventional wisdom’. It’s known as ‘the big lie’.
In fact, if you look at who’s story has been changing, it’s been John Kerry.
Let’s run down the major claims of the Swiftvets:
John Kerry’s first purple heart was not due to enemy action, but due to fragments from his own grenade. The Kerry campaign has now admitted that this may have been the case, after Admiral Scachte came forward and supported the swiftvets and claimed he was on the boat that night, and after it was discovered that an entry in Kerry’s own journal, dated 9 days after the supposed enemy engagement, had Kerry saying that he and his men felt cocky because they had yet to engage in combat.
John Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia” story was a lie. This is now widely accepted as being correct, and Kerry’s story on this has changed numerous times since the book came out. First he said he was in Cambodia. Then he said he was near the border. Then he said he was in Cambodia in “January or February”. Steve Gardner, who was on Kerry’s boat during that entire period, says that A) He was on that boat for every mission it went on, and B) it never went into Cambodia. NO ONE will back up Kerry on this, including the guys from his boat who support his election. There are no records to be found, and pretty much everyone involved with Swiftboats in Vietnam agrees that it’s highly unlikely that Kerry ever went into Cambodia. Furthermore, Kerry’s own biographer, reading from Kerry’s private diary, has contradicted Kerry’s public statements. Kerry has alternately said that he was in Cambodia “once or twice”, and other times that going into Cambodia was “routine - no one thought twice about it”. The biographer has said that Kerry was in Cambodia on several occasions ferrying special forces and running guns. Neither of them could get their dates straight and contradicted each other. Given that Kerry’s already been caught on one lie over this, and the rest of his stories don’t match up, and that no one else will come forward to corroborate this, Kerry does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Kerry’s Silver Star was based on a highly exaggerated report on what happened. I think this is the weakest case the Swift vets have, but all of their factual assertians have been shown to be correct, other than a dispute over whether they were taking enemy fire at a specific time, of which there are witnesses for pro and con. I chalk this up to ‘fog of war’. I think it might also be fair to say that this was the one reckless charge the Swiftboat vets laid, since I believe this is the one incident in which they were operating from second-hand accounts and none of the Swifties were eyewitnesses.
Kerry’s third purple heart was fraudulent. Kerry claims he was wounded in the butt from a mine explosion. The swifties say his butt wound came from rice shrapnel during a routine clearing operation earlier in the day, during which they were not under enemy fire. I believe this has been widely accepted as being true, although some claim the purple heart was also for a ‘minor contusion’, which I think is silly. No one got purple hearts for minor bruises. Without the ass wound, there’s no purple heart.
Kerry’s “no man left behind” story was a lie. Kerry’s initial claim was that several mines went off, one of them injuring him. All the boats then fled down river, until Kerry realized that Rassman was in the water, at which point he courageously turned around into withering enemy fire and saved him. The swifties version was that A) there was only one mine, B) The only boat that ‘ran’ was John Kerry’s, C) The rest of the boats stayed right in the ‘kill zone’ to administer aid to the disabled boat, D) there was no subsequent enemy fire, and E) Kerry did come back and pick up Rassmann, but only just before Jack Chenowith was about to pick him up himself.
In this last case, the only dispute left is whether or not there was enemy fire. The Washington Post did an exhaustive re-creation of what happened, and that recreation agrees almost completely with the Swifties. It clearly shows that they were right that Kerry ran downriver while the rest stayed. Kerry’s version of this event has changed numerous times. In one account he admits that he ran downriver, but only to put special forces ashore so they could attack the ambushers. But those Special Forces were never put ashore.
The onlly dispute left in this final account is whether or not there was enemy fire. In all other respects, Kerry’s version has been shown to be a lie, and the Swifties’ version the truth.
As for the ‘Navy documents backing up Kerry’s version’ - that’s the most maddening diversionary tactic I’ve seen, because all along the Swifties have said that the documents WOULD back him up, because he wrote the after-action reports on which they were based. That’s like saying that the ABC News Report about the National Guard documents ‘vindicates’ CBS, when the report was based on CBS’s report in the first place. It’s a circular argument.
It is true that there are still some disputes about the facts, and that there are witnesses on both sides of some of these disputes. But it is also true that Kerry’s versions of events have been conclusively shown to be wrong in many ways, and that his story regarding what happened has changed repeatedly while the Swiftvets haven’t changed theirs one bit.
As for the other Swift Boat charges about Kerry’s behaviour after the war, they are all documented facts that no one has challenged. The Swifties are just trying to remind the people of Kerry’s behaviour - behaviour that was both despicable and part of the public record.
I predict that if Kerry loses this election, and no one has a vested interest in protecting him any more, post-election analysis months or years down the road will re-visit the Swiftboat Vets charges and conclude that they were largely true.
:rolleyes:
Who I think I am is completely irrelevant, Razorsharp. My disparaging your OP-writing skills is not the same thing as touting my own. When the pot calls the kettle black . . . the kettle is, after all, black.
But, since you feel like hurling down the gauntlet . . .
In the thread “Roe vs. Wade’s Dirty Little Secret” (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236121), you started with a 24-paragraph OP to state a thesis which could have been stated much more succinctly: It is hypocritical for the Supreme Court to hold that a woman has the sole right to decide whether to have an abortion, and also to hold that a man who fathers a child, and who has no say in the decision on whether to bring it to term, is obliged to pay the mother child support. (It appears this post was not even written, originally, for GD; the font is different. It seems to be an article you wrote and posted on your personal website before pasting it here.) I’ll let other Dopers make up their own minds, but in my judgment, most of that OP can indeed be be characterized as “ranting” and “irritable mental gestures.” And the subject addressed . . . well, I won’t say your position is indefensible, but I don’t see how the issue deserves this degree of attention.
For my part – well, perhaps some of the following GD threads I have started might be of interest to you. Or not. Every OP, even if it is only a bit of pasted text from an article and a question posed based on it, is better written and better stated than your OP in the Roe v. Wade thread or any other thread of yours that I have seen. And every issue proposed for debate is more important.
“Rumsfeld: Iran aiding Iraq insurgents; another war before November?”
“How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries?”
“What if Bush wins the popular vote but Kerry wins the electoral vote?”
“Republican Elector in West Virginia says he might not vote for Bush”
“New SBVFT ad – will we never put Vietnam behind us?”
“Do we have time to get paper trails on electronic voting machines before November?”
“A multiparty system is better than a two-party system!”
“Let’s debate equal pay for women”
“What are the prospects for a three-tiered rail transit system in the U.S.?”
“We need to jettison “American exceptionalism” once and for all!”
“What was the legal authority for creating the “enemy combatant” classification?”
“What are the chances for a broad party of American leftists and progressives?”
"Analysis shows touchscreen voting machines are faulty. What can we do?
“What is the difference between a liberal and a leftist?”
“Space travel means racial survival!”
“A fourth branch of government: The Tribunate”
“Are there any psychological differences between races?”
“Instant-runoff voting: avoiding the third-party “spoiler” problem”
“Yet another electoral-system reform: “ballot fusion,” or “cross-endorsement””
“Is American liberalism “dead as a governing philosophy”?”
“Nader and Buchanan find common ground?”
“Is the American middle class really shrinking? If so, how far and how fast?”
“Are blacks being purged from the voting rolls, again?”
“Which is better: A one-house legislature, or a two-house legislature?”
“European Union expands! What does this mean for the future?”
“Should the United States Senate be abolished?”
In the future, try not to come in leading with your chin. 
Sterility is also hereditary… if your parent’s didn’t have any children, you aren’t likely to have any either…
Ummm, this is a joke, right? You are aware that to everyone other than yourself, the “Roe v Wade’s Dirty Little Secret” thread only demolished the last vestiges of your already tenuous credibility, right? Other than that, your contributions to the board seem to be mainly limited to viciously slandering teenage rape victims. So if I were you, I would not go around bragging about the high-minded contributions I had made to this board.
Oh, but you only think that because you’re obviously someone “who cling(s) to the orthodoxy of liberalism.”!!!
Our man Razor here, under any truely objective viewpoint, must be considered a contributor unparalleled!
:rolleyes:
Well, now that you mention it, you indeed didn’t imply that; you said it straight out, in the frickin’ title of the frickin’ thread. And your claim that I am trying to “avoid the real issue”, is, frankly, ridiculous. I’m still trying to figure just what the real issue is here, fer cryin’ out loud. You first claimed that the issue was something involving journalistic ethics, then you went off on some bizarre sidetrack about creationism, then finally, after two pages of hurling insults left, right and center, state this whole deal is about baiting what you what you deem to be hypocritical liberals (I guess to you, to be liberal is to be a hypocrite automatically, but whatever) on this board. So, in the end, like nearly all your threads in this forum, this is about your frankly quite odd personal obsession about the dangers of ‘liberals’.
Glad we finally got that settled.
Sorry to have to say this, man, but you really are coming off as a bit of crank here.
hehe… razorblunt is getting kicked around some…
Well just want to mention that the Swift Vets are making money out of slander and lies… while CBS isn’t.
As for Dan Rather… I think Bush owes him… he owes him a big thank you. Talk about sloppy reporting… getting baited so easily is pathetic.
Actually, I’d like to point out that Sam Stone’s recent post seems quite a bit more relevant to the original subject of this thread than about anything else on this page, including the OP’s various contributions. Samclaims the SBVfT’s assertions are mainly correct, with the apparent implication that they are indeed not as bad as horrible old CBS. I don’t have the time to check them for veracity one by one. Anybody want to tackle that or at least point me to cite that confirms or rejects them?
Search for the last half-dozen threads in Great Debates about the Swift Bullshitters for Bush – Sam keeps trotting out the same ol’ “They still have lots of credibility left” nonsense, and everyone else keeps dinging him on it.
Groan. Sisyphus had his stone, and we have ours. Indeed, we have covered this ground with agonizing efficiency. Briefly:
1 The issue of enemy action is a chimera. The awarding of a Purple Heart does not depend on a strict definition of enemy action. One can be awarded a PH for being the unfortunate victim of friendly fire. One can as well be awarded a PH for accidental injuries inflicted upon oneself while in pursuit of a military duty. The presence or absence of direct enemy action upon oneself is not the defining issue.
When Big John Wayne staggered into the Alamo’s powder magazine, mortally wounded, he carried a torch with the express intent of blowing himself to Kingdom Come (an extraordinarly courageous act, but that was him all over…). Even though the wound was “self-inflicted”, he would still have been eligible for a PH. Had he survived.
Sam is somewhat correct as to the Cambodia Xmas story, in that it remains murky. The most significant thing about the story is its utter lack of significance. At worst, it is only a wildly exaggerated war story, not even enough to shock anyone who ever got drunk at a VFW. Trying to expand this piffle into importance is a forlorn adventure.
Absolutely beaten to death. I will not drag my sorry ass over all that again, suffice to say it’s like wandering in a wilderness of affidavits. Sam’s right, its weak, Sam’s wrong, its not the weakest.
Repeats the same fallacy as #1: that only direct enemy action qualifies one for a PH. Not so. Destroying resources that might assist the enemy is a military function and duty, he was obliged to act. In the course of that act, he was wounded. It may even be that he chose to report that wound as being a result of the mine explosion. One interpretation would be a cunning and dastardly plot to get his grasping mitts on another coveted PH. Another might be that he just preferred not to have people talking about how he damn near blew his ass up. I can relate, I’ll bet you can too.
Remember: he had to report his injury, it wasn’t optional. He didn’t fib to get an award he didn’t deserve, he just didn’t want to look like a doofus.
6… Is Sam’s own personal Rashomon. The only evidence to suggest that Kerry controlled the contents of the reports is the Swiftie’s insistence that it is so. Thus, the Swiftie’s seek to undermine conflicting evidence by substituting their own testimony, by way of supporting their testimony.
“It’s a circular argument” is a chestnut, vintage Sam, delivered straight-up in the Canadian style, as though irony wouldn’t melt in his mouth…
I’m afraid I can’t critique this statement and retain good humor. Suffice to say that I disagree about the nature of Sen Kerry’s behavior. Really a whole lot. We’re talking hopping up and down and spitting red-hot, chewed up ten-penny nails disagree. So I’m gonna just leave that one alone. But I disagree. Bigtime.
There, there ** elucidator.
Sam** doesn’t mean it he’s probably just spamming us.
If you consider half-assed and prematurely dismissive to be “agonized,” well than yes. You deserve a pat on the bck.
Cite for Purple Hearts received in the “absence” of enemy action?
Kerry is the guy who made the big deal about this being a watershed moment in his life, when he realized the whole thing was a fraud, because here we were, in Cambodia, while Nixon the Pres was saying we weren’t.
If I made a “Budweiser turning point of the game” type story up, and made it out to be a Saul on the Road to Damascus type revelation, it might be an important insight into my character.
You have to be wounded in combat to get a PH, I think. But again, I’ll wait for the cite. Anyway, if your interpretation is correct, it shows Kerry as a liar, willing to falsify records and action reports. If you read Unfit for Command this is really the stated point for bringing these things up. They attempt to show a history of lies and opportunism, self-serving behavior from Kerry’s 4 months. Once they’ve done this, it gels very nicely and fits with the main point of the book, which is that Kerry came back, betrayed his shipmates and the American Servicemen, and again falsified evidence for his own benefit with V V A W.
If I say I got wounded in the ass by an Orangutang while I was actually bitten by a mosquito, how is that not a fib?
[/quote]
6… Is Sam’s own personal Rashomon. The only evidence to suggest that Kerry controlled the contents of the reports is the Swiftie’s insistence that it is so. Thus, the Swiftie’s seek to undermine conflicting evidence by substituting their own testimony, by way of supporting their testimony.
[/quote]
Untrue. The action reports are coded by the person calling them in and the ones in question have Kerry’s call number on them. They are available at www.Swiftvets.com for your perusal in the Discussion columns under resources.
Since you haven’t read the book, I’m not sure you know what you disagree with. Kerry in Vietnam is merely background. The real theme, the real complaint is Wintersoldier and the lies. And the long history of fabrications for opportunism at the expense of others that characterizes Kerry’s behavior.
Yeah, you do have a talent for cut ‘n pastin’ and providing links.
And it’s inconsequential when your opponent punches like a girl.
Uh, when you say “sliced to pieces”, are you referring to Dopers accusing me of plagarism?
If you are suggesting that any premise within the essay was “sliced to pieces”, give me an example, otherwise, I say you are fantacizing.
You know, for a group that purports itself to be so smart, the evidence is sorely lacking.
Good Lord in Heaven… the title, “Swiftboad Vets startin’ to look pretty good”, is what is known as “tongue 'n cheek”. (sheeesh)
Of course you can’t pick up on something that is tongue 'n cheek. Hell, you can’t even pick up on the fact that it wasn’t me that brought up the issue of creationism.
Perhaps Straight Dope should consider a new slogan.
Straight Dope, where the dull and mundane gather to proclaim themselves a intelligentsia
And you, sir, strike me as someone who has utterly failed to support his premise and is now backpedalling frantically.
I haven’t purported anything at all. Would you care to defend the premise of your OP, or would you rather to just hurl insults? It’s your nickel.
Well, that answers that question.
Worst. Debate. Ever. Goodbye.
Simple common sense. If you pilot an aircraft on a bombing mission, and are injured as a result of bad weather or pilot error, is it your contention that this does not qualify for a PH? If you sneak behind enemy lines and blow up an ammo dump, and are injured by resulting shrapnel, you are not eligible? Self-inflicted wound, after all.
Might be. Might not be. You are trying to inflate a Japanese condom into a dirigible, you’ll need supplies of hot air beyond your capacity.
Slanderous rot! From whence your astonishing capacity to peer into the mind and soul of John Kerry and inventory the contents thereof? I had heard God was dead, I was not aware that you were named as His successor. Advise soonest.
And, once again, you offer us unfounded slander as gospel. You keep doing this, in one thread you offer an argument that gets slaughtered, then blithely refer to your stunning victory in another thread.
Perhaps it might be useful if we had a point of comparison, some other public figure who’s military record might be examined in the light of presumed falsification and opportunism. Wherever might we find such a public figure to compare to? Gosh, that’s a tough one.
Scylla, the criteria for the Purple Heart were discussed extensively in the 22-page thread you claim to have read. They are also readily available here, without putting any of the Dopers under the burden of rehashing it for your personal pleasure. Do try to catch up.
Yep, Sam, you’re never going to see the problem with arguing “The Swifties must be right because they *say * they’re right”, virtually all actual *eyewitness * accounts and contemporaneous documentation being to the contrary notwithstanding, are you?
You link goes to the “Just Google it” joke page. Pilot error. Either that, or you are deliberately trying to undermine our resolve and determination in a time of war, you treasonous scum.