# Swiftboating John Murtha **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 14, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967 "2006-01-14T15:52:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/61 "2006-01-17T13:40:29Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I didn’t say they were unconnected. > > Man, what is it with people deliberately misreading what I post? If you can’t find something to attack in what I actually wrote then just don’t reply at all. > > I said that I had seen no evidence the RNC _controlled_ the Swiftboat Veterans, I never said I considered them unconnected with the Republican party. Fine, split symantec hairs. Do you think that the RNC directed their actions? Do you think the people funding (and therefore directing) the RNC funded (and therefore directed) the Swifties? Again, how stupid are you? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/62 "2006-01-17T18:09:53Z")
I think that if the RNC very publicly told the Swifties to shut the hell up and distanced themselves from them, they would wither and die. But I’m not holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/63 "2006-01-18T01:55:47Z")
According to the various web blogs, about 40 (or so) people who were in the Gulf War or Iraq are planning to run for office, as Democrats - as opposed to only 1 running as a Republican. It will be interesting to see if all 40 (or so) Democrats get “Swift Boated”. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/64 "2006-01-18T03:38:09Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > I think that if the RNC very publicly told the Swifties to shut the hell up and distanced themselves from them, they would wither and die. > > But I’m not holding my breath. Oh, I’m sure they did! Okay guys whatever you do don’t stop doing that stuff! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/65 "2006-01-18T22:53:19Z")
From the New York Times, via Daily Kos, here’s one man’s opinion (James Webb, Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy) on the swiftboating of veterans: > [@](#): > > Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public’s appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves […] > > A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line. [Here’s the direct link to the Op Ed in the NYT.](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/opinion/18webb.html?ex=1295240400&en=f3e1d4cd5b25ed71&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/66 "2006-01-18T23:20:28Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > A very, very, very fine distinction indeed. You are saying that unless we can find some sort of command-and-control apparatus running from the RNC to the Swiftboats, the RNC wasn’t running them. The links that were cited show very clearly that the Republican leadership was working hand-in-glove with the Swiftboaters. Parties don’t always find it good to have a formal command and control structure in place when they’re doing dirty tricks work. I’m sure you understand why. Well, it is a fine distinction. Fine distinctions are still distinctions, or perhaps this one is too complex for certain people to understand? The reason it’s an important distinction is if the RNC could be shown to have had operational control over SBVFT that would constitute a federal election crime, and that’s something you’d probably collapse in a heap of giggling-glee over since it would probably land some GOPer in jail or at least give them a hefty fine. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/67 "2006-01-18T23:22:24Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Fine, split symantec hairs. > > Do you think that the RNC directed their actions? Do you think the people funding (and therefore directing) the RNC funded (and therefore directed) the Swifties? > > Again, how stupid are you? > > -Joe It’s not semantic when the difference is a non-crime on one side and a federal election crime on the other. Donald Trump could, for example, give a donation to the RNC. He could then give a donation to the Swift Boat Veteran’s for Truth. Then, he could even take a leadership position in SBVFT (let’s assume he’s a swiftboat veteran or a former POW since you need that to get in the group) and help run it. That wouldn’t != the Republican party controlling the SBVFT. Again, do you have trouble understanding this difference? Is it too complex for you? Considering it appears you can’t understand complex issues I wouldn’t go around asking people if they were stupid if I were you. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/68 "2006-01-19T02:10:57Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Considering it appears you can’t understand complex issues I wouldn’t go around asking people if they were stupid if I were you. You got it, spanky! You just keep telling yourself that there’s actually a difference. A symantic difference can frequently make something a crime or not a crime. That has absolutely no impact on the actual truth of the matter. If you think it does, then you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought. But, hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. Just don’t start whining because people don’t take your delusions for fact. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/69 "2006-01-19T02:23:24Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > You got it, spanky! > > You just keep telling yourself that there’s actually a difference. A symantic difference can frequently make something a crime or not a crime. > > That has absolutely no impact on the actual truth of the matter. If you think it does, then you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought. > > But, hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. Just don’t start whining because people don’t take your delusions for fact. > > -Joe Okay I’m usually not a grammar/spelling nazi as I make my own share of spelling mistakes and typos, but since you’ve used it more than once I feel obligated to inform you that symantic is not a word, the word you are wanting is semantic. As for the content of your post, if you’re too stupid to understand the matter, then I’ll just not pay attention to your comments concerning this issue. Feel free to chime in when you feel you’ve got the intellectual capacity for this debate. Which is pretty sad, someone that can’t understand association with a group doesn’t equal operational control of a group. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/70 "2006-01-19T12:35:03Z")
It isn’t really a matter of semantics. The legal counsel for Bush-Cheney was advising both them and the Swifties. An advisor to the Bush-Cheney team appeared in a Swift Boat commercial. A Bush-Cheney Florida campaign headquarters also coordinated a Swifties rally. This is not even getting into all the money and personal connections between Bush-Cheney and the Swifties. It’s also, as James Webb observed in his OpEd piece, a clear pattern for veterans who oppose Bush to get smeared like this. If you don’t want to believe that there is more than simple association between Bush and groups like the Swifties, there is likely little that will convince you. For any reasonable person, these simple “associations” just don’t pass the smell test. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/71 "2006-01-19T20:47:42Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > It isn’t really a matter of semantics. The legal counsel for Bush-Cheney was advising both them and the Swifties. An advisor to the Bush-Cheney team appeared in a Swift Boat commercial. A Bush-Cheney Florida campaign headquarters also coordinated a Swifties rally. This is not even getting into all the money and personal connections between Bush-Cheney and the Swifties. > > It’s also, as James Webb observed in his OpEd piece, a clear pattern for veterans who oppose Bush to get smeared like this. > > If you don’t want to believe that there is more than simple association between Bush and groups like the Swifties, there is likely little that will convince you. For any reasonable person, these simple “associations” just don’t pass the smell test. Well if they don’t pass the smell test, I suggest you write the Department of Justice and inform them that Bush-Cheney 2004 was in criminal violation of federal election laws. My take on the matter is that the SBVFT were an independent group, that because of the message they were presenting, got strong support from the Republican party. I’ve seen little evidence that the group was created for the sole purpose of getting Bush elected, and I’ve seen no evidence the Republican party or Bush was operating control over the group. The legal counsel for Bush = the legal counsel for SBVFT? I guess since Mark Geragos was counsel for Scott Peterson AND Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson controlled Jackson’s actions? Maybe you should actually step back and pay attention to what you’re typing before you actually hit submit reply. Having the same legal counsel is no evidence of operational control. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/72 "2006-01-20T14:08:23Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I’ve seen little evidence that the group was created for the sole purpose of getting Bush elected Puh-_leeze_ What other possible purpose can you think of? That, after all these years, it was finally time for the truth to come out, and if that happened to be during a campaign it was simple coincidence? :rolleyes: Og Almighty, man. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen no evidence the Republican party or Bush was operating control over the group. A pretty narrow definition there. “Strategic” doesn’t necessarily imply “operating”, and “coordination” doesn’t necessarily imply “control”. Now try again, using real-world definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967/73 "2006-01-20T15:19:27Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Maybe you should actually step back and pay attention to what you’re typing before you actually hit submit reply. Having the same legal counsel is no evidence of operational control. If I thought there was any chance that you might ever believe that wrongdoing was committed by the Bush administration, I might care to work to convince you. As it is, I don’t really give a shit what your opinion is or whether you are convinced. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swiftboating-john-murtha/339967.md?page=3)