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
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.
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”.
Oh, I’m sure they did!
Okay guys whatever you do don’t stop doing that stuff!
-Joe
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.