Kerry murdered teens and burnt villages and he totally sucks

We all know by now about Drudge’s latest hatchet job in which he gives considerable space to the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” to accuse John Kerry of utterly horrendous crimes and monstrous behavior, from shooting teens to burning villages to torturing animals.

Of course, Drudge lets them tell their whole story, and includes a line or two from the Kerry camp saying the SBVFT are lying.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this, even though it makes me sick. Atrios and others have pointed out the nuttiness of the charges, and the fact that all of the men who actually served with Kerry on his swift boat went to Boston to endorse him for president. (The one who didn’t was dead.) And the obvious question arises, were Kerry truly guilty of such heinous crimes and all of these men witnessed them, why were they silent for 30-some years? Is it a coincidence that they are just stepping forward weeks before the election? Yeah, that must be it; a coincidence.

I just saw on the news that bush is distancing himself from the TV ad, and McCain has angrily condemned it. It’s got to remind him of the way Bush smeared him in 2000. This is the ugliest episode of the campaign yet, but it looks like it may well backfire and even cause bush some embarrassment.

Update: Another good link on this story is here.

UPDATE: I just watched a rather remarkable segment of the O’Reilly Factor in which Big Bill himself and smear meister Dick Morris both condemned the ad and said it was a horrible mistake that would create all sorts of problems for bush. Morris said — and I agree — that there’s no way a bunch of disgruntled vets could come up with the cash for their expensive ad without help from a big Republican source, and when this is investigated there may be a Republican scandal. I never thought I’d have praise for O’Reilly, let alone Dick Morris, but it’s due in this instance. That said, I still think they’re both scumbags.

The Discussion: 9 Comments

In fact, McCain condemns the ad precisely because, he said, it is just like the tactics that were used to sully his name in his presidential bid. That was from the Washington Post, which I won’t link to, since you need a registration to read it. But it’s on the site, if you wish to read it.

August 5, 2004 @ 6:11 pm | Comment

Today, dirty tricks seem to be an indispensible part of the political campaigners’ modus operandi.

In Australia, the Opposition Leader, Mark Latham who has been winning considerable support that may topple John Howard’s government, has been subjected to smear campaigns – “someone” dug up his ex-wife to tattle vicious aspects of their former relationship.

A liberal and highly respected Aussie judge, Justice Kirby who is a self-declared homosexual, was also subjected to very wicked innuendos, that suggested he used his official car to trawl for young men at known gay spots. The whole lie exploded in the responsible (Conservative of course) politician’s face when the car travelling records didn’t match up to the allegations, and people started to fess up.

There’s just no end to the wickedness of some poeple.

August 5, 2004 @ 11:27 pm | Comment

Well, one of the guys in the ad seems to be retracting. But I just read a chapter of the book, and it’s pretty thorough. If it’s false, they should be able to rebut it point by point (and there are a lot of points). If they can’t rebut, it’s devastating.

What I wonder is why Kerry seems so bent on keeping VietNam at the front of his qualifications. It would be almost impossible to come out of VN snow-white, and the risk of disastrous revelations seems really high.

August 6, 2004 @ 8:38 am | Comment

Vietnam is a huge plus for Kerry in every way. It reminds people that he served and faced risk while shrub played volleyball by the swimming pool. I heard on the radio how Kerry people are now welcoming any talk of the SBVFT as it inevitably results in Kerry looking good. No one’s falling for the absurd “revelations” and the tactics are so revolting, they’re a turn-off. This episode will be a net minus for bush, as O’Reilly and Dick Morris said last night. It’s already done quite a bit of harm.

August 6, 2004 @ 4:50 pm | Comment

If Kerry has something to hide, he would not be so ready to bring forth his wartime records. Therefore I don’t believe he has done anything criminal. Hardly, why attract attention to a situation where skeletons may tumble out of the cupboard.

On the other hand, soneone’s military attendance records disappeared for a while, didn’t it?

Who would you want to lead your sons and daughters into war, a man who has actual combat experience and would think carefully and weigh all the difficult choices before he commits young men and women to battle, or a chickenhawk?

August 6, 2004 @ 7:28 pm | Comment

Jacky, the answer is painfully obvious. Of course, some people simply can’t deal with this, so they’re taking the most extreme approach — attacking Kerry on the single issue where he’s most secure. Notice that Kerry never says bush is mismanaging the “war on terrorism” — that’s the one issue where bush stands firmest, at least in terms of public perception, so it would be stupid of Kerry to go after him there, especially when there are countless other bush screw-ups to go after. Like, um, the US economy….

August 6, 2004 @ 7:34 pm | Comment

Can somebody explain to me how being a hero makes you a good politician, bravery in the face of the enemy is not the same thing as political aptitude. If it was true then we would see firefighters and police chiefs in office and not oil tycoons and businessmen.

Sure it makes Kerry a better man than Bush, but does it make him a better leader. Not that I support Bush, who’s already shown us exactly what kind of president he is.

There is more debate on personality and integrity than there is on actual leadership.

August 6, 2004 @ 8:30 pm | Comment

It certainly says something about the man, ACB. As for those who consciously try to get out of service, that says something, too.

Personality and integrity are central components of leadership. Not everything, but a lot. Kerry proved in Vietnam that he was a leader. bush chose the easy way out. Those shouldn’t be our sole considerations — but we can’t ignore them, either.

August 6, 2004 @ 8:40 pm | Comment

Right on Richard.

As an ex military man myself, I would want someone like Kerry or McCain or Powell in the hot seat to guide the nation through a difficult period of war – I trust such people because they have the blooded experience not to unnecessarily sacrifice young people to needless adventures, or callously shout “Charge” from their airconditioned office without understanding the import of defence imperatives versus gungho adverturism. They have been “there and done that”, and they know the pain and the blood, sweat and tears.

That doesn’t mean a bloke without combat experience can’t be a leader, but you would expect such people to at least exercise some care and restraint before precipitating a needless war that has now turned into a quagmire. Clinton was a fine example of such a thinking man who exercised the greatest diligence and care vefore committing his fellow citizens to unnecessary war.

I am always suspicious of older men without combat experience and whose own children are safe and sound in some nice comfy jobs back home, who would order young men/women into battle just that wee too quickly. Such people aren’t only in America.

August 7, 2004 @ 5:08 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.