AP and the Swiftboats
February 28, 2007
The election of 2004 still stings for a lot of folks. In a Senate confirmation hearing for the new appointee for Ambassador to Belgium, Sen. John Kerry (deservedly) took the chance to confront nominee Sam Fox about Fox’s $5000 contribution to the Swiftboat Veterans campaign that questioned Kerry’s actions during and after the Vietnam war. The exchange was not especially notable, although Kerry was able to hang on Fox the dark accusation of having played the “politics of personal destruction”. More interesting is how the AP continues to portray the Swiftboat Vets as the sole antagonist for this old debate:
The group of Vietnam veterans made unsubstantiated allegations against Kerry — then the Democratic presidential nominee — and charged that Kerry did not deserve the medals he won in the Vietnam War.
I recognize that there was super-heated hubris thrown by both sides during 2004, and it’s important to separate this chaff from the history of the actual debate. But how exactly did the Swiftboat Vets engage in the “politics of personal destruction” with “unsubstantiated” allegations? They were guilty of:
- questioning John Kerry’s “unsubstantiated” account on the incident that led to his First Purple Heart
- pointing out his “unsubstantiated” trip into Cambodia
- countering John Kerry’s “unsubstantiated” and false war crimes charges that he made against Vietnam veterans
How any of these allegations are considered “unsubstantiated” escapes me.
In that John Kerry did not start the swiftboat scandal by coming out and declaring all of his Vietnam experiences “unsubstantiated,” it seems to me that the only antagonist in the situation would be the so-called swift-boaters-for-”truth.” What other ANTAGONIST might you be referring to in this situation?
Also, I’m not sure which falsifying revisionist histories you’ve been reading that would convince you that “unsubstantiated” is not the proper term to be used in describing the claims made by the swiftboaters. Just because someone “questions” or “counters” something does not make that person an automatic purveyor of “truth.”
Members of the “reality-based community,” to quote Frank Rich’s blessed phrase from 2004, continue to take note of the fact that the swiftboaters have NOT substantiated their claims against Kerry. Hence the AP’s proper use of the word “unsubstantiated” and Kerry’s phrase “the politics of personal destruction.”
My point is that the Swiftboaters made many claims, some possibly unsubstantiated (and unverifiable) but others quite legitimate, and the AP missed an opportunity for evenhandedness.
Swiftboaters’ objections to Kerry’s claim about his time in Cambodia (and the nefarious implications associated with such) were clearly substantiated. Kerry later backed away from this claim.
Were Swiftboaters out of line when they made public their resentment of Kerry’s own unsubstantiated claims of military misconduct made after he left Vietnam?
“Love the war, hate the warrior” Vinman is at it again. If you call into question the validity of one soldier’s awards then you call into question the validity of all of the awards given to all soldiers. The military sets the standards and issues the awards. I think arguing against Kerry’s post war comments is fair game (although I’m sure there are plenty of documented instances of US military misconduct in Vietnam) but questioning his service is pathetic.
Z, I was beginning to believe your ID was still locked out.
I’m glad you’ve come around to acknowledging that we can criticize Kerry’s words after the war!
I’m not talking about his awards, although that would be an interesting conversation.
I agree that nobody should question Kerry’s actions in Vietnam UNLESS that ‘nobody’ was serving under or alongside Kerry’s command and had a starkly different perspective of the same events Kerry’s official biography relies on.
I’m don’t know who this “nobody” is you speak of but there are plenty of “somebodies” under and alongside Kerry who support his telling of the events. If you ask 10 people for their eye witness account of a certain event and 9 have essentially the same story while 1 has much different one, who are you going believe?
I believe that it was almost 40 years ago and everybody’s memory is a little fuzzy. I know that the number of former colleagues- cum-critics from the war isn’t exactly insignificant compared to his Band of Brothers.
So how many “colleagues” — and by “colleagues” I assume you mean people who fought alongside Kerry — are now critics?
Show me yours and I’ll show you mine?
I kind of figured that’s what you’d have to say.
According to wikipedia:
“Of those who served in Kerry’s boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group’s television advertisements.”
uh, there were four other boats in his flotilla.
Are you saying that it’s pathetic for fellow vets to challenge Kerry’s (and historian D. Brinkley’s) version of events? Vets that were there in the thick of action with him?
Why can’t we see the full SF-180 form?
Your demand to see the “full SF-180 form” just sounds funny - coming as it does from someone who supports a president who clearly thinks it is his divine right to classify everything.
See, unproveable snipe-on-demand. Prove that or don’t say it. YOU sound funny.
Why can’t we see the 180?
What part of the 180 can’t we see? Here they are: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/010795.php
What is missing from them that you are so concerned about?
Why did the White House deny Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s Freedom of Information Act request regarding White House connections with the Swift Boat Vets?
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=42
You’ve shared these with me before–these are the Form 180s. The cover forms. So you’re technically correct. Now, where da records, yo? Point me to the actual records these signed forms puportedly released?
@ vinman: see also my latest post