Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[sunmaster14]

That's easy. They got a conservative president. That's worth lying for.

Do you know that all, or even most, of the Swift Boat vets are conservative, let alone supported Bush's agenda over Kerry's? I don't. I suspect instead that they were motivated by ill will towards Kerry, and I think that goes back to his anti-war activism in 1971-1972. That ill will could be a motivation to lie, but it is probably also the case that it was informed by their perception of him as a blowhard who exaggerated his military record.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

It was dirty politics. However, I don't know if there were outright lies in their stuff. It was still pretty disgraceful.

If they were intentional lies, it was disgraceful. Otherwise no. Do you think lying to embellish the record of a candidate is disgraceful? How about lying to tarnish the reputation of his detractors, most of whom had admirable records of service to their country?

 

[Meadmaker]

If they were intentional lies, it was disgraceful. Otherwise no. Do you think lying to embellish the record of a candidate is disgraceful? How about lying to tarnish the reputation of his detractors, most of whom had admiral records of service to their country?

It takes a lot of chutzpah to hide behind an "admirable record of service to their country", while engaged in slander against someone who has an admirable record of service to his country. John Kerry has an admirable record of service to his country.

As for the "lies" on either side, it's spin. For example, the Wikipedia article says that the swifties claim there was "hardly any fire" on the day that Kerry earned his Silver Star. The media interviewed Vietnamese veterans who said, "the fighting was fierce". Both could be true.

All of the swiftie allegations were of the same ilk. John Kerry put his life on the line, quite literally, while in the US military. I don't think that should be disparaged. When it comes to the swifties, I'm sticking with disgraceful.

 

[sunmaster14]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to hide behind an "admirable record of service to their country", while engaged in slander against someone who has an admirable record of service to his country. John Kerry has an admirable record of service to his country.

As for the "lies" on either side, it's spin. For example, the Wikipedia article says that the swifties claim there was "hardly any fire" on the day that Kerry earned his Silver Star. The media interviewed Vietnamese veterans who said, "the fighting was fierce". Both could be true.

All of the swiftie allegations were of the same ilk. John Kerry put his life on the line, quite literally, while in the US military. I don't think that should be disparaged. When it comes to the swifties, I'm sticking with disgraceful.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Just as the Swift Boat Vets can't hide behind their military records to avoid criticism, neither can Kerry. Just because he put his life on the line, it doesn't mean that he can't be criticized for embellishing his record of putting his life on the line. If he's going to wave his medals around to win votes, then it is reasonable that the circumstances behind the award of those medals be scrutinized. Of course, there's a difference. None of the Swift Boat Vets were running for President. There is no good reason to investigate them or disparage them except to undermine their credibility.

 

[DavidJames]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Just as the Swift Boat Vets can't hide behind their military records to avoid criticism, neither can Kerry. Just because he put his life on the line, it doesn't mean that he can't be criticized for embellishing his record of putting his life on the line. If he's going to wave his medals around to win votes, then it is reasonable that the circumstances behind the award of those medals be scrutinized. Of course, there's a difference. None of the Swift Boat Vets were running for President. There is no good reason to investigate them or disparage them except to undermine their credibility.

those poor slandering lying bastards. It's pathetic you and them are so willing to make up **** about a vet simply because you disagree with their politics. It's the lowest of low.

 

[sunmaster14]

those poor slandering lying bastards. It's pathetic you and them are so willing to make up **** about a vet simply because you disagree with their politics. It's the lowest of low.

"What kind of scum would accuse a vet of lying about his military service?"
"His fellow vets who served with him at the same time."
"Those slandering, lying bastards!"

 

[Giordano]

I recall one of the Holocaust survivors who refused to debate people who claimed the Holocaust never happened. When asked why, he said (and I am paraphrasing): "If you dignify nonsensical crap by debating it, one side will say one thing and the other will say the opposite, and most in the audience will conclude that the truth must lie somewhere in-between. Often the truth is not somewhere in-between: one side is completely correct and the other side is completely wrong."

One can make up any lie and get at least some people to doubt the actual truth. In fact one of the problems with most current journalism is the belief that good journalism requires that a reporter present both sides without taking a position, e.g. the flat Earthers and the astronomers, and let the public decide who is right.

Here this effect (the truth must be somewhere in-between) is even further embellished in the debate about the Swift Boat lies due to Sunmaster's willingness to speculate, completely in the absence of facts or evidence, how the Swift Boat events "probably" happened, his speculation that any errors in the Swift Boat campaign are due to differences in memory and not political prejudges, his proposal that personal income is the only basis behind people's motives, his perceived lack of a reason for someone's willingness to lie, etc. No facts, just Sunmaster "puzzling it out" within a strongly conservative political bent. Therefore the side with the evidence: the military-awarded medals from his superiors, the support of all but one of the people who crewed for Kerry (and he was not present during the actions for which Kerry received the medals) the written documentation from the era, the news investigations during the election period that proved Swift Boat Veteran statements were incorrect, is to be considered as having no more veracity than the people who were not there at those actions (all but one never ever even served on Kerry's boat), and were, decades later in a political campaign, coming out of the woodwork with little more than verbal vindictiveness. I would emphasize that none of these Swift Boat Veterans who criticized Kerry, including the one member of his crew who did disparage him, were there at the actual events for which he received his medals. In fact I believe that less than 1/10 of the total Swift Boat Veterans membership was even willing to participate in the statements made against Kerry.

Probably okay if used only to generate an argument on an Internet forum; more of a concern if the person advancing these made-up, vest sew on a button, speculations actually believes them himself. Interestingly, I was just reminded that John McCann, hardly a liberal tool, denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accusations against Kerry.

 

[Giordano]

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Just as the Swift Boat Vets can't hide behind their military records to avoid criticism, neither can Kerry. Just because he put his life on the line, it doesn't mean that he can't be criticized for embellishing his record of putting his life on the line. If he's going to wave his medals around to win votes, then it is reasonable that the circumstances behind the award of those medals be scrutinized. Of course, there's a difference. None of the Swift Boat Vets were running for President. There is no good reason to investigate them or disparage them except to undermine their credibility.

It is okay to criticize someone for embellishing his record if he did so and if one had some solid facts to prove this is true. Otherwise is it slimy to imply it or to accuse it, no matter who does it.

 

[sunmaster14]

I recall one of the Holocaust survivors who refused to debate people who claimed the Holocaust never happened. When asked why, he said (and I am paraphrasing): "If you dignify nonsensical crap by debating it, one side will say one thing and the other will say the opposite, and most in the audience will conclude that the truth must lie somewhere in-between. Often the truth is not somewhere in-between: one side is completely correct and the other side is completely wrong."

One can make up any lie and get at least some people to doubt the actual truth. In fact one of the problems with most current journalism is the belief that good journalism requires that a reporter present both sides without taking a position, e.g. the flat Earthers and the astronomers, and let the public decide who is right.

Here this effect (the truth must be somewhere in-between) is even further embellished in the debate about the Swift Boat lies due to Sunmaster's willingness to speculate, completely in the absence of facts or evidence, how the Swift Boat events "probably" happened, his speculation that any errors in the Swift Boat campaign are due to differences in memory and not political prejudges, his proposal that personal income is the only basis behind people's motives, his perceived lack of a reason for someone's willingness to lie, etc. No facts, just Sunmaster "puzzling it out" within a strongly conservative political bent. Therefore the side with the evidence: the military-awarded medals from his superiors, the support of all but one of the people who crewed for Kerry (and he was not present during the actions for which Kerry received the medals) the written documentation from the era, the news investigations during the election period that proved Swift Boat Veteran statements were incorrect, is to be considered as having no more veracity than the people who were not there at those actions (all but one never ever even served on Kerry's boat), and were, decades later in a political campaign, coming out of the woodwork with little more than verbal vindictiveness. I would emphasize that none of these Swift Boat Veterans who criticized Kerry, including the one member of his crew who did disparage him, were there at the actual events for which he received his medals. In fact I believe that less than 1/10 of the total Swift Boat Veterans membership was even willing to participate in the statements made against Kerry.

Probably okay if used only to generate an argument on an Internet forum; more of a concern if the person advancing these made-up, vest sew on a button, speculations actually believes them himself.

You and other like-minded people are the ones claiming that the Swift Boat Vets were disgusting liars. I am only claiming that there is nowhere near enough evidence to reach that conclusion. This is not the case for somebody who claims that the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen (putting aside mental illness). Is it really so hard to believe that Kerry would exaggerate his military accomplishments? The guy is a politician after all, and he was pretty good at grandstanding after he came home from Vietnam. He also consistently recounted one event that has been disputed by people who were with him at the time, i.e. spending Christmas eve in Cambodia.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Interestingly, I was just reminded that John McCann, hardly a liberal tool, denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accusations against Kerry.

John McCain has a history of attacking anybody who attacks a veteran's military record for any reason. I think it's a weird kind of religious reverence that he has for military service, which is perhaps self-serving. He also was perhaps still pissed off with what happened to him in the 2000 Republican primaries. Bob Dole, on the other hand, refused to criticize the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

 

[Meadmaker]

You and other like-minded people are the ones claiming that the Swift Boat Vets were disgusting liars.

For my part, I don't claim they are slimy, disgusting, liars. They're just slimy and disgusting.

Kerry had a lot more bullets shot at him than I have ever had shot at me. If he overstates the significance of it a little bit, I won't begrudge him the embellishment. It's just not important.

To be fair, he opened himself up to it by emphasizing his Vietnam service so much as part of his campaign, but let's not mistake what I'm saying there. By making his service out to be a big deal, it was predictable that political opponents would try to cut it down. It's predictable, but not right.


I wasn't around for the JFK election, but something similar happened. JFK, and his handlers, liked to bring up PT 109 a lot. Detractors like to point out that he managed to get his boat sunk. However, they kept it to background noise. The swifties had some pretty big funding and went right out front attacking him.

I just remembered that this wasn't the first time I had seen a veteran disparaged for his military service. During the 1992 campaign I remember a group trying to actually paint GHWB as a war criminal, literally. It was pretty disgusting.

 

[sunmaster14]

For my part, I don't claim they are slimy, disgusting, liars. They're just slimy and disgusting.

Kerry had a lot more bullets shot at him than I have ever had shot at me. If he overstates the significance of it a little bit, I won't begrudge him the embellishment. It's just not important.

To be fair, he opened himself up to it by emphasizing his Vietnam service so much as part of his campaign, but let's not mistake what I'm saying there. By making his service out to be a big deal, it was predictable that political opponents would try to cut it down. It's predictable, but not right.

Well, that's exactly why I don't think it was slimy and disgusting. If Kerry had not made it a centerpiece of his campaign, then I would have thought it slimy and irrelevant (although not really disgusting - Kerry's a big boy, he can take it). Democrats use a similar justification for going after the personal lives of social conservatives. I think that's worse actually, but it can be justified at least a little bit.

 

[Dr. Keith]

"What kind of scum would accuse a vet of lying about his military service?"
"His fellow vets who served with him at the same time."
"Those slandering, lying bastards!"

But isn't that exactly the point, most of the SBVT weren't vets who had served with him and most of the vets who did serve with him liked him, were neutral on him, or were just not pleased with what he did after the war. The whole sham was funded by political fund raisers to knock him out of the race and distract form the republican candidate's dubious military record of the same period.

It was a political hit job, it has been proven to be a hit job by every shred of evidence around it and still years later you can't admit it.

It is so clear it was a hit job that the word swiftboating has actually entered the lexicon.

You are essentially trying to claim that a Kleenex is not a facial tissue because there are some other uses for them.

Tilt away at those windmills my friend, no doubt you will slay the dragon and the damsel will be yours.

 

[sunmaster14]

But isn't that exactly the point, most of the SBVT weren't vets who had served with him and most of the vets who did serve with him liked him, were neutral on him, or were just not pleased with what he did after the war.

There were vets who served with him who disputed the official version of events behind some of his medals. Also, some of the SBVT criticism was directed at Kerry's actions after the war, which is wholly legitimate in my opinion and deserved to be discussed. It is a terrible injustice that the SBVT have been painted with a very broad brush as despicable liars.

The whole sham was funded by political fund raisers to knock him out of the race and distract form the republican candidate's dubious military record of the same period.

Well, it is certainly interesting that in one sentence, you describe questions about both Kerry's military record and record of antiwar activism (with the latter strongly connected to the former, by the way) as being a sham and then refer to Bush's military record as dubious (a military record which had already been thoroughly discussed four years before).

It was a political hit job, it has been proven to be a hit job by every shred of evidence around it and still years later you can't admit it.

I disagree. Certain criticisms seem to be exaggerated or unsupported, but nowhere near all, and in any case, there were real people who put their reputations on the line to stand behind the accusations. The real political hit job is the way the Swift Boat Vets have been denounced as slanderers and liars by people who have no idea about what the truth is.

It is so clear it was a hit job that the word swiftboating has actually entered the lexicon.

That is evidence that the mainstream media was biased in favor of Kerry. Nothing more.

You are essentially trying to claim that a Kleenex is not a facial tissue because there are some other uses for them.

Tilt away at those windmills my friend, no doubt you will slay the dragon and the damsel will be yours.

I don't quite understand your analogies, but I suspect they're not justified.

 

[Beerina]

One nitpick. MS Word did pseudo-kerning, not true kerning at that time, at least with the default settings. An explanation is here. True kerning involves widths assigned to each possible pair of letters. Pseudo-kerning is just when a particular letter might have a negative offset, but that offset remains the same regardless of what letter follows it or precedes it, if any. Regardless, with MS Word (or any word processor), you get some consecutive letters overlapping each others' space. This supposedly looks nice, and might be something a professional typesetter would strive to accomplish, but would definitely not be something that a manual typewriter would do.



What seems to be forgotten also, although not by the Thornberg-Boccardi report, is that CBS's document experts raised concerns about the memos, and Rather and Mapes not only dismissed those concerns but lied about them to other people at CBS. They also misrepresented the nature of the memos to at least one other person they interviewed (Hodges) in order to get his corroboration. This wasn't just a case of Rather and Mapes being taken in by a fraud. Rather, it was a case of them perpetrating one.

Common kerning examples are pairs of lower case t or f where the crossbars overlap as one, or an f followed by an i, with the dot of the i buried in the overhang of the f.

The "two spaces between sentences" issue, i.e. after a period, was hampered by ignorant fools who claimed said spacing was built into the period kerning, and hence two spaces are not needed. Such ignorance.

 

[Giordano]

You and other like-minded people are the ones claiming that the Swift Boat Vets were disgusting liars. I am only claiming that there is nowhere near enough evidence to reach that conclusion. This is not the case for somebody who claims that the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen (putting aside mental illness). Is it really so hard to believe that Kerry would exaggerate his military accomplishments? The guy is a politician after all, and he was pretty good at grandstanding after he came home from Vietnam. He also consistently recounted one event that has been disputed by people who were with him at the time, i.e. spending Christmas eve in Cambodia.

The reason I persist in these posts is the entire notion of "how do we know he didn't?" represents anything worth an accusation/speculation.

"Jim ate babies 20 years for dinner ago!"
"Do you have any evidence that he did?"
Why would I accuse him if he didn't?"
"Well, is there any evidence that he did?"
"Is there any evidence he did not?"
"His roommate said he never saw such a thing."
"It happened when his roommate was at work."
"How do you know that?"
"No one would ever eat babies in front of a witness."
"Why would he eat babies?"
"Well, demonic cults eat babies, so he was probably a member of a demonic cult. And there is no evidence because he would have wanted to hide any evidence that he was in a demonic cult. And..."

No matter that else, I will quote Edward R. Murrow:
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof..."

 

[Giordano]

John McCain has a history of attacking anybody who attacks a veteran's military record for any reason. I think it's a weird kind of religious reverence that he has for military service, which is perhaps self-serving. He also was perhaps still pissed off with what happened to him in the 2000 Republican primaries. Bob Dole, on the other hand, refused to criticize the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

So someone would support a lie, McCann's support of Kerry, even if they weren't being paid to do so?

 

[Giordano]

You and other like-minded people are the ones claiming that the Swift Boat Vets were disgusting liars. I am only claiming that there is nowhere near enough evidence to reach that conclusion. This is not the case for somebody who claims that the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen (putting aside mental illness). Is it really so hard to believe that Kerry would exaggerate his military accomplishments? The guy is a politician after all, and he was pretty good at grandstanding after he came home from Vietnam. He also consistently recounted one event that has been disputed by people who were with him at the time, i.e. spending Christmas eve in Cambodia.

There is a lot of evidence that supports Kerry in terms of Cambodia at Christmas. This includes quotes from officers who were in a position to know at the time and his diary at the time. Quotes from people stating that they did not know that he was in Cambodia is hardly evidence that he was not (in fact, at the time I was 15 years old and didn't know either). Given it was a secret mission that the USA wished to deny, I am not surprised that many people did not know.

Again-speculation without evidence seems particularly slimy to me when used to attack someone's character, especially for political purposes.

 

[sunmaster14]

The reason I persist in these posts is the entire notion of "how do we know he didn't?" represents anything worth an accusation/speculation.

"Jim ate babies 20 years for dinner ago!"
"Do you have any evidence that he did?"
Why would I accuse him if he didn't?"
"Well, is there any evidence that he did?"
"Is there any evidence he did not?"
"His roommate said he never saw such a thing."
"It happened when his roommate was at work."
"How do you know that?"
"No one would ever eat babies in front of a witness."
"Why would he eat babies?"
"Well, demonic cults eat babies, so he was probably a member of a demonic cult. And there is no evidence because he would have wanted to hide any evidence that he was in a demonic cult. And..."

No matter that else, I will quote Edward R. Murrow:
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof..."

I personally am not holding the criticisms of Kerry's military record against him. I disliked Kerry long before I even knew about the criticism, and I don't really care about somebody's 30 year old military record anyway, at least with respect to being President. In other words, I'm agnostic. Many of Kerry's supporters, on the other hand, are not agnostic. They, without much evidence to speak of, are claiming that the Swift Boat Veterans are disgusting liars. They are so confident of this fact that they equate claims to the contrary with Holocaust denial and flat-Eartherness (flattery?).

 

[Giordano]

You and other like-minded people are the ones claiming that the Swift Boat Vets were disgusting liars. I am only claiming that there is nowhere near enough evidence to reach that conclusion. This is not the case for somebody who claims that the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen (putting aside mental illness). Is it really so hard to believe that Kerry would exaggerate his military accomplishments? The guy is a politician after all, and he was pretty good at grandstanding after he came home from Vietnam. He also consistently recounted one event that has been disputed by people who were with him at the time, i.e. spending Christmas eve in Cambodia.

If they are liars or simply stating lies is not that relevant to the question of Kerry's service.

By these same standards, how do you do know that the people claiming Bush did not fulfill his military service are wrong? Sure the documents used by 60 minutes were forgeries, but that just means that other accusers don't have evidence. But why would they lie? Most or all of them are not being paid to do so. So why not believe that there is some truth to it by your own standards?