Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Part II: They Run Aground on Reef of Lies

I wrote an article back in May called, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth not so Seaworthy which is making its way around the web. The gist of that article is that none of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, with the exception of one, actually served with John Kerry on his boat. Their beef with John Kerry revolves around his leadership in the anti-war movement and his testimony about the atrocities he had witnessed and his opposition to George Bush. My conclusion in May was that empirical evidence (Military records, testimony of the men with whom Kerry has actually served, Medals) is completely contrary to the allegations made by the Swift Boat Veterans.

The Swift Boat Veterans upped the ante yesterday by releasing their now infamous advertisement denouncing Kerry's service. Mike Barnicle called the ad "Political Pornography" on Scarborough Country last night. I couldn't agree more.

Far from growing in accuracy or credibility, the Swift Boat Veteran's charges grow weaker. It was with great pleasure that I witnessed a full compliment of pundits and politicians denounce the Swift Boat Veterans yesterday. Carl Cameron, FOX News, stated that much of the criticism "dramatically conflicts with the public record." Swift Boat Veterans Chairman, Roy Hoffmann, has changed his story about whether or not he actually knew Kerry in Vietnam. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott, central figure with the Swift Boat has said in an interview that he had made a ''terrible mistake" in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. John McCain has thoroughly repudiated the ad, calling it "Dishonest and dishonorable" and a "Cheap Stunt." Swift Boat Veteran John O'Neill has been trying to discredit John Kerry for three decades.

The article and subsequent flurry of activity generated by the release of the advertisement has netted some interesting email. I excerpt some below:

Brian writes:

His testimony stated as fact (not opinion) that US soldiers were raping and pillaging Vietnam. It is not his opinion that is called into question: it is what Mr. Kerry presented as fact which clearly is not.

Actually, Kerry's testimony was consistent with other accounts of atrocities. Do you honestly maintain that no atrocities were committed in Vietnam?

Dan writes:

As a general philosophical construct conservatism observes tight ( some may characterize them as restrictive) moral behavior. Lying is at the very least frowned upon and, when corroborated with fact, spells certain political death. Witness George Bush senior's "read my lips" debaucle.

On the other hand, liberalism is defined by a lack of restrictions ( some may characterize these restrictions as morals). As a result truth is, to a liberal, at best subjective. Witness Bill Clinton questioning the defintions of simple words. Lying to a liberal is simply a reinterpretation of the events in question according to an individuals point of veiw, and those who lie masterfully are seen as clever and open minded.

I do not believe the truth is either conservative or liberal. It is simply the truth. Clinton was lying, ok? So are the Swift Boat Veterans.Conservatisim and liberalism don't have much to do with morals, my friend. I accept the idea that there may be a grain of truth to accusations of the Swift Boat Vets. Most really elegant lies are based on a sliver of truth. For example, I believe some of the Swift Boat Vets were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry, but not much else. Can you acknowledge the obvious holes in their allegations? It just wouldn't stand up in court.

Dan Continues :

Now let us examine this quote:
"one cannot dispute the fact that he did serve, and by all accounts, served honorably and bravely"

firstly..."one cannot dispute that he did serve" Here we see our protagonist trying to redirect the argument to debate Kerry's service hoping that the mere fact that he served is honorable despite his conduct while in said indisputable service. I'm sorry dykstra, no one is disputing his service, just his conduct while serving.
next..."and by all accounts, served honorably and bravely"...this is a patently false statement. The very ad which is ranted against indisputably contains accounts to the contrary. The trick he wishes to use here is to discredit the testimony of those in the ad by disregarding them as any account at all. He would say, echoing the master, "it depends on what you mean by the term "accounts."....and what you mean by "served with John Kerry"...ect.

You are right, Dan. I should not have said that Kerry served honorably "...by all accounts." I should have said that he served honorably by all accounts given at the time of his service. The accounts given now, 35 years later, by politically motivated hatchet men, do indeed differ substantially from the accounts those same men gave at the time of the incidents. For the record, I do believe the fact that Kerry served is honorable. The record agrees with me.