New York Times Hit Piece on the Swift Vets Finally Comes Out
Tomorrow, the New York Times will publish its expected hit piece on the Swift Boat Vets. The article accomplishes something that I would have thought impossible just two days ago. It makes the L.A. Times’s coverage of the Swift Boat Vets look (almost) like responsible journalism.
To be sure, the New York Times takes a page from the L.A. Times playbook: prejudice the reader against the Vets before breathing a word of their actual accusations. But the New York paper takes this strategy to a new level.
I don’t think I have ever seen such a partisan hit piece in my life.
The story opens with these paragraphs:
After weeks of taking fire over veterans’ accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.
Today the New York Times echoes those sentiments.
Okay, I made up that last sentence. Sort of. Read the article and you’ll see what I mean.
The theme of the article is stated clearly in its third paragraph: the Vets are simply mad that Kerry called them war criminals:
How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry’s antiwar statements in the early 1970’s allied themselves with Texas Republicans.
This is the prelude to the first half of the article, which is devoted to fleshing out every last detail (complete with a handy graph) of the group’s “web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush’s chief political aide, Karl Rove”:
Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family — one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove’s, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush’s father’s presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush’s father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group’s television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush’s father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.
The article then spends an incredible amount of space detailing this “web of connections,” which boils down to this: John O’Neill, a successful lawyer in Houston, knows some influential Republicans in Texas. He even knows people, including current and former law partners, who know George Bush and Karl Rove. Wow.
Full disclosure time: I feel an ethical obligation to reveal my “web of connections” to Democrats. I share an office with someone whose friend is married to Democrat California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. No kidding. The grandmother of one of my best friends is an ardent Democrat who knows Hillary Clinton. I have good friends, colleagues, and former employers who have contributed thousands to John Kerry. I am married to a Democrat, and her entire family is 100% Democrats. At least one of her family members thinks George W. Bush is one of the most evil men alive.
This is all absolutely true. And I could go on. Why, if I were any good at Photoshopping, I could make you a pretty cool chart with these facts.
Anyway. Apparently, some of the Republicans that O’Neill knows don’t like Kerry. Go figure.
Honestly, my eyes started to glaze over at what Ed Morrissey accurately terms a “litany of begats and connected-tos that lead to no conclusion whatsoever.” Just when it looks like the story is about to get to the meat of the accusations, about halfway through the article, we get even more of the guilt by association schtick. We are told about the publisher of the Swift Boat Vets’ book (Regnery): it publishes books hostile to Democrats! We are reminded that some bigoted statements have been made on the internet by a co-author of the Swift Boat Vets’ book. Never mind that he is not one of the veterans who serve as eyewitnesses to Kerry’s actions. He’s just a guy who helped write the book. But he has said some stupid things in his life, so it’s important that you know that.
Finally, the piece gets around to discussing some of the Vets’ actual allegations. If you want to tread through that thicket, I recommend this post from Captain Ed. He shows how much of the New York Times’s defense of Kerry is based on inadequate investigation and discredited arguments. For example, there is no mention of the fact that Kerry’s own journal contradicts the central point of his most widely publicized act of alleged bravery. And so on.
The piece makes one telling point. It provides quotes praising Kerry from three of the Vets who currently condemn him: Roy F. Hoffmann, Adrian L. Lonsdale, and George Elliott. I think this is fair commentary — the only fair commentary in the piece. If three Vets praised Kerry in previous years, that’s a fair point. They should explain why they are saying something different now.
That makes three of over 250 veterans who are in the group.
What is both amazing and utterly predictable is that the “Christmas in Cambodia” story is saved for the very end. This is the one accusation made by the Vets where the facts are clear — and the facts show that Kerry was not truthful, as even the Kerry campaign has had to admit. How does the New York Times characterize the “Christmas in Cambodia” story? Take a deep breath. It says that the story is “the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry’s campaign has not been able to put to rest.”
Not “the allegation that has forced Mr. Kerry’s campaign to explain that Mr. Kerry has not been telling the truth.” Just the one allegation that they haven’t yet “put to rest.”
The article then explains that, according to Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley, Kerry was probably in Cambodia — just not on Christmas Eve.
Simply unbelievable. Nothing about the magic hat. Nothing about his gun-running missions. Nothing about the memories being “seared — seared” into Kerry’s head. No explanation about how Kerry claimed that he encountered friendly fire from the Vietnamese celebrating Christmas.
If you think that the New York Times would downplay a clear story of Bush unmistakably lying about an event he claimed was a turning point in his life, raise your hand.
Fair-minded people only!
I see no hands.
P.S. The Times also runs an article titled Oh, That Liberal Media.)
UPDATE: Big thanks to Instapundit for the link to (and quotes from) this post. I ask first-time readers who enjoy what they read here to take a second to bookmark/blogroll the site — and please tell a friend.
UPDATE x2: Thanks also to Power Line and others who have linked to this post.
THE NEW YORK TIMES DOES SWIFT VETS & ‘KERRY IN CAMBODIA’.
DRUDGE –”EMPIRE STRIKES BACK AGAINST ANTI-KERRY VETS”. Hugh Hewitt: “Tomorrow’s New York Times will carry a hit piece on the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry. I am betting that…
Trackback by PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage — 8/20/2004 @ 1:39 am
NYT late and lame to the SwiftVets controversy
Beldar stifles a yawn, a belch, and a tired shake of the head in reading the Kerry Camp’s predigested tripe regarding SwiftVets vs. Kerry regurgitated almost verbatim by the New York Times.
Trackback by BeldarBlog — 8/20/2004 @ 4:54 am
The Meta-Story, Part Deux
Once again, Patterico shows us that the real story isn’t Kerry’s lies, but the mainstream media’s bias in reporting/not reporting them. He says, “I don’t think I have ever seen such a partisan hit piece [on the Swift Boat Veterans…
Trackback by The Waterglass — 8/20/2004 @ 5:05 am
Full disclosure time: I feel an ethical obligation to reveal my “web of connections” to Democrats.
I once shook Rosalynn Carter’s hand. My mother’s father was a good friend to the late Mike Mansfield, longtime Democrat U.S. Senator from Montana who rose to Senate Majority Leader — such that on one occasion Mansfield called to my grandfather, by name, from an upper-story window as he was walking down the street.
Not sure how Mansfield would feel about George W. Bush or John Kerry, but I’m sure someone could ask Mrs. Carter…
Comment by McGehee — 8/20/2004 @ 5:12 am
So, now that we see that the NYT is able to do in-depth research on webs of connection as far as funding of 527’s go do you think they’ll dig into Soros’ organization? How about Theresa’s various donations to the Tides group?
I’d be interested in how an “independent” 527 group that is supposed to be raising issues and not endorsing a candidate would suddenly produce an ad to counter the issue that another 527 group is advocating when the countering group hasn’t done any ads in this vein before. (The MoveOn.org ad against the SwiftVets.)
Comment by Rob Crocker — 8/20/2004 @ 5:34 am
My great-grand uncle, Frank Knox, ran for Vice-President on the Republican ticket in 1936 (with Alf). He then went to work for the Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, as Secretary of the Navy (1940-1944). I’m confused as to whether this brands me as a nefarious tool of the Republicans, a stalwart supporter of the Democrats, or perhaps I should just kill myself to save everyone else the bother…
Comment by snellenr — 8/20/2004 @ 5:40 am
The NYT is doing what it always does: preach to the choir. The only people that read it (seriously) anymore, are people that agree with their editors about political matters (e.g. Republicans are evil and must be stopped at all cost). It has become obvious to everyone else that they can’t be trusted to deliver information that isn’t filtered and presented the way they want you to see it. It is unfortunate that so many other news organizations around the country use the NYT as their guidepost for what’s news, but that will change as circulations continue to fall. I hope they enjoy this election, because this will likely be the last one in which they have even a prayer of exercising any real influence over the electorate. After this, they’ll just be publishing for left-wingers.
Comment by bulldog — 8/20/2004 @ 5:42 am
Consorting with known Republicans. Tch, tch.
Comment by Reid — 8/20/2004 @ 5:48 am
Swifties
Some of these questions — I put all the Bronze Star issues into this category — can probably be resolved by recognizing that people’s memories of combat are often vastly different, one to another, as with any high-stress event. Some of them may sim…
Trackback by Grim's Hall — 8/20/2004 @ 5:52 am
Son of Kerry Cambodia Links
Beldar comments on Judicial Watch’s call for in investigation into John Kerry’s medals and claims. Patterico dissescts the latest NYT piece. Hugh Hewitt notes that in its defense of Kerry, the New York Times confirmed that Kerry repeated his Christmas …
Trackback by Les Jones Blog — 8/20/2004 @ 6:09 am
I’m OK with bias, if it is admitted. We all have bias. What bothers me is the manipulation of public opinion via phony arguments based on guilt by association.
The arrogant spinners treat us like sheep. Unfortunately, to a certain extent it works.
Comment by Amphipolis — 8/20/2004 @ 6:31 am
Swiftvets vs. the New York Times roundup
This is the one accusation made by the Vets where the facts are clear — and the facts show that Kerry was not truthful, as even the Kerry campaign has had to admit…. It says that the story is “the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry’s campaig…
Trackback by marcland — 8/20/2004 @ 6:35 am
Patterico has some excellent comments
Patterico has some excellent comments on the NYT Editorial that’s coming to the rescue of the Kerry campaign. They do, for once, actually acknowledge the Cambodia story, but only in…
Trackback by Smiling Kevin's — 8/20/2004 @ 6:41 am
Patterico: This appears on the frontpage of the NY Times.
The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the “baby killer” and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals.
The veterans that challenged Kerry in the early 70s for slandering them and their comrades have devised a strategy to paint John Kerry as a “baby killer”. That is what the NY Times says.
What does this little statement do for the Kerry Campaign? Everything. The little snip is enough to change the entire conversation.
Ex: “What are your motivations for this ad? Are you trying to paint John Kerry as a baby killer? Why would you do such a despicable thing. - Cable Pundits”
Comment by Brennan Stout — 8/20/2004 @ 6:52 am
The Birth–and, perhaps, death?–of an Anti-Kerry Ad
The New York Times has an article on the Swift Boat Veterans sure to propogate around the blogosphere in short order today. Kerry supporters will write–not unreasonably–that it is a vindication of Kerry, and a refutal of the Swift Boat…
Trackback by QandO — 8/20/2004 @ 6:59 am
Hmmm.
I don’t have any connections to anyone but I did donate to the SwiftVets. Can I get a mention in the NYT chart?
I think I’ll email the NYT ombudsman and ask.
Comment by ed — 8/20/2004 @ 7:03 am
We’re all falling for John Kerry’s rope-a-dope. And the Times knows it. Obviously, his 1968/X-mas memory is false. But, as Douglas Brinkley has pointed out, Kerry DID go to Cambodia on black ops missions early in 1969. January is Tet (the Vietnamese New Year), and, indeed, Nixon was president by then, so it’s plausible (I think likely), that Kerry misrembered Christmas as Tet. Isn’t it more likely that SVA would be drunk for Tet than Christmas, anyway?
Kerry will release enough of his records to show I’m right. And that’s when (as the Times says) he’ll put it to rest.
Comment by Larry — 8/20/2004 @ 7:04 am
ed: That actually sounds like a good counter protest subject for the Protest Warrior folks.
During the RNC Convention head over to ole gray lady with some props representing webbing. Have someone play Bush who is the Spider-Man of the group towing all these regular folks along. Have people then come up who support the Swift Vets and get tangled in the web because they’re “close” to them until the entire NY Times building is surrounded by the Bush Web.
Comment by Brennan Stout — 8/20/2004 @ 7:11 am
Sins of Omission I: Cambodia
I’ve long known that media partisanship expresses itself not merely by what’s reported, but by what is omitted. That’s true of the ongoing story of Kerry’s Christmas-in-Cambodia, which has been ignored by the Washington Post and New York Times but…
Trackback by Democracy Digest — 8/20/2004 @ 7:16 am
The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
Quite some time after the story hit the Drudge reports and came under cross-fire from the blogosphere, the NYT has decided that the controversy generated by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth should be investigated. The result is a long piece that fron…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway ™ — 8/20/2004 @ 7:29 am
I love this connection BS. Saddam Hussain harbors the man who mixed the chemicals for the first WTC attack in ‘93, but there are absolutly no connection between Saddam and terrorists. John O’Niel knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone in the Whitehouse, so they must all be working together!
Comment by 2down6togo — 8/20/2004 @ 7:39 am
The real killer is the way the NYT characterizes the Christmas in Cambodia story as “the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry’s campaign has not been able to put to rest.” That will be what the follow-on media pick up on, leading with:The New York Times says that, with one exception, every allegation in “Unfit for Command” is false.
Comment by Lynxx Pherrett — 8/20/2004 @ 7:53 am
Tax Question
At what point do the New York Times’ operating expenses stop being legitimate tax deductions, and start being listed as non-deductible campaign contributions for Kerry? I thought it was illegal for for-profit corporations to make campaign contributions…
Trackback by TacJammer — 8/20/2004 @ 7:59 am
Anti-Bush 527s Dominate the Media
It is quite rediculous that John Kerry gets BOFFO news coverage from the LA Times (twice!), New York Times (twice!), Boston Globe, AP news’ biggest gun, Washington Post, USA Today (twice!), New York Daily News, Columbus Dispatch, Milwaukee Journal Sent…
Trackback by Blogs for Bush — 8/20/2004 @ 8:12 am
Sir,
I am black-listed by NYT email. So, I am unable to send an email to their ombudsman. (My mail returns all the time.) But, a person who is not blacklisted, should send your analysis along with Instapundit text to the NYT ombudsman. ASAP. If more than two people send, then the better.
Keep it up.
Yours,
Pat.
Comment by Pat Henry — 8/20/2004 @ 8:14 am
Larry–
You don’t say something is “seared–seared” into your memory if you aren’t certain when it happened. Tet has nothing to do with it. Kerry was never in Cambodia, and he made up the whole narrative as a rhetorical flourish for the Senate floor. That was bad enough, but he had the bad taste to keep repeating it and now he’s stuck.
That’s the problem with lying; you have to remember what you said.
Comment by Fresh Air — 8/20/2004 @ 8:28 am
Mickey Kaus notes that three of Kerry’s former crewmen were interviewed for a pro-Kerry story and said:
1) One, who supports Kerry, says “they were ‘very.. very close’ to Cambodia” but “did not think they entered Cambodia.”
2) A second, who opposes Kerry, says they were nowhere near Cambodia.
3) A third said they got close but didn’t go into Cambodia and “could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.”
Comment by Ernst Blofeld — 8/20/2004 @ 8:40 am
http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/000826.html
Hey, speaking of stories that have finally gone mainstream, have you heard that Saudi Arabia follows an extremist form of Islam known as Wahhabism — and that they’re exporting it to the rest of the world? What? You did hear…
Trackback by Allah Is In The House — 8/20/2004 @ 8:45 am
I shook Harry Truman’s hand on the way to Kansas City (he got off at Independence)back when train travel was still slightly fashionable. I must be a Democrat for life. LOL.
As to the “baby killer” bit:
John Kerry is no liar. I believe his 1971 Senate testimony when he said he committed war crimes.
There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.
What is the War Hero Afraid of?
Form 180. Release ALL the records.
Comment by M. Simon — 8/20/2004 @ 9:35 am
Rope-a-dope. We all know that John Kerry’s “crew” consisted of various guys who rotated on and off the boat over four months. And keep in mind that one member of the crew HAS stated that the boat took a trip or two to Cambodia: John Kerry. Fresh Air would like to think that Kerry has been completely discredited as a witness because he repeated the word “seared”. I’m not convinced. So what if Kerry said he was in Cambodia at Christmas and it turns out that he misremembered the date? Does that undermine the entire story? Not at all. I don’t even think it creates such a doubt that the burden has shifted to Kerry to prove the accuracy of the claim. The timing is, in my view, a minor detail.
Putting aside an erroneous recollection as to timing, I don’t see any reason to disbelieve Kerry here. I’d like to: I think he’ll be a terrible president. But this is a classic rope-a-dope. You guys are leading the charge and calling Kerry a liar, but when he opens his records, you will look the fool.
I think the Bish people know this. That’s why none of their surrogates are picking up the charge. Despite what many people in the blogosphere think, the professional politicians know exactly what they’re doing.
Comment by Larry — 8/20/2004 @ 9:40 am
My sister-in-law helped build the USS Jimmy Carter.
That connection is way too close for me.
Comment by Al — 8/20/2004 @ 9:58 am
My father-in-law is a Dem who still plans on voting for Kerry (though he’s not quite sure why). My mother-in-law is a Rep who once met GHWBush. Also, my brother met GWB while he was campaigning in 2000.
I feel dirty. Dirty, I tell you!
Comment by RMc — 8/20/2004 @ 10:02 am
Somebody needs to do a graph like this for the media.
You know, Bill Moyers - Press Sec. for LBJ; Pierre Salinger - Press Sec. for JFK; Stephanapoulous - worked for Bill Clinton; Tim Russert - worked for Cuomo and other Democrats; Chris Matthews - worked for Tip O’Neill; Tom Brokaw - tied in with fellow
South Dakota Democrats George McGovern, Tom Daschle and Joe Robbie; Jane Pauley - married to Gary Trudeau; etc., etc.
Comment by Colorado Conservative — 8/20/2004 @ 10:06 am
By the way, my obvious shilling for the Kerry campaigned should be highly suspect in light of the fact that I am married to a Democrat, work at a law firm where nearly all of the partners are active Democrats, and even once met Jimmy Carter! Oh yeah, and I’ve also met Dan Quayle and Jack Kemp once, whose staggering incompetence on the campaign trail clearly outted them as moles for the Democrats.
I am not to be believed.
Comment by Larry — 8/20/2004 @ 10:10 am
Uh, George Bush pussed out and hid behind his daddy during vietnam, and John Kerry VOLUNTEERED to go there. Those are facts. They are undeniable.
Comment by Jarvis (not jeff) — 8/20/2004 @ 10:22 am
I lived in Texas when Bush was GOV. And I lived in Massachusetts while Kerry has been SEN. I think the two cancel out and it makes me… a green?
Comment by SSG B — 8/20/2004 @ 10:22 am
I am married to a Democrat, and her entire family is 100% Democrats.
Ahnold? Is that you?
Comment by khr128 — 8/20/2004 @ 10:39 am
Jarvis (not Jeff): Like a chump, you’ve fallen for another Kerry campaign canard. Kerry volunteered for duty in THE NAVY (not as a pilot) a year before the Tet Offensive. Ask anyone who lived through it: People who wanted to avoid fighting in the bush in 1967 joined the Navy, the Air Force, or the Guard. Kerry surely didn’t think he’d see combat. But when he did, to be sure, he seems to have jumped right into it and did a real good job (despite mayber puffing up certain facts for his medals).
Kerry volunteered for Vietnam because he was ambitious and saw it as his ticket to the White House. Few people deny that fact. That doesn’t necessarily degrade his service — but doesn’t it change the “Kerry good, Bush bad” trope of his campaign?
Comment by Larry — 8/20/2004 @ 10:39 am
New York Times… “…and he knows someone who was in a movie with Kevin Bacon”.
Comment by Dave — 8/20/2004 @ 10:46 am
Not sure whether it’s by design or drift, but Pinch’s Times ceased long ago to be the paper of record.
My guess is that this is more than anything else a category-killer marketing strategy, the category in question being defined not by the medium but by a position on the political spectrum. A more upscale, Tiffany’s-friendly version of the Guardian/Observer, with a lot of Vanity Fair swishy-catty coverage of stuff like porn, gay Manhattan gossip etc thrown into the mix.
Re the target market, the strategy if there is one seems to be, Screw those doughty old fair-minded centrist liberals that Papa used to cater to (father’s Oldsmobile and all that). Let’s go after the bicoastal Deaniacs and the metrosexuals.
Probably a lot more lucrative than the IHT global brand strategy. But a real loss to the country.
Comment by thibaud — 8/20/2004 @ 11:30 am
Jarvis:
Kerry volunteered for swiftboats after being rejected for a cushy job in Paris and then only because the swift boats were not being used in a combat role at that time. Once they’re roll was changed, after cleaning out his drawers, he had to come up with another plan. Have a little intellectual honesty man.
I’m sure all the families of the guys who “bought it” flying F-102s for the Guard appreciate your “pussed out” comment. What’s your tactical jet experience Jarvis? Or do you just fly your mouth?
Comment by larry — 8/20/2004 @ 11:31 am
1. Wow…I had no idea that the fact that SBVT exist primarily on a Republican payroll actually in no way means that the allegations are partisan. Thanks for setting the record straight.
2. A clear example of Bush lying about a major turning point in his life that hasn’t been covered by the NYT? This comes to mind!
Comment by Tom — 8/20/2004 @ 12:33 pm
I had first thought that this was no big deal myself at first; I thought of Tet (which happens EVERY year and the possibility of shooting guns off to celebrate); but Kerry has been shown to be lying beyond a reasonable doubt–50 times he is on record of saying “Christmas in Cambodia” in the context of making political points that the government was lying. So what if Nixon became president that January–He never said squat about not being in VietNam for over another year. Michael Moore is just a Kerry impersonator. Now we have a lot of testimony that Kerry most likely was NEVER in Cambodia at all. The pivotal experience of his life–which is the major talking point of his life–is a lie.
Comment by Alfonso — 8/20/2004 @ 1:17 pm
Tom,
1. I had no idea that the fact that Republicans fund an ad automatically makes everyone in that ad a complete liar about anything they ever say.
Hey, this is fun. All I do is say: “I had no idea that” and then attribute something to you that you never said. Some italics help complete the process. Whee.
2. I can’t open that link. What’s it about?
Comment by Patterico — 8/20/2004 @ 5:47 pm
Senator Whiny
John Kerry has no problem with moveon.org-style ads that portray Bush as Hitler. He lauds Michael Moore’s film that portrays American troops as racist jackbooted thugs. He asserts that these are independent groups that he has no control over. Yet…
Trackback by The Interocitor — 8/21/2004 @ 9:22 am
Senator Whiney
John Kerry has no problem with moveon.org-style ads that portray Bush as Hitler. He lauds Michael Moore’s film that portrays American troops as racist jackbooted thugs. He asserts that these are independent groups that he has no control over. Yet…
Trackback by The Interocitor — 8/21/2004 @ 9:22 am
Can someone check if this is true. From bits of peices I’ve read here or there.
Kerry tried to apply for something in Paris but got rejected, thus then join the Navy thinking they were just doing coastal patrols according to a 1998 interview on tv. Also in that interview he said that he didn’t really wanted to join.
After arriving at Vietnam he found out that he be doing river patrols. That must’ve spooked him out, thus he tried every way he could to get out as soon as possible, by getting 3 purple stars in just 4 months with scratches
I think one thing is clear. Kerry wasn’t as brave as he tried to paint himself to be.
Comment by rc — 8/21/2004 @ 2:32 pm
The Media Reports For Duty
The mainstream media finally reported for duty this week regarding some of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accusations against John Kerry. Unfortunately, their commanding officer appears to be none other than John Kerry himself!
Trackback by New England Republican — 8/21/2004 @ 6:37 pm
1. Master P, my point was simply that perhaps it’s a bit over-simplistic to downplay the “web of connections” as a lawyer who knows influential Republicans. Wouldn’t you agree that since group is on Republican donor payroll, the charge of “web of connections” to Republicans isn’t entirely without merit, as you imply?
2. The link goes to a video clip of the president at a wedding in 1994, acting very, er, let’s say “out-of-character,” and chugging a mysterious golden-brown liquid. If you can find a way to open the clip, it’s well worth it. If you saw it, you’d probably agree with me that most likely he’d been drinking (or, in other words. lying about having gone straight however many years ago).
Not like I give a damn whether he drinks or not. It’s just that you asked for an example of Bush lying about a major event in his life, and I’m assuming that saying you quit drinking some time ago and then haven’t qualifies for the question you posed. And I know the video tape technically isn’t enough to prove anything. But neither do the SBVT’s allegations prove anything beyond their utter contempt for John Kerry.
Comment by Tom — 8/22/2004 @ 12:23 am
Two things I was surprised to learn from the Swift Boat Vets foofaraw:
1. There are 10,000 right-wing Republican billionaires in Ameria.
2. They’re an awfully cheap bunch, donating a paltry $50 each (on average) to smear Senator Kerry.
Comment by Norman Conquest — 8/22/2004 @ 8:42 pm
Two things I was surprised to learn from the Swift Boat Vets foofaraw:
1. There are 10,000 right-wing Republican billionaires in Ameria.
2. They’re an awfully cheap bunch, donating a paltry $50 each (on average) to smear Senator Kerry.
Comment by Norman Conquest — 8/22/2004 @ 8:44 pm
“web of connections”.
Sigh.
It sounds so much like “vast right-wing conspiracy”
More to the point; 2 + 2 = 4 Facts are facts. Suspicious funding might make one look more carefully at claims, yes. But at the end of the day it’s the facts that count. And Kerry is desparate to do anything but that.
Comment by Redhunter — 8/24/2004 @ 3:32 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:New …
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 8/24/2004 @ 8:10 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Letters From La-La Land by Damnum Absque …
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 8/26/2004 @ 9:51 pm