Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, Or Something
Aug 24, 04 | 3:25 am by John LopezHere’s the transcript of the SBVT ad:
John Kerry: They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads. . .
Joe Ponder: The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam was just devastating.
John Kerry: . . . randomly shot at civilians. . .
Joe Ponder: It hurt me more than any physical wounds I had.
John Kerry: . . . cut off limbs, blown up bodies. . .
Ken Cordier: That was part of the torture, was, uh, to sign a statement that you had committed war crimes.
John Kerry: . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan. . .
Paul Gallanti: John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I, and many of my, uh, comrades in North Vietnam, in the prison camps, uh, took torture to avoid saying. It demoralized us.
John Kerry: . . . crimes committed on a day to day basis. . .
Ken Cordier: He betrayed us in the past, how could we be loyal to him now?
John Kerry: . . . ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.
Paul Gallanti: He dishonored his country, and, uh, more, more importantly the people he served with. He just sold them out.
Announcer : Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Let’s see: “Devastating”, “Hurt me”, “Gave the enemy for free”, “Betrayed”, and “Dishonored his country”. Strong words, but: is Kerry lying?
The TV ad doesn’t even bother to address that question, and I judge that it’s because the truth simply doesn’t matter. The truth obviously isn’t useful for the purposes of the Swift Vets’ television ad, or they’d have included something besides null-content heartstring-pulling. This is about appealing to voters, not about making a rational argument - the vaguer and more emotional the pitch, the better. The intended audience for this ad simply isn’t interested in the truth.
Of course, “Swift Boat Veterans For Vague Emotional Appeal” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 2:17 pm
> Strong words, but: is Kerry lying?
From wintersoldier.com:
<blockquote>
On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes that they had participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.
In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At the height of it, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry’s political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.
But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself — which John Kerry had helped moderate — turned out to be, in the words of historian Guenter Lewy, “packed with pretenders and liars.”
</blockquote>
Kerry’s specific testimony is debunked here.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 2:42 pm
That is why all libertarians should vote Kerry and help him surpress these liars.
Down with Bush! Kerry will lead us to libertopia!
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 2:49 pm
Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute in today’s Washington Post:
<blockquote>
If — as seems almost surely the case — Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.
</blockquote>
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 4:01 pm
<>f y vt, y’ll dsrv whmvr y gt.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 4:56 pm
For me, the most appalling development in this story came yesterday when Bush invited Kerry and democrats to join him in putting the clamps down on “unregulated soft money”.
Whatever one thinks about the charges of the swift boat veterans, America would be worse off if they couldn’t legally get them on the air.
I think Lopez is right about this particular prong of the swift vets campaign being an emotional appeal, though of course Kerry deserves it for grounding his entire campaign on a similar emotional appeal.
I think he’s in a lot deeper trouble with the more specific charges in regard to his medals, I think they’re making a very credible case that he’s nothing remotely like the war hero he’s portrayed himself as in his campaign.
If Kerry actually had something to run on this wouldn’t be that much of a problem for him, but if he’s not a war hero what’s his appeal? The only selling point he has left is that he’s not Bush, and I doubt that’s enough to win. You can’t beat somebody with nobody.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 5:00 pm
Drudge:
<blockquote>
KERRY: “When we dedicated swift boat one in ‘92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn’t talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans.”
</blockquote>
Crediting this claim, surely an error, would imply that Kerry’s Senate testimony contradicted his first-hand experience and concerned only matters for which he had no evidence. He lied then and he’s lying now.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 5:03 pm
“If you vote, you’ll deserve whomever you get.”
No, lots of people who don’t deserve any of this will cast defensive votes and they harm on one by doing so. And I’m not going to get any better results for not voting. It’s just an undignified waste of time.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 6:34 pm
JTK> lts f ppl wh dn’t dsrv ny f ths wll cst dfnsv vts
Fls-prms: Thr s sch thng s “dfnsv vt” whn LL cnddts r “pr-gvrnmnt”.
JTK> nd thy hrm n n by dng s.
Dmnstrtd thrztn f gvrnmnt s qvlnt t crmnl ssssry-bfr-th-fct.
s y yrslf nc ntd: “ltmtly dmcrcy s th mst crrpt rgm, bcs t crrpts th mst ndvdls.”
<>Gt t f th Dth Str’s ktchn.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 7:19 pm
Mr. Schneider, I could therefore assume that someone campaigning on a platform of substantial, objective, and specific government reduction* wouldn’t convince you to vote for him or her?
*For example, starting off with the elimination as many government jobs as possible - his own position included - once elected to power.
I can dream, right?
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 8:38 pm
> cld thrfr sssm… (tc).
Ys — bcs th *rsn* <>y r <> vt fr s nt rcrdd. Gvrnmnt nly rcrds tht y hv thrzd t t ct, v prtcptn, nd prcds ccrdngly.
August 24th, 2004 at Aug 24, 04 | 11:08 pm
Spooner explained (as I quote him here) why voting against what one judges to be the greater of two evils is not in and of itself an endorsement of the lesser of two evils.
When the highwayman gives you a choice between your money and your life, choosing your life is not an endorsement of the process.
Charles,
I can hardly imagine voting for any presidential candidate, it’s a waste of time. I wouldn’t vote for Lysander Spooner even if I thought he might win. I wouldn’t vote for you or Billy Beck. I’d vote for Lynette if she ran, but that’s about it. Maybe Sabotta or Lopez if they promised to blog more.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 12:27 am
JTK> Whn th hghwymn gvs y chc (tc)….
Fls-dchtmy.
Fls-nlgy.
Vtng sn’t mndtry.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 4:00 am
MJS:”False-premise: There is such a thing as a “defensive vote” when ALL candidates are “pro-government”.”
But folks who have an imperfect understanding of the matter may view their votes as defensive. That doesn’t mean that they are in fact defensive, but I’m inclined to cut them a bit of slack.
However, I think that few if any people out there who actually do vote really think they’re casting a defensive vote. Most of them are active and willing participants in the scam.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 4:05 am
(!? #$^%^#%$)
Tht shld hv rd: “Thr s N sch thng s ‘dfnsv vt’ whn ll cnddts r pr-gvrnmnt:
> …mprfct ndrstndng….
Stpdty s nt n xcs fr spprtng crm.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 4:17 am
And just in case anyone might have begun to doubt Senator Kerry’s war record, we have this, straight from the horse’s arse:
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 4:43 am
What Kerry will bring, sooner or later, is civil war. Better lies now (if they are lies at all) than bullets later.
And I have nothing to say to those who hope for disaster.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 4:51 am
Oh, wait, I do have this one last thing to say.
Noting this statement by Schnieder: “Demonstrated authorization of government is equivalent to criminal assessory-before-the-fact.”
That’s fucking great, Schnieder. You have your entire goddamned death list, ready at hand: the entire registered voters list.
Words fail me at describing how utterly loathesome and despicable that is.
(And you wonder why I don’t blog more, Kennedy? How many more times can I demonstrate that there is no hope whatsoever? Especially when Schnieder does so for me?)
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 5:02 am
Schneider: JTK> When the highwayman gives you a choice (etc)….
False-dichotomy.
False-analogy.
Voting isn’t mandatory.
Answering the highwayman’s challenge isn’t mandatory, either. You can keep your mouth shut and see what he does.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 5:24 am
“What Kerry will bring, sooner or later, is civil war.”
Between whom? “Conservatives”, for instance, are going to be too busy voting themselves senseless every couple of years to bother with a civil war.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 5:26 am
Stdmn> nswrng th hghwymn’s chllng sn’t mndtry, thr. Y cn kp yr mth sht nd s wht h ds.
Jn th Vtrs’ Byctt.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 5:39 am
Th Skppr f th “Vyg f th Dmnd”, dstnd t prt-f-cll ‘N Hp Whtsvr’, ccrtly qts m: “Dmnstrtd thrztn f gvrnmnt s qvlnt t crmnl ssssry-bfr-th-fct.”
….nd gts ll bnt t f shp* t th d tht mght fvr lvng t s thm gttng wht’s cmng t thm. (*bcs, cn nly gss, sm f thm mght b dtzy grls h’s ntrstd n…r sm sch.) B tht s t my, th nc dnc wll dly nt tht h <>dd nt rft my qtn — jst lk h’s wsld nd chcknd t f dng svrl tms crss svrl thrds dspt pntd rqst t. (nd why wn’t h? <>Bcs h knws t’s tr — tht’s why.)
“Cld <>y kll dlf Htlr, Jhn Sbtt?”
H ws lctd, y knw, crrd n n th shldrs f yr prcs ntr rgstrd vtrs lst (ftr sccssn f Bshs nd Krrys fld t sv th Glrs ld Wmr Rpblc) nd thn std p n ntnl pdm lk cmmn blggr nd sggstd tht ll srts f mrl trgs b cmmttd by hs drng fllwrs.
f crs Jhn Sbtt, stlwrt chmpn f fr spch, dsn’t hv ny thcl prblms wth ccssry-bfr-th-fct crmnl-cnsprcy t thft nd mrdr.
> Tht’s fckng grt, Schndr….Schndr….Schndr….
Wht’d b rlly fckng grt s fr y t sty ff th sc nd wht pwdrs lng ngh t kp trck f hw my nm s prprly splld — lt ln ll f th rst f rlty skng yr rgnt ttntn, sch s th fct tht flks hv th mrl rght t dfnd thmslvs frm ggrssrs nd thr ccssrs.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 12:46 pm
Geez, Mike, government doesn’t give two shits whether anyone participates or not. Legitimize government? Impossible and irrelevant.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 3:24 pm
“Geez, Mike, government doesn’t give two shits whether anyone participates or not. Legitimize government? Impossible and irrelevant.”
That’s not true, and the proof is as close as the nearest “Get Out The Vote” campaign. Think: the Soviet Union held elections. Why’dya suppose they did that, Billy?
Like I implied above, the possibility of another civil war in this country is slim to none, and the primary reason is the plain fact that would-be revolutionaries have a much better chance of getting power, fame, and loot via ballots as opposed to bullets.
The government cares very much that a sizeable portion of the populance lines up every two years and encourages it to keep on keepin’ on.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 3:50 pm
“The Skipper of the “Voyage of the Damned”,…”
Stedman’s got a Gilligan kind of look going, maybe he can be the SKipper’s little buddy.
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 4:06 pm
“Think: the Soviet Union held elections.”
I can’t imagine why. Did _anyone_ believe that they meant anything?
August 25th, 2004 at Aug 25, 04 | 6:14 pm
K, why d y spps th Svt nn hld lctns f t thght thy wldn’t “mn” nythng?
Cm n, mn.
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 2:17 am
I honestly don’t know. Maybe it was a form of census or something. Seriously, the Soviet Union conducting elections may have helped legitimize the US government, but I can’t imagine anyone pretending that they meant a thing in the USSR. I’ll mail you a fiat dollar if you can show me someone who thought they made that government legitimate.
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 3:02 am
Y’r bng n dt.
Stp t.
Gt hlp: < hrf="http://www.smrt-drgs.nt/s-dprnylJS.htm" ttl="http://www.smrt-drgs.nt/s-dprnylJS.htm">< hrf='http://www.smrt-drgs.nt/s-dprnylJS.htm' rl='nfllw'>http://www.smrt-drgs.nt/s-dprnylJS.htm
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 3:09 am
…”but I can’t imagine anyone pretending that they meant a thing in the USSR.”
Everyone participating was pretending that they meant something, just like everyone participating in democracy in the US pretends that it means something.
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 3:25 am
John: Exactly. It’s a fucking charade and everyone knows it (or, in the case of the US, everyone who has bothered to think about it, knows it).
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 3:28 am
Mike: Didn’t want that dollar, did you?
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 4:43 am
dn’t knw whr t’s bn.
Y’r stll n dt, s Lpz jst pntd t t y.
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 2:05 pm
Last I looked pretending was not aggression.
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 2:54 pm
Lopez didn’t even seem to be convinced that voting in the Soviet Union mattered to anyone except maybe Americans. So, since you’re so smart, and I’m so dumb, what did voting in the USSR mean?
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 6:39 pm
Jhn, snc whn d chmpnzs gt fr rn f ths plc?
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 11:10 pm
If you’re referring to billy-jay he’s a valued commenter of long net acquaintance. I think he’s doing fine in this thread and I agree with him.
August 26th, 2004 at Aug 26, 04 | 11:28 pm
If there was thing that should be obvious enough, it’s that the last thing Marxist-Leninists depend on for “legitimacy” it is elections.
Can anyone imagine that Lenin, Stalin or their less-forthright succesors depended on even rigged elections for “legitimacy”? The Potemkin-village elections in the former Soviet Union (which do not really resemble in any way real elections) were simply another propaganda tool, another mass event. Partly they served as a way of further regimenting and exposing the masses to political agititation; partly they (I suppose) served to delude the less intelligent sort ofg foreign fellow traveller. That’s all they were. Not for one instant did the legitimacy of the Worker’s and Peasent’s State depend on these sham elections, and they served the same purpose (and were about as vital) as yet another spontaneous rally in Red Square.
What legitimized Lenin, and even more so Stalin, was the demonstrated ability and willingness to set no bounds on the use of political violence. At least 16 million corpses or more were what gave Stalin his “legitimacy” - and that legitimacy lasted until the exact day it became apparent that the Communists were no longer willing or able to use unbounded political violence.
The former Soviet Union and the United States are not really comparable, and trying to find reasons for why the Soviets did anything by applying the political logic of a actual democracy will only lead to ludicrously misunderstanding the nature of 20th century totalitarianism. Not that it hasn’t been tried before, of course.
I suppose it’s desirable to agitate the masses against voting. Distortion of history is, however, not acceptable, even for libertarian agitprop purposes.
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 2:48 am
Billy: “It’s a fucking charade and everyone knows it (or, in the case of the US, everyone who has bothered to think about it, knows it).”
Lotsa people must not think too hard about it, then. Or maybe they really like playing Charades.
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 2:55 am
The former Soviet Union and the United States are not really comparable,…
Not according to you.
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 2:58 am
Lopez, that’s essentially what I think. I became a libertarian by thinking things through to their logical conclusion. I was shocked that it took me so long to figure it out and that so few bother to do so.
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 9:28 am
It’s the old problem. Kerry did not say those things because he cared, but because he wanted to help the communists, just like Jane Fond and Noam Chomksy. As with any communist disinformation, it’s a bunch of twisted facts, like a Micheal Moore movie.
It must be really hard to be a libertarian on the US. Sure, lots of libertarians don’t like Bush, but Kerry is even more communist than Clinton.
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 9:29 am
That is in no way a defense of Bush, the War on Iraq or the Vietnam War. It was pretty much a factual statement. Kerry helped the commies win the war. The war was won by demoralizing the US into giving up - that’s a fact, wheater you think it’s good or bad. Maybe he inteded it, maybe he didn’t.
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 11:43 pm
Lopez attacks with vicious cleverness!
“The former Soviet Union and the United States are not really comparable,…
Not according to you.”
Oh. Okay. Man, I’m all covered in chagrin now because of this. Yes, you win. You win the Most Radical Fighter For Liberty Award, because while I merely indulged in what we call around here a metaphor or maybe a joke. You, on the other hand are committed enough to seriously equate Soviet elections with American elections. Mere historical fact tells the naive literalist like me that they are not the same fucking thing, but that’s only because I’m not radical enough to forthrightly make a Goddamned fool of myself for Liberty’s sweet sake by seeing four fingers where only three are raised - and proclaiming their essential Oneness. You have to look beyond this mere world of appearances to get to the top of the radical heap, it seems.
So, you win.
Still, you know, it is possible to believe that the present situation of the United States is bad enough, and it is possible to believe that it is getting worse - is it really necessary, in some kind of inverted frenzy of patriotism, to insist that the US is just as bad as the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, as if there were some global contest in Badness that has to be attained before you unleash revolutionary ire? And if democracy is bad, is it now an article of faith that there can be nothing worse?
In passing, let me note, for one, that I would be highly embarassed, even at this late date, to compare my situation here in rotten ol’ USA to that of, say, Osip Mandelshtam
The ranks of human heads dwindle: theyre far away.
I vanish there, one more forgotten one.
But in loving words, in childrens play,
I shall rise again, to say the Sun
August 27th, 2004 at Aug 27, 04 | 11:47 pm
John,
“…is it really necessary, in some kind of inverted frenzy of patriotism, to insist that the US is just as bad as the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany…”
While I’ve taken issue here with Lopez on voting I don’t see at all that he has claimed what you’re saying he has.
Thus I think his last point is fair, I don’t think his comparisons between the US and the USSR have been that different in principle from your own. Both of you compare those states, I don’t think either of you has claimed that they have ever been equally desirable regimes to live under.
There can surely be worse regimes than the one we live under now, and democracy is taking us there.
August 28th, 2004 at Aug 28, 04 | 12:01 am
Münzenbergs own public life was very visible. Before his flight from Germany after the Reichstag Fire in 1933, he was a German publisher, and in fact a big-time publisher, controlling an impressive network of left-wing publications. He was also a politician. As a Leninist he naturally despised representative democracy and intended to destroy it. But he found it useful to serve in the Reichstag, holding down an exceptionally safe seat provided by the party. The gloomy Sessions Chamber of the Reichstag, the hall where German democracy gathered, was a stuffy place, lined with dry wood paneling and hung with musty brocaded curtains. On February 27, 1933, that wood and brocade would kindle into a bonfire momentous enough to grant Hitler totalitarian power and give shape to the ideological clash that led to the Second World War. But until then, the Reichstag regularly rang with the voice of Münzenbergs radical anger. He flourished there, striding past his rival and secret admirer Goebbels, whitened by glaring flashbulbs, ready to tangle yet again in the checkmated politics of a Weimar Republic that it seemed nobody important had the smallest wish to save. Certainly not Goebbels. And certainly not Münzenberg.
Lying for the truth:
Münzenberg & the Comintern, by Stephen Koch
August 28th, 2004 at Aug 28, 04 | 4:06 am
Sabotta:…because while I merely indulged in what we call around here a metaphor or maybe a joke.
Is that why you can’t answer Schneider, because you’re just joking around?? Like the oh-so-funny “Digital Brownshirts” noted, I must be uptight or something, ’cause I’m not finding too much to laugh about, here. Maybe those are squirt guns the SPD carries - that’d be a hoot.
And if democracy is bad, is it now an article of faith that there can be nothing worse?
It’s mighty clever of you to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions, hoping that the average inlooker will attribute your made-up notions as being some sort of analysis of my worldview.
August 28th, 2004 at Aug 28, 04 | 4:20 am
Dardanus:It’s the old problem. Kerry did not say those things because he cared, but because he wanted to help the communists, just like Jane Fond and Noam Chomksy.
…
It must be really hard to be a libertarian on the US. Sure, lots of libertarians don’t like Bush, but Kerry is even more communist than Clinton.
It’s definitely a problem, but it’s one that will never get solved if folks simply continue to choose between two human predators every few years.
“Communist”?
<shrug>
All the hope Republicans offer is that since they’re playing perennial ideological catch-up, they’ll always be “Communist Lite”. That means you’ll get a few years’ delay before they adopt the exact position that the Democrats hold now. I guess that’s nice and all, but let’s not pretend that there’s some difference in principle between the two.
August 28th, 2004 at Aug 28, 04 | 4:56 am
More on how much the government values the vote:
Twelve hours total to get two different state governments to take action. But they don’t really care about voting and stuff - it’s irrelevant to them.
August 28th, 2004 at Aug 28, 04 | 5:29 am
John Lopez said: “All the hope Republicans offer is that since they’re playing perennial ideological catch-up, they’ll always be “Communist Lite”. That means you’ll get a few years’ delay before they adopt the exact position that the Democrats hold now. I guess that’s nice and all, but let’s not pretend that there’s some difference in principle between the two.”
Dead-on brother. These big government conservatives chafe my ass. For all their “liberal, liberal, liberal” shouting, they fail to notice that they are just one wing of the Demopublican-Republicrat Matrix of Tax, Spend and Growth of Government.
August 28th, 2004 at Aug 28, 04 | 5:58 am
…Tax, Spend and Growth of Government.
…