"However, it does make the attempts to smear the Vets as simply partisan hacks somewhat more difficult. "

The use of "smear" there inherently implies where the truth lies, in your view. A neutral phrasing would be one such as "assert" or "label." Just noting.

I also don't follow the logic. Assuming that Mr. ONeill was honest in a court case twenty years ago about standard legal practice -- which I'm perfectly willing to stipulate -- the logical conclusions is... that this has no more relevance than someone's testimony that John Kerry was completely honest and forthright in some random encounter twenty years ago. Only if one held to the fallacial proposition that because one is reliable once, that person is always reliable, would this be logically relevant.

I'm trying, in general, to avoid the Swift boat debate, because I think it's, at the least, no more relevant than the notion that George Bush shouldn't be President because in the same time period he was a felonious drunken sot. But I do commend this to your attention, since you've brought up the topic.

Why do you think Senator John McCain, who President Bush has been hugging tighter than Dick Cheney, calls the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" "dishonest and dishonorable," by the way? Partisan smear? If you read that link, by the way, after wading past the ad, I think you might find that it's difficult to defend any claim that Mr. O'Neill is not a complete partisan with a long history of having been chosen by Charles Colson to attack John Kerry. Also see here.

Now, of course, someone can be an old political hack, a complete partisan, and still a patriot who is entirely truthful. But accusations are more credible when they don't come from such sources, I'd expect you'd agree.

Maj. OLmsted,
Very cool, indeed, this SSG Forshee from the unit. WOW what a night of surfing will land you. I knew you were an interseting individual but now I am wowed by your level of very profound insight. I am packing for my AT now and am looking forward to working with you and your very viable crew of professionals.

Very Cool .com btw,
SSG Adam Forshee

ummm, citing "Media Matters" a partisan group sympathetic to the Kerry campaign does not strengthen your points Gary.

Secondly, Sen. Kerry himself has brought on this line of attack by continually refering to his tour in Vietnam as bona fides for the role of wartime President. While one can reasonably argue that Prez Bush's landing on the aircraft accentuates his own service (or lack thereof), he has not made it the central part of his campaign.

As Andrew points out, the reaction out of the Kerry camp, his supporting 527's, and Democrat pundits reveals much.

What interests me is what Sen. McCain's response will be in the following weeks. I suspect that his initial reaction (which you draw to our attention) results from similar feeling ads during the 2000 primaries. If he becomes silent, or backtracks, the Kerry campaign has real problems. Conversely, if he continues to question the SwiftVets, I think their veracity is much more in question.

The Swift Boat Veterans, share the
funding and at least two of the same
members as the group that smeared
McCain.

Look at what has been done to Bob
Kerrey, to McCain, to Chuck Hagel,
to Max Cleland and now to John
Kerry? There is a pattern here
and it is not pretty. Our veterans
BOTH Republican and Democrat are being
smeared when they get in the way of
this administration.

With political passions the way they
are, it isn't hard to round up a
couple of hundred nuts. O'Neill and
others have changed their stories
again and again. Corsi is a bigot
and a conspiracy theorist. Several
have been caught in outright lies, big
and small.

This is not a Democratic issue or a
Republican issue, it's a veterans
issue. Remember what they did to
John McCain--calling him unstable,
saying he had a child by a prostitute,
attacking his wife...

It doesn't do the GOP any good to
support this trash... sometimes the
enemy of my enemy is my enemy.
Be real. You know it. I know it.

The Kerry camp claims that the Swift Boat ad "lies" when the men in the ad say they "served with" John Kerry. They didn't say "served under" or claim to have been on the same boat. They are claiming to have been present for several events that they completely disagree with the Kerry version of. As a US Navy veteran (1974-1985) (not a Vietnam vet) I can tell you that my definition of a hero does not include anyone in a position of command that leaves their post early. And it certainly doesn't include someone that then sits in front of congress and smears his fellow soliders. I understand the idea of the "ends justifying the means", but a hero would have found a way to oppose the war without trashing the honorable service of 99% of Vietnam vets.

Gary,

You may consider the world a series of completely discrete events that have no relation to one another. That is certainly your privilege. In my experience, however, people who tend to be honest are honest in all situations. People who tend to lie tend to lie in all situations. This is by no means a perfect method for evaluation, but it is certainly a data point to be considered. The fact O'Neill told the truth under circumstances where he could have lied without consequence and where it would have helped someone he was helping tells me something about him. Your mileage may vary.

The smear comment is related to the if in the previous sentence. But, as always, thanks for providing such valuable editorial advice.

As for John McCain's comments, I'd guess that he's still bitter about South Carolina. Unless you're under the impression McCain has some miraculous ability to determine which group of veterans is telling the truth (and noting that both groups could be telling the truth as they see it), I don't know what I'm supposed to draw from McCain's comments.

Really, Gary, your partisanship is starting to undermine your hard-earned reputation for honesty.

"You may consider the world a series of completely discrete events that have no relation to one another. That is certainly your privilege."

It might be, but it's certainly not the way I see the world.

"In my experience, however, people who tend to be honest are honest in all situations. People who tend to lie tend to lie in all situations."

That, however, strikes me as a way over-large generalization. It's true of many people, but in my experience, there are also innumerable people -- the majority, by my unscientific observation -- who are far more spread across a spectrum in-between. Most people might be, for instance, basically honest, but will tell their sweetie flattering things that aren't quite true, or tell their boss they were sick when they went to a ball game, or the police officer that they didn't know they were speeding when they were, down further to slightly or increasingly more ethically troubling untruths.

Most people I see fall somewhere in that middle ground. It seems to me that the majority of people neither "lie in all situations" -- indeed, the percentage would seem to me to be under 10%, and a great many of them are in jail or mental hospitals -- nor never, ever, shade the truth. If you see it otherwise, we'll just have to agree that we have different perceptions.

You really believe that 90%, say, of the population are 100% truthful in all situations, or 100% of the time in all situations tell falsehoods?

"The fact O'Neill told the truth under circumstances where he could have lied without consequence and where it would have helped someone he was helping tells me something about him."

It's a good thing. But since you keep impuging people as lacking credibility simply because they are "partisan," wouldn't you like to be consistent about that? You rejected my cite from an article in MediaMatters simply because it was a "partisan site." I'm having trouble understanding why you expect me to accept John O'Neill as credible-until-proven-not (which is a standard I find reasonable, to be clear), rather than, say, take the stance "well, he's partisan, so I'm going to simply not read what he has to say or give it any credibility," which seemed to be what you were saying in regard to my previous cite. Can you help me understand that (that's not meant patronizingly; it's simply an honest request)?

"As for John McCain's comments, I'd guess that he's still bitter about South Carolina."

Sure he is. Why is that? Isn't it because Bush ran a vicious organized campaign of lies and slurs against McCain? Or what?

"Really, Gary, your partisanship is starting to undermine your hard-earned reputation for honesty."

Andrew, I consider you a friend, and I'd like us to stay that way through and past the election. It's a bit disconcerting therefore to see you impugn my honesty.

And, really, am I somehow being more partisan than you are?

Andrew, I apologize. It was bains, above, who made the comment I referred to in the previous message; you simply hadn't (and haven't) responded on that point.

Bains said:
"ummm, citing 'Media Matters' a partisan group sympathetic to the Kerry campaign does not strengthen your points Gary."

So my query to both you and bains is: why on earth should you reject something posted on Media Matters, but I shouldn't reject something from SBVT? I'd suggest that the answer in both cases is that nobody should simply refuse to consider something from a partisan source, but rather should respond first on the facts. I have a quote about this on the sidebar of my blog, you know.

Perhaps you disagree?

If not, Andrew, what did you make of what you read from the two cites I gave, may I ask? Bains?

Gary, you may be correct, yet what you cite only questions to motives of the SBVfT rather than the actual charges. In other words, "it doesn't strengthen your point."

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: