Dreams Of Noise

Thanks for posting the Matthews transcript. It may be the hardest hitting interview I've ever seen him do.

You can also see an article on the lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for ~~Bush~~ Truth at Capitol Hill Blue.

From:

scifantasy.livejournal.com

I'm conflicted about the Matthews interview. On the one hand, Matthews does a reasonably good job of trying to get her to shorten her sentences to minimize rules-lawyering ("allegations were made," "veterans have suggested," etc.).

On the other hand, he only manages it because as a talk show host he's awful--he's virtually unable to shut up and let the guest speak.

He interviewed Rudy Giuliani at Penn during my freshman year, and since I was in the band they wanted us to come. Some of the questions he asked were bona fide idiotic[1] and he didn't let Giuliani talk enough.

[1] My favorite when Matthews reminded us how Giuliani asked President Bush to let him push the button if and when we capture Bin Laden and sentence him to death. Matthews then asked, "Now that they've caught the DC sniper, do you want to push the button on him?" Giuliani just looked at him, as if to ask "What do I have to do with the DC sniper? What, do you think I like killing people or something?"

From:

tnatj.livejournal.com

Tom, thanks for the pointer to The New York Times article and chart. It certainly explicates the commentary and documents the inferences I intuitively made earlier, particularly: "What drives the [Swift Boat organization] veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after."

Those who were puzzled by the lack of immediate "mainstream" coverage of the commercially broadcast accusations should understand that when there's a long delay, something's not right with the story. And the time required to thoroughly fact-check events that may have (or not have) happened thirty-odd years ago, particularly when the alleged (non)events tell a story at variance to contemporary accounts, as well as changing the stories in the recent past, can be substantial.

There's also an issue, that once such discrepancies are elicited, the reporter's job just begins: the why? part of the job can be the most difficult and time-consuming to work out.

From:

billroper

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.

So, basically, the smear campaign started with smears in Kerry's biography?

It's possible that the charges that Hoffman and the others are making are entirely fabricated. It's also possible that the earlier statements that they had made about Kerry fell into the category of "I won't speak ill of another Vietnam veteran".

As far as the sources of the money are concerned, well, of course, the money comes from people who are Bush supporters. It certainly wasn't going to come from Kerry supporters.

My understanding from the various sources that I've read -- and which I don't see the NY Times refuting -- is that Dr. Letson was the only doctor at the site where Kerry was treated for his wound. Letson claims that it was common for lower-ranking medics to sign off on and complete paperwork for things that doctors did, which is why there's another signature on the paperwork. You would think that, if that claim had no basis in fact, it would be trivial to produce other doctors who had served in similar situations in Vietnam to debunk him. I haven't seen that, although perhaps I've simply missed it.

There are a number of pretty funky things that have gone on around all of the reporting on Kerry's service in Vietnam, some of which have involved the Senator's own campaign website. For example, at one point his website apparently included information about a battle that Kerry's swift boat had been in before Kerry actually took command of the boat. When the actual commander complained (a fellow named Peck, I understand), the information was removed.

Now, it is easy to excuse that sort of error as the kind of thing that happens due to the inattention of some campaign staffer who isn't well-versed in the facts of Kerry's service in Vietnam and grabs the wrong data. But you'd like to think that they could get it right, given the amount of emphasis which they gave that service at the Democratic National Convention.

It's quite likely that some of the things that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are saying are wrong, just as some of the things that have been claimed by Senator Kerry or on his behalf are wrong. (For example, see above or the note in the NY Times article where Brinkley, Kerry's biographer, admits that Kerry wasn't likely in Cambodia at Christmas as the Senator has claimed in the past.) Thirty five year old memories are not always the most reliable thing.

There are a number of bloggers -- and, yes, they are Bush partisans, which wouldn't be a surprise -- who have spent some time trying to see if they can get the facts correct about some of the things that surrounded Senator Kerry's Vietnam service. One place where you can go to see a good chunk of information about Kerry's swift boat career is Captain's Quarters.

What you'll find is that they're devoting the kind of time and energy that the NY Times won't spend on this type of research.

And, just as it is good that the NY Times performs a critical examination of the SBVFT group, it is good that someone else is performing a critical examination of the extant documentation of Senator Kerry's tour in Vietnam.

From:

On May 6, Hoffman stated he had "no first-hand knowledge to discredit Kerry's claims to valor." On August 5, he told Sean Hannity, "I knew him [Kerry] well, because I operated very closely with him and, uh, many of the operations, uh, most of the operations were-were conducted with multiple boats."

Elliott, who was at the center of the recantation controvery last week flew from his hom ein Delaware to Massachusetts to appear in support of Kerry in 1996.

I would say that it isn't just "quite likely" but definite that some of the things that the Swift Boat Veterans for ~~Bush~~ Truth are saying is wrong, but definite.

From:

umbran.livejournal.com

As far as the sources of the money are concerned, well, of course, the money comes from people who are Bush supporters.

Yes. However, there is a qualitative difference between donations from the nameless masses of supporters, and $200,000 from someone only one step removed from the top rung of the incumbent political machine.

From:

jabberwokky.livejournal.com

See, now that makes sense. Thank you, shsilver for actually posting some issues with the facts without a heavy, cloying sauce of "but it was partisan funded!"

No crap it was partisan. I highly doubt that a gander at MoveOn.org's donation list is a wide spectrum of parties.

I don't give a damn what either did during Viet Nam. One has shown himself to be a thouroughly mediocre leader in a critical time, and the other... well, I haven't heard much about Kerry as a senator. It makes it hard for someone who wants to vote not on emotion ("Bizarro HATE Bush!!!") but rather the record. I see a crappy record on one side, and I have a feeling I'll have to dig to see the other's record.

All I know so far is that he's for biodiesal (which is an untenable transition technology), wants to pull troops out quickly (which is, IMO, the wrong thing to do; it was wrong to go in, but when you adopt a kitten, you have to care for the cat), and is against gay marriage (which is a issue near and dear to my heart).

Trying to find out about Kerry is a bit like trying to find out about Linux. There are so many True Believers who just keep repeating "It's GREAT!" and when pressed, revert to "It's Better Than The Other!", and when pressed further revert to "The Other IS EVIL!!!". I'm not saying there's nothing there - just that the proponents tend toward factually vapid emotional arguments.

(Of course, I say this as a 9 year Linux user...)

From:

Well, Project VoteSmart (http://tinyurl.com/7xq9e) has a lot of info. So does his Senatorial site (http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/congress.html). An excellent summation (http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm) is also at Issues 2000, and here's a specific piece on his military voting record (http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-military-votes.html) and the distortions made of it.

From:

selenesue.livejournal.com

First Run Features presents BROTHERS IN ARMS: THE STORY OF THE CREW OF PATROL CRAFT FAST 94, recounting the lives of the crew who served with Sen. John Kerry in their own words. Opening August 27 for maximum exposure during this crucial campaign season.

From:

For positions of Kerry, the place to start is his website. As for his record, the Republicans are right that as a legislator, he has been very low profile. I recently read (sorry, I forget where so I can't cite) that there are three major types of Senators: Legislators, whose names appear on a lot of bills, Investigators, who do much important work on committees and behind the scenes, and, I think the third type was administrators, who keep the Senate functioning. Kerry falls into the middle category and his investigations have included Iran-Contra, Noreiga, and others over the years.

From:

Thie linklooks at his investigative history in the Senate.

From:

Re: Kerry's site - Absolutely. But I was specifically trying to find some nonpartisan sites, so no one would say "Aha! Partisanship!"

From:

For candidate stands of the issues, I have no problem referring people to their sites. Had this been in the other direction, I would have pointed to Bush's site.

From:

Again, absolutely. For some reason my brain read what he'd asked as "I'd like to see his record", and for that, I wanted some comprehensive listings.

Also, bluntly, the difference between some candidates' stated positions and their records is a little vast.

From:

jabberwokky.livejournal.com

Which is why I've been going through VoteSmart. Thanks. I'd rather get an idea of who politicians are through what they've done than what they say they'll do.

I also just started to go through c-span.org, which links out to capwiz.com for a searchable vote database.

From:

Thanks for the chart. I particularly like the grid at the bottom, with "Previous statements the members have made" and "What the records say".

The piece de resistance is this video of Chris Matthews handing Michelle Malkin her own ass. It's amazing.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I'd never heard of Matthews, Malkin, or Hardball until this week, so I don't know what their political leanings or personalities are, but I kept wishing he'd just STFU and let her speak. If he'd let her have her say, and then tried to get her to retract as many weasel words as possible, it would've been a lot more effective, IMHO.

Have you seen the second Swift Boat Veterans commercial? My understanding is that Kerry did say the words in quotes, but that he prefaced it with "They told me that..." or words to that effect. In talk.origins, this is known as quote-mining, and is seen as a dishonest tactic, resorted to when you don't have any facts or convincing arguments.

From:

Well, I must admit that I disagree about the Matthews/Malkin exchange, but she is one of the screeching crew that has nothing to say except unsubstantiated charges. Standard Repub S.O.P., really, the equivalent of Milo Bloom saying things like "Senator Bedfellow, some people are saying your wife rides with bikers...." Spread outrageous charges, say "people are saying this", and force the accused to constantly respond to bullshit. And I give Matthews, normally quite the shill, a lot of credit for cutting her off, because he realized that, with her "Oh, I'm not saying that, it says in the book" riff, that was precisely what she was doing.

As someone pointed out on another blog, Kerry pissed off Nixon. You think that, if this were on the up-and-up, the Dirty Tricks Squad wouldn't have brought it up in 1971?

Re: new ad and data mining -- yeah. Atrios has the entire statement in context (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_08_15_atrios_archive.html#109310561289460214).

From:

Okay, I'll buy that.

I don't understand the people who are getting all bent out of shape because Kerry protested the Vietnam war. Who had more of a right to criticize it than someone who had fought there?

But still, think what it would've been like if our esteemed president hadn't fulfilled his campaign promise to raise the tone in Washington.

PS: quote-mining is not the same as data mining: data mining is the process of looking for patterns in large amounts of data. Quote-mining is extracting a phrase or sentence from someone's writing to make it seem to say something that it doesn't.

From:

Data - vs Quote- : You're right. My misstatement.

Raising The Tone: Hey, I count one aspect of it as Dubya actually fulfilling a campaign promise. He said he'd be "a uniter, not a divider", and he's united the Democrats against him like they haven't been in one hell of a long time. Not to mention most of the rest of the world. B-7

From:

he's united the Democrats against him like they haven't been in one hell of a long time

Not to mention the other parties and independents. Heck, it's gotten to the point where Republicans are campaigning to get Nader on the ballot.

This reminds me of something I got in email today:

Back in 2000 a Republican friend warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true!"
-- James Carville

B-7

I thought they stopped at Babylon 5 :-)

From:

[snort] Good one. Erm... you, uh, do realize that the Repubs are trying to get Nadir on the ballot to take votes from Kerry, right...?

From:

Of course. From the polls I've seen, it looks as if most of the people who favor Nader would vote for Kerry if Nader weren't on the ballot.

Of course, I'm in Merlin, so it doesn't matter if he's on the ballot here or not.

Maybe what's needed is a God Party. It could suck votes from the loony wing of the GOP. What would be left of the Republican party would be much more reasonable. A win all around.

(PS: Was "Nadir" intentional? If so, I suggest that there's someone worse than him in the running.)

From:

I think the God Party is running ex-Judge Roy Moore....

The "Nadir" thing has been around for awhile on the political blogs. Obvious, really. And, yeah, I will readily admit that if he had the slightest freakin' chance on God's Green Earth to be elected Ralphie would be a better President than Bush. But that's true of a garden-fresh salad with Ranch dressing, for cryin' out loud. Any random sock monkey would be better.

From:

Any random sock monkey would be better.

I hear the pets.com spokesthing is available.

From:

In case you care, Michelle Malkin made #3 in this week's Top 10 Conservative Idiots for her appearance on Hardball.

From: