Reading notes

Wow, finally some righteous smackdown — aka infusion of facts — against those who are apparently no friends of truth, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And this from the New York Times, no less, which, whatever else it does, still significantly sets the standard of discussion in nearly all media.

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.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry’s war record, a pillar of his campaign. …

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a 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. …

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. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men’s own statements. …

Complete with purdy graphic laying out the SBVfT connections to Bush and Rove.

Markos further links to Oliver’s writeup of, and video link to, as Kos puts it, “Chris Matthews’ takedown of the hopelessly over-her-head Michelle Malkin on the latest smear attempt ([she said] Kerry’s wounds were “self-inflicted”). Wow again.

Honestly, seems to me there is a direct and personal cost in supporting Bush — one’s credibility. What benefit gained could possibly compensate for that? I think dancing around a vortex of secrecy, lies, and smears like this is always dangerous; as this story shows, getting too close sucks one’s integrity out. No, thank you. I believe we can do better than this.

2004-08-20 update:
Whoa, this thing is escalating. As SusanG puts it, “Bush clearly f*cked with the wrong guy this time.” That’s exactly what I’m thinking. What we have here is a man who does not put up with shit, who as a prosecutor and as a warrior will not stop ‘til justice prevails. I’m watching this impending ass-whuppin’ with intense interest — because who deserves it more than someone willing to pit one Vietnam vet against another while saying, presumably with fingers crossed, “I support the troops”? It’s exhilarating to think we could have a president I’d be proud to salute, someone I’d rest easy having as a commander-in-chief, instead of one who deserves at best a big laugh and a damn good shunning.

Of course, the larger goal is get this nonsense behind us and move on to the formidable task of dealing with the problems of the present, not least attending to the military men and women being wounded and dying in Iraq now.

2004-08-21 AM update:
As I think about it, this Kerry response ought to be good news for those unsure whether a vote for Kerry brings enough macho to make ‘em comfortable: Kerry is a warrior — a smart and mentally balanced one with actual experience under fire, one equipped with social awareness and unencumbered by blinding ideology — whereas Bush only plays a warrior on TV.

I think the best thing George has going for him is his carefully-cultivated reputation as a berserker, a fighter “legendary for savagery and reckless frenzy in battle.” Maybe that reputation gives people hellbent on committing acts of terror pause. But berserk behavior does not a reliable commander-in-chief make. In fact, the definition of berserk too closely resembles the definition of terror for my taste. I prefer someone more thoughtful and less berserk as commander-in-chief.

2004-04-21 PM update:
William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor, commanded one of three swift boats on the Dong Cung River that February day in 1969 — and, unlike the Swift Boat Veterans, was actually there alongside Kerry’s boat — soberly lays out his eyewitness account of the scene that day. From today’s Chicago Tribune article, Anti-Kerry vets not there that day:

Kerry’s critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they’re not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It’s gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there. …

While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they’re saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

I don’t know how the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sleep at night. They have chosen dishonor over honor, and for what? It’s bad enough they had to endure Vietnam; why now self-inflict the stigma of lying about it? And that in the service of a campaign whose leadership has no experiential understanding of what they’ve been through. Did they not foresee they’d come across as neither truthful nor swift?

2004-08-23 update:
I like William’s analysis of the story as summarized in these two paragraphs:

The ugliest aspect of this episode is two-fold. You have a sitting President of the United States allowing a decorated veteran to be slandered in public in order to advance his political aspirations. While Bush may denounce the spending rules that allow 527s to operate this way, he did nothing to stop them, and if the evidence bears out, he in fact went out of his way to promote them.

Worse, you have an entire administration filled with men who had “other priorities” and important family connections when the call to service in Vietnam came. These are the same men, now, who have sent almost 1,000 American soldiers home in steel coffins in the name of lies and profiteering. If ever one needed evidence of the ruthless and utterly shameless nature of the Bush crew, they have it here before them.

[original via Daily Kos]