Couldn't have said it better

An unusually fierce editorial from TNR on the media's coverage of the Swift Boat Scumbags:

Just how dishonest must a smear campaign be for American journalists to say so plainly or, better yet, to ignore altogether? That's the only real question still unanswered in the controversy sparked by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth over John Kerry's service in Vietnam--although even to use the word "controversy" affords the issue's protagonists too much dignity. The veterans featured in the organization's TV ad claim to have "served with Kerry," but none actually served on the same boat. (Yes, we've been reduced to arguing over what the definition of "with" is.) Several of the charges are based on recollections by veterans who, years earlier, had praised Kerry for the very same actions.The accusation that Kerry faked one of his injuries turns out to come from a thirdhand account. Most important of all, the surviving crewmembers from Kerry's boat--as well as Navy records--back Kerry's version of events. As the Los Angeles Times editorialized this week, citing one of its own reporters' fine work debunking the Swift Boat Veterans, "no informed person can seriously believe that Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals."

Unfortunately, even as reporters eviscerated the Swift Boat Veterans' essential claims, the conventions of evenhandedness (at least on news, as opposed to editorial, pages) prevented them from stating their findings in bald, unvarnished terms. And so writers for papers like The Washington Post repeatedly played the dispute as a he-said, she-said campaign argument, seizing on the relatively minor discrepancies in Kerry's story (chiefly Kerry's questionable claim that his boat had gone into Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968) and then balancing those against the far more egregious distortions they had found in the swift boat ads."Both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place," read the key passage from a lengthy front-page story in Sunday's Post. "But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar." And, while careful readers could parse the truth, more casual readers were left to take their cues from headlines like "Veterans Battle Over the Truth" or "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete," which compounded the misimpression that there was something ambiguous, if not downright suspicious, about Kerry's military record.

But it wasn't primarily the print media that kept this story alive. It was television, particularly cable news, with all of its now-familiar pathologies. Predictably, Fox News hyped the story, weaving it seamlessly into a larger narrative about Kerry's character flaws. (Here's Brit Hume, Fox's analogue to Peter Jennings or Dan Rather: "There's a thread here that one might trace through the criticisms of John Kerry and his behavior, even in this campaign, and that is the sense of somebody who is an absolutely incorrigible opportunist.") And the less ideological CNN and MSNBC did their parts to sustain the controversy by running the Swift Boat ads repeatedly during their news segments, then giving the same old discredited Kerry critics a platform to continue spewing their same old discredited arguments.

The effect was to spread lies rather than scrutinize them, in a precise perversion of journalism's supposed purpose. More than half of the respondents to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center said they had seen or heard of the Swift Boat ad, which initially ran in only three swing states. And the polling firm HCD Research found that 27 percent of independent voters who saw the ad and "who [had] planned to vote for Kerry or leaned pro-Kerry" were "no longer sure they'd back" him.

Journalists, in short, became accomplices to fraud. And they should have known better. In 2000, Bush and his right-wing allies learned that the way to win political arguments is to launch rhetorical attacks based only loosely--if at all--on the facts and then depend on reporters to spread them as credible perspectives on the truth. And, ever since, this White House has conducted its business the very same way, shamelessly peddling lies about everything from budget projections to weapons of mass destruction without the slightest fear of retribution.

A few days ago, cable news had a rare moment of clarity when an unlikely voice of reason, MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews, lashed out at conservative pundit Michelle Malkin for suggesting that Kerry had shot himself to win a Purple Heart--an accusation even more farfetched than the swift boat ad's. As Matthews later told columnist Lloyd Grove, "If someone is saying something that factually can't be proved, it's my job to call them on it." He's absolutely right. How sad that he's largely alone.

Hooray for Chris Matthews.

This scandal is going to go down in history like the Vince Foster "mystery". These Swift Boat guys are just another collection of right-wing nutcases.

Run on the economy!

I spent the last year cautioning the Democrats against running on the economy. My reasoning:

1. This recession has been historically mild.
2. The turnaround would come a few months before the election.

While I was right about #1, #2 certainly hasn't happened.

Plus, while the job loss numbers during this recession have been paltry, there are other things to remember:
1. Poverty has grown at a record clip. It continues to increase.
2. Health care costs have skyrocketed. Meanwhile, the number of uninsured has increased.
3. Gasoline prices have hit the roof.
4. The stock market is a bear and not a bull.

These 4 factors make the economy a politically feasible issue for John Kerry.

What issues do the Republicans have left?

Hence, the Vietnam garbage.

Great rebuttal of the Swift Boat Vets

From Daily Kos.

VP on gay marriage

The VP spoke about gay marriage at a town hall meeting today:

Vice President Dick Cheney said on Tuesday that he does not personally support a
constitutional amendment against gay marriage but accepts President Bush's decision to pursue such a ban as administration policy.
Resorting to unusually expansive language to address an emotional campaign issue that has proved divisive for Republicans, Cheney said he believes individual states
rather than the federal government should decide whether to sanction marriage
between homosexuals.
"My general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want," Cheney, 63, said in response to a question at a campaign "town hall" meeting in Davenport, Iowa [...] "I made clear four years ago when I ran and this question came up in the debate I had with Joe Lieberman that my view was that that's appropriately a matter for the states to decide, that that's how it ought to best be handled," Cheney said.
"But the president makes basic policy for the administration. And he's made it clear that he does in fact support a constitutional amendment on this issue," he added.

Many people will probably say, "Wow, the Vice President is a tolerant and independant guy."

That's complete garbage. Cheney's message was politically motivated. It was meant to encourage the 17 states that have discrimination referendums this year to vote for against gay rights. Many of those ballot initiatives are in swing states.

Did the President condemn the Swift Boaters?

Nope:

QUESTION: But why won't you denounce the charges that your supporters are making against Kerry?
BUSH: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV, all the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but to use for other purposes as well. I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the
McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to once and for all get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising.And so, I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads.
QUESTION: This doesn't have anything to do with other 527 ads. You've been accused of mounting a smear campaign. Do you think Senator Kerry lied
about his war record?
BUSH: I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record.
But the question is who best to lead the country in the war on terror? Who can handle the responsibilities of the commander in chief? Who's got a clear vision of the risks that the country faces?
QUESTION: Some Republicans such as Bob Dole and some Republican donors such as Bob Perry have contributed and endorsed the message of those 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.
QUESTION: When you say that you want to stop all...
BUSH: All of them.
QUESTION: So, I mean...
BUSH: That means that ad, every other ad.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
BUSH: Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it. And I wish -- I hope my opponent joins me in saying -- condemning these activities of the 527s. It's -- I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill,
McCain-Feingold. I've been disappointed that for the first, you know, six months of this year, 527s were just pouring tons of money -- billionaires writing checks. And, you know, I spoke out against them early. I tried to get others to speak out against them as well. And I just don't -- I think they're bad for the system.

More lies uncovered

Check out this letter to the editor in a San Juan newspaper. It was written by a man named Jim Russell.

This guy was on the river at the same time as the Stormtroopers from "Swift Boat Vets for Truth". And guess what? His recollection of the Rassman events matches the naval record and the recolections of Kerry's boatmates! Hmmm...

Refuting Dole

From TPM:

In a 1988 campaign-trail autobiography, here's how Dole described the incident that earned him his first Purple Heart: "As we approached the enemy, there was a brief exchange of gunfire. I took a grenade in hand, pulled the pin, and tossed it in the direction of the farmhouse. It wasn't a very good pitch (remember, I was used to catching passes, not throwing them). In the darkness, the grenade must have struck a tree and bounced off. It exploded nearby, sending a sliver of metal into my leg--the sort of injury the Army patched up with Mercurochrome and a Purple Heart."

These people are frauds. All of them...

Dole supports Swift Vets

Bob Dole came out in support of the Swift Vets today, saying that he thought Kerry exaggerated his wounds in order to leave Vietnam early.

These Swift Vet people will soon hand the election to Bush if nothing is done.

I think the subject simply needs to be changed. It's clear to me that mainstream Republicans now favor the use of slash and burn tactics against us. We need to fight back with the same tactics.

I'm talking about an advertisement that blames Bush for Abu Ghraib. We need it and we need it soon. If Kerry is really running on "Respected Around the World" then Abu Ghraib should be his #1 issue.

We also need the "Where are the WMD? Bush is a liar" ads. Kerry already implied it during his convention speech. It's something that resonates with swing voters.

These Swift Boat vets are the scum of the earth and they must not be allowed to succeed.

George W. Bush = colossal wimp

From TNR:

Imagine what conservatives would be saying if John Kerry did the things President Bush has done this year in Falluja and Najaf.

Here's a little refresher. On March 31, four American contractors are murdered in Falluja, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets. American officials pledge to retake the city and bring the killers to justice. On April 5, 1,200 Marines encircle Falluja--digging trenches and blockading roads. After two weeks of sporadic fighting in which 36 Americans are killed, the United States halts the siege--on the condition that the militants hand over their heavy weapons. When they don't, the United States extends the cease-fire, despite insurgent attacks. Finally, on April 27, the Marines prepare for an all-out assault. U.S. planes drop flyers reading, "If you are a terrorist, beware, because your last day was yesterday." Lieutenant Karl Banke, a platoon leader with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, tells The Washington Post, "Every one of them [in his platoon] has a hunger deep down inside to finish the
job. We've now shed our blood in the city. The last thing we want to do is walk away."

On April 29, the United States walks away. Taking senior military officials by surprise, the White House orders the Marines to pull back from the city, which will be patrolled by the Falluja Brigade, a roughly 1,000-man force composed of Saddam Hussein's former soldiers. The force is supposed to disarm the militants. In early June, the Post's Daniel Williams slips into Falluja and reports that, while the "brigade stays outside of town in tents, [and] police cower in their patrol cars," masked militants "[pull] cars over at will." The insurgents impose sharia on the city, banning the shaving of beards and parading alcohol vendors naked through the streets. Terrorists flock to Falluja--using it as a base from which to launch kidnappings and attacks.

So...we allowed a terrorist haven to develop in Falluja because Bush couldn't stand the political heat that came from the increased casualties.

But wait, there's more:

Meanwhile, on April 4, one day before Marines encircle Falluja, Najaf-based cleric Moqtada Al Sadr incites thousands of his followers to attack police stations and government offices throughout Iraq. Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul Bremer says, "A group of people in Najaf have crossed the line. This will not be tolerated." Over the following two months, roughly 40 American soldiers die as coalition forces sporadically battle Sadr's men. Sadr's representative in Basra offers cash rewards for the killing or capture of coalition troops and says captured female troops should be kept as slaves. Finally, in late May, the United States and Sadr agree to a cease-fire. The United States drops its demand that Sadr's militiamen disarm--asking only that they avoid openly brandishing their weapons. The United States withdraws to the outskirts of Najaf and suspends efforts to bring Sadr to court for the alleged murder of a moderate Shia cleric. Polls show that Sadr, having successfully defied the United States, is now among the most popular leaders in Iraq.

On August 5, four days after Iraqi police arrest a close Sadr ally, Sadr launches another uprising. On August 8, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi flies into Najaf aboard a U.S. helicopter to declare that there will be "no negotiations or truce." Within two days, American and Iraqi forces have surrounded Najaf's Imam Ali Shrine, where Sadr and his men have taken refuge. On August 14, Allawi reverses himself and orders a truce to allow time for negotiations. American commanders warn journalists that the delay is allowing Sadr's forces to reinforce their positions and bring in weapons (including from militants in Falluja, who are sending supplies). Lieutenant Colonel John Mayer, commander of ground troops for the 1st Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, tells the Los Angeles Times, "I hate to see us negotiate now. ... Did he uphold his word last time?" After less than a day, negotiations break off and Iraqi government officials again say "military clearing operations" are imminent--only to reverse themselves in response to protests by Iraqi delegates at a national conference. As The New Republic went to press, Sadr had snubbed a group of those delegates who had traveled to Najaf to see him, then reportedly agreed to their cease-fire proposal, although fighting continued.

So...against the urging of his military commanders, George W. Bush twice ordered US forces to capitulate in Iraq. To give in to the terrorists. I wonder whether political considerations came into play?

It looks like George W. Bush is a huge wimp, just like his father.

America needs foreign policy guided by strength, not political calculation. Thousands of fanatics and extremists want to kill us. George W. Bush, over the last two years, has sent them a clear message:

"I'm afraid of confronting you."