<p>But, I wonder where people like Tommybill who “know” that the Swifties are lying get there information </p>
<p>I read several news accounts at the time which supported the contention that the Swifties were (and are) lying the information was from widely different sources </p>
<p>The Swifties (your word) were and are liars of the very worst kind. The lied about a mans war time service to his nation and they lied to befit the Republican candidate for president of the United States. The lied with the knowledge and support of personal friends of that Republican candidate for president of the United States. </p>
<p>The only people with even a little knowledge of this who dont agree the Swifties are liars, are to use your words, a mindless rubes who allow themselves to be sold a bill of goods by the evil corporations and special interests or they are people who prefer the lie because it fits their needs.</p>
<p>Show me some information from an independent source that tends to support your thinking and position on this issue.</p>
<p>You provided your own source which admits that it can’t determine who is lieing or not. Yet you continue to accuse them of lieing. If that makes you feel like a real man, so be it.</p>
<p>Ill ignore your real man BS, show me Show me some information from an independent source that tends to support your thinking and position on this issue.</p>
<p>“Show me some information from an independent source that tends to support your thinking and position on this issue.”</p>
<p>I will repeat: my “thinking” is that you don’t have any proof to support your assertions that the Swifties are liars. When challenged to provde such proof you came back with a study which said that they could not prove one side or the other. Hence, my “independent study” is the same one that you cited. If you want to provide any other proof, have at it.</p>
<p>ff: That line about not being able to definitively prove who is currently lying is not a statement of total inability to make a judgment, merely a factual one. That agency cannot in good faith say it can prove that Kerry isn’t lying; that is impossible, given the lack of objective documentary evidence.</p>
<p>However, the two sides in the debate over Kerry’s service are not symmetric in their reliability. On the one side of the debate are former marines who served with Kerry, who routinely backed his version of events and do not appear to have been politically motivated. Their statements are indeed supported by the record.</p>
<p>On the other side of the debate are a an assortment of commanding officers, fellow marines etc. accusing Kerry of lying. The problem is, each of their statements has major factual issues. Some signed affidavits and statements that directly contradict what they now say; some have admitted their statements on the SBVT ads were not truthful (including George Elliott admitting he never actually had personal knowledge of the accusations of falsehood he made against Kerry, and that he merely signed the statement he was given and faxed it off). There is not a person in that group whose assertions have not been contradicted by their own statements on the record, or by others’.</p>
<p>So you’re right. We cannot prove definitively one way or the other what Kerry did or did not do. But I see no good reason to place any particular confidence in the assertions of a group of clearly politically motivated veterans, whose testimony is both self-contradictory and placed under extreme doubt by others. I was never a big fan of Kerry, and I’m still not, but it is willfully disingenuous to act as though there is legitimately large doubt as to Kerry’s actions in Vietnam. Anyone can say anything, and through the fog of war, 40 years later, they can get away with it because it is very difficult to definitively disprove their assertions. But it takes a special kind of partisan to act as though their assertions carry real weight in comparison to contradictory records and other testimony.</p>
<p>I think this thread has become a microcosm of what is wrong right now in our country (and I admit to being part of it). Too little tolerance for differing views, too much willingness to call the other “stupid” or “immoral”. Far too little civility. We are all part of the sickness – the bipolar dysfunction holding our nation in wretched political stasis. </p>
<p>Can we all at least agree that both democrats and republicans are equally endowed with intelligence and moral purpose? Must we go on with this really ugly discourse? It’s leading absolutely no where. I don’t think a single person has posted on here anything particularly eloquent or insightful, but there’s been a lot of teeth gnashing and one upmanship.</p>
<p>I think we need to maybe look at our kids and take a lesson in how to act a bit more maturely. </p>
<p>This boomer generation is not one I’m proud to be part of. My hope is with our kids.</p>
To state it bluntly: No. It’s not “too early” to state that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of our invasion in 2003. That’s simply a fact. No “nuance” there. And yet there were many Americans who believed that such weapons were actually found there after our invasion. Again, no “nuance.” Finally, the one group in which a majority - over 50% - falsely believed that such weapons not only existed but had actually been found - was Republicans whose main source of news was Fox.</p>
<p>There’s no issue of “agenda” or “unclean hands” there - that’s just a set of facts worth noting and considering when viewing the world.</p>
<p>Mammall, I will agree that I know both republicans and democrats whom I like and admire, and conversely, some in both camps whom I find less than admirable. But again - some facts: in the early 1990’s the Republican party expressly and unabashedly adopted a policy of denigrating its opponents - not simply disagreeing with their policies, etc., but of personal and quite loathsome attacks on the integrity, courage, patriotism, and even sanity of its opponents. (You can look it up. Newt Gingrich was associated with one particularly telling bit of “how to” literature.) The Swift boat guys were organized and funded by the same crew, and operated on the same basis. (I agree with the above posters that it’s impossible for a reasonable, unbiased person to read the documentation regarding Kerry and the swiftboaters and not conclude that the swiftboaters were manipulated and used - at the best - and consciously lied to people - at the worst.) </p>
<p>Propaganda is propaganda. To claim that there should be an equivalency between people who try to be accurate - even if they don’t always succeed - and those who don’t feel a need to do anything other than avoid getting caught in a lie - isn’t “neutrality.”</p>
<p>“But it takes a special kind of partisan to act as though their assertions carry real weight in comparison to contradictory records and other testimony.”</p>
<p>As you will note, I did not make any assertions one way or the other. I just asked for proof of the claim that the Swifties lied. People have looked at the evidence and statements and have not been able to prove one side or the other, yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable by the left to proclaim the Swifties to be liars - despite the fact that they have no proof of this.</p>
<p>The contradiction is Kerry and the other two enlisted men who all say that he was not on the boat and that they were, and support Kerry’s story. He has no documentary evidence to back up that he was there. They do not have any to back up that he wasn’t there.</p>
<p>On that point, then, there is little certainty. But that was my whole point. And of all the issues in the SBVT allegations, that is the one which is surrounded by the most uncertainty. Even if we assume, though, that Kerry’s version of events is false, a Purple Heart can still be awarded for self-inflicted injury so long as that injury was inflicted in attempting damage to the enemy. So either way, Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.</p>
<p>On the other issues, there is more documentary evidence to support Kerry, and less to support SBVT. In the sense of who is more likely to be telling the truth, I think pretty clearly that it is Kerry, given the asymmetry of evidence (other than on the 1st PH, about which there is a symmetric total lack of evidence).</p>
<p>“On the other issues, there is more documentary evidence to support Kerry, and less to support SBVT. In the sense of who is more likely to be telling the truth, I think pretty clearly that it is Kerry, given the asymmetry of evidence (other than on the 1st PH, about which there is a symmetric total lack of evidence).”</p>
<p>What is your theory regarding the lack of any bullet holes in four aluminum boats after sustaining “withering fire”?</p>
<p>What is your theory about Kerry saying after the first purple heart incident that he was feeling cocky because they had not yet come under enemy fire? Does this contradiction bother you?</p>
<p>Does the contradiction of Kerry claiming that it was “seered in his memory” about going into cambodia under Richard Nixon when Nixon wasn’t even president at the time bother you?</p>
<p>What is your theory that Kerry remembered the Batman call sign for Schacte if Schacte wasn’t on the mission?</p>
<p>I’d say that the asymmetry of testimony favors the Swifties but certainly there is sufficient contradiction to the Kerry message that one shouldn’t go around and call the Swifties liars without proof.</p>
<p>"To state it bluntly: No. It’s not “too early” to state that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of our invasion in 2003. That’s simply a fact. No “nuance” there. "</p>
<p>Twisting and selecting there. I wasn’t referring to WMD, but to the whole of the post – specifically Al Quaeda and yes, absolutely, it is too early to know the whole picture. For many reasons. I specifically and intentionally left out reference to WMD. The organization conducting that survey which gave you the information you were looking for has very unclean hands. For a point of reference, I point you to the Soros-funded casualty statistics. I seem to recall a lot of respect for those statistics, too. Same thing here. As for propaganda, I’ll bow to your superior knowledge on that subject because you are clearly the expert. And I notice that you consistently ignore my respectful statements to you about the fact that you have no idea where FF or I obtain information or derive our opinions. You consistently ignore references to how you deal with disagreement.</p>
No, you are wrong. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were telling the truth. No one has proven they lied. </p>
<p>Kerry on the other hand was exposed as a liar by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry distorted his actions in Vietnam to make himself into the hero he was not. Here is one example of Kerry’s lies.</p>
<p>If it wasn’t for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Kerry’s “faulty memory” would not have been exposed. </p>
<p>One of the most offensive lied Kerry told was to continue to suggest Richard Nixon was the one behind the Vietnam war. Nixon ended it. A democratic president was the one who started it.</p>
<p>Kluge - I think I have you figured out. You’re a republican mole! You’re here to drive us all away from voting for a democrat. Doing a darn good job, too.</p>
<p>Zoosermom - I was referring to the specific set of facts** I** had referenced. I can understand why you don’t want to talk about specific, verifiable facts which demonstrate that Republicans who get most of their information from Fox News are demonstrably susceptible to believing things that are in fact false. But just claiming that everything is just too “nuanced” and “too early” to be able to know anything about anything, so every opinion is equally valid - is wrong. (I disagree with you about your apparent veiled hint that you suspect that Al Qaeda was too in cahoots with Saddam Hussein - and who is feeding you that bunch of hooey, anyway? - but that conversation would end up going in circles.)</p>
<p>So let’s stick to the things we do know, okay? There were no WMD’s in Iraq in 2003. But a majority of Republicans whose primary news source was Fox News not only thought there were, but actually thought they’d been found after our invasion. Do those facts - yes, facts - provide you with absolutely no basis for learning anything about the world? Or is the obvious conclusion just something you don’t want to acknowledge?</p>
<p>“Kluge - I think I have you figured out. You’re a republican mole! You’re here to drive us all away from voting for a democrat. Doing a darn good job, too.”</p>
<p>Mammall, you totally misunderstand. The Democrats already know everything Kluge is saying
are facts.</p>
<p>"There were no WMD’s in Iraq in 2003. But a majority of Republicans whose primary news source was Fox News not only thought there were, but actually thought they’d been found after our invasion. Do those facts - yes, facts - provide you with absolutely no basis for learning anything about the world? Or is the obvious conclusion just something you don’t want to acknowledge? </p>
<p>The source of those “facts” is garbage because the conductor of the survey is a partisan group. You would be all over anyone who used such a source to disagree with you and I’m not going to let you call that information “factual.” Is my position clear now? My conclusions are exactly what I said they were in earlier posts. You’re just spinning because you were called out for ugly behavior that you wouldn’t let stand.</p>
<p>Be very careful here. Simply because a source is partisan does not make it automatically wrong on everything.</p>
<p>Unless you are willing to say that the group in question lied about their polling results, and you are willing to back that up with some small shred of evidence, the credibility of your claim that the numbers must be garbage because the group is partisan is nil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On that single count, you are correct. But on the others, you are incorrect, and SBVT have been proven incorrect or contradicted at least as much, almost certainly more than Kerry. SBVT has its own share of clear lies:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is from the Fact Check article linked to above.</p>
<p>On the matters of Kerry’s Silver Star, Bronze Star, and third Purple Heart, SBVT has been flatly contradicted by others who were witness to the scene (in the latter two cases, the Army lieutenant whose life Kerry saved, in the process earning the medals).</p>
<p>With respect to the speech, that tells me what I already knew: politicians take poetic license and lie (see Romney’s “my father marched with Martin Luther King” for reference).</p>
<p>The substance of the debate is this: Kerry exaggerated (you could also say lied, if you would like) when he should not have. SBVT exposed that. But then they went too far, and began attacking the parts of his record that are corroborated by others’ testimony (and in some cases, affidavits signed by later SBVT members or other documentation directly related to them), and are beyond reproach. That is why I distrust the organization - because it is shamelessly partisan (similar to why zooser implicitly distrusts kluge’s source) and because it has shown itself to be omre than capable of making many outright fabrications.</p>